persons Heb. 13.5 Our Sauiour granted ministeriall power to remit sinnes by speciall commission to the Apostles and deliuering this commission to them he breathed the holy Ghost into them saying Receiue yee the holy Ghost c. 〈◊〉 20.22 Neuerthelesse our Aduersaries affirme that this authority was not only granted them but to other Ministers of Christ which are not personally qualified as the Apostles were Secondly if the particular circumstance of Timothie his person expressed in the single word Thee 2. Tim. 3.15 do limit S. Pauls doctrine concerning the Scripture in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then where more circumstances are found in Texts concerning Traditions the same may be answered as the Iesuit doth this place of S. Paules For example 2. Thessal 2.15 The Apostle saith Therefore 〈◊〉 stand fast and hold the Traditions which 〈◊〉 haue beene taught whether by word or our Epistle In this Text so vehemently vrged by Papists for vnwritten Tradition is found a personall circumstance Tee 〈◊〉 Thessalonians which haue beene my immediate hearers 1. Thess. 1. 5. and thereby are infallibly assured that the Tradition which I exhort you to hold is diuine Also you 〈◊〉 which haue not receiued as yet a perfect Canon of the New Testament in writing I say to you stand fast and hold both written and vnwritten Tradition Thirdly admitting the Iesuits restraint and it being granted that the Scriptures do onely make those people wise to Saluation which are instructed aforehand and haue formerly beene taught the substantiall points of Christian Doctrine yet this argueth not the insufficiencie of Scripture to be the onely authenticall rule and ground of Faith because the said substantial Doctrines which in the Apostles daies before the Canon of the New Testament was finished were partly contained in Scripture and partly deliuered by their vocall preaching were afterwards when the Canonicall Scripture of the New Testament was finished and the holy Apostles were deceased wholly for matter of substance contained in the same Scripture 〈◊〉 Verily the Apostle in that place speaketh onely of the Scriptures of the Old Testament affirming them sufficient not for euery man but for Timothie and not sufficient for him by themselues alone but per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu that is 〈◊〉 with the Doctrine of Christian Faith which Timothie had heard and beleeued vpon 〈◊〉 liuely voice of Tradition ANSWER The Apostle in this place speaketh of the Scriptures of the Old Testament but not onely Timothie when he was a child learned onely the Scriptures of the Old Testament but after his childhood he read also the Scriptures of the New 1. Tim. 4. 16. This Epistle was written by S. Paul not long before his death 2. Tim. 4.6 at which time the greatest part of the Canon of the New Testament was finished therefore it is not necessarie that we should restraine these words Thou from a child hast knowne the holy Scriptures onely to the Scriptures of the Old Testament because Timothie who in his youth read onely the Old Testament in the progresse of his yeares read the New Testament also And although no Scripture is able to make wise to saluation without Faith in Christ Iesus yet this prooueth not the holy Scripture to be an imperfect Rule because if Tradition be added to Scripture yet both these are not able to make people wise to saluation without Faith Heb. 4. 2. But admitting that the Apostle in the first Clause Thou from a Child hast knowne the holy Scriptures speaketh of the Scriptures of the Old Testament yet adding to the same in the latter part of his speech through Faith which is in Christ Iesus if by Faith wee vnderstand the doctrine of Faith reuealed in the New Testament there is no materiall or necessarie part of doctrine touching Christ Iesus which is not contained in the Scripture 1. Cor. 15. 1 2 3 4. And this was the Tenet of the antient Catholike Church as appeareth by S. Augustine C. Petil. Lib. 3. cap. 6. who saith Proinde siue de Christo siue de Ecclesia siue de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adiecit si Angelus de Coelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in Scripturis Legalibus Euangelicis accepistis Anathema sit I will not say if wee vnworthie to be compared to him that spake so but if an Angell from Heauen shall teach any thing either concerning Christ or the Church or concerning any other matter pertaining to Faith or good life besides that which you haue receiued in the Legall and Euangelicall Scriptures let him be Anathema IESVIT And in the consequent words of the Apostle so much insisted vpon All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. And if Protestants could so metamorphise the word Profitable as to make it signifie the same with the word Sufficient which is very hard yet were the Text much ouer-short to prooue their intent That Scripture alone is sufficient for euerie man seeing the Apostle speakes not of euerie man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the Man of God that is one alreadie fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the maine points of Christian Faith and godly Life such a one as Timothie was The Scriptures for men in this manner afore taught and grounded in Faith are abundantly sufficient who will denie it But this prooueth at the most the sufficiencie of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely onely onely Scripture as Protestants Bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme ANSWER S. Paul himselfe vseth both the word Profitable Vers. 16. and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are able to make wise to saluation which is equiualent to Sufficient Verse 15. And Protestants alone are not the men which expound the word Profitable by Sufficient for both the Fathers and many learned Papists doe the like Vincent Lirinensis C. Haeres cap. 2. The Canon of the Scripture is sufficient and more than sufficient Cyril of Alexandria C. Iulian. Lib. 7. pag. 150. The Scripture is sufficient to make them wise which are brought vp in it c. Anselm in his Commentarie vpon 2. Tim. 3. 16. They are able to make thee sufficiently learned to obtaine eternall saluation Gerson D. Exam. Doctr. Part. 2. Consid. 1. The Scripture is giuen vs as a sufficient Rule c. Scotus 1. Sent. Prol. q. 2. Supernaturall knowledge necessarie for a wayfaring man is sufficiently deliuered in sacred Scripture The same is affirmed by Espencaeus Commentar 2. Tim. 3. 16. and by Bonauenture Occham Waldensis and Gabriel Thom. Aquinas Lyra Durand c. But the Aduersarie saith That graunting the word Profitable did signifie Sufficient yet S. Pauls Text still falleth short of proouing the Scripture the
and be deceiued then the later Church may vpon their reports deliuer some errours together with truth and yet the Tradition thereof concerning matters which are grounded vpon diuine Testimonie is infallible The Church may speake of it selfe and vpon report of them whose Testimonie is humane and fallible And it speaketh also vpon the authoritie of Gods word In the first it may erre and bee deceiued and consequently the Testimonie thereof absolutely bindeth not people to beleeue But when it confirmeth her doctrine and Tradition by diuine Testimonie the Tradition thereof is the Tradition and voyce of God himselfe worthy of all acceptation Neither is her Testimonie fallible and doubtfull in this latter kinde because of errour in the first any more than the Prophesie of Nathan was fallible when he spake by inspiration to Dauid 2. Sam. 7.5 Although when he formerly answered by a humane spirit he was deceiued Balaam is a credible witnesse in all those verities which God put into his mouth Numb 23.5 18. 24. 1. And yet in other matters which proceeded from himselfe he was fallible And Iosephus a Iew is credited in the Testimonie which hee gaue of Christ Antiq. lib. 18. c. 4 although in many other reports he was deceiued The antient Fathers Iustin Martyr Ireneus Origen St. Cyprian erred in some things and yet their authoritie in other matters which they deliuered consonantly to holy Scripture is credible Our Aduersaries confesse that their Popes may erre personally and that their Popes and Councels may erre in the Premises and Arguments from which they deduce conclusions of Faith and yet they will haue their definitiue sentences to be of infallible authoritie Cardinall Iacobatius speaking in the Popes defence saith That it followeth not because one hath erred that therefore his testimonie is altogether inualid and to be refused And hee confirmeth this assertion by diuers Texts of the Canon Law IESVIT And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but onely in things of lesse moment The truth is that in her perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receiued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment especially if he please to thinke them not to be of moment for like as if we admit in the Scriptures errours in small matters wee cannot be sure of its infallibitie in substantiall matters So likewise if we grant Tradition perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solid ground to defend her Traditions as assured in other of moment wherefore as he that should say That Gods written word is false in some lesser matters as when it sayes That S. Paul left his cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giueth occasion to doubt of the truth of euery thing in Scripture Euen so hee that granteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may bee false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the verie Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition whereas a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident than that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein ANSWER The true Church in her sounder members erreth not in points fundamentall nor yet in matters of lesse moment maliciously or with pertinacie But the same may be ignorant and also erre in secondarie Articles The reason of the first is because the same should then cease to bee the true Church by corrupting the substance of right faith expresly or vertually and consequently there should remaine no true Church vpon earth which is impossible The reason of the second is because the Church since the Apostles is not guided by immediate inspiration or by Propheticall reuelation but by an ordinarie assistance of grace accompanying the vse of right meanes which remooueth not possibilitie of errour but leaueth space for humane iudgement being regenerate onely in part Heb. 5.2 Gal. 5.17 Aug. Enchir. c. 63. to worke by his proper force and power Secondly the Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are either contained in holy Scripture or which are subseruient to maintaine the faith veritie and authoritie of the holy Scriptures and the doctrine thereof Thirdly whereas the Iesuit saith That euen as no vntruth can be admitted in the holy Scripture in regard of such things as are of the least moment without ouerthrowing the totall authoritie thereof so likewise no errour great or small can bee admitted in the doctrine and Tradition of the present Church because vpon the same will follow the subuersion of all her Tradition euen in matters essentiall I answere That there is not the same reason of the Scripture and the Church for the Scripture is totally and perfectly diuine and must alwayes bee so esteemed and to admit any errour or possibilitie thereof in Scripture were to make God a lyar and consequently to ouerthrow all faith But the present Church is onely the seruant of God and of his word Iohn 10.27 and hath no credit or authoritie but from it and although the same may erre in some things yet there remaineth alwaies a higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit the holy Ghost speaking in and by the Scriptures to whom Christians desirous of truth may appeale and by whose sentence the Doctrine and Traditions of the present Church are to bee iudged Whosoeuer admitteth any errour or vntruth in the holy Scripture taketh away all authoritie from that which is the prime foundation of supernaturall veritie But he that admitteth error or fallibilitie of iudgement in some Traditions and Doctrines of the Pastours of the present Church doth onely make the credit of a secondarie and inferior witnesse subiect to triall and examination of an higher Iudge And euen as in building the rule and measure of proportion must alwaies be euen and right in it selfe but the workemans hand may possibly leane or shake and applie his rule amisse so likewise the holy Scriptures which are the principles of Theologie and the most exact ballance and measure of diuine Veritie as S. Chrysostome speaketh must be free from all obliquitie of error and to admit the least error in the Scripture ouerthroweth the foundation of Faith But the Ministerie and Tradition of the Church is like an Artificers hand which may sometimes leane and goe awrie and yet the foundation of Veritie abideth firme in the prime authenticall rule and by the same the errour of mens Tradition and Doctrine may be corrected Fourthly the Iesuit affirmeth That Tradition to wit of the
though he lead vs to hell bring something euident and manifest out of the holy Scripture Si diuinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur perspicua firmatur Authoritate sine vlla dubitatione credendum est 〈◊〉 vero testibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat c. If saith S. Augustine it be confirmed by the perspicuous authoritie of those diuine Scriptures which are Canonicall it must without all question be beleeued but as for other witnesses and testimonies by which any thing is persuaded to be beleeued it is lawfull for thee to beleeue or not beleeue them as thou shalt perceiue them to deserue credit IESVIT Fundamentall errours of the first kinde Protestants haue 〈◊〉 particularly these Nine ANSWER Malice alwayes fighteth against Vertue and laboureth to impose and rub off her owne faults vpon it and all they whose brests and minds are inhabited by Satan testifie their venemous rage with furious words If this Traducer be able to conuince the Protestants of Nine or of any one fundamentall errour wee must acknowledge that we are in a perillous state but if hee onely depraue and falsifie our doctrine or affirme that to be fundamentall errour which is diuine veritie then he prooueth himselfe to be one of his Ministers of whom S. Gregory speaketh Perfidious dealing is in the Tabernacle of Antichrist whereby he gainesayeth the faith of the Redeemer IESVIT First their Doctrine against Traditions vnwritten whereby the foundation is ouerthrowne on which wee beleeue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath beene shewed ANSVVER Either you wilfully falsifie or ignorantly mistake the Protestants Doctrine concerning vnwrttten Tradition First we admit in generall all vnwritten Traditions agreeing with the holy Scripture which are deriued from the Apostles and deliuered vnto vs by the manifest and perpetuall testimonie of the Primitiue Church and by the vniforme consent of succeeding Churches in all ages Secondly we beleeue in particular the historicall Traditions of the Primatiue and succeeding Churches concerning the dignitie authoritie perfection authors number and integritie of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture and also the Historicall Tradition of the said Church concerning the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgin Marie and concerning the baptisme of infants and all other genuine Traditions which maintaine the Faith and Doctrine contained expressely or by consequent in the Scripture Thirdly we embrace such exposition of holy Scripture as being consonant to the rule of Faith and to the text of Scripture is affirmed by antient Tradition to haue descended from the holy Apostles Fourthly we beleeue the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed both vpon the authoritie of Christs written word and also vpon the voice and testimonie of vnwritten Tradition If it shall then be demanded Wherefore do the Romists and you so eagrely contend about the question of Traditions and wherein lies your difference we answer as followeth First we yeeld the highest and most soueraigne authoritie to the sacred Scripture and make the voice and sentence thereof a supreame rule and iudge of supernaturall Veritie and we make Tradition vnwritten subordinate and ministeriall to holy Scripture admitting the same so farre forth only as it is conformable to the Scripture and reiecting the contrarie Secondly we affirme that the Canonicall Scriprure containeth all supernaturall Veritie necessarie to saluation and being receiued and vnderstood is a sufficient and perfect rule of Faith and the sole doctrine thereof is sufficient to instruct the whole Church and euery member thereof to saluation And that Tradition vnwritten maketh no addition or increase of new Articles of Faith but is only an helpe and instrument to deliuer applie and interpret the doctrine expresly deliuered or intended by the holy Ghost in the Scripture Thirdly we receiue no Tradition as diuine or apostolicall but such as hath the plaine manifest and vniforme testimonie and approbation of the Primatiue Church But our Aduersaries either equall or preferre vnwritten Tradition before the Scripture and they make Tradition a diuers and larger part of the rule of Faith containing many Articles which are neither expressely nor inuoluedly reuealed in the Scripture and they make the present Roman Church an infallible witnesse of such Tradition affirming that we are bound to beleeue euerie Article which the said Church deliuereth as a Tradition with the same assurance of Faith wherewith we beleeue any written testimonie of S. Paul or the holy Euangelists And many of them teach That it is not necessarie to deriue Tradition by a perpetuall descent and current through all ages but the voice of the present Church is sufficient to make any Article ctedible and authenticall to vs Lastly many particularopinions of antient Fathers which they deliuered coniecturally or probably onely and concerning which they haue not affirmed that they were diuine or apostolicall Traditions are ranked by latter Pontificians in the number of diuine 〈◊〉 and made parts of the vndoubted word of God And thus the present Roman doctrine concerning Traditions vnwritten is a Seminarie of Errour and by pretext hereof Pontificians obtrude vpon the Church many prophane fabulous and superstitious 〈◊〉 fansies and nouelties repugnant to holy Scripture and the antient Catholicke Faith Let therefore impartiall Readers consider whether this Romish doctrine debasing the sacred Scripture and aduancing humane Traditions tendeth not to the corrupting of Christian Faith and consequently whether the same be not rather a fundamentall Errour than an Orthodoxall Veritie And on the contrarie whether the doctrine of the Protestants maintaining the supreame authoritie of the sacred Scripture which is Gods vndoubted word and withall yeelding to genuine Tradition the credit and honour which the antient Church gaue thereunto is not fundamentall Veritie and a soueraigne meanes to preserue right Faith IESVIT Secondly their questioning the infallibe authoritie of lawfull generall Councels thereby casting downe the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church ANSWER They which will not permit generall Councels to assemble or to proceed lawfully and which oppose the decrees of antient Councels are the Romists and not the Protestants First The moderne Popes vsurpe the whole right and authoritieof calling and conuocating Councells contrarie to the antient custome and practise of the Church Secondly They receiue and admit no Assessors and Iudges in Councels but onely their fast friends to wit men aforehand oblieged by solemne oath to proceed according to the will and purpose of the Pope Thirdly The Pope alone is appointed the authenticall Iudge of all causes and matters which are concluded in Councels he approoueth or refuseth whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth and all other Iudges and Assessors are onely his shadowes and creatures Fourthly Whereas in words and tearmes they seeme to aduance
should be fully and sufficiently knowne as by Diuine and infallible Testimonie Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it selfe onely and by the witnesse that it can so giue it selfe I could neuer yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells vs such Bookes containing such and such particulars are the Canon and the infallible Will and Word of God so if there were any such place that were no sufficient proofe for a man might iustly aske another Booke to beare witnesse of that and againe of that another and where euer it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the whole And no created thing can alone giue witnesse to it selfe and make it euident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Besides if it were so cleare by 〈◊〉 and in giuen Light What should hinder but that all which heare it and doe but vnderstand the Tearmes should presently assent vnto it as men vse to doe to Principles euident in themselues which dayly experience teacheth vs they doe not And this though I cannot approoue yet me thinkes you may and vpon probable grounds at least For I hope no Romanist will denie but that there is as much Light in Scripture to manifest and make ostension of it selfe to be infallibly the written Word of God as there is in any Tradition of the Church that it is Diuine and infallibly the vnwritten Word of God And the Scriptures saying from the mouths of the Prophets Thus saith the Lord and from the mouths of the Apostles That the Holy Ghost spake by them are at least as able and as fit to beare witnesse to their owne Veritie as the Church is to beare witnesse to her owne Traditions by bare saying they come from the Apostles And your selues would neuer goe to the Scripture to prooue that there are Traditions as you doe if you did not thinke the Scripture as easie to be discouered by inbred Light in it selfe as Traditions by their Light And if this be so then it is as probable at the least which some of ours affirme That Scripture may be knowne to be the Word of God by the Light and Lustre which it hath in it selfe as it is which you affirme That a Tradition may be knowne to be such by the Light which it hath in it selfe If this Argument were in ieast this were an excellent Proposition to make sport withall 3. For the third Either some thinke that there is no sufficient warrant for this vnlesse they fetch it from the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost and so looke in vaine after speciall Reuelations and make themselues by thisvery conceit obnoxious and easie to be led by all the whisperings of a seducing priuate Spirit or else you would faine haue them thinke so For your side both vpon this and other occasions doe often challenge that wee resolue all our Faith into the Dictats of a priuate Spirit from which wee shall euer prooue our selues as free if not freer than you To the Question in hand then Suppose it agreed vpon that there must be a Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum vnder which can rest no possible error That the Bookes of Scripture are the written Word of God If they which goe to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost for proofe of this doe meane by Faith Obiectum Fidei The Obiect of Faith that is to be beleeued then no question they are out of the ordinarie way for God neuer sent vs by any word or warrant of his to looke for any such speciall and priuate Testimonie to prooue which that Booke is that wee must beleeue But if by Faith they meane the Habite or Act of Diuine infused Faith by which vertue they doe beleeue the Credible Obiect and thing to be beleeued then their speech is true and confessed by all Diuines of all sorts For Faith is the gift of God of God alone and an infased Habite in respect whereof the Soule is meerely recipient And therefore the sole Infuser the Holy Ghost must not be excluded from that worke which none can doe but he For the Holy Ghost as hee first dictated the Scripture to the Apostles so did he not leaue the Church in generall nor the true members of it in particular without grace to beleeue what himselfe had reuealed and made credible So that Faith as it is taken for the vertue of Faith whether it be of this or any other Article though it receiue a kind of preparation or occasion of beginning from the Testimonie of the Church as it proposes and induceth to the Faith yet it ends in God reuealing within and teaching within that which the Church preached without For till the Spirit of God mooue the heart of man he cannot beleeue be the Obiect neuer so eredible The speech is true then but quite out of the state of this Question which enquires onely after a sufficient meanes to make this Obiect credible and fit to be beleeued against all impeachment of follic and temeritie in beleefe whether men doe actually beleeue it or not For which no man may expect inward priuate reuelation without the externall meanes of the Church vnlesse perhaps the case of necessitie be excepted when a man liues in such a Time and Place as excludes him from all ordinarie meanes in which I dare not offer to shut vp God from the soules of men nor to tye him to those ordinarie wayes and meanes to which yet in great wisedome and prouidence hee hath tyed and bound all mankind Priuate Reuelation then hath nothing ordinarily to doe to make the Obiect credible in this That Scripture is the Word of God or in any other Article For the Question is of such outward and euident meanes as other men may take notice of as well as our selues By which if there arise any doubting or infirmitie in the Faith others may strengthen vs or we affoord meanes to support them whereas the Testimonie of the Spirit and all priuate Reuelation is within nor felt nor seene of any but him that hath it so that hence can be drawne no proofe to others Miracles are not sufficient alone to prooue it 〈◊〉 both they and the Reuelation too agree with the Rule of Scripture which is now an vnalterable Rule by Man or Angell 4. The last which giues Reason leaue to come in and prooue what it can may not iustly be denyed by any reasonable man For though Reason without Grace cannot see the way to Heauen nor beleeue this Booke in which God hath written the way yet Grace is neuer placed but in a reasonable creature and prooues by the verie seat which it hath taken vp that the end it hath is to be spirituall eye-water to make Reason see what by Nature onely it cannot but neuer to blemish Reason in that
to a soule prepared by the present Churches Tradition and Gods grace The Difficulties which are pretended against this are not many and they will easily vanish 1. First you pretend wee goe to priuate Reuelations for Light to know Scripture No wee doe not you see it is excluded out of the very state of the Question and wee goe to the Tradition of the present Church and by it as well as you Here wee differ wee vse this as the first Motiue not as the last Resolution of our Faith wee resolue onely into prime Tradition Apostolicall and Scripture it selfe 2. Secondly you pretend wee doe not nor cannot know the prime Apostolicall Tradition but by the Tradition of the present Church and that therefore if the Tradition of the present Church be not Gods vnwritten Word and Diuine we cannot yet know Scripture to be Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie First suppose I could not know the prime Tradition to be Diuine but by the present yet it doth not follow that then I cannot know Scripture to be Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie because Diuine Tradition is not the sole and onely meanes to prooue it For suppose I had not nor could haue full assurance of Apostolicall Tradition Diuine yet the morall persuasion reason and force of the present Church is ground enough to mooue any reasonable man that it is fit hee should reade the Scripture and esteeme very reuerently and highly of it And this once done the Scripture hath then In and Home Arguments enough to put a soule that hath but ordinarie Grace out of doubt That Scripture is the Word of God infallible and Diuine Secondly Next the present Tradition though not absolutely Diuine yet by the helpe of Diuine Arguments internall to the Scripture is able to prooue the very prime Tradition for so long as the present agrees both with the prime Tradition and with the Scripture it selfe deliuered by it as in this it is found and agreed vpon that it doth and Hell it selfe is not able to belch out a good Argument against it it is a sufficient testimonie of the Scriptures Authoritie not by or of it selfe because not simply Diuine but by the prime Tradition and Scripture vpon which it grounds while it deliuers And both these are absolutely Diuine 3. Thirdly you pretend that wee make the Scripture absolutely and fully to be knowne Lumine suo by the Light and Testimonie which it hath in and giues to it selfe Against this you giue reason and proofe from our selues Your reason is If there be sufficient Light in Scripture to shew it selfe then euerie man that can and doth but reade it may know it presently to be the Diuine Word of God which we see by dayly experience men neither doe nor can First it is not absolutely nor vniuersally true There is sufficient Light therefore euerie man may see it Blind men are men and cannot see it and sensuall men in the Apostles iudgement are such Nor may wee denie and put out this Light as insufficient because blind Eyes cannot and peruerse Eyes will not see it no more than we may denie meat to be sufficient for nourishment though men that are heart-sicke cannot eate it Next wee doe not say That there is such a full Light in Scripture as that euerie man vpon the first sight must yeeld to it such Light as is found in prime Principles Euerie whole is greater than a part of the same and this The same thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect These carrie a naturall Light with them and euident for they are no sooner vnderstood than fully knowne to the conuincing of mans vnderstanding and so they are the beginning of knowledge which where it is perfect dwells in full Light but such a full Light wee doe neyther say is nor require to be in Scripture and if any particular man doe let him answere for himselfe The Question is onely of such a Light in Scripture as is of force to breed Faith that it is the Word of God not to make a perfect Knowledge Now Faith of whatsoeuer it is this or other Principle it is an Euidence as well as a Knowledge and a firmer and surer Euidence than any Knowledge can haue because it rests vpon Diuine Authoritie which cannot deceiue whereas Knowledge or at least he that thinkes he knowes is not euer certaine in deductions from Principles I say firmer Euidence but not so cleare For it is of things not seene in regard of the Obiect and in regard of the Subiect that sees it is in aenigmate in a Glasse or darke speaking Now God doth not require a full demonstratiue Knowledge in vs that the Scripture is his Word and therefore in his prouidence kindled in it no Light for that but he requires our Faith of it and such a certaine Demonstration as may fit that And for that he hath left sufficient Light in Scripture to Reason and Grace meeting where the soule is morally prepared by the Tradition of the Church vnlesse you be of Bellarmine's opinion That to beleeue there are any Diuine Scriptures is not omninò necessarie to saluation The Authoritie which you pretend is out of Hooker Of things necessarie the verie chiefest is to know what Bookes wee are bound to esteeme holy which Point is confessed impossible for the Scripture it selfe to teach Of this Brierly the Store-house for all Priests that will be idle and yet seeme well read tells vs That Hooker giues a verie sensible Demonstration It is not the Word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we doe well to thinke it is his Word for if any one Booke of Scripture did giue testimonie to all yet still that Scripture which giueth credit to the rest would require another to giue credit vnto it Nor could wee euer come to any pause to rest our assurance this way so that vnlesse beside Scripture there were something that might assure c. And this he acknowledgeth saith Brierly is the Authoritie of Gods Church Certainely Hooker giues a true and a sensible Demonstration but Brierly wants fidelitie and integritie in citing him For in the first place Hookers speech is Scripture it selfe cannot teach this nor can the Truth say that Scripture it selfe can It must needs ordinarily haue Tradition to prepare the mind of a man to receiue it And in the next where hee speakes so sensibly That Scripture cannot beare witnesse to it selfe nor one part of it to another that is grounded vpon Nature which admits no created thing to be witnesse to it selfe and is acknowledged by our Sauiour If I beare witnesse to my selfe my witnesse is not true i. not of force to be reasonably accepted for Truth But then it is more than manifest that Hooker deliuers his Demonstration of Scripture alone For if Scripture hath another proofe to vsher it and lead it in then no
of your Quarter shew me any one Father of the Church Greeke or Latine that euer said Wee are to resolue our Faith that Scripture is the Word of God into the Tradition of the present Church And againe when they say wee are to relye vpon Scripture onely they are neuer to be vnderstood with exclusion of Tradition in what causes soeuer it may be had Not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient to it selfe for all things but because it is deepe and may be drawne into different senses I haue said thus much vpon this great occasion because this Argument is so much pressed without due respect to Scripture I will not say to the weakening our beleefe of it Now out of this I will weigh the B. his Answer and your Exception taken against it F. The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be prooued B. Why but did the B. say That this Principle The Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God is to be supposed as needing no proofe at all to a naturall man or to a man newly entring vpon the Faith yea or perhaps to a doubter or weakeling in the Faith Can you thinke the B. so weake It seemes you doe But sure hee knowes that there is a great deale of difference betweene Ethnicks that denie and deride the Scripture and men that are borne in the Church The first haue a farther way about to this Principle the other in their very Christian education sucke in this Principle and are taught so soone as they are apt to learne it That the Bookes commonly called the Bible or Scripture are the Word of God The B. dealt with you as with a Christian though in Error while you call Catholike The words before spoken by the B. were That the Scripture onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of Faith The Question betweene vs and you is Whether the Scripture doe containe all such necessarie things of Faith Now in this Question as in all Nature and Art the Subiect the Scripture is and must be supposed the Quaere betweene the Romane Catholikes and the Church of England being onely of the Predicate the thing vttered of it namely Whether it containe all Fundamentalls of Faith all necessaries for Saluation within it Now since the Question proposed in verie forme of Art prooues not but supposes the subiect I thinke the B. gaue a satisfying answere That to you and him and in this Question Scripture was a supposed Principle and needed no proofe And I must tell you that in this Question of the Scriptures perfect continent it is against all Art yea and Equitie too in reasoning to call for a proofe of that here which must goe vnauoidably supposed in this Question And if any man will 〈◊〉 familiar with Impietie to question it it must be tryed in a preceding Question and Dispute by it selfe Yet here not you onely but Bellarmine and others run quite out of the way to snatch at aduantage F. Against this I read what I had formerly written in my Replie against Mr Iohn White wherein I plainely shewed that this answere was not good and that no other answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this Point B. Indeed here you read out of a Booke which you called your owne a large discourse vpon this Argument but some bodie told me the B. vntyed the Knot of the Argument and set you to your Booke againe Besides you doe a great deale of wrong to Mr Hooker and the B. that because they call it a supposed or presumed Principle among Christians you should fall by and by into such a Metaphysicall discourse as the B. tells me you did to prooue That that which is praecognitum foreknowne in Science must be of such Light that it must be knowne of and by it selfe alone and that the Scripture cannot be so knowne to be the Word of God Well I will not now enter into that discourse more than I haue how farre the Beame which is verie glorious especially in some parts of Scripture giues Light to prooue it selfe You see neither Hooker nor the B. nor the Church of England for ought I know leaue the Scripture alone to manifest it selfe by the Light which it hath in it selfe but when the present Church hath prepared and led the way like a preparing Morning-Light to Sunne-shine and then indeed wee settle not but in that Light Nor will I make needlesse enquirie how farre or in what manner a praecognitum or supposed Principle in any Science may be prooued in a higher to which that is subordinate or accepted in a Prime nor how it may in Diuinitie where prae as well as post cognita things fore as after-knowne are matters and vnder the manner of Faith and not of Science strictly nor whether a praecognitum a presupposed Principle in Faith which rests vpon Diuine Authoritie must needs haue as much and equall Light to Naturall Reason which prime Principles haue in Nature while thy rest vpon Reason Nor whether it may iustly be denyed to haue sufficient Light be cause not equall Your owne Schoole grants That in vs which are the subiects both of Faith and Knowledge and in regard of the Euidence giuen in vnto vs there is lesse Light lesse Euidence in the Principles of Faith than in the Principles of Knowledge vpon which there can be no doubt But I thinke the Schoole will neuer grant that the Principles of Faith euen this in question haue not sufficient euidence And you ought not to doe as you did without any distinction or any limitation denie a Praecognitum or prime Principle in the Faith because it answers not in all things to the prime Principles in Science in their Light and Euidence a thing in it selfe directly against Reason Well though I doe none of this yet I must follow you a little for I would faine make it appeare as plainely as such a difficultie can what wrong you doe Truth and your selfe in this case When the Protestants therefore answere to this Argument which as I haue shewed can properly haue no place in the Question betweene vs about Tradition they which grant this as a Praecognitum and thing fore-knowne as the B. did were neither ignorant nor forgetfull That things presupposed as alreadie knowne in a Science are of two sorts Either they are plaine and fully manifest intheir owne Light or they are prooued and granted alreadie some former knowledge hauing made them euident This Principle then The Scriptures are the Oracles of God wee cannot say is cleare and fully manifest to all men simply and in selfe-Light For as is formerly said if it were so euident then all that heare it reade it and doe but vnderstand 〈◊〉 tearmes could not but presently assent vnto it as they doe to Principles euident in themselues which hourely experience tells vs is not so
commanded points of Controuersie to bee decided according to the rule of holy Scriptures as I shall heereafter make manifest in this Treatise yea sometimes the doctrine of one sound member of the Church hath beene a Soueraigne meanes to conuert errants and consequently to reforme such as were misled by errour Neither is reformation vnreasonable or impossible although they which reprooue others are themselues exorbitant in some things because the same must bee performed not by accomodation to the humor of Reproouers but according to the diuine rule wherein all things are straight and perfect Lastly when the Roman Church it selfe is in Schisme and Combustion which hapned at the Councell of Constance and Basill and in the dayes of Antipopes shall no reformation be required because the Parties litigant being of contrarie opinions the same cannot be proportioned according to euery ones seuerall humour The second reason taken from Councells Customes c. is deficient in both the parts For neither are the Romish doctrines to wit Communion in one kind Popes pardons Latin Seruice Purgatorie Apocryphall Scriptures Vulgar Translation preferred before the Originall Text Transubstantiation c. defined by any generall Councell or deriued from the Apostles or Primitiue Church by custome and vniuersall consent And later Councells and Customes must giue place to holy Scripture Yea according to S. Augustine no vnderstanding man did euer make the Councells of Bishops equall to Sacred Scripture And some of our learned Aduersaries confesse That a generall Councell of Popes Cardinalls and Bishops is not of equall Authority with the Colledge of the Apostles Others also of them affirme That such Councels are fallible and subiect to errour The third reason wherein it is affirmed That Protestants forsaking the common rule of Faith present the world with Scriptures vnderstood by priuate Illumination is grounded vpon a false suggestion for we assume to our selues no other Illumination than only of ordinarie grace and we maintaine no other exposition of Scripture as diuine but such as is deliuered by the holy Ghost in the Scripture And the sence of holy Scripture deliuered by the Primitiue Church is followed by Protestants with farre more respect than by Romists But our Aduerfaries are the men who dissembling the same in words doe in truth maintaine priuate Illumination For they affirme That the Bishops of Rome haue infallibilitie of Iudgement by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost and not by the studie and meditation of holy Scripture IESVIT Wherefore there beeing no possibilitie that the Catholike part could gaine Peace to Christendome by any yeelding vnto our Aduersaries either reasonable or vnreasonable whither should louers of Concord turne themselues but vnto your gracious Maiestie that haue in your Power the Affections of Protestants and therefore would bee the fittest Instrument for their Re-vnion with the Romane Church The God of Charitie hath put into your Maiesties Heart a desire of Vnitie of the Church and in your Hand an Oliue-Bough-Crowne of Peace which you may set on the Head of Christendome which wearie of endlesse Contention poureth foorth vnto your Maiestie her Suppliant Complaint Quem das finem Rex magne laborum And seeing nothing hindereth but that your selfe are not yet satisfied in some Doctrines of the Roman Church particularly in the Nine Points your Maiestie hath set downe in writing J humbly present vnto your Maiestie these my poore Labours for your satisfaction so much desired of the Christian World And to the end that this my Answere may be in it selfe more solid and better accepted of your Maiestie before J descend vnto particulars J thinke best first to shew in generall the Romane to bee the onely true Church For this was the Occasion and Subiect of the Conference betwixt Dr White and mee ANSWER What a vast and impossible I will not heere say impious enterprise doe you in the depth of your sublimated wit cast vpon our Gracious Soueraigne Must his Maiestie haue the Office of a Proctor and Factor for the Court of Rome nay of a Lieutenant of the Papall Forces to revnite all Protestants to the Church of Rome Had you meant the procuring of a Free Generall Coancell of all Christendome or at least of all the Westerne Church for the reducing eyther of the Deuiate parts home to the Truth or the exasperated parts to a more charitable complying in things indifferent or tollerable in which discussion as well the Papacie it selfe as other matters might bee subiect to Tryall such a Worke might be fit for a Church-man to mooue and for his Majestie to affect than whom no Prince no nor priuate Christian is more forward in Zeale and furnished in Wisedome to purge the Distempers and heale the Wounds of the Christian Church But your former words shew the frensie of the Demand when you fore-lay this for a Ground Satis imperitè nimis obstinatè That those particular Enormities that wee Protestants call to haue reformed are the verie Foundations of the Vnitie of Faith Catholike Principles c. And so this your dreamed Re-vnion must bee not to come on your part one step towards vs but our running headlong to you which is no other than a slauish subjection of all Churches to the Papacie and the trampling Gods Truth and Gods People vnder the foot of the vnerrable vncontroulable Grand Seigniour of the seuen-Hilled Citie It seemeth you haue forgotten or would extinguish the validitie and memorie of his Majesties most judicious Writings in maintenance of Orthodoxe Religion and of the Libertie of Christendome and shaking the verie Foundations of Papall Corruptions and Tyrannie Otherwise you neuer would thus boldly and leaudly call to so puissant a Champion in the Lords Battailes to sound Retreat To whom the state of Christendome to speake in your phrase poureth foorth her Suppliant Complaint but to an end opposite to your Projects Qua Roma patet fera regnat Erinnis In facinus iurasce putes Dent ocius omnes Quas Meruere pati sic stat sententia poenas TOVCHING THE NECESSITIE OF VNderstanding the Qualitie of the ROMAN CHVRCH IESVIT Thinke best first to shew in generall the Roman to be the onely true Church For this was the occasion and subiect of the conference betwixt Dr. WHITE and me and is the most important and manifest point of controuersie in which all other are inuolued ANSVVER THe most important Neither most nor important at all to all but onely to those who are either inuolued in that Church or vexed by it If people may attaine saluation without knowing the qualitie of the Romane Church then it is not of all Questions and Controuersies most important to know whether the Romane Church is the true Church or not But many people may bee saued without this knowledge for all they may attaine saluation which are baptised and which beleeue and repent Mark 16 16. Acts 2 38. and which haue all the ordinarie meanes of Saluation
cannot vse it so the Scriptures are a meanes to conuict proteruious 〈◊〉 as they were vsed by Christ and his Apostles and by the 〈◊〉 Councels or Papall Councels and the Bishops and Doctors of the Roman Church c. Answ. First Our Sauiour and his Apostles did both vse the Scriptures themselues and commanded others euen simple men to vse them Iohn 5 39. Ephes. 6 17. and they are commended who examined Doctrine by them Acts 17 11. Secondly they which vnderstand and applie the Scriptures truely vse them as Christ and his Apostles did and so the Scripture in their vse is a word of power and not as a sword in a childs hand Thirdly Scriptures were meanes to conuict Hereticks as they were vsed by the Fathers of the Church and other holie Persons before any generall Councells were gathered to wit the first three hundred yeares and before the Papall Supremacie was aduanced in the Church Fourthly it is ridiculous to imagine that the present Roman Church and the sole Adheres thereof according to the Trident Creed are the only true expositors of holy Scriptures or that 〈◊〉 exposition of Scripture repugnant and diuers from the present Roman Creed is false or Haereticall for neither hath the holie Ghost by expresse testimonie or euident demonstration appropriated the key of knowledge to this Church and few Heretickes haue more fouly corrupted and abused the Scriptures And the pillars of this Church 〈◊〉 sundrie times been vnskilfull Ideots vnlettered Gulls Monsters of mankind with whom the holie Spirit vseth not to haue commerce Wisdom 1. 2. Cor. 6. 15. Fiftly the place of Tertul. d. Praescript c. 19. doth not 〈◊〉 the imperfection of holie Scripture to conuict proteruious error according to the latter part of my former distinction for then he could not haue said Scripturae plenitudinem adoramus We adore the plenitude of the 〈◊〉 and Let Hermogenes teach that it is written and if it be not written let him feare the Wo denounced against them which add or detract any thing from the word of God but be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures according to the first part of my distinction to wit That Heretickes blinded with malice and either denying or corrupting the text of the Scriptures cannot be so conuicted by them but they will still vse cauils and by Sophisticall slights borrowed from Philosophers elude the euidence of the plaine Texts of Scriptures But if this argue the Scriptures of imperfection it will also prooue the Authoritie of the Church and of Tradition to be insufficient as appeares in the Arrians and Donatists And Heretickes may with no lesse pretext take exception against Tradition and Ecclesiasticall Authoritie than against the Scripture Ireneus li. 3. ca. 2. When they are confuted by Scriptures they accuse them as being not well written and destitute of Authoritie or else so ambiguous that one cannot find the Truth by them c. And in like manner when we prouoke them to stand to triall by Tradition which came from the Apostles c. they oppose the same c. And thus they will consent neither to Scripture nor Tradition And Gregorie Valence himselfe saith The infallible teaching and proposition of the Church is no lesse obscure vnto vs than any other Article which we are to beleeue Sixtly we acknowledge the lawfull Power and Authoritie of the Church about expounding holy Scriptures and for maintaining Vnitie in right Faith and appeasing contention repressing proteruious Errants Heb. 13.17 Math. 18.17.1 Timoth. 3.15 2. Thessal 5.12 And in particular first wee beleeue the authority of Councels General and Nationall lawfully assembled and accordingly proceeding to be sacred And all Councels of this nature we reuerence with the same honour the ancient Church did affirming that priuate Christians and particular Churches are to submit their iudgement to the authority of the same except it bee manifest that they depart from Truth Secondly wee highly and reuerently esteeme exposition of Scripture deliuered by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers and although wee yeeld eminent and supreme Authoritie to the holy Scriptures because the same is absolutely diuine yet when any question ariseth concerning Expositions we allow not priuate persons vpon vncertaine or probable reasons to reiect the sence which hath bin antiently and commonly receiued and against which no strong or solid exception can be produced Now this being obserued and other helps of expounding Scripture vsed there followeth nothing from our Tenet whereby Christianitie should be made vncertaine and Disputation from sole Scripture prooue fruitles or which may hinder apparent Victorie by the same against proteruious Error IESVIT The Preface ended our Aduersarie descendeth to his disputation and herein first he setteth downe a maine proposition which hee intendeth to prooue to wit The Roman Church is the onely true Church Secondly He deliuereth fiue Principles manifest in themselues and presupposed and confessed by Papists and Protestants Principle 1. No man can be saued without firme and sure apprehension of supernaturall Truth concerning his last end and the meanes to attaine thereunto Secondly Assurance of this kind is not had by cleere sight Demonstration humane Discourse or humane Authoritie but by Faith grounded vpon Gods Word reuealing things vnknowne by other meanes Thirdly God reuealed all Supernaturall Truth to Christ and Christ reuealed the same to the holy Apostles partly by vocall Preaching but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy Spirit to this end that they should deliuer them to mankind to bee receiued and beleeued euerie where ouer the World euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly the Apostles fulfilled this preaching to all Nations and deliuering partly by writing and partly by word of mouth the whole entire Doctrine of Saluation planted an vniuersall Christian companie and to deliuer vnto 〈◊〉 all they had 〈◊〉 from them Fiftly though the Apostles and their Primatiue Hearers be deceased yet there still remaines in the World a meanes by which men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached andthe Primatiue Church receiued of them because the Church euen to the endof the World must be founded on the Apostles and beleeue nothing as matter of Faith but that which was deliuered by them The former grounds being confessed a question remaineth to be examined What is the principall infallible meanes whereby a Christian may know what was and is the Doctrine of Faith originally preached by the Apostles Whether holy Scripture of the Apostles and Euangelists bee that meanes or perpetuall Tradition vnwritten deriued by Succession from the Apostles ANSVVER The Iesuit affirmeth the latter and produceth foure Arguments to prooue his Tenet and then supposing that he hath prooued the Question inferreth that the Roman Church is the only true Church because it is the only faithfull keeper and teacher of this Tradition IESVITS 1. Argument If the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are
expressed are sufficient to prooue that the holy Apostles were the Authors or Approuers of all the Scriptures of the New Testament and if these with other humane motiues of credibilitie be not the same doubt which is made concerning them may with greater probabilitie be made concerning vnwritten Traditions And secluding the authoritie of the Scripture it selfe no other diuine testimonie can be produced to satisfie them which are doubtfull touching the veritie of vnwritten Tradition and the authoritie of the present Church If one will not beleeue the Scriptures because of the authoritie of God speaking in them neither will he beleeue the present Church consisting of persons in whom is possibilitie of error IESVIT For we may distinguish three properties of the Doctrine of Faith to wit to be true to be reuealed of God to be preached and deliuered by the Apostles The highest ground by which I am persuaded and resolued that my Faith is true is the authoritie of God reuealing it the highest ground on which I am resolued that my Faith is reuealed is the credit and authoritie of Christ Iesus and his Apostles who deliuered the same as diuine and sacred but the highest ground that mooueth me to beleeue that my Faith was preached by the Apostles is the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles that so teacheth me ANSVVER The last part of the former distinction is denied The highest ground meaning diuine which mooueth vs to beleeue that the doctrine of Faith was preached by the Apostles is not the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles but the holy Scripture of the New Testament for the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles is beleeued because of the authoritie of the said Church and whosoeuer beleeueth that Tradition or Testimonie must first of all know the Church to be an infallible witnesse But the word of God only the greater and most worthie part whereof by our Aduersaries confession is contained in the Scriptures giueth authoritie to the Church for the Church is founded vpon the word of God Eph. 2.20 and the word of God is the immortall seed which produceth and giueth being to the Church Luc. 8.11 Ia. 1.18 it selfe vpon the Apostles 〈◊〉 word and Doctrine which is principally contained in the Scripture 〈◊〉 Into this principle St. Augustine resolued his faith against the 〈◊〉 who pretended the Scriptures were corrupted confuting them by Tradition of the Church affirming that he would not beleeue the Gospell did not the authority of the Catholike Church induce him assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point for though he beleeued the Gospel to 〈◊〉 souer aignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God 〈◊〉 it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as sacred preached it yet that this Gospel as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more excellent 〈◊〉 than the testimony of the present Church descended by continued succession of Bishops from the Apostles neither can we imagine any higher except we flye to particular and to priuate reuelation which is absurd ANSWER St. Augustines words C. Epist. Manichei c. 4. doe not proue that after he was fully conuerted he resolued his faith finally and principally into the authority of the Church succeeding the Apostles First St. Augustine resolued his faith finally and principally into that which he knew to be infallible and totally diuine But he was not so persuaded of the Church succeeding the Apostles because he thought it possible for the principall members of that Church to 〈◊〉 and be deceiued and he prefers the authority of the Scriptures before the iudgement of Councels and Fathers in which some of our aduersaries place the 〈◊〉 of Ecclesiasticall infallibility Moreouer it appeareth by Saint Augustine in the second chapter of this Booke that he did not make the authority of the Church the highest ground of resolution of his faith for he saith that manifest verity is to be preferred before all other tbings whereby he was held in the Catholike Church but that whose authority must be preferred before all other things is the highest ground of faiths resolution Secondly because St. Augustines meaning in this place is obscure and dubious our aduersaries cannot conclude certainely from hence 1. Some Schoolemen hold that he speaketh of acquisite or Historicall Faith which is an introductiō to infused faith and then it is inconsequent to argue that because Saint Augustine at his first conuersion and being a Nouice in Faith did ground his Historicall faith vpon the authority of the Church therefore the authority of the Church is vniuersally and after men are conuerted the highest ground of resolution Most men are at first induced by externall motiues to giue credit to the Scriptures as the people of Samaria were by the testimony of the woman to beleeue that Christ was a Prophet Ioh. 4.42 Altisiodor summa in prolog li. 3. tr 3.9.4 But as these people afterwards beleeued because of Christs owne words so they which by the Churches authority are first persuaded to heare and reade the doctrine of the Scriptures afterwards by the light of grace doe perceiue the diuine Maiestie wisedome efficacie and verity of the said doctrine and resolue their faith into the diuine authority of the holy Ghost manifesting himselfe in the Scripture or doctrine of the Scripture Secondly other learned Papists hold that St. Augustine in the place obiected by the authority of the Church vnderstood the Church wherein the Apostles themselues gouerned and of which they were parts and then no meruaile if he resolued his faith into the authority of the Church because in this notion the Church comprehends the Colledge of the Apostles whose testimony concerning the Scripture was altogether Diuine And although St. Augustine conioyneth the authority of the latter Church with the former wherein were the Apostles yet he did not equally and with the same manner of beleeuing ground his faith vpon both for when a Preacher deliuereth Apostolicall doctrine we beleeue both the Preacher and the Doctrine and we could not haue knowne the doctrine but by the Preacher yet we resolue not our faith finally and principally into the authority of the Preacher but into the diuine verity it selfe preached by him Euery thing by which we are mooued to beleeue and without whose authority we should not haue beleeued is not the principall obiect whereunto diuine faith is finally resolued as appeareth by miracles preaching instruction of Parents c. IESVIT Vpon the former place of Saint Augustine the Iesuit inferreth That because we haue no stronger or more excellent proofe than the testimonie of the present Churcb descended by continuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles to confirme that the Gospell as wee haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles therefore Saint Augustine resolued his faith that
it was Apostolicall finally and principally into the authority of the present Church ANSWER Saint Augustine deliuers not the former and therfore the Iesuit cannot inferre the latter we haue indeed no stronger or more excellent morall proofe than the perpetual testimony of the Church succeeding the Apostles but we haue a stronger and more excellent diuine proofe to wit the Prophesie of Christ and his Apostles concerning the perpetuall preseruation of the Gospell vnto the end of the world also that the Aposcolical Scriptures were once incorrupt is manifest because they were giuen by diuine inspiration And it is apparant that they were not afterwards corrupted because no authority or sufficient Argument can be produced to procue them in whole or in part to haue been corrupted Now that which being once knowne by diuine testimony to haue beene incorrupt cannot be prooued afterwards to haue been corrupted doth by diuine testimony appeare to be incorrupt because the first diuine testimony standeth still in force The Text of the Gospell was once knowne by diuine testimonie to haue beene incorrupt and it cannot be prooued to haue beene afterwards corrupted Ergo It doth still appeare by diuine testimonie that the Text of the Gospell is incorrupt and the resolution of Faith finally and principally resteth vpon that diuine testimonie and not vpon the 〈◊〉 of the present Church Lastly the harmony coherence of the Gospel both with the Scriptures of the old Testament Lu. 24.27 Act. 28.23 and of the seuerall parts of the Gospel among themselues do manifest that the text of the new Testament is incorrupt For if the same were corrupted in any part corruption of words would produce alteration and difference of matter but we find at this day a perfect harmonie of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament And from the same being an inward Argument we may collect that the text of the Gospell is at this day incorrupt Now hauing so many Arguments besides the authoritie of the present Church to prooue the integritie of the text of the Gospell we do not flie neither is it necessarie to flie to priuat Spirit or particular Reuelation for assurance and that which our Aduersaries obiect against vs saying that we resolue our Faith and Religion into the priuat Spirit is a foolish calumniation for we resolue our Faith into the authoritie of Gods outward word expounded vnto vs by such helpes and meanes as both the Scripture it selfe and the antient Church require as into the diuine motiue and obiect of beleefe and we affirme that his grace and holy Spirit working by the outward meanes inableth draweth and persuadeth the conscience to assent Iohn 6.45 12.37 38.1 Cor. 2.12 c. 12.3 2. Cor. 3.5 Act. 16.14 1. Iohn 2.20.27 Esay 50.5 And herein we flie to no priuat Spirit or Reuelation but maintaine the ordinarie assistance of diuine grace according to the doctrine of the holy Scripture and of S. Augustine and the common Tenet of the Scholemen themselues IESVITS 2. Argument Secondly J 〈◊〉 that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianitie are persuaded about all substantiall points of Faith by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian Faith in all points necessarie and snfficient vnto Saluation but they haue not Faith of all these maine and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neither vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages and so if they beleeue vpon Scripture they beleeue vpon Scripture translated into their mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truely translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build of it they must first know what are the maine and substantiall points and firmely beleeue them so that they would not beleeue the Scripture translated against them for if they knew them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truely translated if they do not before hand firmely beleeue them why should they bee readie to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations which differ from them Ergo Originally and before they know any Scripture they haue Faith grounded on the Tradition of their ancestors by the light whereof they are able to judge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely beleeue by Tradition ANSVVER The question which the Iesuit vndertaketh to prooue in his foure Arguments is that our resolution of Faith stayeth finally vpon the perpetuall Tradition of the Church and not vpon the Scripture His second argument to prooue this is taken from the manner of vulgar and illiterate people in resoluing their Faith For if these being the greater part of Christianitie do ground their Creed touching all points of doctrine necessarie to Saluation vpon Tradition of their ancestors andif they haue true Faith before they know and vnderstand the Scripture then Christian Faith at least-wise among the greater part of Christians is resolued finally into the Tradition of ancestors and not of the Scriptures And he prooueth that these vulgar people haue Faith touching all points necessarie to Saluation before they know the Scriptures because it is impossible for them to read or vnderstand Scripture vntill it be translated into their mother tongue and they are not able to iudge of translations or know them to be true vnlesse they first beleeue the principall points of Christian Faith and by comparing translations of Scripture with the said doctrines of Faith formerly by them beleeued be inabled to iudge of the Truth of Translations This Paralogisme hath certaine ambiguous or equiuocall termes which must be distinguished and then I will applie my answer First the terme of Scripture may be taken for the letter and text of the Scripture together with the names of the seueral Bookes Authors and Sections and secondly it may signifie the doctrine of the Scripture without mention of the particular Bookes Iohn 7.38 Rom. 1 2 3 4. Secondly Resolution of Faith is either distinct and explicite wherein beleeuers are able to declare the seueral reasons of their Faith and to proceed from one reason of beleeuing to another vntill they ascend by degrees to the principall ground or else Implicit and Vertuall wherein beleeuers cannot proceed distinct ly and with explication of the seuerall reasons and grounds of Faith but resting themselues vpon one prime and radicall ground are readie for the authoritie of the same to beleeue all other particular reasons and verities of Faith when they are declared vnto them Thirdly Tradition may signifie either doctrine of Faith and good manners not contained or written in holy Scripture expressely or inuoluedly or else the same doctrine which is found in holy Scripture deliuered by Ancestors or Teachers by word of mouth These distinctions premised I answer the obiection 1.
haue vs reade touching his owne sayings and workes this hee commanded the Euangelists as it were his owne hands to write And in another place Although Christ spake and wrought some things which are not written yet those things which seemed vnto him sufficient to the saluation of beleeuers were selected to be written Saint Cyrill also affirmeth that all things which Christ did are not written but so much as holy writers iudged sufficient both for good manners and godly faith to the end that we shining in right faith good workes and vertue may attaine the heauenly Kingdome By the iudgement of these Fathers the holy Euangelists committed to writing so much of our Sauiours Doctrine and deeds as is sufficient for people to know that they may bee illustrious in faith and vertue and by the light whereof they may come to saluation In these things therefore the Euangelists did not cursorily touch matters but largely and fully deliuer them Secondly if the Scriptures containe all things sufficient to saluation yea more than is sufficient then the Apostles in their Scriptures did not cursorily or by the way onely touch matters But the first is affirmed both by the Fathers and confessed by some learned Papists Vincent 〈◊〉 The Canon of the Scripture is perfit and in it selfe sufficient for all matters yea more than sufficient Antonius Perez Pentateuch fidei vol. 4. c. 21. If the Scripture be compared and applied with things which faith teacheth as necessarie to saluation the same is apparently redundant and superfluous according to the nature of a rule because there be many things yea most things in the same the knowledge whereof is vnnecessarie But if the Scripture containe many 〈◊〉 superfluous and more than is needfull it is improbable 〈◊〉 thinke that it is imperfect in Principals or deliuereth them 〈◊〉 onely or by the way Thirdly the variety and multitude of points and doctrines of faith and good manners and the often repeating and declaring of them in the holy Scriptures prooueth that the Apostles 〈◊〉 fully and perfectly deliuer in their writings the whole 〈◊〉 of Christian faith and not onely cursorily touch them For all supernaturall veritie concerning the sacred Deitie Trinitie diuine Attributes and Operations Creation of the world c. is taught in holy Scripture In like manner the whole doctrine of faith concerning the Incarnation Person and Office of Christ is reuealed vnto vs by holy Scripture And for this cause Saint Cyrill calleth the Scriptures Solos fontes veritatis The sole fountaines of veritie All things concerning Iustification Charitie and good workes being meerely supernaturall are taught in Scripture The doctrine of the Law Gospell Sacraments resurrection of the dead finall iudgement c. is intirely and fully reuealed in the holy Scriptures and the Church according to Saint Augustine hath onely two brests wherewith shee feedeth her children to wit the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament And that he alwayes vnderstandeth by the Old and New Testament the Scriptures of both appeareth by his words vpon Psal. 22. Aperi legamus c. Let vs open our Fathers last Testament and reade it And 〈◊〉 the great 〈◊〉 Apostolice 〈◊〉 nec non antiquorum Prophetarum 〈◊〉 plane 〈◊〉 de sensu Numinis The Euangelicall and Apostolicall bookes together with the Oracles of the antient Prophets doe plainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euidently instruct vs concerning the minde of God And from all the former it is manifest that the Apostles writings are not patches and shreds onely of Apostolicall Doctrine as our 〈◊〉 against all antiquitie presumeth to affirme but the very substance and marrow of their whole Preaching containing the summe of the Gospell by faith and obedience whereof wee receiue euerlasting life And thus much touching the Antecedent of the Iesuits Argument The sequel of the former Argument which is Because without precedent instruction by vnwritten Tradition wee cannot be firmely assured that wee haue the right sence of the Scripture therefore the last and finall resolution is made vnto vnwritten Tradition and not into Scripture is inconsequent and the Antecedent proueth not the Consequent for precedent Tradition may bee necessarie to deliuer vnto vs the text of holy Scripture and Precpts how to expound and vse the same and by Tradition wee may receiue a Commentarie of some texts of holy Scripture yet euen as a Schollar although hee receiue the bookes of Euclid and Aristotle from a Master and precepts in what sort hee shall proceed in his studie and withall a Commentary declaring the meaning of these Authours yet hee doth not finally being made learned himselfe resolue his knowledge into the former but into the principles of these Arts themselues so likewise a nouice in faith receiueth the holy Scripture by Ministerie and Tradition of the Church and Precepts and Commentaries whereby hee is first inabled and afterwards holpen in the right exposition thereof yet after this Introduction by further studie and diligence hee collecteth Arguments from the Scripture it selfe and being instructed in the sence thereof he doth not finally resolue his beleefe into the Commentarie and Introduction but into the text or Doctrine of holy Scripture it selfe IESVIT Hence I may further inferre that Protestants haue not throughly pondered the place of the Apostle vnto Timothie which they 〈◊〉 vehemently vrge to prooue the sufficiencie of sole Scripture for euery man as though he had said absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instruct or make men wise vnto Saluation which he saith not but speaking particularly vnto Timothie saith They are able to instruct or make thee wise vnto saluation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hast been aforehand instructed by word of mouth and doost thereupon firmely beleeue all substantiall Doctrines and knowest all the necessarie practise of Christian Discipline ANSWER The Aduersarie in this passage vseth certaine Arguments to prooue that Protestants misunderstand the Text of S. Paul 2. Timoth. 3.15 16. when they vrge the same to maintaine the sufficiencie of sole Scripture to be a ground for all Christians finally to rest their faith vpon His first Argument is The Apostle saith not absolutely that the Scriptures are able to make all men wise vnto Saluation but particularly to Timothie a man instructed aforehand and formerly 〈◊〉 all substantiall grounds of Doctrine and Discipline they are able 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make thee being such a one and so prepared wise c. To this I answere 1. That although sentences of holy Scripture are sometimes restrained to the personall or particular subiect of which they are first spoken yet this is not generall and when the same happeneth it must be prooued by better Arguments than by the bare Emphasis of a word For God said to Ioshua a man qualified aboue the ordinarie ranke I will not leaue thee nor forsake thee Ioshua 1. 5. yet the promise implied in this Text is generall and common to all iust
erred in exposition nor differed one for the other Thirdly the Fathers affirme that the Scripture expounds it selfe Aug. d. verb. 〈◊〉 Serm. 2. d. vnit Eccles. c. 5. p. 427. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 13. And they doe not alwayes referre men to Tradition concerning exposition of Scripture but prescribe other rules and meanes also Aug. d Doctr. Christ. l. 4. c. 30. c. Chrys. sup Gen. Hom. 21. sup Rom. Hom. 13. sup Iohn Hom. 39. Tertul. c. prax Hilar d. Trinit l. 5. Ambros. 〈◊〉 Psal. 118. Serm. 8. Origen Mat. Hom. 25. Fourthly that which the Aduersarie affirmeth touching the Fathers to wit that they held the Scriptures to be cleare in all substantiall points onely to men beforehand instructed by the light of Tradition is vntrue neither doe the Fathers speake of Tradition according to the Romish acceptation First sometimes the Fathers exhort heathen men which were not instructed by Tradition to reade the Scriptures Theophilus Antiochenus saith to Autolicus being as then a Pagan Verum tu ipse si placet consule liter as sacras But doe thou thy selfe if it seeme good vnto thee consult with the holy Scriptures Also they prouoke Heretikes which denied the Tradition of the Church to examine truth by Scriptures August d. vnit Eccles c. 2.3.16 contra Maxim Arrian l. 3. c. 14. Socrates Hist. lib. 1. cap. 6. Secondly by Tradition they vnderstand not the fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like the Pharisees corrupt the right sence of Scripture by their vnwritten Traditions and affirme those things to bee Apostolicall which agree with the confessed Doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light But the Fathers by Tradition vnderstand such exposition of Scripture as was vniformely receiued and commended for Apostolicall by the Primatiue Church and which besides antiquitie or the report of men appeared to bee Apostolicall by an exact harmonie and consent with the Text of the holy Scripture to which it was applied St. August d. Bapt. c. Donatist l. 5 c. 26 St. Cyprian Epist. 74. Tertul. d. praescript c. 21 Ruffin Hist. Ecclesiast l. 2 c. 9 IESVIT I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiestie sufficiently demonstrated the first ground of Catholicke faith to wit that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written 〈◊〉 Scriptures but as deliuered by the Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primatiue vpon the authority whereof we beleeue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles of Faith were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending and inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veritie and Authour of truth ANSVVER You haue played the Paralogist and weaued a spiders web which is fitter to catch flyes than to persuade so religious learned iudicious and resolute a king who is like an Angell of God knowing good and euill Your obiections being weighed in the ballance of the Sanctuarie are found light they are Funiculus vanitatis a coard and bundle of vanitie a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer His most learned Maiestie as you truly stile him honoureth genuine and Orthodox all Tradition as no religious king or good Christian can doe more and hereupon to wit vpon the testimony of Tradition besides other Arguments he beleeueth that you and your consorts are deceiued when you hold that a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon the word of God not as written in Scripture but as deliuered by Tradition c. For if the Scripture according to the doctrine and Tradition of the Primatiue Church is eminentissimae authoritatis of most eminent authoritie If it be the seed of which faith is first of all conceiued if it is the Rocke whereupon the Church is built if the authoritie of vnwritten Tradition dependeth vpon it and must bee examined by it If the Churches authoritie is 〈◊〉 from it then a Christian is originally and fundamentally built vpon it First That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell and paterne of all the rest but I trow you will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 S. 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 Manich. li. 11 cap. 5. d. Ciuit. Dei lib. 11. cap. 3. Ibid. 〈◊〉 14. cap. 7. d. Vnit. Eccles. 16. Chris. d. 〈◊〉 Hom. 4. Oecumen sup 2. Tim. 3. Ansel. sup 2. Tim. 3. Secondly A Christian is fundamentally built vpon the rock but the Scripture is a rocke Cardinalis Camaracensis 〈◊〉 vespert 〈◊〉 sacrae Scripturae In euery building orderly framed the foundation hath precedence then followeth superedification and lastly consummation According to this order Christ the most exact Architect did build his Church vpon the rocke of holy Scripture Thirdly The seed of Faith is the root and foundation of 〈◊〉 Christian the Scripture is the seed of Faith Iohn 20. 41. for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Iam. 1.18 1. Cor. 4 15. And were the Popish Tenet true that the Scripture is not the whole word of God but only a part thereof yet a Christian must be originally and fundamentally built vpon it together with Tradition And Tradition according to the Tenet of our Aduersarie in this place cannot be the sole foundation of Christianitie but only a part of the foundation Fourthly All Scripture giuen by diuine Inspiration is simply and without exception to be receiued and all Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused From hence it followeth that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture and Scripture is the highest rule as both the Fathers and many Papists themselues affirme and thus it is certaine that a Christian is orignally and fundamentally built vpon the holy Scripture IESVITS 2d Ground That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue and the Church is one Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy ANSWER The subiect of this Proposition to wit Ecclesia the Church is a word or terme of diuers significations and therefore the Iesuit should haue declared in what notion he taketh the same when he saieth There is a visible Church c. First Cardinall Bellarmine with other Pontificians saith that the Church whereof he disputes is a companie of people linked together by the same profession of Faith and Communion of Sacraments vnder lawfull pastros 〈◊〉 vnder the Roman Bishop who is Christs Vicar Secondly The terme Church is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy beleeuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy beleeuers vnder the New Testament Heb. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 and thus it comprehendeth both the Church Militant and Triumphant Thirdly the Church is taken for the common and vniuersall multitude of Christian people of any one or more ages which
Catalogue of descent is duely examined all the passages are not so currant in it as they pretend Fourthly the principle of Aristotle vpon which the last Argument is grounded admitteth many exceptions That because of which another thing is such is it selfe much more such when both things are of the same order and pertake the same affection as Christ which sanctifieth is more holy than they which are sanctified Fire is hotter than water and other things warmed by it c. But it holdeth not in causes equiuocall or partiall or in causes by accident or of diuers order The Sunne causeth life in plants and yet the Sunne is without life A whetstone sharpeneth tooles and yet is dull it selfe Euill manners cause good lawes and yet euill manners are not good Daniels wisdome is reuealed to Baltasar by the queene Dan. 5. 10 11. yet Daniell is not made a 〈◊〉 man nor onely knowne to be such by that report so likewise the name of Christ his glorie his vertue and miracles are famously knowne of belecuers from age to age by reason of the Church and her preaching c. But all this concerning Christ is neither principally nor only made knowne to the world by the present Church nor by the Roman Church more effectually than by other Churches and the Church is a caufe of one kind and order and the Scripture of another The Church is veluti Preco Nuntius like a Cryer and Messenger but the holy Scripture is the Word Handwriting and Epistle of Christ into whose voice and authoritie all the faithfull resolue their beleese concerning Christ and all his actions and according to S. Agustine In sanctis libris manifestatur Dominus ibi eius Ecclesia declaratur In the holy bookes of Scripture the Lord is made manifest and in the same also his Church is declared and in another place In Scripturis diuinis Christum in Scripturis didicimus Ecclesiam In the Scriptures we haue learned Christ and in the Scriptures we haue learned the Church Now if the Scriptures manifest Christ and demonstrate his Church they are of greater authoritie and consequently more credible famous and illustrious than the Church according to the Iesuits Theorem out of Aristotle Propter quod vnum quodquè tale est illud magis IESVIT Fourthly the Church is one that is all the Pastors and Preachers thereof deliuer and consequently all her professors and children beleeue one and the same Faith ANSWER The visible Church in regard of the sound and liuing part thereof is one both in Faith and Charitie Ephes. 4.3.4 c. But this vnitie is more or lesse perfect at some times and in some persons than in other Vnitie in all Veritie and in all sanctitie of Vertue and Charitie is necessarie to Saluation in praeparatione animi in the purpose and intention of heart Rom. 12. 18. and actuall Vnitie in fundamentall points of Faith and in the maine offices of Charitie is simply necessarie to Saluation Heb. 12.14 but perfect cōcord excluding all discord is not perpetually found amongst the best members of the visible Church There was contention among the Disciples Luc. 22.24 and the Affrican and European Churches were diuided concerning rebaptising and the Eastrne and Westerne Churches about the day of Easter S. Augustine saith That good men being but proficients may be at strife Aquinas affirmeth That discord is not a sinne vnlesse it ouerthrow Charity or be corrupted with error concerning matters of Faith which are necessarie to bee knowne to Saluation or in smaller points with 〈◊〉 Also discord may happen in the visible 〈◊〉 by the pride ambition and faction of the in which case 〈◊〉 persons although they 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 all lawfull peace and 〈◊〉 yet through the 〈◊〉 of those which are enemies to peace they cannot 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 120.5 6 7. IESVIT For if the Preachers and Pastors of the Church disagree about matters which they preach as necessarie points of Faith how can their Tradition and Testimonie be of Credit therein or haue any Authoritie to persuade who will or canfirmely 〈◊〉 disagreeing witnesses vpon their words ANSWER First They which disagree in part and accord in the maine may haue substantiall 〈◊〉 although they want the prefection of vnitie and these are of credit and may persuade in those things wherein they consent as appeareth by S. Cyprian and his Colleagues disagreeing with the Romans touching Appeales and 〈◊〉 and yet conuerting many people to godlinesse Secondly When there is discord betweene 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 matters the Orthodox partie 〈◊〉 many 〈◊〉 all those whose hearts the Lord 〈◊〉 and mooueth to discerne and obey the truth Otherwise in the great Dissentions of the antient Church reported by Eusebius Lib. 2. cap. 60. 61. d. vita Constantini no people should haue beene conuerted to God Thirdly If 〈◊〉 take away all possibilitie of persuading from the Pastors of the Church then the Romans which 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 Ancestors in many points of Doctrine and haue had so many Schismes whereof some haue beene most bloudie and pernicious to the Christian World must want power to persuade The efficacie of persuasion dependeth vpon absolute concord onely as vpon a greater motiue of credibilitie and not as vpon a proper efficient and although Preachers should be contentious and factious yet the Word of Christ truly deliuered by any of them is in it selfe mightie in operation and able to persuade and conuert soules and God Almightie many times shewes his power in the Ministerie of infirme and imperfect Instruments Phil. 1. 16 17. IESVIT And this consent must be conspicuous and euident For if in outward appearance and shew Preachers dissent one from another in maine and materiall Doctrines their Authoritie is crazed and their Testimonie of no esteeme Howsoeuer perchance their Dissentions may by some distinctions so be coloured that one cannot conuince him that would boldly vndertake to defend as D. Field vndertakes for Protestants that their Dissentions are but verball But what is this to the purpose Doe the accused Dissentioners allow this Doctors Reconciliation 〈◊〉 they giue ouer Contention hereupon No but confesse that such Reconcilers misse of their meaning and that they disagree substantially about the very prime Articles of Faith How can these men be witnesses of Credit for substantiall Articles concerning which there is open confessed and professed Dissention among them ANSVVER The consent of Pastors according to one sence to wit expounding Must for 〈◊〉 Ought as 1. Tim. 3.2 is to be conspicuous and euident both in Faith and in Charitie and when this is fulfilled the testimonie of Pastors is of greater weight and credit among men But this perfection of Visitie is 〈◊〉 and therefore although the same be 〈◊〉 in part the Pastors of the Church are not despoyled of all Authoritie and credit in deliuering Christs Word if the better
Church since the Apostles is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the Scripture This assertion is Antichristian and impudent for can any thing be more fundamentall than the foundation or of greater authoritie than the word of God S. Peter speaking of the Propheticall Scriptures equalleth the same to the sensible voice of God which was vttered in the Apostles audience from heauen Math. 3.17 c. 17.5 saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We haue the most sure word of Prophesie c. vpon these words S. Augustine d. verb. Apostoli serm 29. commenteth as followeth Et cum dixisset hanc vocem audiuimus de Coelo delatam subiunxit atque ait habemus certiorem propheticum sermonem sonuit illa vox de Coelo certior est propheticus sermo when the Apostle had said We heard this voice from heauen he addeth further and saith We haue a more sure word of prophesie That voice sounded from heauen and yet the propheticall word is more sure he said more sure not better or truer because that word from heauen was as good and as profitable as the word of prophesie Why therefore more sure Because the hearer was more confirmed by it Our Sauiour himselfe in the Gospell examineth the Traditions of the Pharises and of the Iewish Church then being by the Scriptures Math. 5.6 and 7. Ch. 12.5 c. 15.4 19.4 And the holy Ghost in the new Testament both in the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles confirmeth the Truth which was taught by the authoritie of the Scriptures and Christ Iesus perpetually submitteth himselfe and his doctrine to the triall of the Scriptures and the Apostles after him did the like Acts 26.22 The antient Fathers affirme that the Scriptures are of most eminent authoritie and that wee are aboue all things to giue credit to them and that they are the mouth of God and the verie hand of God and Paul and Peter and Iohn and the whole companie of the Prophets do speake with vs by them and that Faith it selfe by which a iust man liueth is conceiued by them and the Church it selfe is demonstrated to wit tanquam à priori by them But on the contrarie Traditions receiue their authoritie from the Scriptures and may not be admitted vnlesse they agree with the Scriptures And in our Aduersaries Tenet men must first beleeue the authoritie of the Church before they can receiue or beleeue Tradition from all which it followeth that Tradition of the present Church is neither the prime originall ground of Faith nor yet more fundamentall concerning Faith than the Scripture The Trident Councell held it sufficient to equall Tradition with the Scriptures This new master with Baronius Pighius preferreth them before the Scriptures These men perceiue that the Roman Faith cannot subsist vnlesse they depresse the written word of God and exalt the prophane bastardly and Apocriphall Traditions of the Pope They say the Scripture is a breathlesse lumpe a nose of wax a leaden rule Andradius writeth That in the Books of the Scriptures themselues there is no diuinitie or any thing else binding vs to beleeue Stapleton saith That being considered as written it can no way be called the Temple or Tabernacle of the holy Ghost Bosius saith The holy Ghost resideth in the Church more effectually and nobly than in the Bookes of the Scripture And Majoranus hath these words The consent of the Church alone which neuer wanted the spirit of God ought to be of greater esteeme with vs than all mute and tonguelesse Bookes and than all the written volumes which are or euer were and which haue in all ages ministred fuell of contention to the wits of men And Gretsar the Iesuit There would haue beene fewer contentions in the world as I supose if there had beene no Scripture at all Iacob Brower a Reader of Doway saith I would not beleeue the Gospell did not the authoritie of Pope Paul the fift mooue me And lastly it is one of the dictates of Pope Hildebrand canonised by Baronius That no Chapter or Booke of Scripture must bee esteemed canonicall without his authoritie I doubt not but that Romists are able with faire glosses and distinctions to salue these blasphemies and to reconcile dark nesse with light but he that diggeth a pit for people to fall into althought he couer the same with some superficiall tecture is accused by the antient sentence of diuine Law Exod. 21.33 Towards the end of this Section the Iesuit addeth First That the Scripture is not knowne to bee Apostolicall but by Tradition This is false for the Scripture is knowne to come from the Apostles by inward grounds and testimonies contained in it selfe and by the vertue and effects of it as well as by the Tradition of the Church Secondly it is most vntrue that Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by it owne light but not Scripture for what internall light hath Tradition more than or aboue the Scripture If it haue then the articles of Popish Tradition Purgatorie adoration of Images c. are more manifest than the articles which Scripture teacheth concerning the incarnation and resurrection of Christ than Heauen and Hell c. Also sacred Scripture is receiued as diuine by all Christians Popish Tradition onely by some The Catalogue of Romish Tradition could neuer to this day be specified and distinctly assigned but the Canon of holy Scripture may Moreouer holie Scripture hath the perpetuall and vnanimous consent of the Primitiue Church Popish Tradition hath not Againe Bellarmine confesseth that nothing is better knowne and more certaine than holy Scripture but if nothing be better known then nothing hath clearer light Thirdly the confirmation of the former to wit What more euident c. is insufficient because that which is known to come from the Apostles by their owne immediat testimonie in writing is more euidently knowne to come from them than that which is affirmed to come from them onely by the report of men which are deceiueable Diuine testimonie maketh things more certaine and infallible than humane The testimonie of the Apostles extant in writing is totally diuine the report of Bishops is in part humane IESVIT And this may bee clearely prooued to omit other pregnant testimonies by the words of our Sauiour in the last of Matthew Going into the whole world teaching all nations baptizing them In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules and saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition For in this sentence appeare these fixe things First That there is still a Christian Church all dayes not wanting in the world so
an vniforme Tradition of all ages that the place of Saint Paul 1. Cor. 3. 12. is vnderstood of Popish Purgatorie or Math. 16. 19. Iohn 20.23 of Iubilees and Indulgences or the place of Acts 10. 13. Rise Peter and kill of murthering Princes or of the temporall dominion of the Pope If the Papists would impose no other sence vpon the Scripture than such as is confirmed by vniforme Tradition the difference betweene them and vs would easily bee composed but these men euerie day hatch nouell expositions and when they are hunted out of one they flie to another They glorie of antiquitie succession vniforme Tradition and cry Victoria Inuincible Vnanswerable before the combate is finished but they are compelled to forge Authours to impose false expositions vpon the Texts of Fathers sometimes to abridge sometimes to inlarge the Tomes of Councells and to purge and corrade Ecclesiasticall writers old and new and yet being vnable to preuaile by all the former they are forced in many cases to presse the bare authoritie of the Pope and his adheres to warrant their Tradition IESVITS 3d. Argument My third proofe I ground vpon a principle most certaine and set downe by your most gratious Maiestie That the Roman Church was once the Mother Church and consequently the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further than it can be prooued that she departed from her selfe that is from the Mother and originall Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles ANSWER This principle whereupon you ground your third Argument is neither true in it selfe nor yet confessed by his excellent Maiestie in the place whereunto you referre vs His Maiestie affirmeth That wee ought not to depart from the Church of Rome in Doctrine or Ceremonie further than she had departed from her selfe in her best estate and from Christ her head This sentence of our most religious King is consequent vpon S. Pauls doctrine Rom. 12. 18. Rom. 14. 13. and the same is consonant to Charitie and Reason and argueth a mind desirous of Concord and Peace and averse from vnnecessarie Innouations And as this moderation is commendable in all men so it is most agreeable to him that is a Father of peace whose word is Beati Pacifici But whereas you incroach vpon his Maiesties speech adding a glosse which is not warranted by the Text and infer a conclusion which the premises affoord not you are herein iniurious both to the Author you alleage and to the Truth The Roman was neuer by diuine institution the Mother Church in regard of all Christians neither Vniuersall in respect of an absolute command and iurisdiction ouer all particular Churches as is challenged by the Canon Dist. 12. c. 1. Non decet c. But it was once a Mother Church as the Seas of Patriarches are stiled Mother-Churches or a Mother-Church respectiuely to such people and nations as were conuerted by her preaching and other Churches were stiled with that title as well as the Roman Theoderet speaking of the Church of Hierusalem saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We make knowne vnto you that the most reuerend and godly Cyrill is made Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of all Churches The Roman Church once a Metropolitan or patriarchall Mother Church since the daies of Hildebrand is suspected to be the Mother spoken of Apoc. 17. 5. and some of your owne part haue said that in these latter times Nontam se matrem exhibet quam Noueream she behaueth her selfe more like a stepdame than a naturall mother her brests haue beene verie drie for sundrie ages past and she depriued her children of a principall portion of the food of life and in steed of milke deliuered them water mixt with chaulke Her publicke readings and seruice were in an vnknowne tongue the holy Scriptures were closed vp that people might not cast their eies vpon them fabulous legends were read and preached in steed of Gods word and hereby it came to passe as some of their owne Authors say That the greater number of people vnderstood no more concerning God and things diuine than Infidels or Heathen people IESVIT But she cannot be prooued to haue changed her Doctrine since the Apostles by any monuments of Historie or Antiquitie yea the contrarie in my iudgement may be most euidently prooued in this sort ANSVVER If by monuments of Historie and Antiquitie be vnderstood Human or Ecclesiasticall Monuments it is inconsequent to inferre that the present Roman Church hath not changed her doctrine since the Apostles although this could not be demonstrated by monuments of Historie c. for there remaineth a more firme and demonstratiue Argument to prooue this to wit the holy Scripture and if the present doctrine of the Roman Church disagree with the Scripture then it is changed from that which it was antiently The rule by which we must trie doctrines is the word of God and not humane Historie and the word of God is true and abideth for euer whereas humane Historie is fallible contingent and corruptible 1. It is not absolutely necessarie that humane Histories of all matters should be composed and the world continued many ages without any written Historie Secondly When the same are written they cause onely humane Faith Thirdly they may totally perish and be suppressed or corrupted by the enemies of Truth Fourthly Historie may be repugnant to Historie and that which is affirmed by some may be contradicted or contrauerted by others and the largenesse and difficultie of the Monuments of Antiquitie may be such as that few people can be able to read and examine them and if they which read and compare them be opposite in iudgement each to other the greater part of people shall be perplexed and cannot know how to resolue themselues Our Aduersaries teach vs That the principall Monuments of Antiquitie to wit the ancient Councels haue not beene faithfully preserued Many things supposititious haue beene added to the workes of the Antient and bastardly Bookes and Sentences passe vnder the titles of Fathers Our Aduersaries being a party whose doctrine is to be examined according to their owne challenge by Monuments of Antiquitie haue presumed to correct purge and alter such Records Lastly when the testimonie of Historians repugnant to their present Tenet is produced against Papals they despise and reiect them to wit Eusebius Socrates Sozomene c. Baronius a new vpstart censureth all Historians Pighius after one thousand yeares controls the testimonie of generall Councels and it is a rule among them that the antient Fathers then much lesse Histories are not to be 〈◊〉 any 〈◊〉 than they 〈◊〉 the keyes and 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 Church IESVIT The Doctrines that were for diuers ages vniuersally receiued in the Christian Church and no time of their beginning is assigneable
sufficiently 〈◊〉 ANSVVER Polydores words are Touching the beginning of Images wee haue treated before now here we will speake of their worship which not onely men of contrarie Religion but as Saint Hierom witnesseth almost all the antient holy Fathers condemned for feare of Idolatrie c. The Obiectour saith That this place is falsified and his reason is Polydore speaketh of the Fathers of the Old Testament to wit of Moses Daniel Ieremie and the Prophets and he saith That they condemned worship of Images because Christ was not as then incarnate c. But this is not all that Polydore speaketh for among those Fathers hee placeth Gregorie the Great writing to Serenus And although Christ was not made man in the dayes of the Prophets yet he had appeared in the similitude of man and Abraham Moses Elias and the Prophets being men their Pictures might haue beene worshipped if Adoration of Images had beene lawfull And besides Polydore Cassander and many other Pontificians affirme that the antient Fathers in the Primatiue Church abhorred or at least abstained from the hauing and worshipping of Images which is also confirmed by their Testimonies IESVIT Neither can our Aduersarie bring any cleare Testimonie of Antiquitie against this custome For the Decree of the councell of Eliberis that no Picture should be made in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored bee painted in walles which the Minister much vrgeth clearely signifieth the contrarie For may not Images painted on Tables be in Churches and yet neither made in the Church nor painted on walls which kinde of Images this Councell doth not forbid And why doth the Councell forbid Images to be made in the Church as pertinent to the fabrike thereof 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 Councell thought it vnworthy of their dignitie they should bee made on walls where they may easily be defaced and deformed and by persecutors for that Councell was held in time of persecution abused ANSWER No testimonies can be so cleere which Sophisters will not labour to peruert and elude Otherwise what is clearer against Image worship than the words of the Councell of Elliberis and Epiphanius It is lost labour to contest with men Qui sola pertinacia pugnaces neruos contra perspicuam veritatem intendunt as Saint Augustine speaketh which vpon sole pertinacie bend their vttermost force to gainesay perspicous veritie First the Councell of Elliberis is so cleere against Image worship that many Pontificians of great note acknowledge the same and therupon condemne or eleuate the authoritie of that Councell Secondly If that Councell forbad the being of Images in Churches then it did much more hold the worship of them to be vnlawfull but the beginning of the Canon apparently shewes that Placuit in Ecclesijs picturas esse non debere It 〈◊〉 vs of the Councell that Pictures may not be in Churches IESVIT He doth also much insist vpon Epiphanius but relates according to his fashion both his fact and words vnsincerely Epiphanius saith he finding an Image painted on a cloath hanging in a Church rent it do wne and said it was against the authority of the Scriptures that any image should be in the Church Thus he vnsincerely as I said not expressing what kind of Image that was that Epiphanius in peeces for Epiphanius saith Cum iuuenissem Imaginem hominis pendentem in Ecclesia tanquam Christi aut alicuius Sancti nescio enim cuius erat When I bad found an Image of a man hanging in the Church as of Christ or of some Saint for I know not of whom the image was Epiphanius doth by this relation more than insinuate that this was the Image of some prophane man hanging in the Church as if it had beene a sacred image of Christ or some Saint which is gathered by this reason When I saw saith he against the authoritie of Scriptures the image of a man hanging in the Church not absolutely any image as Mr. White citeth him for euen by Gods expresse command Images were placed in the Temple but the image of a man Why doth Epiphanius so much vrge the impietie of the fact in regard that it was the image of a man but that he vnderstood by the word Man a meere ordinarie prophane man not a blessed Saint For certainely it might seeme more against the authoritie of Scriptures to make and set vp in Churches the image of God than the image of holy men and the image of Christ according to his Godhead than as he is man so that there was no cause why Epiph. should put so much Emphasis in the word Man had he not vnderstood a prophane man For some Christians in those dayes being newly conuerted from Paganisme and so reteyning some relikes thereof did out of affection vnto their deceased friends and parents vse to paint their images and offer vnto them oblations of Frankincense and other the like heathenish honours specially on their Anniuersary dayes vpon their Sepulchre These men S. Augustine reprehends and not the worshippers of Saints Images vnder the title of Sepulchrorum picturarum Adoratores who to the Ghosts of their parents defunct did though Christians offer that heathenish worship which the Poet exhorteth vnto Non pigeat tumulis animas excire paternis Paucaque in extructos mittere thura rogos Parua petunt manes ANSVVER This place of Epiphanius is a thorne in the Papists sides and they are so distracted about the clearing of it that Vasques saith It is an irkesome thing to report what each of them hath spoken Some of them reiect the Epistle saying that it was a counterfeit worke But this opinion is reprooued and confuted by the learned of their owne part and what can be more improbable than that Saint Hierome would translate a counterfeit worke Others say that Epiphanius did this in a preposterous zeale Ferdinandus Velosillus or Velosius as Posseuine calleth him saith as followeth Epiphanius against the Colliridian haeresie inueigheth bitterly against Statues and Images of men and against their worship And againe in his Epistle to Iohn Bishop of Hierusalem he taunteth them currishly or despitefully dente canino mordet perhaps this man is excuseable by reason of ignorance and because he wrot against Idolaters wherefore he is not ranked among Haeretikes Others affirme that Epiphanius did this because of the abuse of superstitious people committed about that Picture Others say he did thus because the contrarie was not as then defined by the Church But Vasques himselfe and before him Marianus Victorius insist vpon this poore shift which our Aduersarie followeth in this place to wit that this vale or curtaine which Epiphanius defaced and rent asunder contayned an Image or Picture of some prophane man hanging in the Church as if
is bread of which foure sences sight feeling smell tast giue in euidence as of bread no lesse verily than any other so farre as they can discerne and yet so potent is the Word and doctrine of the Church grounded on generall Councells declaring the word of God for Transubstantiation as Catholikes denying their sences beleeue assuredly that what seemeth bread is not bread but the true body of our Sauiour vnder the formes and accidents of bread Now can any man with any shew of the least probabilitie in the world thinke that it is difficile for this Church to persuade her children that the Image of Christ is not a liuing thing or bath any Godhead or liuing diuine power lodged in it as plaine Scriptures shew and generall Catholike Councells particularly the Tridentine and Nicene define which doctrine neither reason nor sence can dislike or shall the sole similitude of members correspondent vnto humane liuing members which Images haue so much preuaile in Catholike minds so to bow downe their thoughts to base Idolatrie as to thinke a stocke or stone to be God and that the Church shall not be able by teaching to erect them to a more high and diuine apprehension being able to make them firmely beleeue a consecrated Hoast is not really bread against the Iudgement that they would otherwise frame vpon most notorious euidencie of sence ANSVVER This passage is wasted in magnifying the power which the Roman Church hath in preseruing her adheres from the infection of superstition in worshipping Images The argument vsed by the Idolist to this purpose is The Roman Church performeth that which is more difficile to wit it persuadeth people contrarie to the experience of all their senses to beleeue that consecrate bread is not bread but the true body of Christ vnder the formes and accidents of bread Therefore it is able to persuade people that the Images which they adore are not very God or that any diuinitie or diuine vertue resides in them I answer that it is not more difficile to persuade some people to beleeue transubstantiation than to rectifie their iudgement in adoration of Images for mans nature being of it selfe through inbred corruption prone to beleeue lies and the members of Antichrist hauing a speciall curse of God vpon them 2. Thes. 2. 10 11. no maruell if they credit false doctrine although it be most absurd But they which beleeue and obey their Masters when they teach lyes doe not alwayes follow their directions if they instruct them in truth Neither are such people free from scandall iustly taken if they conceiue not images to be Gods or indued with diuine vertue residing in them for without such imagination they performe an vnlawfull worship neuer instituted but alwayes condemned by the Holy Ghost And this alone without further abuses is sufficient to condeme the doctrine and practise of the Romane Church IESVIT The Protestant Church on the other side may seeme to haue no great vigor by preachings to persuade common people against the errour of the Anthropomorphits seeing their principle is That a world of Preachers is not to bee beleeued against the euident Scripture Yea that a common ordinarie man by Scripture may oppose as great and a greater Church than is the whole Protestant Which principle being laid how will they conuince people that that God is a pure Spirit whom the Scripture doth so perpetually set forth as hauing humane members I may conclude therefore that their translating of Scripture into the vulgar languages breedes more danger vnto common people than our making of Images ANSWER The Iesuit is fallen vpon a Paradoxe affirming that there is more danger for Protestants to be mislead by reading Scriptures translated into the errour of the Humaniformians than the Papists to be seduced by images And his reason is because Protestant Ministers cannot by preaching the contrarie doctrine persuade people to desist from any errour which seemes to them agreeable to any literall text of holy Scripture for one of their owne principles is That a world of Preachers is not to be beleeued against euident Scripture c. and he citeth Mr. Iohn White in his Way pag. 59. I perceiue it is impossible for Papists to deale sincerely Mr. Iohn White affirmeth not that euery priuate person or that any companie of people whatsoeuer are to be credited vpon the sole allegation of a text of Scripture expounded as the outward letter soundeth for we know that sometimes the letter killeth and Saint Augustines rule concerning Scriptures exposition is neither strange nor vnpractised by vs but Mr. Iohn Whites doctrine is That if foure hundred Baalites or a whole Councell of Pharisees or Errants deliuer vntruths one Micajah one Stephen one Athanasius in whose mouth is fouud the word of Truth although the persons seeme neuer so priuate must be preferred before them which teach lyes or doctrine repugnant to holy Scripture truely expounded IESVIT But they will say the translation of Scripture into vulgar languages is commanded in the Scripture and the Apostles and Apostolicall Church practised it Whereas wee cannot prooue by Scripture that the Apostles did warrant or practise the setting vp of Images This they say with great confidence But what substantiall proofe is of this their saying I could neuer reade or heare The testimonies they bring in this behalfe Search the Scriptures Let his word dwell plentifully among you c. are insufficient to prooue a direct and expresse precept or practise of translating Scriptures into the vulgar tongue ANSWER Wee affirme with great confidence both that the reading of holy Scripture by Lay people which must needes imply Translation of them is a Diuine Ordinance and that Image worship was neither warranted by the Apostles nor practised by the Primatiue Church succeeding the Apostles Neither doe wee alledge onely those Sentences of holy Scripture Iohn 5. 39. Collos. 3. 16. which the Iesuit thinkes himselfe able to elude by subtile distinctions as the Arrians in times past eluded the Text of Saint Iohn Cap. 10.30 But we cite also the Precept of God giuen to the Church before Christ his comming and the perpetuall practise of the godly in the Old and New Testament and the vehement exhortations of the Primatiue Fathers exhorting Lay people to the reading and meditation of holy Scripture and magnifying the fruit and benefit arising from thence The Eunuch is commended for reading holy Scripture Acts 8. 28. The Baereans are called Noble by the holy Ghost for searching the holy Scriptures Acts 17. 11. Hee is called Blessed which readeth and heareth Apoc. 1. 3. The Galathians read the Scripture Gal. 4.21 The Ephesians Cap. 3.4 The Collossians Cap. 4. 16. The Thessalonians 1. Thes. 5.27 The Fathers are so plentifull in this Argument as I haue elsewhere shewed that it would astonish any man who hath read them to behold such impudencie in Papists as to denie this Practise to haue beene Primatiue and
in the bodies of St. Peter and the three yong men St. Luke c. 4.30 affirmeth not that our Sauiours bodie was inuisible but that he passed thorow the midst of the people and yet admitting that he was then inuisible the cause might be in the peoples eyes Luke 24. 16. or in the Aire and not in his bodie Genes 19. 11. Neither is actuall grauitie or actuall combustibilitie or visibilitie so inseparable from a bodie as circumscription and distinction of parts Lastly For a bodie to bee resplendent and to shine as the Sunne in glorie is not repugnant to the nature of the bodie but is of the perfection and happinesse thereof Matth. 13. 43. But that an indiuiduall bodie may bee in many places at once and in diuers formes and according to diuers actions and haue no reference to place nor any properties inward or outward of a true bodie is not Diuine veritie but an audacious fiction or rather an incongruous dreame and contradictorie Chymera But that is verified in this Question of the Romists which Ireneus saith Multa male oportet interpretari eos qui vnum non volunt rectè intelligere They are compelled to expound many things amisse which will not vnderstand one thing aright IESVIT § 2. Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of the Reall Presence THis J prooue That belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence which being denied and taken away the words of Christ This is my Bodie cannot be true taken in the literall sence in which sence they are to be taken as hath beene shewed But without granting Transubstantiation the words of Christ cannot be true taken in the literall sence Ergo Transubstantiation belongs to the substance of this Mysterie of the reall Presence The Minor is prooued Because these words This is my Bodie signifie that the thing the Priest holds in his hand is truely really and substantially the bodie of Christ for in this Proposition This is my Bodie the Verb est signifies a coniunction betweene this in the Priests hand and the bodie of Christ and being a Verb substantiue taken in his proper signification it signifies a substantiall Identitie betweene this in the Priests hands and the bodie of Christ. But this in the Priests hands being before Consecration bread a thing substantially distinct from the bodie of Christ cannot by consecration bee made substantially the bodie of Christ as the Fathers teach it is without some substantiall alteration or change and what other substantiall change can make bread to become truely the bodie of Christ beside substantiall conuersion of the same into his Bodie ANSVVER You cannot demonstrate that our Sauiours words must be expounded literally for the Instance of the cup Luke 22.20 besides other Arguments choakes you and therefore the mayne ground of your Doctrine being sandie the Arguments inferred vpon the same are infirme The waight of the first Argument lyeth in this Proposition Our Sauiours words cannot bee expounded literally vnlesse the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation bee granted I answere First if Transubstantiation were admitted the words of Christ This is my bodie This Cup is the New Testament in my blood cannot bee litterall for where there is any figure or trope the speech is not literall but in the Sacramentall words there is some figure or trope by our Aduersaries confession Secondly If the said words be vnderstood litterally then the bodie of Christ is properly broken and his blood properly shed in the Eucharist for Saint Paul saith This is my bodie which is broken for you 1. Cor. 11.24 Saint Luke This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you But the bodie of Christ is not properly broken nor his blood properly shed in the holy Eucharist Thirdly It is an improper speech to say This is my bodie that is the thing contained vnder these formes is by conuersion and substantiall Transmutation my bodie but Papists maintaining Transubstantiation expound Christs words in this or in some other manner whereby they depart from the proprietie of the letter therefore in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation they depart from the letter of the words and consequently they make the same figuratiue IESVIT But some may obiect That as a man shewing a leather purse full of gold may truely say this is gold or a paper wrapt vp full of siluer may say this is siluer so the bodie of Christ being vnder consecrated bread wee may truely say This is the bodie of Christ though the substance of bread remaine ANSWER Many famous scholemen teach that the doctrine of Consubstantiation to wit such a presence as maintaineth the substance of Bread and Wine to remaine together with the Bodie and Bloud of Christ is in it selfe more probable and were rather to be followed than the doctrine of Transubstantiation but onely because of the contrarie definition of the Romane Church and some of these Doctors hold that the opinion of Transubstantiation is not verie antient And Card. Caietan affirmeth that secluding the authoritie of the Roman Church there is nothing in the Scripture which may compell one to vnderstand the words properly IESVIT I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordained by vse to containe other substances then shewing the substance that containes we may signifie the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to containe other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passes from the consideration of the substances containing to thinke of the thing contained therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordained to containe others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifies immediately the substance contained in them For example one puts a peece of gold in an apple and shewing it cries this is gold in rigor of speech he sayes not true because the sence of his word is that the thing demonstrated immediately by the formes and accidents of that apple is gold Yea put the case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to containe any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise hee had put secretly into it a peece of gold because when the paper is shewed displaied and not as containing something in it and yet is tearmed gold the proper sence of that speech is that the substance immediatly contained vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents than those that vsually accompanie the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my Bodie being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to containe an humane bodie it cannot be vnderstood litterally but of the subiect immediately contained vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of Bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediately vnder the accidents
of Bread which was once substantially Bread cannot become substantially the bodie of Christ except it bee substantially conuerted into his bodie or personally assumed by the same bodie And seeing this second manner of vnion betweene Bread and Christs Bodie is impossible and reiected by Protestants as well as by Catholickes Wee may conclude that the mysterie of Christs reall presence cannot be beleeued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation specially seeing our Sauiour did not say here is my Bodie which speech may be verefyed by the presence of his Bodie locally within the Bread but This is my Bodie which imports that not onely his Bodie is truely and substantially present but also that it is the substance contained immediately vnder the accidents of Bread ANSWER First if a substance be either by nature humane Custome or diuine Ordination appointed to containe another substance then demonstrating the externall substance which containes we may signifie the hidden substance contained But according to that Tenet which maintaineth Consubstantiation the substance of bread is by diuine Ordination appointed to containe the substance of Christs bodie therefore demonstrating by words the substance of bread one may signifie the hidden substance which is Christs bodie Secondly Scotus Durand and Paludanus affirme that although the substance of Bread remaine yet because the substance of Christs bodie is also present it might truely and properly be said by our Sauiour This is my Bodie Now if such profound Scholemen haue weighed the Iesuits obiection do find the same light the propugnors of Consubstantiation haue smal reason to regard it Thirdly the former obiection is nothing to vs which maintaine a true mysticall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist and refuse both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation for we beleeue and are able to demonstrate that our Sauiours words are figuratiue in part and yet the true Bodie and Bloud of Christ are really and verely communicated according to the manner formerly declared pag. 405. IESVIT Jf any man say that by this Argument it appeares that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the words of the Jnstitution subtilly deduced and so may perchance bee numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answer That the consequence 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 by Scripture but by subtile deduction inferred from the mysterie which Scripture and Tradition deliuers Notwithstanding because these subtile deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the foresaid mysterie they cannot be denied without preiudice of Faith 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 denied by them that will be perfect beleeuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertaine to the proper sence of Christ his words and substance of the mysterie ANSVVER I know at whom you glance when you say inter scita Scholae but your solution from the Doctrine of Incarnation is not leuell to the scope for illations are of two sorts some are immediate formall necessarie euident and illustrious to wit Christ Iesus is a true and perfect man therefore he hath an humane will some are obscure contingent remote and sophisticall to wit Christ said This is my bodie Ergo the consecrate host is Christs substantiall bodie by Transubstantiation Christ said Do this in remembrance of me Ergo he made his Disciples sacrificing Priests That which is deriued from Scripture the first way is Doctrine of Faith that which is inferred the other way may be loose vncertaine infirme and many times ridiculous and apparantly false Now let me intreate you vntill you prooue your deduction necessarie to ranke your Popish Masse and Transubstantiation among this latter kind of deriuatiue Articles Neither can the swelling vsurpation of Romish Prelates which you stile the Church make euery subtile speculation of Schoolemen and nice figment of humane wisedome an Article of Christian Faith any more than a bragging 〈◊〉 can by outfacing conuert copper into gold for Articles of Faith come downe from heauen by the holy Ghost and are such onely from their forme and originall causes As for your Romane Synode of Pope Nicholas and your Laterane vnder Innocent the third These were your owne Idols the definitions that passed in them were the breath of the Popes nostrils and therefore why are you so fantasticall as to enammell them with the title and authoritie of the Catholicke Church And in one of these conuenticles your Pope hath so rudely and grossely determined the Question of Reall presence that Romists themselues are now ashamed and forced to Glosses and strained Expositions to metamorphise and new mould those vndigested crudities IESVIT §. 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers IT is certaine the Fathers acknowledge a Transmutation of bread into the Bodie of Christ and that they meant Transubstantiation that is not onely a mysticall and significatiue but also a reall and substantiall change appeares by these fiue Circumstances of their Doctrine in this point ANSWER THat we may rightly vnderstand the testimonies of Fathers alleadged in this question wee are in the first place to examine what transubstantiation is according to Papalls The Trident Councell saith It is a conuersion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of Christs body and bloud wrought by the words of consecration First by the whole substance they vnderstand the whole substantiall matter and forme Secondly they affirme that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is destroyed or ceaseth to be Thirdly the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the accidentall shapes of Bread and Wine Fourthly by the force of the words of consecration the substance of Bread and Wine ceasing the body and blood of Christ acquire a new manner of being vnder the externall formes differing from his being in heauen Fiftly the shapes and accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without any materiall subiect of inherencie and affect the senses and nourish in like manner as formerly they did This doctrine of Popish Transubstantiation is new according to the iudgement of many learned Schoolemen and the Primitiue Fathers neuer taught the same for many of them maintaine expresly That the substance of Bread and Wine remaine and none of them affirme either that the substance of Christs body and bloud are placed vnder the naked formes and shapes of Bread and Wine or that the Accidents haue no materiall subiect of inherencie or that the body and bloud of Christ acquire a new being in the Sacrament differing from that which they had
the matter by Scripture onely that Protestants may seeme to haue the vpper hand yet Charitie will mooue this Question Whether the Testimonies and Arguments they bring from Scripture are so vndeniably cleare and so vnauoidably strong that no answere or euasion may bee found but the Romane Church must bee refused notwithstanding so much discord and dissention so much inconstancie and incertainetie about Religion which as reason prooueth must and as experience sheweth doth thereupon ensue ANSWER First Protestants doe not onely bring Arguments and Testimonies of Scripture against the Roman faith but also the testimonie of Antiquitie and all other grounds of veritie Secondly their arguments from Scripture are such as cannot be auoided but onely by Sophistrie and in this manner the very arguments of Christ for the resurrection Matth. 22. 32. and the testimonies which Councells and Fathers vse 〈◊〉 Arrians Pelagians and sundry other Heretikes may receiue appearing and seeming solutions Thirdly if the Scripture it selfe and the doctrine of the Primitiue Church with other grounds of learning cannot as our Aduersarie obiecteth de facto or presupposing the malice of some persons 〈◊〉 all discord and inconstancie of Religion much lesse can the determination of the Roman Church effect this For if men will not regard Moses and the Prophets c. If an Angell come from heauen or if one rise from the dead they may still cauill and refuse to beleeue But for the externall repressing of petulant Spirits a free and lawfull Councell were to be desired and a disposition of heart in Christian Princes and in other worthy members of the Church to submit themselues to a Tryall by the holy Scripture and the doctrine of the Primitiue Church and vpon the same to conclude a common Peace in Christianitie and to represse by Discipline and Authoritie factious and turbulent Incendiaries either of the Romish or Protestant part IESVIT For if you cast away the Roman Church and her authoritie no Church is left in the World that can with reason or dares for shame challenge to be infallible in her definitions and if such a Church be wanting What meanes is left either to keepe the learned certainly in peace or to giue vnto the ignorant assurance what is the Doctrine of saluation the Apostles first preached ANSWER You doe well to name Daring and 〈◊〉 for if the Papall faction had not passed all shame they had not to their vsurpations of iurisdiction added the forgerie and vaunt of absolute intallibilitie a priuiledge which I make no doubt no Pope without or with his Papall Councells euer in his inward conscience thought himselfe to haue But as for Ecclesiasticke decisions and determinations we say that although the absolute authoritie of the Roman Church be refused and although no other Church in the world can truely challenge absolute infallibilitie of iudgement but conditionall onely or restrictiue so farre as it propoundeth and confirmeth doctrine out of the Sacred Scriptures yet the learned may be preserued in peace and the ignorant in assurance of veritie First The Holy Ghost hath already determined all questions of faith necessary for the Church to vnderstand by his owne immediate decisiue voice deliuered in Sacred Scripture expresly or deriuatiuely Secondly if any other question arise touching History matter of Fact naturall or morall Veritie Ceremonies and externall Policie c. the same may bee sufficiently decided by Christian prudence working vpon the principles of Reason humane Historie rules of Art and by the examples of former times and principally by the generall rules of holy Scripture and many questions are raysed by the curiositie and subtletie of men wherein if the Church be ignorant and vnresolued there ensueth no preiudice in respect of faith Thirdly if contentious persons lust to continue such the determination of the Roman Church or Councell cannot quell or stifle contention but onely as an humane Iudge and by the same authoritie with other Churches It is also remarkeable that the definitions of the Roman Church it selfe are vncertaine ambiguous mutable and such as Defacto leaue matter of strife among those persons which submit themselues to the resolution thereof The Dominicans and Iesuits contend egerly at this day concerning the sence and Exposition of the Trent Councell in the question of Grace and Free-will Suares and Vasques two prime Iesuits are diuided about the sence of that Councell in the matter of Merit and Satisfaction the like differences are found among many moderne Schoolemen touching the manner of worshipping Images and concerning the presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist whether the same be there by adduction or production wherein Bellarmine holdeth the first and Suares the latter opinion And if our Aduersarie eleuate these dissentions pretending them to be small surely they are as waightie as the differences amongst Protestants And lastly whatsoeuer Romists pretend to the contrarie the transcendent Authority of Popes is no sufficient or Soueraigne means to preserue vnitie either of faith or charitie in the Christian world for when the Papacie was most predominant the Christian world was distracted with contentions about Religion to wit between the Romans Graecians and other Churches and it was imbroyled with bloudy wars betweene Popes and other Princes and Emperours and the Roman See it selfe was rant into Factions by occasion of Antipopes Neither was the transcendent authority of the Roman Church any effectuall meanes to promote common vnitie but the Ambition and Oppression thereof was a perpetuall Seminarie and incentiue of mischiefe and discord therefore the meanes for his most excellent Maiestie to cause vnitie in the Christian world is not the aduancing of Papall Supremacie which is a firebrand of contention but the maintaining of the Supreame authoritie of the Scripture and the procuring if it might be of a free and lawfull Councell wherein the word of Christ may haue Preheminence and wherein the Pope may be a Subiect as well as other Pastours IESVIT A Church fallible in her teaching is by the learned to be trusted no further than they doe see her Doctrine consonant vnto Scripture and so they may neglect her Iudgement when they seeme to haue euidences of Scripture against her and if this libertie of Contradiction be granted What hope of vnitie remaines when a priuate man may wrangle eternally with the whole Church and neuer be conuinced apparently of teaching against the Scriptures whereof we haue too many examples ANSWER A Church fallible in Iudgement is to be trusted when it confirmeth her doctrine by the word of God which is an infallible witnesse And although a Church be subiect to possibilitie of Errour and although the doctrine thereof wanting Diuine proofe is not to be receiued of the learned as matter of Faith yet no libertie of contesting the lawfull authoritie of the same when it confirmeth her sayings by Gods word is hereby permitted to contentious Spirits and it is more probable That Pastors of the
Church assembled in Gods feare and not factiously for their owne ends shall iudge aright than Popes which referre all things to their owne worldly ends Also it is one thing to contradict a Church defining and speaking of it selfe and another when it deliuereth the doctrine of Christ. Now whensoeuer the preaching of the Church is according to the rule of holy Scripture the voice thereof is the voice of Christ and all people learned and vnlearned are bound to heare and obey the same IESVIT If wetake out of the world a Church infallible whence shall ignorant men learne which is the Doctrine of saluation the Apostles deliuered It is as euident as the Sunne shining at noone day and the euidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge That the Controuersies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them so that nothing remaines for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the societies of men in the world is the Church of the liuing God the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Directions rest in her Iudgement ANSWER If the rule be infallible and the Preaching of Pastours according to that rule ignorant persons by the assistance of Grace may learne the doctrine of saluation from their teaching without the least thought or reference more to the Romane Church than to any other Church for although Saint Augustine and Saint Cyprian were subiect to errour yet the vnlearned people of Hippo and Carthage receiued right Faith by their Ministerie with assurance that the same descended from the Apostles And it is as euident as the Sunne shining that the Word of Christ is the sole authenticall ground of Faith and the onely infallible rule to decide Controuersies and the Pastours of other Churches if they vse the meanes and haue sufficient knowledge and the assistance of ordinarie Grace may bee as infallible in their Doctrine as Romane Prelates And although vnlearned people depend vpon their Pastours like sicke men vpon their Physitions yet where they inioy the free vse of the holy Scripture as in antient times all people did and if they be carefull of their owne saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by his grace in such sort as that they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 And if they be distracted in smaller points by the dissentions of Teachers their Errour in this case is excuseable But howsoeuer the Roman Church can be no greater stay to them than other Churches but onely by leading them to a blind obedience like as Pagans are led in another kind Dr. Fields testimonie concerning the necessitie of learning which is the true Church the ground and Pillar of Truth c. serueth not to prooue That the definition of any moderne Church is absolutely and vniuersally the rule of Faith and supreame Iudge of all Controuersies or free from all Errour for this learned Diuine speaketh of the Catholike Church in generall as it containes the holy Apostles and those which succeeded them in all ages in the teaching of the doctrine which they deliuered to the world And concerning the present Church he ascribeth no more vnto it but to be a manuduction and guider to sauing veritie confirmed and grounded vpon the holy Scripture neither maketh he the authoritie and definition thereof absolute but dependant vpon the word of God IESVIT Jf there be no Church besides the Roman in the world that can with any colour pretend infallibilitie of Iudgement Jf the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controuersie be resolued in faith and therefore must perish eternally except they find a Church that is an infallible Mistresse of truth in whose iudgement they may securely rest certainely those that haue bowells of charitie will accept of any probable answer vnto Protestants Obiections and accusations rather than discredit the authoritie of so necessarie a Church which being discredited no Church remaines in the world of credit sufficient to sustaine the waight of Christian that is infallible beleefe ANSWER Vnlearned people must relye vpon the Ministerie of some moderne Church not as a ground and rule of their faith but as an helper of their faith and although the Ministerie of the Church whereupon they depend is not absolutely infallible or free from Errour yet their saluation is not by this meanes impeached neither doe they perish eternally For it is not necessarie That a Church subiect to errour as Hippo Carthage Lions c. in the dayes of S. Augustine S. Cyprian S. Ireneus shall at all times actually erre or grieuously erre at any time and when it deliuereth the doctrine of holy Scripture it is herein free from errour and Christian people by comparing the doctrine thereof with the Scripture may certainely know that it erreth not Act. 17. 11. And touching the Roman Church Vpon what grounds are Christian people able to know by assurance of faith That the doctrine thereof is more infallible than the doctrine of other Churches But if Rome is Babylon described Reuelat. ca. 14. 8. 17 5. 18. 2. as weightie motiues induce some men to thinke then it is most safe for people to renounce the Communion of this Church as it now beleeueth and to liue in the fellowship of that Church which groundeth her faith on holy Scripture and not vpon the traditions of men Apoc. 18.4 IESVIT What amiserie will it be if it fall out as it is most likely it will fall out That at the day of Iudgement the most part of English Protestants be found to haue beleeued points of Doctrine necessarie to saluation not out of their owne certaine skill in Scripture as they should by the principles of their Religion but vpon the credit of the Church that teachech them which doth acknowledge her selfe to be no sufficient stay of assured beleefe for without question men cannot be saued who although they beleeued the truth yet beleeued it vpon a deceiueable ground and consequently by humane and fallible persuasion and not as need is by a diuine most certaine beleefe grouuded vpon aninfallible foundation which cannot be had without an infallible Church ANSWER What a miserie will it be if it fall out as it is certaine it will That at the day of Iudgement the greatest part of English Romists be found to haue renounced the expresse and manifest word of Christ and the sincere faith of the Primitiue Church and in stead thereof to haue imbraced lying vanities and the deceiueable Traditions of the man of finne the sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped 2. Thes. 2 3 4. For out of all doubt men cannot be saued
to be concluded out of it And since you are pleased before to passe from the Church of England to all Protestants you may know for your comfort that all Protestants agree most strongly in this That the Scripture is sufficient to saluation and containes in it all things necessarie to it The Fathers are plaine the Schoolemen not strangers in it And haue not wee reason then to account it as it is The Foundation of our Faith And Stapleton himselfe though an angrie Opposite confesses That the Scripture is in some sort the Foundation of Faith that is in the nature of Testimonie and in the matter or thing to be beleeued And if the Scripture be the Foundation to which wee are to goe for Witnesse if there be doubt about the Faith and in which we are to find the thing that is to be beleeued as necessarie in the Faith we neuer did nor neuer will refute any Tradition that is Vniuersall and Apostolike for the better exposition of the Scripture nor any definition of the Church in which she goes to the Scripture for what shee teaches and thrusts nothing as fundamentall in the Faith vpon the world but in what the Scripture is Materia Credendorum the substance of that which is to be beleeued whether immediately and expressely in words or more remotely till a cleare and full deduction draw it out F. I asked How he knew Scripture to be Scripture and in particular Genesis Exodus c. These are beleeued to be Scripture yet not prooued out of any place of Scripture The B. said That the Bookes of Scripture are Principles to be supposed and needed not to be prooued B. I did neuer loue too curious a search into that which might put a man into a Wheele and circle him so long betweene proouing Scripture by Tradition and Tradition by Scripture till the Deuill find a meanes to dispute him into Infidelitie and make him beleeue neither I hope this is no part of your meaning yet I doubt this Question How doe you know Scripture to be Scripture hath done more harme than you will be euer able to helpe by Tradition But I must follow that way which you draw me And because it is so much insisted vpon by you and is it selfe a matter of such consequence I will sift it a little further Many men labouring to settle this great Principle in Diuinitie haue vsed diuers meanes to prooue it All haue not gone the same way nor all the right way You cannot be right that resolue Faith of the Scriptures being the Word of God into onely Tradition for onely and no other proofe are equall To prooue the Scripture therefore so called by way of Excellence to be the Word of God first some flye to the Testimonie and Witnesse of the Church and her Tradition which constantly beleeues and vnanimously deliuers it secondly some to the Light and the Testimonie which the Scripture giues to it selfe with other internall proofes which are obserued in it and to be found in no other Writing whatsoeuer thirdly some to the Testimonie of the Holy Ghost which cleares vp the Light that is in Scripture and seales this Faith to the soules of men that it is Gods Word fourthly All that haue not imbrutished themselues and sunke below their Species and order of Nature giue euen Naturall Reason leaue to come in and make some proofe and giue some approbation vpon the weighing and the consideration of other Arguments 1. For the first The Tradition of the Church taken and considered alone it is so farre from being the onely that it cannot be a sufficient proofe to beleeue by Diuine Faith That Scripture is the Word of God for that which is a full and sufficient proofe is able of it selfe to settle the soule of man concerning it Now the Tradition of the Church is not able to doe this for it may be further asked Why he should beleeue the Churches Tradition And if it be answered Because the Church is infallibly gouerned by the Holy Ghost it may yet be demanded How that may appeare And if this be demanded either you must say you haue it by speciall Reuelation which is the priuate Spirit you obiect to other men or else you must attempt to prooue it by Scripture as all of you doe And that very offer is sufficient acknowledgement that the Scripture is a higher proofe than the Churches Tradition which in your owne grounds is or may be questionable till you come thither Againe if the Voice of the Church saying The Bookes of Scripture commonly receiued are the Word of God be the formall Obiect of Faith vpon which alone and absolutely and lastly I may resolue my selfe then euerie man not onely may but ought to resolue his Faith into the Voice or Tradition of the Church for euerie man is bound to rest vpon the proper and formall Obiect of the Faith But nothing can be more euident than this That a man ought not to resolue his Faith of this Principle into the Testimonie of the Church therefore neither is that Testimonie or Tradition the formall Obiect of Faith The Learned of your owne part grant this Although in the Article of the Creed I beleeue the Catholike Church peraduenture all this be contained I beleeue those things which the Church teacheth yet this is not necessarily vnderstood That I beleeue the Church teaching as an infallible Witnesse And if they did not confesse this it were no hard thing to prooue It seemes to me verie necessarie that we be able to prooue the Bookes of Scripture to be the Word of God by some Authoritie that is absolutely Diuine for if they be warranted vnto vs by any Authoritie lesse than Diuine then all things contayned in them which haue no greater assurance than the Scripture in which they are read are not Obiects of Diuine Beleefe And that once granted will enforce vs to yeeld That all the Articles of Christian Beleefe haue no greater assurance than Humane or Morall Faith or Credulitie can affoord An Authoritie then simply Diuine must make good Scripture's Infallibilitie This Authoritie cannot be any Testimonie orVoice of the present Church for our Worthies prooue That all the Churches Constitutions are of the nature of humane Law And some among you not vnworthie for their Learning prooue it at large That all the Churches Testimonie or Voice or Sentence call it what you will is but suo modo or aliquo modo not simply but in a manner Diuine Now that which is Diuine but in a manner be it the Churches manner is suo modo non Diuina in a sort not Diuine But this great Principle of Faith the ground and proofe of whatsoeuer else is of Faith cannot stand firme vpon a proofe that is and is not in a manner and not in a manner Diuine as it must if wee haue no other Anchor than the externall Tradition of the Church 2. For the second That Scripture
which it can comprehend Now the vse of Reason is verie generall and man doe what he can is still apt to search and seeke for a Reason why he will beleeue though after he once beleeues his Faith growes stronger than either his Reason or his Knowledge and great reason for this because it goes higher than eyther of the other can in this life In this particular the Bookes called the Scripture are commonly and constantly reputed to be the Word of God and so infallible Veritie to the least Point of them Doth any man doubt this The World cannot keepe him from going to weigh it at the Ballance of Reason whether it be the Word of God or not To the same Weights he brings the Tradition of the Church the inward motiues in Scripture it selfe all Testimonies within which seeme to beare witnesse to it and in all this there 's no harme the danger is when a man will vse no other Scale but Reason for the Word of God and the Booke containing it refuse not to be weighed by Reason But the Scale is not large enough to containe nor the Weights to measure out the true vertue and 〈◊〉 force of either Reason then can giue no supernaturall ground into which a man may resolue his Faith That Scripture is the Word of God infallibly yet Reason can goe so high as it can prooue that Christian Religion which rests vpon the Authoritie of this Booke stands vpon surer grounds of Nature Reason common Equitie and Iustice than any thing in the World which any Infidell or meere Naturallist hath done doth or can adhere vnto against it in that which he makes accounts or assumes as Religion to himselfe The antient Fathers relyed vpon the Scriptures no Christians more and hauing to doe with Philosophers men verie well seene in all the subtleties which naturall Reason could teach or learne they were often put to it and did as often make it good That they had sufficient warrant to relye as much as they did vpon Scripture In all which Disputes because they were to deale with Infidels they did labour to make good the Authoritie of the Booke of God by such arguments as vnbeleeuers themselues could not but thinke reasonable if they 〈◊〉 them with indifferencie And it is not altogether impossible to prooue it euen by Reason a Truth infallible or else to make them denie some apparant Principle of their owne For example It is an apparant Principle and with them That God or the absolute prime Agent cannot be forced out of any possession for if hee could be forced by another greater he were neither Prince nor Absolute nor God in their owne Theologie Now they must graunt That that God and Christ which the Scripture teaches and wee beleeue is the onely true God and no other with him and so denie the Deitie which they worshipped or else denie their owne Principle about the Deitie That God cannot be commanded and forced out of possession For their Gods Saturne and Serapis and Iupiter himselfe haue beene adiured by the name of the true and onely God and haue beene forced out of the bodies they possessed and confessed themselues to be foule and seducing Deuils And their confession was to be supposed true in point of Reason for they that were adored as Gods would neuer belie themselues into Deuils to their owne reproach especially in the presence of them that worshipped them were they not forced This many of the vnbeleeuers saw therefore they could not in verie force of Reason but they must either denie their God or denie their Principle in Nature Their long Custome would not forsake their God and their Reason could not forget their Principle If Reason therefore might iudge among them they could not worship any thing that was vnder command And if it be reasonable to doe and beleeue this then why not reasonable also to beleeue that the Scripture is his Word giuen to teach himselfe and Christ since there they find Christ doing that and giuing power to doe it after which themselues saw executed vpon their Deuill_Gods Besides whereas all other written Lawes haue scarce had the honour to be duly obserued or constantly allowed worthie approbation in the particular places where they haue beene established for Lawes this Law of Christ and this Canon of Scripture the container of it is or hath beene receiued in almost all Nations vnder Heauen And wheresoeuer it hath beene receiued it hath beene both approoued for vnchangeable Good and beleeued for infallible Veritie This persuasion could not haue beene wrought in men of all sorts but by working vpon their Reason vnlesse wee shall thinke all the World vnreasonable that receiued it And certainely God did not giue this admirable facultie of Reasoning to the Soule of man for any cause more prime than this to discouer or at least to iudge and allow of the way to himselfe when and howsoeuer it should be discouered One great thing that troubled Rationall men was that which stumbled the Manichee an Heresie it was but more than halfe Pagan namely That somewhat must be beleeued before much could be knowne Wise men vse not to beleeue but what they know And the Manichee scorned the Orthodox Christian as light of beleefe promising to lead no Disciple after him but vpon euident knowledge This stumbles many but yet the Principle That somewhat must be beleeued before much can be knowne stands firme in Reason still For if in all Sciences there be some Principles which cannot be prooued if Reason be able to see this and confesse it if almost all Artists haue granted it Who can iustly denie that to Diuinitie A Science of the highest Obiect God himselfe which he easily and reasonably grants to inferior Sciences which are more within his 〈◊〉 And as all Sciences suppose some Principles without proouing so haue they almost all some Text some Authoritie vpon which they relye in some measure and it is Reason they should For though these make not their Texts infallible as Diuinitie doth yet full consent and prudent examination and long continuance haue woon reputation to them and settled reputation vpon them verie deseruedly For were these Texts more void of Truth than they are yet it were fit to vphold their credit that Nouices and young beginners in a Science which are not yet able to worke strongly vpon Reason nor Reason vpon them may haue Authoritie to beleeue till they can learne to conclude from Principles and so to know Is this also reasonable in other Sciences and shall it not be so in Theologie to haue a Text a Scripture a Rule which Nouices may be taught first to beleeue that so they may after come to the knowledge of those things which out of this rich Principle and Treasure are deduceable I yet see not how right Reason can denie these grounds and if it cannot then a meere naturall man may be thus farre conuinced That the
Text of God is a verie credible Text. Well these are the foure by most of which men offer to prooue the Scripture to be the Word of God as by a Diuine and infallible warrant and it seemes no one of these doth it The Tradition of the present Church is too weake because that is not absolutely Diuine The Light which is in Scripture it selfe is not bright enough it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe The Testimonie of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what meanes we beleeue but how the Scripture may be proposed as a credible Obiect 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 And for Reason no man expects that that should 〈◊〉 it it doth seruice enough if it enable vs to disprooue that which misguided men conceiue against it If none of these then be an absolute and sufficient meanes to prooue it eyther wee must find out another or see what can be more wrought out of these For the Tradition of the Church then certaine it is we must distinguish the Church before wee can iudge right of the validitie of the Tradition For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Reuelation from Heauen no question but the Voice and Tradition of this Church is Diuine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like validitie written or deliuered And against this Tradition of which kind this That the Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God is the most generall and vniforme the Church of England neuer excepted And then here 's the Voyce of God of which no Christian may doubt to confirme his Word For the Apostles had their Authoritie from Christ and they prooued that they had it by apparant Miracles which were beyond exception And when S. Augustine said I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authoritie of the Catholike Church mooued me whichplace you vrged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by it some of your ownewill not endure should be vnderstood saue of the Church in the time of the Apostles onely and some of the Church in generall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but sure to include Christ and his Apostles the 〈◊〉 is there But this will not serue your turne The Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitiue But the contrarie to this is prooued before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Diuine To what end then serues any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For 〈◊〉 it serues by a full consent to worke vpon the minds of vnbeleeuers to mooue them to reade and to confider the Scripture which they heare by so many wise learned and 〈◊〉 men as of no meaner esteeme than the 〈◊〉 of God It 〈◊〉 among Nouices Weakelings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselues with and vnderstand the Scripture which the Church deliuers as the Word of God And thus againe some of your owne vnderstand the fore cited place of S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospell c. For he speakes it eyther of 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 in the Faith or else of such as were in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You as the B. tells me at the Conference though you 〈◊〉 it here would needs haue it that S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Faithfull which I cannot yet thinke For hee speakes to the 〈◊〉 and they had a great part of the 〈◊〉 in them And the words immediately before those are If thou shouldst find one Qui Euangelio nondum credit which did not yet beleeue the Gospell what wouldst thou doe to make him beleeue Ego vero non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serues and there need be no question betweene vs. But then euerie thing that is the first Inducer to beleeue is not by and by either the principall Motiue or the chiefe and last Obiect of Beleefe vpon which a man may rest his Faith The first knowledge that helpes to open a mans vnderstanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a truth and make it euident is his Grammar but when he hath made a Demonstration he resolues the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammar Rules but into the immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in this particular a man is probably led by the Authoritie of the present Church as by the first informing inducing persuading meanes to beleeue the Scripture to be the Wordof God but when hee hath studied considered and compared this Word with it selfe and with other Writings with the helpe of ordinarie Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably persuaded by the voyce of the Church the Scripture then giues greater and higher reasons of credibilitie to it selfe than Tradition alone could giue And then he that beleeues resolues his last and full assent That Scripture is Diuine Authoritie into internall Arguments found in the Letter of it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the Resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and rest it selfe vpon the helpes but vpon that Diuine Light which the Scripture no question hath in it selfe but is not kindled till these helpes come Thy Word is a Light so Dauid A Light therefore it is as much manifestatiuum sui as alterius a manifestation to it selfe as to other things which it shewes but still not till the Candle be lighted not till there hath beene a preparing instruction what Light it is Children call the Sunne and Moone Candles Gods Candles They see the Light as well as men but cannot distinguish betweene them till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the naturall man sees some Light of Morall counsaile and instruction in Scripture as well as Beleeuers but he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-Light and cannot distinguish betweene the Suune and twelue to the pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it haue cleared his vnderstanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first motiue to Beleefe but the Beleefe it selfe That the Scripture is the Word of God rests vpon the Scripture when a man finds it to answere and exceed all that which the Church gaue in Testimonie And as in the voyce of the Primitiue and Apostolicall Church there was simply Diuine Authoritie deliuering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule the voice of God is plainely heard in Scripture it selfe And then here 's double Authoritie and both Diuine that confirmes Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles deliuering it and the internall worth and argument in the Scripture obuious
question it can both prooue and approoue it selfe His words are So that vnlesse besides Scripture there be c. Besides Scripture therefore he excludes not Scripture but calls for another proofe to lead it in namely Tradition which no man that hath braines about him denyes In the two other places Brierly falsifies shamefully for folding vp all that Hooker sayes in these words This other meanes to assure vs besides Scripture is the Authoritie of Gods Church he wrinkles that worthie Author desperately and shrinkes vp his meaning In the former place abused by Brierly no man can set a better state of the question betweene Scripture and Tradition than Hooker doth His words are these The Scripture is the ground of our Beleefe The Authoritie of man that is the name he giues to Tradition is the Key which opens the doore of entrance into the knowledge of the Scripture I aske now when a man is 〈◊〉 and hath viewed a house and by viewing likes it and vpon liking resolues vnchangeably to dwell there doth he set vp his resolution vpon the Key that let him in No sure but vpon the goodnesse and commodiousnesse which he sees in the house And this is all the difference that I know betweene vs in this Point In which doe you grant as yee ought to doe that wee resolue our Faith into Scripture as the Ground and wee will neuer denie that Tradition is the Key that lets vs in In the latter place Hooker is as plaine as constant to himselfe and Truth His words are The first outward motiue leading men so to esteeme of the Scripture is the Authoritie of Gods Church c. But afterwards the more we bestow our labour in reading or learning the Mysteries thereof the more we find that the thing it selfe doth answer our receiued opinion concerning it so that the former inducement preuailing somewhat with vs before doth now much more preuaile when the verie thing hath ministred further reason Here then againe in his iudgement is Tradition the first inducement but the farther Reason and Ground is the Scripture and resolution of Faith euer settles vpon the farthest Reason it can not vpon the first inducement So that the state of this Question is firme and plaine enough to him that will not shut his eyes The last thing I shall trouble you with is That this method and manner of proouing Scripture to be the Word of God is the same which the antient Church euer held namely Tradition or Ecclesiasticall Authoritie first and then internall Arguments from the Scripture it selfe The first Church of Christ the Apostles themselues had their warrant from Christ their Tradition was euerie way Diuine both in the thing they deliuered and in the manner of their witnessing it But in after-times of the Church men prooue Scripture to be the Word of God by internall Arguments as the chiefe thing vpon which they resolue though Tradition be the first that mooues them to it This way the Church went in S. Augustine's time He was no enemie to Church-Tradition yet when he would prooue that the Author of the Scripture and so of the whole knowledge of Diuinitie as it is supernaturall is Deus in Christo God in Christ he takes this as the all-sufficient way and giues foure proofes all internall to the Scripture first The Miracles secondly That there is nothing carnall in the Doctrine thirdly That there hath beene such performance of it fourthly That by such a Doctrine of Humilitie the whole World almost hath beene conuerted And whereas ad muniendam fidem for the defending of the Faith and keeping it entire there are two things requisite Scripture and Church-Tradition Vincent Lirinensis places Authoritie of Scriptures first and then Tradition And since it is apparant that Tradition is first in order of Time it must necessarily follow that Scripture is first in order of Nature that is the chiefe vpon which Faith rests and resolues it selfe And your owne Schoole confesses this was the way euer The woman of Samaria is a knowne resemblance but allowed by your selues For quotidie dayly with them that are without Christ enters by the Woman that is the Church and they beleeue by that fame which she giues c. But when they come to heare Christ himselfe they beleeue his words before the words of the woman For when they haue once found Christ they doe more beleeue his words in Scripture than they doe the Church which testifies of him because then propterillam for the Scripture they beleeue the Church and if the Church should speake contrarie to the Scripture they would not beleeue it Thus the Schoole taught then and thus the Glosse commented then And when men haue tyred themselues hither they must come The Key that lets men in to the Scriptures euen to this knowledge of them that they are the Word of God is Tradition of the Church but when they are in they heare Christ himselfe immediately speaking in Scripture to the Faithfull And his Sheepe doe not onely heare but know his voyce To conclude then wee haue a double Diuine Testimonie altogether infallible to confirme vnto vs that Scripture is the Word of God The first is the Tradition of the Church of the Apostles themselues who deliuered immediately to the World the Word of Christ the other the Scripture it selfe but after it hath receiued this Testimonie And into these wee doe and may safely resolue our Faith As for the Tradition of after ages in and about whom Miracles and Diuine power were not so euident we beleeue them because they doe not preach other things than those former the Apostles left in scriptis certissimis in most certaine Scripture And it appeares by men in the middle ages that these Writings were vitiated in nothing by the concordant consent in them of all succeedors to our owne time And now by this time it will be no hard thing to reconcile the Fathers which seeme to speake differently in no few places both one from another and the same from themselues touching Scripture and Tradition and that as well in this Point to prooue Scripture to be the Word of God as for concordant exposition of Scripture in all things else When therefore the Fathers say Wee haue the Scripture by Tradition or the like either they meane the Tradition of the Apostles themselues deliuering it and there when it is knowne we may resolue our Faith or if they speake of the present Church then they meane that the Tradition of it is that by which wee first receiue the Scripture as by an according meanes to the prime Tradition But because it is not simply Diuine wee resolue not our Faith into it nor settle our Faith vpon it till it resolue it selfe into the prime Tradition of the Apostles or the Scripture or both and there we rest with it And you cannot shew an ordinarie consent of Fathers nay Can you or any
whole Councell depended vpon him and his confirmation was then vnknowne and I verily thinke at this day not beleeued by your selues 5. Fiftly it must be considered If a Generall Councell may erre Who shall iudge it S. Augustine is at priora à posterioribus Nothing sure that is lesse than a Generall Councell Why but this yet layes all open to vncertainties and makes way for a Whirlewind of a priuate spirit to ruffle the Church No neither of these First all is not open to Vncertainties For Generall Councels lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and an awfull Representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith if they keepe themselues to Gods Rule and attempt not to make a new of their owne and are with all submission to be obserued by euerie Christian where Scripture or euident Demonstration come not against it Nor doth it make way for the Whirlewind of a priuate spirit For priuate spirits are too giddie to rest vpon Scripture and too headie and shallow to be acquainted with demonstratiue Arguments And it were happie for the Church if shee might neuer be troubled with priuate spirits till they brought such Arguments I know this is hotely obiected against Hooker The Author calls him a wise Protestant yet turnes thus vpon him If a Councell must yeeld to a demonstratiue proofe Who shall iudge whether the Argument that is brought be a Demonstration or not For euerie man that will kicke against the Church will say the Scripture he vrges is euident and his Reason a Demonstration And what is this but to leaue all to the wildnesse of a priuate spirit Can any ingenuous man reade this passage in Hooker and dreame of a priuate spirit For to the Question Who shall iudge Hooker answers as if it had beene then made An Argument necessarie and demonstratiue is such saith hee as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent vnto it So it is not enough to thinke or say it is demonstratiue The light then of a Demonstratiue Argument is the euidence which it selfe hath in it selfe to all that vnderstand it Well but because all vnderstand it not If a Quarrell be made who shall decide it No question but a Generall Councell not a priuate spirit first in the intent of the Author for Hooker in all that discourse makes the Sentence of the Councell binding and therefore that is made Iudge not a priuat spirit And then for the Iudge of the Argument it is as plaine For if it be euident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Councell doubtlesse And if they cannot but assent it is hard to thinke them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is euident to any man is not euident to such a graue Assembly it is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Nor is this Hookers alone nor is it newly thought on by vs It is a ground in Nature which Grace doth euer set right neuer vndermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councell at Carthage would haue presently yeelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authoritie confirmed by Miracles and Antiquitie S. Peters Chaire and Succession from it Motiues to keepe him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearely monstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an euident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place euerie where but where these cannot be had there must be submission to Authoritie And doth not Bellarmine himselfe graunt this For speaking of Councels he deliuers this Proposition That Inferiors may not iudge whether their Superiors and that in a Councell doe proceed lawfully or not But then hauing bethought himselfe that Inferiors at all times and in all causes are not so to be cast off hee addes this Exception Vnlesse it manifestly appeare that an intollerable Error be committed So then if such an Error be and be manifest Inferiors may doe their dutie and a Councell must yeeld vnlesse you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a priuate spirit for neither doth hee expresse who shall iudge whether the Error be intollerable This will not downe with you but the Definition of a Generall Councell is and must be infallible Your fellowes tell vs and you can affirme no more That the voyce of the Church determining in Councell is not Humane but Diuine That is well Diuine then sure infallible Yea but the Proposition stickes in the throat of them that would vtter it It is not Diuine simply but in a manner Diuine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speake loudest in that manner in which it is not Diuine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in a higher kind than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in testimonie and matter to be beleeued but the Church as the efficient cause of Faith and in some sort the verie formall Is not this Blasphemie Doth not this knocke against all euidence of Truth and his owne grounds that sayes it Against all euidence of Truth For in all ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians doe doe with the same breath graunt it most vndoubted and infallible But all men haue not so iudged of the Churches Definitions though they haue in greatest obedience submitted to them And against his owne grounds that sayes it For the Scripture is absolutely and euerie way Diuine the Churches Definition is but suo modo in a sort or manner Diuine But that which is but in a sort can neuer be a Foundation in a higher degree than that which is absolute and euerie way such Therefore neyther can the Definition of the Church be so infallible as the Scripture much lesse in altiori genere in a higher kind than the Scripture But because when all other things faile you flye to this That the Churches Definition in a Generall Councell is by Inspiration and so Diuine and infallible my hast shall not carrie me from a little Consideration of that too 6. Sixtly then If the Definition of a Generall Councell be infallible then the infallibilitie of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Meanes that prooue it or in the Conclusion not the Meanes or in the Meanes not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Meanes For there are diuers deliberations in Generall Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Meanes by which they prooue it not firme therefore not infallible Not
Si 〈◊〉 Rationi veritat 〈◊〉 videntur in precio habete c. de Mysterijs Religionis 〈◊〉 Martyr Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rationis c. Tertull. li de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 18. Rationabile est 〈◊〉 Deum esse Autorē Scripturae Henr. a Gand. Sum. q 9. q. 3. c Hook lib 3. §. 8. Si Plato ipse 〈◊〉 me 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 c. S. Aug. de vera 〈◊〉 c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ratio potest progredi à 〈◊〉 ad inuisibilia c. Ibid. c. 29. a Si vim spectes Deus valentissimus est Aristot. de Mundo c. 7. Don. ini moderatores omnium Cic. 2. de Leg. b Ipse Saturnus 〈◊〉 Iupiter quicquid 〈◊〉 colitis victi dolore quod sunt 〈◊〉 Nec vtique in turpitudinē sui nonnullis praesertim vestrorū assistentib ' ment untur Ipsis testib ' esse eos Daemones de se verum confitentib ' credite 〈◊〉 enim per 〈◊〉 verum solum inuiti c. Arnob. 8. contra Gent. c S. Matth. 12.22 d S. Matth. 16.17 e Si Libri quoquo modo se habent sancti tamen Diuinarum rerum pleni propè totius generis humani confessione diffamantur c. S. Aug. de Vtil Cred. c. 7. Scriptura summa dispositione prouidentiae super omnes omnium gentium literas omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum Diuina Excellens authoritate subiecit S. Aug. 11. de Ciuit. Dei c. 1. At in omni Orbe terrarum in omni Graecia vniuersis Nationibus innumeri sunt immensi qui relictis Patrijs Legibus c. ad obseruantiam Mosis Christi c. Origen 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. a Irridere in Catholicae fidei disciplina quod iuberétur homines credere non autem c. S. Aug. 1. 〈◊〉 c. 14. b And therefore S. Aug. 2. de Doctr. Christ. c. 8. would haue men make thēselues persect in reading the letter of the Scripture 〈◊〉 before they vnderstood it Eas notas habeat etsi nondum intellectu tamé 〈◊〉 duntaxat No question but to make thē readie against they vnderstood it a L. 1. contr Epis. Fund c. 5. Ego vero non crederē Euangelio nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae cōmoueret autoritas b 〈◊〉 Dial. p. 1. l. 1. c. 4. 〈◊〉 solum de Ecclesia quae fuit tempore Apostolorum c Biel Lect. 22. in C. Missae A tempore Christi Apostolorum c. And so doth S. Aug. take Eccles cont Fund d Siue Infideles siue in fide Nouitij Can. loc lib. 2. cap. 8. 〈◊〉 omnino nescienti Scripturam Stap. Relect. cont 4. q. 1. A. 3. a Et ibid. Quibus obtemperaui dicētibus Credite Euangelio Therefore he speaks of himselfe when he did not beleeue b Psal. 119.105 Sanctarum Scripturarum Lumen S. Aug. L. de Vera Relig. c. 7. Quid Lucem Scripturarum vanis vmbris c. S. Aug. L. de Mor. Eccl. Cathol c. 35. c 1. Cor. 2.14 d Orig. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 1. went this way yet was he a great deale neerer the prime Tradition than wee are for being to prooue that the Scriptures were inspired from God be saith De hoc assignabimus ex ipsis diuinis Scripturis quae nos cōpetenter mouerint c. a Principaliter tamen etiam hic credimus propter Deum non Apostolos c. 〈◊〉 à Gand. Sum. A. 9. q. 3. Now if where the Apostles themselues spake vltimata resolutio fidei was in Deum not in ipsos per 〈◊〉 much more shall it be in 〈◊〉 than in praesentem Ecclesiam and into the writings of the Apostles than into the words of their Successors made vp into a Tradition b Calu. Instit. 1. c. 5. §. 2. Christiana Ecclesia Prophetarum Scriptis Apostolorum praedicatione initio fundata fuit vbicunque reperietur ea Doctrina c. a 1. Cor. 2.14 b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11. 1. c Henr. à Gand. sum A. 10. q. 2. d Heb. 11.1 e 1. Cor. 13.12 a Lib. 3 de Eccl. c. 14. Credere 〈◊〉 esse Diuinas Scripturas non est omninò necessarium ad salutem I will not breake my discourse to 〈◊〉 this speech of Bellarmine it is bad enough in the best sense that fauour it selfe can 〈◊〉 it For if he 〈◊〉 by omninò that it is not altogether or simply necessarie to beleeue there is Diuine Scripture and a written Word of God that 's false that being granted which is among all Christians That there is a Scripture And God would 〈◊〉 haue giuen a supernaturall vnnecessarie thing And if he meanes by omninò that it is not in any wise necessarie then it is sensibly false For the greatest vpholders of Tradition that euer were made the Scripture verie necessarie in all the 〈◊〉 of the Church So it was necessarie because it was giuen and giuen because God thought it necessarie Besides vpon Roman Grounds if I haue skill enough to stand firme vpon them this I thinke will follow That which the Tradition of the present Church deliuers as necessarie to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omninò necessarie to saluation But that there are Diuine Scriptures the Tradition of the present Church deliuers as necessarie to beleeue therefore to beleeue there are Diuine Scriptures is omninò be the 〈◊〉 of the word what it can necessarie to saluation So Bellarmine is foule and vnable to stand vpon his owne ground b Lib. 1. §. 14. c Protest Apol. Tract 1. §. 10. n. 3. d Lib. 2. §. 4. e Lib. 2. §. 7. lib. 3. § 8. f S. Ioh. 5. 31. De seipso homine loquitur nam aliter S. Ioh. 8.13 a Lib. 2. §. 7. b Lib. 3. §. 8. c Nec ijs principaliter credendum 〈◊〉 propter authoritatem Christi Dei in Christo. Heur 〈◊〉 Gand. sum a. 9. q. 3. a Lib. 13. contr Faust. c. 5. Probat per internum argumentum impletionem Prophetarum Scriptura quae fidē suā rebus ipsis probat quae per temporum successiones haec impleri c. Et Hen. à Gand. sum a. 9. q. 3. citat S. Aug. L. de Vera Relig. in quo L. haec quatuor simul posita non leguntur sed adimplent scopum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 b Duplici modo munire fidem c. primò diuinae Legis 〈◊〉 tum deinde Ecclesiae Catholicae traditione contr Haer. cap. 1. c S. Ioh. 4. d Henr. à Gand. sum a. 10. q. 1. Sic quotidie apud illos qui foris sunt intrat Christus per 〈◊〉 i. Ecclesiam eredunt per istam famā c. in Glos. in S. Ioh. cap. 4. e Jbid. Plus vebis Chrsti in Scriptura credit quam Ecclesiae testificanti Quia propter illam iam credit Ecclesiae si ipsa quidem 〈◊〉 Scripturae diceret ipsi non crederet c. f In sacra Scriptura ipse immediatè loquitur fidelib ' Ibid. g S. Ioh. 10.4 h Quod autem 〈◊〉
1. Tim. 2 4. But without vnderstanding the qualitie of the Romane Church people may be baptised beleeue and repent and haue all the ordinarie meanes of saluation as appeareth by the Iewes Asts 2 41. and the Eunuch Acts 8 37. and Lydia Acts 16 14. and many Gentiles Acts 13 48. and the elect Ladie and her children 2. Iohn v. 1 2 4. and the Corinthians Galatians Ephesians and the seuen Churches of Asia Apoc. 2 3. c. Occham saieth that after Christs ascension many people were saued before the Roman Church had anie being and AEneas Siluius affirmeth That the first 300 yeares before the Nicene Counsell small regard was had of the Roman Church Iohannes Maior saieth It were ouer hard to affirme that the Indians and other Christans which liue in remote countries should be in the state of damnation because they were ignorant That the Bishop of Rome is head of the Church if they beleeue other necessarie Articles of Saluation And Alchasar saieth Before such time as the publique nuptials betweene the Roman and other Churches were celebrated by a common receiued custome a lesse frequent communion with that Church was sufficient Seconly It is no Article of the Apostles Creed or of any other ancient Creed neither is it delinered in any plaine text or sentence of holy Scripture That all Christian people must receiue their beleefe from the Roman Church or that the same intirely shall in all ages continue in the doctrine and faith receiued from the Apostles yea the contrarie is taught in holie Scripture Rom. 11 22. But if the doctrine aforesaid were fundamentall and of greatest importance the same must haue beene plainely deliuered either in holy Scripture or in all or some of the auncient Creedes IESVIT The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth 2. Tim. 3 15. The eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the top whereof standeth the Tradition of sauing Doctrine conspicuous and immooueable Ergo Jt is the most important Controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church ANSVVER Foure texts of Scripture are produced to proue that it is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church be the true Church but neither are the places of Scripture expounded rightly neither is the Iesuits islation from them consequent or firme 1 Although it were granted that the totall certaintie of Christiantie dependeth vpon the Church yet because the Roman Church is not the whole Church but onely a part and member thereof Rom. 1 6. and such a member as may erre and proue vnsound Rom. 11 22. The knowledge of the state and qualitie of that Church cannot be simply necessarie and consequently not a matter of greatest importance to be vnderstood 2 The places of Scripture 1. Tim. 3 15. Math. 16 18. Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. proue not the question The first place to wit Math. 16 18. is expounded by manie interpreters of Christ himselfe and by the most of the faith which S. Peter confessed touching Christ. And our Sauiour affirmeth not in this Text that the Roman Church of euerie age is a Rocke but that the Church of right beleeuers is builded vpon a Rocke and so the Church is one thing and the Rocke another because nothing is builded vpon it selfe The second place 1. Tim. 3 15. 〈◊〉 that the Church which is the house of the liuing God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the pillar and ground of Truth 1. If by the Church we vnderstand the Catholicke Church as it containeth the holie Apostles then this commendation agreeth fully and perfectly to it in respect of the Apostles who were led into all Truth Iohn 16 13. and which taught whilest they 〈◊〉 all Truth and they do at this present day in the Scripture teach the fulnesse of Truth 2. If by the Church we vnderstand the Church of Christ liuing after the Apostles the same is by office and calling the pillar and ground of Truth in all ages And some part or other thereof Truth of God 〈◊〉 to saluation But the present Church is not 〈◊〉 and simply in all things the pillar and ground of Truth but so farre onely as it teacheth the doctrine reuealed by the holie Ghost and groundeth her faith vpon the word of God and this is proued because the Church Apostolicall was free from all errour but succeeding Pastors and Doctors may erre in Ecclesiasticall censures in degrees legislatiue in sermons disputations and other tractats as our Aduersaries themselues confesse and they which propugne the infallible authoritie of the present Church restraine the same to the Pope and Councell of which S. Paul is silent 1. Tim. 3 15. And from hence I inferre That the Church wherein the Apostles taught and gouerned was the ground and pillar of Truth fully intirely and in all things But the present Church is so with limitation conditionally and so farre forth onely as it deliuereth the Apostles doctrine Lastly the Roman Church can challenge no greater priuiledge of Infallibilitie from this Scripture than the church of Ephesus of which the Apostle speaketh litterally in the said Text. But although the Church of Ephesus was by office the pillar and ground of Truth yet the same did afterwards degenerate and depart from the right Faith which argueth that particular Churches such as were the Roman Ephesine Corinthian c. are not in such sort the pillar and ground of Truth as that they are in no danger of errour The other two places Esay 2 1. Dan. 2 35. are principally vnderstood of Christ and his Apostles and they proue not the Iesuits position which is It is the most important controuersie of all other to know whether the Roman Church is the true Church for the present Church of Rome is a Molehill and not the Mountaine prophesied of Esay 2. the same filleth not the whole world but onely a small part of the world neither did the same antiently for 500 yeares at the least fill the whole world for many people both in the East and West were Christians without depending vpon it neither is the same alwaies illustrious for Vertue and Truth but sometimes notorious for Superstition and Vice If our Adnersaries will contend That there is in all ages avisible Church like vnto a great Mountaine filling the whole world vpon the top whereof standeth the Tradition of all true doctrine conspicuous and illustrious 1. The places of Esay and Daniell affirme not this concerning all times and ages of the Church 2. The Scriptures foretell a large reuolt and apostasie from heauenly trueth 3. Our Aduersaries themselues acknowledge that the outward face of the visible Church at some times hath beene and againe may be miserably polluted with foule and enormious scandals and abominations IESVIT If this Church bee ouerthrowne the totall
Granting that some vulgar people and nouices in Faith may attaine beleefe concerning such verities of Christian Doctrine as are absolutely necessarie to Saluation by the Tradition of their Ancestors and Teachers without distinct and explicit resoluing their Faith into the Text of holy Scripture or the particular Bookes or Sections thereof But withall I deny that they can haue sauing Faith without resoluing the same into the doctrine of the Scriptures For example It is an Article of Faith necessarie to be beleeued by all Christians of riper yeres that Iesus Christ is the 〈◊〉 of the World and the same Article is reuealed and taught in many Texts of holy Scripture If a simple rurall person beleeue this Article taught him by his parents and other teachers he beleeueth the Doctrine of the Scripture and vertually grounds his Faith vpon the Scripture although hee know not the Bookes of the Scripture or the particular sentences contained in the same A man which drinketh water flowing from a fountaine or seeth day light although he haue no distinct knowledge of the fountaine or sight of the Sunne which is the cause of light yet hee receiueth water mediatly from the fountaine it selfe and his light principally from the Sunne so likewise rude and illiterate Christians reape the benefit and fruit of the Scriptures and vertually ground their Faith vpon them although they be not able distinctly to looke into them or to resolue their Faith into the seuerall parts and testimonies contained in them OBIECTION Vulgar andilliterate persons do not know or vnderstand the Scriptures neither can they be certaine by their owne knowledge that the same are truely translated in such points as the y are bound to beleeue therefore they cannot ground their Faith finally and lastly vpon the Scriptures ANSVVER 1. If this Obiection were good vulgar people could not ground their diuine Faith vpon Tradition because they haue not distinct knowledge of Tradition or of the qualitie or deriuation thereof Therefore I distinguish of Knowledge out of Bonauenture that the same is two fold to wit either confused and generall or distinct and speciall and a thing may be knowne two waies either in it selfe or in another If vulgar and illiterate people could know and vnderstand the Scriptures neither confusedly nor distinctly neither in themselues nor in any other thing then it were impossible that they should resolue their Faith into them but if they may know them by teaching of others and vnderstand the Doctrine of the Scriptures to be diuine by the light of heauenly veritie resplendent in the same and by the inward testimonie of the holy Spirit co-working with that Doctrine then it is possible for them to resolue their Faith into the Scripture because they which actually resolue their Faith into the Doctrine of the Scripture doe virtually and mediatly resolue the same into the verie Scripture euen as he that actually beleeueth the kings proclamation doth virtually beleeue the kings authoritie although he know the king or his authoritie confusedly and in generall only The Text of holy Scripture and the distinct sayings and sentences thereof are the principall and finall externall ground whereupon the whole bodie of the Church must ground their Faith But as there is a diuersitie of the members of the Church 1. Cor. 12.20 so likewise there is a difference betweene them in the manner of resoluing Faith for the stronger and firmer members are able to resolue their Faith distinctly into Scripture but the weaker members whose Faith as Bonauenture speaketh is diminuta seeble and imperfect in respect of the distinct apprehension of the obiect of Faith are guided by the stronger as children by a nurse And these little ones are taught the truth of heauenly Doctrine 1. By their parents or ecclesiasticall teachers and they know the Scriptures to be truely translated not by their owne skill but by crediting others which are able to iudge But being thus farre directed and persuaded by humane meanes then the light of Gods word it selfe by the power of Grace persuadeth them as a diuine cause to yeeld full assent to all such verities as are necessarie to be beleeued by them to saluation IESVIT And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common people knew Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of Doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely beleeue as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truely translated so farre and no farther than they perceiue them consonant with the Faith deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scripture truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that their Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition ANSVVER The summe of the former obiection is Vnlearned people are not able without the helpe and instruction of others to resolue their Faith into the Scriptures Therefore the Scripture is not the finall and greatest stay and ground of Faith The Argument is denied for as in Arts and Sciences an vnskilfull person cannot resolue his knowledge into the first principles vntill he be taught the meaning of words and the sence of rules and precepts but when he is taught and vnderstandeth these then he maketh resolution into the very first principles themselues So likewise in beleeuing the Obiect of Faith must be taught the sence of the words and matter declared the grounds and reasons of credibilitie deliuered and then the beleeuer principally and immediately settles the resolution of his Faith not vpon these helps and instruments which are only dispofitiue and adiuuant causes but vpon the first principles themselues expressely or deriuatiuely contained in holy Scripture And whereas Dr. Ioh. Wh. is produced affirming in the behalfe of all Protestants that common people know Scriptures to be truely translated by the light of the Doctrine shining in true Translations First Dr. Wh. in the place assigned speaketh not in particular of common people but of the true Church in which are found many persons skilfull and learned Secondly he deliuereth other meanes besides the light of Doctrine whereby the Church may know that Translations are true to wit knowledge of Tongues rules of Art ministerie of the Word to which I adde analogie of Faith the testimonie of the 〈◊〉 Church and best learned in all ages All these are helpes and instruments of right Translations and when the Scriptures are translated they manifest their Author and sacred authoritie to such as in a right manner are conuersant in hearing or reading them And this is not only the Tenet of Protestants but besides the antient Fathers of moderate Papists themselues There is saieth one of them
are baptised and externally professe Christianitie And according to this notion it comprehendeth both the good and the bad the cleane and the vncleane of that profession 2. Tim. 2. 20. Math. 13.25.47 Math. 3.12 c. 22.10 〈◊〉 it is taken for Particular Societies and congregations of Christians Apoc. 1.4 2.1 and sometimes it is taken for the Pastors of particular Churches Math. 18.17 sometimes for the People Acts 20.28 sometimes for the whole Flocke consisting of Pastors and People Apoc. 3.6 But it is neuer taken in holy Scripture for the Pope and Councell If the Iesuit in his Proposition There is a visible Church alwaies in the world c. understand the 〈◊〉 Church in the first Notion then it is denied that we are absolutely to adhere to the Traditions of this Church or that the same is alwaies and intirely One Vniuersal Apostolicall Holy according to the meaning of the Apostles and Nicene Creed Secondly according to the second Notion the Church is not visible for a principall part thereof is in heauen and the other moetie militant vpon earth being considered as elect and holy is knowne intuitiuely to God only 2. Tim. 2.19 and morally coniecturally and according to the iudgement of Charitie to men in this world 2. Thess. 2.13 Thirdly according to the third Notion the Church is visible in all ages and some part thereof teacheth and professeth right Faith in all substantiall and fundamentall articles And we are to cleaue to the Traditions of the same so farre as in the deliuerie thereof it exceedeth and transgresseth not the bounds of lawfull authoritie and teacheth according to the rule of Gods word S. Chrysostome saith Because Seducers are often found even in true Churches we are not to beleeue vnlesse they speake and do that which is consonant to the Scriptures And in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Priest teach any peruerse Doctrine giue no credit yea though he were an Angell Nay I will presume to say more than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one ought not beleeue Paul if he should preach any thing humane or of himselfe but as he is an Apostle and hath Christ speaking in him Lastly according to the fourth Acceptation there are euer in the world particular Churches and societies of Christians and euery one of these Churches professe some portion of diuine veritie But we must enquire by the rule of Gods word which of these are pure and orthodoxall and on the contrarie which of them are infected with errors and imbrace the Doctrine of the one and auoid the Corruptions of the other Remarkable Obseruations concerning the Church OBSERVATION I. THe externall visible Church is an intermixed or compounded societie bodie and state of Christian people professing the faith and worship of Christ in which are found sheepe and goats wheat and tares gold and drosse good fishes and bad and vessels of honour and dishonour This common and generall societie and bodie consisteth of diuers particular Churches consenting and agreeing in the professing of some part of diuine veritie and of these Churches some are orthodoxall some are impure in faith and religion and also these being compared are respectiuely purer or impurer And within the compasse of each particular Church the members are better or worse more or lesse holy or corrupt OBSERVAT. II. Whereas the Church hath many Titles and Properties belonging to it and Christ Iesus the Head thereof hath made sundrie Promises and conferred diuerse Graces vpon it wee must consider which part of the Church is the proper subiect of these Qualities Promises and Graces For it is apparant That as Sheepe and Goats Chaffe and Wheat Gold and Drosse are of a contrarie kind although they are intermixed so likewise the Affections and Attributes of the same although they are spoken in generall of the whole Subiect as an Heape which hath Wheat and Chaffe a Field which hath Wheat and Tares are called an Heape of Graine a Field of Wheat yet many of them appertaine formally and indeed onely to the better part of the common Subiect OBSERVAT. III. In the visible societie of Christian people there are found according to S. Augustine Citizens of the heauenly Hierusalem and also Inhabitants of Babylon And as the same Father teacheth Notum est ciues malae Ciuitatis administrare quosdam actus 〈◊〉 Ciuitatis It is manifest that in the visible Church Burgers of the wicked Citie Babylon doe administer some Functions of the holy Citie Hierusalem Ioh. 12.6 2. Timoth 4.10 Apoc. 3.14 15. Phil. 〈◊〉 Ioh. 3.9 The Promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence and assistance to his Word and Sacraments preached and administred according to his commandement are fulfilled when wicked persons execute the office and performe the worke of outward 〈◊〉 For although wicked persons like the Carpenters of Noahs Arke reape no benefit to themselues yet God Almightie concurreth with their Ministerie being his owne Ordinance for the saluation of all deuout and worthie Communicants OBSERVAT. IIII. Some things are spoken of the Church in common or generall tearmes to shew what the whole is in respect of Gods outward vocation or what the office and dutie of the whole Church is but the same promises properties and priuiledges are really fulfilled or found in the better and sounder part thereof onely When our Sauiour promiseth that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against the Church Matth. 16.18 he vnderstandeth such a Church as heareth and obeyeth his word and not a visible companie or Hierarchie of Prelates which forsake his word and doe what they list August d. Vnit. Ecclesiae cap. 18. Ecclesia in his est qui adificant supra Petram id est qui credunt verbum Christi faciunt d. Baptismo Lib. 6. cap. 24. Nonne illi sunt in Ecclefia qui sunt in Petra Qui autem in Petra non sunt nec in Ecclesia sunt iam ergò videamus vtrum super Petram aedificium suum constituant qui audiunt Christi verba non faciant Saint Augustine in these words deliuereth three things first The Church is in them which build vpon the Rocke secondly They are not in the Church which are not in the Rocke thirdly They onely build vpon the Rocke and are in the Rocke which beleeue and obey the word of Christ And this Doctrine of S. Augustine is taken out of the holy Scripture Matth. 7.24 1. Cor. 3.11 10.4 Also when S. Paul saith The Church is the ground and pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. by the Church hee vnderstandeth the House of the liuing God as the precedent part of his speech sheweth to wit If I tarrie long that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behaue thy selfe in the House of God c. But they alone are verily and indeed the House of God which beleeue and loue the Truth
persecutions the loue of many may waxe cold Math. 24.12 and iniquitie and infidelitie so abound Luc. 17.26 cap. 18.8 that the number of right beleeuers shall be few and the same may bee compelled to exercise their religion in 〈◊〉 Secondly We deny that a naturall man is able infallibly to iudge and discerne by sence and common reason or human prudence only which is the true Church of Christ whereunto euery one that wil be saued must vnite and ioine himselfe 1. Cor. 2.11.14 Now the reasons for which we reiect or limit the Popish Doctrine concerning the Churches visibilitie are these and not what the same must be perpetually Some teach what the same is by outward calling and consequently what in right by precept and dutie it ought to be Some Texts of holy Scripture describe the inward and spirituall beautie of the sounder part of the Church by Allegories and similitudes taken from externall and worldly pompe and glorie Some places shew what 〈◊〉 ought to performe when the publike and common Ministerie of the Church is incorrupt and ordinarie Pastors in Doctrine and Discipline proceed according to the Ordinance of Christ. Lastly some of the Fathers liuing in Ages wherein the outward face of the Church was externally glorious not foreseeing what was imminent and future might probably suppose that the same should alwayes retaine the like beautie And yet S. Augustine who because of the Donatists speaketh most largely in this kind vseth words of limitation and exception and affirmeth that the splendor of the Church in time of Persecution may be eclipsed and the glorie thereof ouershadowed Secondly The Arguments against the glorious and perpetuall Visibilitie of the true Church according to our aduersaries Tenet are weightie First The best and worthiest members of the said Church may be persecuted disgraced and condemned as Heretikes and impious persons as appeareth by the example of Athanasius Hilarius Ambrosius c. And this may be done by great multitudes and by learned persons and by such as are potent in worldly and Ecclesiasticall power and in such times the true Church vnder the notion of a true Church cannot be generally and gloriously visible Secondly The prime Rulers and Commanders in the visible Church doe at some times by Ambition and other enormious Vices become enemies vnto Truth as our aduersaries themselues acknowledge concerning all other Bishops but onely the Roman and his adheres and that the Roman Popes and Prelates haue departed from right Faith and exceeded others in monstrous ambition and wickednesse is reported by many amongst themselues Now when these Master-builders fall innumerable multitudes of inferiour ranke for hope fauour feare and other humane and carnall respects concurre with them and then the number of Infidels which remaine without the Church being added to the Church malignant the totall summe of both amounteth to a great number and in comparison of them right beleeuers may be few and their reputation in the world so meane as that they shall not be generally knowne the true Church And if they be not knowne and esteemed a true Church by the greatest part of the world then they are not famously visible at all times as our aduersarie maintaines Thirdly The Scriptures foretell a comming and reigne of Antichrist a large Apostasie and reuolt from the right Faith a raritie of true beleeuers and decay of Charitie a flying of the true Church into the Wildernesse and grieuous persecutions of Gods Elect before the finall consummation of the World 2. Thess. 2.3 c. 1. Tim. 4.1 2. Tim. 3.1 c. Luc. 18.8 Matth. 24. 12 24. Reuel 12.6 But such a perpetuall visibilitie of the Church as Romists imagine is not compatible with the precedent Predictions But the Iesuit saith IESVIT Because the Tradition of the Church must be at all times famous glorious and notoriously knowne in the World therefore the true Church which is the Teacher Pillar and Foundation of Tradition must be at all times famously visible to the eye of the World ANSWER Neither the Antecedent nor Consequent of this Argument are firme It is not alwayes true that those things are visible which make other things famous glorious and notoriously knowne for that which is innisible to the eye of the World may cause other things to be famous as wee see in God himselfe in Christ in the holy Apostles c. Also persons liuing in disgrace and persecution may by writing from Exile Prison or vnknowne Habitations make Diuine Truth notoriously knowne to the making of the enemies thereof inexcusable and the conuersion of others as appeareth in Athanasius Secondly The Antecedent is false If the Iesuit by the word Must vnderstand that which by an immutable prouidence of the Almightie shall infallibly in all ages be fulfilled it is not decreed by the Almightie that the Doctrine and Tradition of Diuine Veritie shall in all Ages be generally famous and notoriously knowne to the World the same must alwayes in matters substantiall and necessarie be sufficiently knowne to some part of the World But many people for sundrie Ages haue beene ignorant of Christ and of the whole Tradition and Doctrine of the Apostles and a large tract of the World remaineth at this present day in Heathenish and damnable ignorance and consequently to a large part of the World Tradition is not in a famous and glorious manner notoriously knowne IESVIT Thirdly The Church is Apostolicall and that apparantly descending from the Apostolicall Sea by succession of Bishops vsque ad confessionem generis humani euen to the acknowledgement of humane kind as S. Augustine speaketh ANSWER The true visible Church is named Apostolicall not because of locall and personall succession of Bishops onely or principally but because it retaineth the Faith and Doctrine of the holy Apostles Eph. 2. 20. Reuel 21.14 Tertullian d. Prascript cap. 32. affirmeth That Churches which are able to produce none of the Apostles or other Apostolicall men for their first planters are notwithstanding Apostolicall for consent of Faith and consanguinitie of Doctrine And many learned Papists antient and moderne say The Church is called Apostolicall because it is grounded vpon the Doctrine of the Apostles in respect of Faith Lawes and Sacraments But personall or locall succession onely and in it selfe maketh not the Church Apostolicall because hirelings and wolues may lineally succeed lawfull and orthodoxe Pastours Act. 20.29 30. Euen as sicknesse succeedeth health and darkenesse light and a tempest faire weather as Gregorie Nazianzen affirmeth Orat. d. laud. Athanasij That which is common and separable cannot of it selfe demonstrate the true Church And the notes of the Church must be proper and inseparable agreeing to all times to euery true Church as Bellarmine affirmeth Also the same must be so conspicuous as that they cannot easily bee pretended by Aduersaries or be at all
part of them obserue Vnitie in the Bond of Peace in things essentiall and in the common Rule of Faith And although the qualitie of Teachers be a motiue of credibilitie yet the power of persuasion dependeth properly vpon the Word of Christ and they which disagree in other matters and with a common consent teach the maine and principall Doctrine of Faith must therein be credited because of the prime Author himselfe If humane frailetie discord and error in some things should totally discredit the Authoritie of Teachers the World must receiue no Diuine Veritie by the Ministerie of men because amongst men Non germinat granum Veritatis sine palea Vanitatis The good Seed of Veritie springeth not without some Chaffe of Vanitie S. Cyprian S. Augustine S. Hierome c. disagree in some things and Tertullian and Origen haue many errors and therein are reprooued by others and yet the rest of their Doctrine wherein they teach truly receiueth no preiudice from their contrarie errors The Iesuits and Dominicans and other Scholasticks desire to be esteemed credible Witnesses and yet there is no small contention betwixt them concerning sundrie Questions Although therefore some dissention bee found among Teachers yet their whole Doctrine is not thereby made incredible neyther is there perpetually in the true Church a visible and perspicuous concord in all things In the words ensuing the Aduersarie questioneth Doctor Field because hee affirmeth That Protestants Dissentions are not reall but apparent and verball Against this hee affirmeth That so long as Contentioners rest vnsatisfied and admit no Reconciliation saying That Reconcilers haue missed of their meaning it is vaine by distinctions to colour their Discord c. 〈◊〉 First To 〈◊〉 Discord by distinctions is no meanes of true 〈◊〉 but by 〈◊〉 to discouer and manifest that Contentioners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 other and whereas they speake diuersty in 〈◊〉 yet they maintaine the same Veritie in substance this may be to good purpose Secondly Although A 〈◊〉 are many times froward and will not for the present admit the charitable constructions of moderate persons 〈◊〉 to reconcile them Exod. 2. 14. Act. 7.27 yet at the last Vnitie may be effected by this meanes and peaceable and moderate Christians ought in the meane season to gather the faire Lilly of sauing Veritie growing amidst the Thornes of humane Infirmitie IESVIT Fiftly I inferre That this Church is vniuersall spread ouer all Nations that she may be said to be euery where morally speaking that the whole knowne World may take notice of her as of a worthie and credible witnesse of Christian Tradition howsoeuer her outward glory and splendor peace and tranquilitie be sometimes obscured in some places more or lesse and not euer in all places at once ANSVVER The Church is vniuerfall First Because of time for it continueth successiuely in all Ages Matth. 28.20 Luc. 1.33 Secondly In regard of Persons and Places because no Countrey Nation State Age or Sex of People are excluded from being part of it Galat. 3.20 Act. 10.34 Apoc. 5.9 Thirdly In respect of Faith because Diuine Veritie constitutiue and which giueth being to the true Church continueth throughout all Ages 1. Pet. 1.25 Reuel 14.6 and is found in all the parts of the true Church But notwithstanding this the true Church is not perpetually vniuersall in regard of actuall amplitude and diffusion of visible Congregations throughout all Nations and inhabited Countreyes of the World for it may in some Ages in actu exercito and in regard of actuall residence remaine onely in a few Countreyes and Cardinall Bellarmine graunteth That if one sole Prouince of the World should retaine true Faith yet the Church might then be truly and properly called vniuersall if it could manifestly be shewed that the same were one with that Church which was once vniuersally spred ouer the world And although Deiure by right and according to the diuine Precept the true Church should at all times remaine and continue in those regions where it was once planted yet it happeneth by the malice and iniquitie of man that those places which once were a Sanctuarie of holinesse are afterwards changed into the habitation of Satan and into a cage of vncleane Birds The Iesuit perceiuing that it is impossible to defend a perpetuall actuall vniuersalitie of the Church presenteth vnto vs an imaginarie vniuersalitie his words are She may be said to be euerie where morally speaking c. I answere Morally speaking the Church cannot be said to be where it is altogether vnknowne and where no meanes are vsed or actions performed which are sufficient to make it knowne A king may morally be said to be in euery part of his kingdome because his lawes ministers and gouernment are extended throughout all his kingdome and king Richard the first when hee was in Syria might be said to be morally in England But the true Church in many ages hath no commerce with Infidels in things spirituall mediate or immediate the Faith Preaching and authoritie thereof is altogether vnknowne to many people to wit to the inhabitants of America for 1400. yeeres to many other nations of Affrica and Europe for 600. yeeres c. And many people which heare the fame of Christians in generall as they doe of the Iewes haue no meanes to distinguish Orthodoxe Beleeuers from Heretickes and they which vnderstand not the Doctrine of the true Church cannot take notice of her as of a worthie and credible witnesse of diuine Tradition IESVIT A truth so cleare that it may be euidently prooued out of Scripture that euen in Antichrists dayes the Church shall be visibly vniuersall for shee shall then bee euerie where persecuted which could not bee except shee were euerie where visible and conspicuous euen to the wicked ANSVVER Your former Proposition concerning the perpetuall locall vniuersalitie of the Church is as cleare as the Sunne-shine at midnight and the Arguments whereby you labour to prooue it are of no force First if it were granted that the true Church in the raigne of Antichrist should bee visibly vniuersall yet it is inconsequent Ergo The true Chnrch is perpetually and in all ages visibly vniuersall Separable accidents are sometimes present to the subiect and sometimes absent but visible vniuersalitie is a separable accident as appeareth by the state of the true Church in the first hundred yeere Secondly the words of Saint Iohn Apoc. 20. 8. are And when the thousand yeeres shall be consummate Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall goe foorth and seduce the nations which are vpon the foure corners of the earth Gog and Magog and shall gather them into battell the number of whom is as the sand of the Sea In this Prophesie nothing is deliuered which doth expresly or by consequence argue the visible vniuersalitie of the true Church in all ages 1. The nations which are vpon the foure corners of the earth seduced by
Satan may be Infidels at least a great part of them as well as Christians and although Satan possessed deceiued them before yet now when he is loosed he doth in a new manner and by a greater efficacie of errour deceiue them 2. The true Church may be persecuted vniuersally by multitudes of enemies dispersed euery where and yet remaine it selfe in one or in few places and it may also be persecuted when it professeth and exerciseth religion in secret Apoc. 12.14 15. 3. Many learned Papists affirme that in the dayes of Antichrist true beleeuers shall cease to bee in many places and the number of orthodoxall people shall be small and the same shall professe their faith in secret August Triumph sum d. Eccles. pot q. 21. ar 4. At that time particular Churches diffused farre and neere ouer the world shall withdraw themselwes from the obedience of the Romane Pope and few shall obey him and the Pope himselfe at that time shall with a few keepe himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 others being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his 〈◊〉 The like is affirmed by Occham 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Barradias Now this former affertion which is the common Tener of Papists agreeth not with the speech of our Aduersarie when he saith That in the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be euerie where visible and conspicuous euen to the wicked and he must reuoke his bold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his first words A truth so cleare that it may euidently be prooued c. IESVIT The reason of this perpetuall visible vniuersalitie is because the Tradition of the Church is as I haue prooued the sole ordinarie meanes to ground faith on for substantiall points Wherefore this Tradition must bee so deliuered as that it may bee knowne to all men seeing God will haue all men without any exception of nation to bee saued and to come to the knowledge of Truth 1. Timothie 2. 4. But if the Church were not still so diffused in the world that all knowne nations may take notice of her all men could not be saued ANSWER Although the teaching and Tradition of the Church is the first Introduction to leade people vnto the knowledge of the grounds of saluation and the ordinarie meanes whereby they receiue the holy Scriptures and rule of Faith contained in the same which is all you haue or can prooue yet hence it followeth not that the true Church is visibly vniuersall in all places of the world First you are reprooued by the example of the Indians and people inhabiting the New found World who are Gods creatures and reasonable men formed 〈◊〉 his image capable of grace and 〈◊〉 as well as other men and included within the latitude of 〈◊〉 promises Math. 28.19 Marc. 16.15 Call 2.28 Call 3.11 and the Apostles speech 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. God will 〈◊〉 all men to be 〈◊〉 c 〈◊〉 them as well as others And yet notwithstanding the true Church whose Tradition according to your position is the sole ordinarie meanes to ground Faith on was not for many ages either Actually or Moraily visible vniuersall or any waies made knowne to them It seemes by the conclusion of your Argument wherein you insert these words That all knowne nations c. that you obserued this but you are no way able to cleere the difficultie for if because S. Paul saith God wil haue all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of the Truth the true Church must in all age be visibly vniuersall then the same must be so in regard of the nations inhabiting the New found world because S. Pauls words God will haue all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of the Truth are vniuersall according to your exposition and must be vnderstood without limitation or respect of persons Secondly when S. Paul saith God wil haue all men to be saued c. He 〈◊〉 according to the antecedent wil of God as learned Papists commonly maintaine But this antecedent Will according to some learned Papists is no formall Will in God but is only improperly and metaphorically so called and according to others which say it is a formall Will the same produceth not vniuersally either grace of outward calling to Saluation or inward grace in them that are externally called and therefore it is inconsequent to argue from this manner of Gods willing all men to be saued That the true Church is in all ages visibly vniuersall 1. Aquinas and others say that the antecedent will of God is only a velleitie or wishing that the thing might be a complacencie in a thing considered abstractiuely and without other circumstances and that vpon it alone the Saluation of no man followeth 2. The same is generall in respect of all and euery singular and indiuiduall person and God by his antecedent will wisheth the Saluation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by experience that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will all 〈◊〉 and singular persons by the ministerie of the true Church and that whole countries and nations for 〈◊〉 ages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same and some countries 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the preaching of the Gospell sooner and others latter some haue been 〈◊〉 in one age and some in another 4. Gods antecedent Will is alwaies the same and 〈◊〉 to it he 〈◊〉 the Saluation of all men in the time of the Old Testament Ezek. 33.11 Now from the former positions it followeth that S. Pauls words 1. Tim. 2.4 God will haue all men to be saued c. do not 〈◊〉 that the true Church is visibly vniuersall in all ages since the Ascension of Christ and the preaching of the Apostles For if the antecedent will of God of which S. Paul speaketh 1. Tim. 2.4 be onely a velleitie and complacencie about mans Saluation abstractiuely considered and if it respect singular and indiuiduall persons as well as whole nations and notwithstanding the same many singular persons and whole nations haue beene destitute and that for a long space of time of all meanes of conuersion and outward calling to Christianitie and if the same Will for some large tract of time produceth no external effect sufficient to conuert Infidels then it followeth that the true Church which is the onely ordinarie teacher of sauing veritie is not visibly vniuersall in all places of the world in euery age The minor is prooued from the foure propositions formerly deliuered The sequell is euident by the exposition which our Aduersaries deliuer of S. Pauls text vnderstanding the same of the antecedent will of God and from the position of the 〈◊〉 deliuered in this section which is That the Tradition and Preaching of the true visible Church is the sole ordinarie meanes to leade people to the knowledge of sauing Truth For if the antecedent will of God is not a certaine and infallible cause that all people shal at all times haue the preaching of sauing Veritie by the ministerie of the true visible
Church then it is not necessarie that because God will haue all men to be saued by his antecedent will therefore the true Church must in all ages be visibly vniuersall A contingent cause vndetermined doth not produce or argue a constant certaine and necessarie effect The antecedent will of God is a contingent cause in respect of the perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the Church Ergo The antecedent will of God doth not produce or argue a perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the Church For if notwithstanding the antecedent will of God many singular persons and whole nations may be for some space of time destitute of outward calling by the ministerie of the Church and of all morall possibilitie for that space of time of the hauing thereof and are not guiltie of the sinne of infidelitie because without any speciall demerit of their owne they are destitute of the word of Faith as it is maintained by Aquinas and his followers then the antecedent will of God is only a contingent cause in respect of producing arguing outward calling by the ministerie of the Church and consequently of the perpetuall visible vniuersalitie of the true Church But the first is true as appeareth by the Indies before Columbus arriuing in their coasts and by many barbarous people and nations liuing in remote regions and hauing no preachers of the Gospell sent vnto them before the two hundred fiue hundred or six hundred yeare after Christ Ergo The latter is also true IESVIT Sixtly this Church is holy both in life and doctrine holy for life shining in all excellent and wonderfull sanctitie such as the Apostles gaue example of as Pouertie Chastitie Obedience Virginitie Charitie in vndergoing labours for the helpe of Soules Fortitude in suffering heroicall Martyredomes Zeale and Patience in the rigorous treatie of their bodies by miraculous Fasting and other austerities ANSVVER Sanctitie is a propertie and inseperable qualitie of the true Church in respect of all the liuing members thereof Cant. 4. 7. Eph. 5.26 27. 1. Cor. 14.33 Rom. 1.7 Eph. 1.18 c. 4.12 Phil. 4.21 Coll. 1.12 1. Cor. 6.11 1. Iohn 3.18 And the same is called holy First Because it is clensed and washed from the guiltinesse of sinne by the immaculate blood of Christ Apoc. 1.5 Heb. 10.10 c. 13.12 Secondly Because it is pertaker of the holinesse of Christ the head thereof by Grace 1. Cor. 1.30 Ephes. 5.30 Iohn 17.19 Heb. 12.10 and because of the speciall inhabitation and operation of the holy Ghost Ephes. 1.13 1. Cor. 3.17 1. Thessal 4.8 2. Tim. 1. 14. Thirdly Because it is called and consecrated vnto holinesse 2. Tim. 1.9 1. Pet. 2.9 1. Thessal 4.7 Apoc. 1.6 Fourthly Because the Faith Doctrine Lawes Sacraments and Religion thereof are holy Iud. v. 20. 2. Pet. 2.20 Tit. 3.5 Fiftly Because the vertues and actions thereof are truely and indeed holy whereas the vertues of Infidels which liue out of the Church are prophane and vnholy as bearing the image of vertue but wanting the true forme and fruit thereof But our Aduersarie passeth by these causes and reasons of the sanctitie of the Church being proper and essentiall which are deliuered in the holy Scripture and will haue the same to be reputed holy because of monasticall vowes of Pouertie Obedience and Chastitie and for externall Fastings Whippings wearing of Haire-cloth and other bodily exercises which some Heremites and Cloysterers performe in the Roman Church Touching this Assertion we are to obserue First that the Iesuit doth onely affirme these things but bringeth no proofe and therefore it were sufficient for me to say with S. Hierom Quod de Scripturis non habet authoritatem eadem facilitate contemnitur qua probatur That which wanteth authoritie from the Scriptures may as well bee despised as receiued Secondly when the principall Doctors of the Romish Church deliuer the causes why the true Church is stiled Holy they either omit these externall exercises or else onely mention them as accessarie Turrccrem sum d. Eccles. l. 1. c. 9. Cordub Arma. fid q. 1. propos 2. Bannes 22. q. 1. ar 10. Bellarm. d. Eccles l. 4. c. 11. Greg. Val. to 3. Disp. 1. punct 7. Thirdly these exercises are common to hypocrites and heretickes and they make not people holy and good which vse them and the Church may bee holy without them and therefore they are no constitutiue parts or essentiall properties of the sanctitie of the Church That the same are common appeareth by the example of the Pharisees and of many Heretickes which vsed these exercises with great austeritie and yet they were no sound parts of the holy Catholicke Church And that the Church may be holy without these exercises is manifest by reason and example The Church which wanteth these things may haue all the causes of sanctitie to wit Faith Hope Charitie Regeneration remission of sinnes c. Therefore it may bee holy without them And the Church of the Hebrews to which Saint Paul wrote his Epistle was an holy Church yet Saint Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There was not so much as any footstep of a Monke c. Fourthly these monasticall vowes haue many times distained and corrupted the Church and therefore they are no mayne or proper actions of holinesse Aluares Pelagius saith of the Monkes and Cloysterers of his age that they were Paupertatis professores sed haereditatum successores Professours of pouertie and heires apparant to euerie mans land Mathew Paris saith That the Mendicants in England raised stately buildings equall to Princes palaces and they hoorded vp inualuable treasure c. And Papirius Masson saith Pouertie which religious Orders seeme to professe is more hatefull to them than to any other sort of men The vow of Chastitie made the most of them more impure than dogs and to stinke before God and men That many of them were Sodomites is affirmed by no meaner man than Saint Bernard who saith Besides fornication adulterie and incest the deedes of ignominie and turpitude for which the cities of Sodome and Gomorrha were predamned are not wanting c. Rodericus a famous Bishop saith That Votaries and Regulars were not satisfied with one woman but kept Concubines and young Damosells sans number Alphonsus Castro saith The incontinencie of Priests is in these dayes so frequent that if but one of them be knowne to liue chastly although many other necessarie 〈◊〉 lities be wanting in him he is esteemed a holy man by the people for this one qualitie Aluares Pelagius saith That the Cells of Anchorites were dayly visited by women And in another place Priests for many yeeres together doe arise euerie day from their Concubines sides and without going to Confession say Masse And in another place Quis Clericorum intra sanctam Ecclesiam Castitatem seruat What Clerke is there within the holy Church which obserueth
much as one day till the consummation of the world ANSWER The place of Saint Matthew chapter 28. 19 20. prooueth First that the holy Apostles receiued a Commission and Mandate from Christ to preach the Gospell to all nations both Iewes and Gentiles and to baptise them In the name of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost Marke 16. 15 16. Luke 24.27 Acts 1.8 Rom. 1.14 Secondly that our Sauiour promised his Apostles a perpetuall presence and assistance of his diuine power and grace both in regard of the gifts of edification Acts 2. 4. And in respect of the grace of inward sanctification Iohn 17.17 Thirdly because the Apostles were mortall and not to remaine alwayes personally vpon earth and other Pastors must succeed in the office of Ministerie the promise of Christ touching his spirituall presence and assistance of grace is extended to these successours and when they teach and baptise in such manner as Christ commanded diuine grace is present to their Ministeriall actions and the holy Ghost co-worketh with them Fourthly But yet succeeding Pastors receiued not the same measure of diuine Grace with the Apostles neyther had they immediate and Propheticall reuelation but onely a measure of Grace ordinarie mediate and in some sort conditionall Also the said Promise Matth. 28. 20. was common and equall to all the Apostles and to the successors of one Apostle as well as of another to the successors of Saint Iames and Saint Iohn c. as well as to the successors of Saint Peter Fifthly Notwithstanding the said promise Bishops and Pastors succeeding the Apostles were in respect of themselues subiect to errors and their iudgement in matters of Faith was not absolutely infallible like the Apostles but so farre forth onely as they walked in the footsteps and followed the Doctrine deliuered by the Apostles Our Sauiour promised that he would be alwayes with the Apostles euen to the consummation of the World partly in their personall Teaching whiles they themselues liued in the World and partly in their permanent Doctrine contained in the Scriptures of the New Testament when the same was truly deliuered by their successors And he will be also with succeeding Pastors all Ages according to such a measure of Grace and assistance as is sufficient for the edifying of the Church if they for their owne part be studious to learne diuine Truth from the holy Apostles and carefull to preach the same to others But his promise concerning immunitie from error and mortall offences is not so absolute to successors as it was to the Apostles themselues Sixtly Many antient Expositors affirme That the Promise of Christ Matth. 28.20 is especially made to the iust and faithfull and some of them say to the Elect onely And Occham affirmeth That if there should be found in the whole World but one Orthodox Bishop or but one such Priest and a small number of Lay people professing right Faith in Articles essentiall and willing to embrace all other Diuine Vertie when the same should be manifested vnto them this were sufficient to make good Christ his Promise Matth. 28.20 In the next passage our Aduersarie inferreth and deriueth certaine Propositions from the former Text of Matth. 28. 20. First hee saith There is still a Christian Church all dayes not wanting so much as one day in the World till the consummation thereof I answer That there is still in the World a common Christian Church wherein some beleeuers hold the substance of right Faith But there is not perpetually in the World a Church the more potent and maior part whereof beleeueth and professeth right Faith without error in all points and so infallible in all her Doctrine as was the Primitiue Church which enioyed the immediate and actuall preaching of the Apostles IESVIT Secondly This Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church which alwayes teacheth and christeneth all Nations to which Christ saith 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 eos c. ANSWER The Church is euer visible according to some degree of visibilitie but this Scripture teacheth not that the true Church is alwayes largely and gloriously visible The same doth not actually in euerie Age teach and christen all Nations and the Roman Church for sundrie Ages past teacheth and christeneth few or none within Natolia and other large Prouinces liuing in subiection to the Grand Seignior or Emperour of Constantinople And as Christ doth not say verbally in this Text I am alwayes with you sitting in corners so he doth not say I am alwayes with you when you are carryed vpon mens shoulders and tread vpon Emperours neckes and diuide and share the Kingdomes of the World and gather endlesse Riches by selling Pardons and preaching Purgatorie But yet of the two it is farre more agreeable to the Diuine Goodnesse who is a Father of the poore and oppressed to be present to his little flocke in persecution and when it flyeth as a Lambe from the Wolfe and hideth it selfe from the Oppressor Apoc. 12. 14 than that hee hath entayled his perpetuall presence vpon ambitious and oppressing Tyrants which stiled themselues Pastors and were rauening Wolues Scribes and Pharisees imposing insupportable burthens vpon others and not moouing them with one of their owne fingers And there is no cause why the good God which was present with Daniel in the Lyons Denne and with Ionas in the Whales Belly and with Ioseph in the Dungeon and with Iob vpon the Dunghill should in the dayes of the oppressing Antichrist withdraw his presence and assistance from his poore flocke yea although it were sitting in corners and hidden vnder ground IESVIT Thirdly This Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwayes with you vntill the consummation of the World not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successors in whom you shall continue to the Worlds end Ergo a lawfull companie of Bishops Pastors and Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the World ANSVVER First The Church may be called Apostolicall because of Faith Plantation and Externall Ordination of Pastors According to Faith and Doctrine in all the maine and substantiall Articles the true Church is euer Apostolicall In regard of Plantation the Primitiue Church was Apostolicall because it was immediately planted and watered by the holy Apostles But Tertullian affirmeth That many particular Churches were not thus planted by Apostles or Apostolicall persons and yet they were truly Apostolicall by reason of consanguinitie of Doctrine with the holy Apostles According to the third manner to wit in respect of Externall Ordination and Imposition of Hands receiued from Bishops lineally succeeding the Apostles a false and corrupt Church may be Apostolicall as I haue formerly prooued And it is
not impossible for a true Church to succeed or come out of a false or for a corrupt Church to reforme it selfe And if this happen there is required no new Ordination of Pastors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any Miracles to confirme their Vocation but they which 〈◊〉 ordained in a corrupt Church returning to the right Faith and worship of God make their former Ordination more legitimate holy and effectuall The Iesuit in the words ensuing collecteth from our Sauiours promise I will be with you c. that there must euer bee a companie of Bishops and Pastours succeeding the Apostles because Christ said to them and their successours I will bee with you c. But if this collection be good then euerie one of the Apostles must haue Bishops Pastours and Doctours succeeding them in right faith to the end of the world for Christ spake to them all in generall and also distributiuely to euerie of them c. But the Papals themselues at this day exclude all the successours of other Apostles excepting Saint Peter Neither yet doth our Sauiour limit his presence and assistance to generall Councels or definitiue sentences of Popes but hee speaketh of Preaching and Baptising and therefore if his presence with Pastours and Bishops doe free them from all errour it must free them in Preaching and writing Bookes as well as sitting in Councell Also they to whom Christ is alwayes present are not of infallible iudgement or free from errour in all matters but onely from damnable and malicious errour as appeareth by Saint Cyprian Saint Augustine and all the elect of God Wherefore this promise in regard of the perfection thereof did appertaine to the Apostles themselues and in regard of the veritie of it and for such a measure of assistance as is necessarie to constitute a number of faithfull people more or lesse in euery age to serue Christ truely in the substance of faith and pietie it is fulfilled alwayes euen to the end of the world But because our Aduersaries insist so much vpon this Text to raise their visible and personall succession I will reduce the Argument which they draw out of it into forme and then accommodate mine Answere If Christ will be with his Apostles all dayes to the end of the world then the Apostles not continuing aliue themselues they must remaine in Bishops Pastours and Doctours locally and personally succeeding them to the end of the world But the first is true Ergo c. First if the consequence of this Argument were good then all and euerie one of the Apostles must continue allwayes to the consummation of the world in Bishops Pastours and Doctours lineally succeeding them which Papals themselues denie Secondly lineall and personall succession is not the sole meanes by which the Apostles after their decease remaine in the world but they remaine also in the world by their Scriptures and also by the faith of Beleeuers receiuing and obeying their doctrine Thirdly that which is promised vpon condition is not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled The presence of Christ is promised to the Apostles successours conditionally and as they were one with the Apostles by imitation and subordination that is so farre as they walked in their steps and conformed their Doctrine and Ministerie to the patterne receiued from them But successours did not alwayes performe this condition neither did the promise inable them to doe it without their owne care and indeuour which was contingent and separable and therefore many times deficient Fourthly Christs presence alwayes to the consummation of the world with some Bishops Pastours and Doctours lineally succeeding the Apostles prooueth not that these Bishops and Pastours cannot erre in any part of their Doctrine for then no particular Bishops hauing Apostolicall ordination could fall into any errour but it sheweth onely that Christ co-operates with them in such Ministeriall duties and actions as they performe according to his Ordinance And when they preach his Doctrine and administer his Sacraments hee himselfe will adde vertue and grace to their actions being duly performed IESVIT Fourthly this Church is vniuersall 〈◊〉 in mundum vniuersum Marc. 16. 15. where I will be alwayes with you ANSWER The true Church is vniuersall according to the manner formerly declared But the Argument taken out of Saint Marke 16.15 prooueth not that it is euer actually vniuersall in respect of place and multitude of professours For as it followeth not that because Christ said he would be with Saint Paul when he preached at Corinth Act. 18.10 therefore he will be euer at Corinth So likewise it is inconsequent to inferre Christ said he would be present in all places of the world with the Apostles when they baptised and preached as he commanded them Ergo he will alwayes be present in those places although their successours neglect his commandement Is God euer in the dungeon in Egypt because he was euer there whilst Ioseph a iust person continued in prison The promise of spirituall presence is annexed to the worke of Preaching and Baptising wheresoeuer it is performed according to the Diuine Ordinance but that which in some ages hath beene done in many places may at other times be performed in few IESVIT Fiftly the Church is one not diuided into parts because it teacheth and beleeueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without factions Sects or parts about matters of faith ANSWER It is not affirmed neither can it be concluded out of Mat. 28. that the visible Church in all ages of the world teacheth and beleeueth either vniformely or expresly and distinctly all that Christ deliuered or commanded and in the same Churches which were planted by the Apostles there was discord among infirme Christians 1. Cor. 1.11 IESVIT 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 Holies assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which it could not well doe without signes and tokens of wonderfull sanctitie at the least in her more eminent Preachers ANSVVER Although the true Church is alwaies holy for Doctrine yet it is not perfectly and in the highest degree euer so And it is most inconsequent to argue Christ which is the Truth is euer with the Church Ergo the Church cannot erre or teach any falshood for Christ is alwaies with the faithfull Ephes. 3. 17. yet iust and faithfull people may erre Because Christ was with the Apostles by miraculous inspiration therefore they could not erre or deliuer any falshood great or small but he is present with the sounder part of the Church militant since the Apostles by ordinarie grace and assistance which freeth the same from damnable and malicious errour but not from all errour And this assistance of Grace is greater or lesse according to the good pleasure of Christ and the disposition of his people which are
compassed about with ignorance and infirmitie and at some times better or worse qualified than at other Also the true Church in firmissimis suis in her firmest members is 〈◊〉 holy for life because the Holy of Holiest sanctifieth and purgeth the same by his Word Sacraments and Grace Eph. 5.26 Tit. 3.5 6. But it is not absolute in holinesse Iam. 3.2 1. Ioh. 1.8 nor yet in euery age so remarkeably holy that it is thereby able to conuert Infidels And the true Church hath not in all ages the gift of Miracles and the pretext of Miracles is common to deceiuers Math. 24.24 25. 2. Thessal 2.9 Apoc. 13.13 And Suares the Iesuit saith Haec adulterari possunt ita exterius fingi vt non sint necessaria signa verae Fidei Miracles may so be adulterated and externally feigned that they may not be necessarie signes of Faith And Canus speaking of Popish miracles and legends saith Nostri pleriquè de industria ita multa 〈◊〉 vt eorum me pudeat taedeat sundrie of our men do so wilfully coine many things in their report of Miracles that I am ashamed and irked of them IESVIT That the Roman is the One Holy Catholicke Apostolicall Church from and by which we are to receiue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine These grounds being laid it is apparant that the Roman Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church ANSVVER The former grounds according to your deliuerie and exposition of them are partly false and partly ambiguous and captious and therefore it cannot be made apparant from them That the moderne Roman Church is the One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church from which we are absolutely to receiue the whole Tradition of Christian Doctrine IESVITS 1. Argument There mnst be alwaies in the world One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church that is a Church deliuering Doctrine vniformely therby making them credible Vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind Holily so making them certain and such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making them perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianitie in the Channell of neuer interrupted succession of Bishops from the Apostles And this Church must either be the Roman or the Protestants or some other opposit to both Protestants cannot say a Church opposite to both for then they should be condemned in their owne judgement and bound to conforme themselues to that Church which can be no other but the Graecian a Church holding as many or more Doctrines which Protestants dislike than doth the Church of Rome as J can demonstrate if need be ANSVVER There must be alwaies in the world a Church One Holy Catholicke and Apostolicall that is A number of Christians beleeuing and 〈◊〉 professing Christianitie to the sounder part wherof the properties of One Holy Catholicke Apostolicall belong But there is not alwaies in the world an Hierarchiall visible Church consisting of Prelates and people vnited in one externall forme of Policie and profession of Religion vnder an vniuersall Pope to which alone these foure titles are proper or principally belonging And there may bee an Orthodoxall Apostolicall Church consisting of a small number of inferiour Pastors and right beleeuing Christians opposed and persecuted by the Hierarchiall part of the visible Church euen as in the raigne of king Manasses and other idolatrous kings of Iuda when Idolatrie preuailed among the Priests and generall multitude there was a remnant of holy people worshipping God according to his word and not defiled with the impietie of those times Now concerning the disiunctiue part of the Iesuits Argument which is This Church must either be the Roman or the Protestants or some other opposite to both It is answered The Protestant Church is that true and Orthodoxall Church which is One Holy Apostolicke and a sound part of the Catholicke For although the same may be supposed to haue had beginning in Luthers age yet this is vntrue concerning the essence and kind and is true onely touching the name and some things accidentall For in all ages and before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman and Graecian Church And by name the Graecians maintained these articles in common with vs That the Roman Church hath not primacie of Iurisdiction Authoritie and Grace aboue or ouer all other Churches neither is the same infallible in her definitions of Faith They denie Purgatorie priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the mariage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Taborites of Bohemia the Scholers of Wiclife called in England Lollards maintained the same doctrine in substance with the moderne Protestants as appeareth by the confession of their Faith and by the testimonie of some learned Pontificians And concerning certaine differences obiected to haue beene betweene them and vs we shall afterward shew that the same are no greater than such as haue beene antiently among the Fathers and there are as great differences betweene the Elder and moderne Romists in many passages of their doctrine But now on the contrarie if it were so that we could not for certaine ages past nominate or assigne out of historie any other visible Church besides the Roman or Grecian yet because right Faith may be preserued in persons liuing in a corrupt visible Church as Wheat among Tares 1. King 19. 11. and because God hath promised there shall be alwaies in the world a true Church hauing either a larger or smaller number of professors if Protestants be able to demonstrate that they maintaine the same Faith and Religion which the holy Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to prooue they are the true Church IESVIT It is also most manifest and vndeniable that Protestants are not such a Church nor part of such a Church since their reuoult and separation from the Roman seeing confessedly they changed their Doctrines they once held forsooke the bodie whereof they were members broke off from the stocke of that tree whereof they were branches Neither did they departing from the Roman ioine themselues with any other Church professing their particular doctrines dissonant from it Ergo The Romane is the one holy Catholicke and Apostolicall Church c. ANSVVER Bold words It is most manifest and vndenyable miserable proofes they changed their Doctrine they once held c. If the Pharisees had argued in this manner against Saint Paul or the Manichees and Pelagians against Saint Augustine the one would haue told them That it was no fault to forsake the leauen of Traditions to imbrace the Doctrine of the Gospell confirmed by the Prophets and the other would haue pleaded most iustly That it is a vertue and honour to forsake errour and to imbrace veritie Gods people are commanded vpon a
〈◊〉 institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi Authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur That which the vniuersall Church holdeth and which was not appointed by Councels but alwayes obserued is most rightly beleeued to be none other than a Tradition of the Apostles Lastly that which is produced out of BB. Whitgift and M. Cartwright belongeth to the Titles or Names of Ecclesiasticall Rulers and to the matter of Ceremonies Cartwright had a sowre opinion against these being neuer so antient and inculpable The most reuerend BB. his Aduersarie answereth out of S. Augustine Epist. 118. Those things that be not expressed in the Scriptures and yet by Tradition obserued of the whole Church come either from Apostles or from generall Councels as the obseruing of Easter the celebration of the day of Ascension c. The Bishop disputeth of adiaphorous Ceremonies and Titles of Ecclesiasticall persons no wayes blameable but because they are not expressely found in Scripture and concerning such things he saith That because their originall cannot be found out it is to be supposed it is probable they haue their beginning from the Apostles But hee speaketh not in this manner touching dogmaticall points and Articles of Faith Therefore our Aduersarie peruerteth his words and meaning IESVIT The Spirit of Christ or Christ by his Spirit being still with the Church cannot permit Errors in Faith so to creepe into the Church as they grow irreformable euen by the Principles of Christianitie But if Errors could so creepe into the Church as their beginning could not be knowne since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receiued Errors could so creepe into the Church and preuaile that by the Principles of Christianitie they are irreformable This I prooue because Errors are irreformable by the Principles of Christianitie when whosoeuer vndertakes to reforme them by the Principles of Christianitie is to be condemned as an Heretike But he that will vndertake to reforme Doctrines vniuersally receiued by the Church opposeth against the whole Church and therefore is by the most receiued Principle of Christianitie by Christs owne direct Precept to be accounted as an Heathen and Publican And as S. Augustine saith to dispute against the whole Church is most insolent madnesse specially when the Doctrine is antient without any knowne beginning as are the supposed erronious Customes and Doctrines of the Romane Church for then the vndertaking Reformer must striue against not onely the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church time out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec Idoneus Who is able to begin a new course of Christianitie and to ouerthrow that Doctrine which is vniuersally receiued and cannot be prooued by any Tradition of Ancestors to be otherwise planted in the World but by the Apostles themselues through the efficacie of innumerable Miracles Wherefore these Doctrines if they be Errors which by the Principles of Christianitie no man ought to goe about to reforme and seeing it is impossible that there should be any such Errors we must acknowledge that Principle of S. Augustine as most certaine That Doctrines receiued vniuersally in the Church without any knowne beginning are truly and verily Apostolicall And of this kind are the Roman from which Protestants are gone ANSWER The Point which you labour to prooue is That Doctrines vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not reported by Monuments of Historie and Antiquitie are Apostolicall You haue taken that as granted and presupposed which we denie to wit That your Popish Doctrine was for a thousand yeeres at least vniuersally receiued But this is a begging of the Question and a false supposition Wherefore I might according to the rules of Disputation passe by the other part of your Argument But to cleare all things more exactly I will ex abundanti answer that which followeth Your disputation about this part of the question being resolued into the seuerall Arguments and parts may bee thus conceiued No errours irreformable can be in the Church All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable Ergo No errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning can be in the Church The Maior is confirmed by an Argument taken from the continuall presence of Christ by his Spirit to the vniuersall Church for wheresoeuer Christ is perpetually present and assistant by his holy Spirit there it is impossible that irreformeable errours should preuaile I answere No errours great or lesse absolutely irreformeable can bee in the Church as it signifieth the sounder and better part thereof but errours irreformeable Ex Hypothesi that is presupposing the ignorance and malice of some ouerruling Prelates may preuaile in the Hierarchicall Church which is vulgarly reputed the vniuersall Church for such a Church may be the seate of Antichrist and whiles he reigneth errours may be incureable Ierem. 51. 9. Apoc. 17. 5. Neither doth the presence of Christ and of his Spirit deliuer the malignant part of the Church from irreformeable errours but onely the liuing members of his mysticall Bodie which are actuated and mooued by influence of sauing Grace Iohn 8. 31 32. Rom. 1. 28. 2. Thes. 2. 11. Iohn 12. 40. The Assumption to wit All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable is denied For although the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receiued according to the vniuersalitie of the state of the Church in those dayes without such a knowne beginning as Papists require vs to exhibite concerning their errours yet the same were reformeable by the word of Christ and by the doctrine of the Prophets in all such as receiued the loue of the Truth that they might be saued But the Iesuite prooueth his Assumption by this reason All errours are irreformeable when they which seeke to reforme them are Heretickes by the Principles of Christianitie But all that seeke to reforme errours vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne are heretickes by the principles of Christianitie Ergo All errours vniuersally receiued without a knowne beginning are irreformeable The Minor of this Paralogisme is denyed and it is false That all they which seeke to reforme errours vniuersally receiued are iustly condemned as heretickes by the principles of Christianitie And the Argument produced to prooue this Proposition is of no force Whosoeuer opposeth against the whole Church is by the most receiued Principle of Christianitie deliuered Matth. 18. 7. to be accounted as an Heathen or a Publicane and Saint Augustine saith That to dispute against the whole Church is insolent madnesse But whosoeuer seeketh to reforme errours vniuersally receiued whose beginning is not knowne opposeth against the whole Church Ergo All they which seeke to reforme errours c. are Heretickes by the Principles of Christiantie ANSVVER Whosoeuer opposeth against the whole Church taken as before for the Church Hierarchicall or representatiue is not by the doctrine of our Sauiour and Saint Augustine to be accounted an
by the Fathers but diuers obscure and difficill places out of their workes may be brought against them with such a shew that common people shall not know what to say For what Tradition more constantly deliuered by the Christian Doctours than our Sauiours consubstantialitie with his Father according to his diuine nature And yet the new reformed Arrians bring very many testimonies of antient Fathers to prooue that in this point they did contradict themselues and were contrarie one to another which places whosoeuer shall read will cleerely see that to common people they are vnanswerable yea that common people are not capable of the answeres that learned men yeeld vnto such obscure passages What then shall they doe They must answere that Antiquitie did neuer acknowledge such dissention among the Fathers in the point of our Sauiours consubstantiality which they would not haue omitted to doe had there beene any such reall dissention seeing they noted the Fathers opposition in lesser matters ANSWER That which was brought in after the daies of the Fathers could not be confuted by them particularly and in expresse tearmes neither could Antiquitie or fame of Tradition make report to Posteritie of those things which happened afterwards But yet many things vttered vpon other occasion are found in the writings of the Fathers which prooue that our present Romists are degenerated and entertaine a beleefe repugnant to the Primitiue Church But it is obiected that common people cannot know certainely the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church by such places of the Fathers partly because the exact examining of the workes and sayings of the Fathers requires great labour and skill and so it exceedeth the abilitie of these people partly because many obscure and difficile passages are found in the writings of the Fathers which will rather perplex common people than resolue them whereunto I answere That the rule whereby common people must examine Doctrine is the plaine sentence of holy Scripture and further triall and examination of Controuersies by the Fathers and Ecclesiasticall Writers belongeth to the learned and principally to the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who are to vse their gifts to the instructing of the common people If the Aduersarie shall obiect that Heretickes and deceiuers may impose a false sence vpon the Scripture I answere That notwithstanding this sufficient matter is found in the Scripture to confute hereticall exposition and God alwayes stirreth vp some Pastours or other learned persons to assist common people which haue receiued the loue of truth in true vnderstanding of diuine veritie necessarie to their saluation Secondly If the Scripture may bee abused and prophaned by heretickes Tradition may with greater colour be pretended or abused by them as appeareth by the Pharisees Thirdly Tradition is founded vpon the authoritie of a present Hierarchicall Church which may erre by the confession of many learned Papists But the Scripture is founded onely vpon the authoritie of Christ and his Apostles and is acknowledged to bee sacred and diuine by all Christian Churches IESVIT In the same manner Catholickes doe sufficiently answere Protestants that bring places of Fathers against the receiued Traditions of the Church as the reall Presence Inuocation of Saints and other the like to wit that Tradition deliuered these Doctrines as the vniforme consent of the Fathers and neuer noted such oppositions as Protestants frame out of their writings which is a cleare signe that Protestants either mis-alleadge their words or mistake their meaning For were that contradiction reall Why did not Antiquitie famously note it as it noted and conueyed by fame to posteritie their differences about disputable matters This Answere is full and a certaine ground of persuasion else as I said common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Ancestours vpon which they as I prooued build their Christian beleefe seeing as Doctour Field also noteth there bee few and verie few that haue leasure and strength of iudgement to examine particular controuersies by Scriptures or Fathers but needs must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted To discredit therefore a constant receiued Tradition it is necessarie to bring an Orthodox contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the fame of Antiquitie deliuered vnto Posteritie which kind of contradiction they cannot find against any point of Catholike Doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquitie doth acknowledge as a contradictor of Inuocation of Saints Adoration of the Sacrament Reall presence Prayer for the Dead they cannot certainely though they bring diuerse places to prooue a thing which Antiquitie neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these Points ANSWER The Doctrine of Reall Presence by way of Transubstantiation and the Doctrine of Inuocation of Saints imposed as an Article of the Creed c. were neuer deliuered by any vniforme consent of the antient Fathers neither hath antient Tradition affirmed That the Fathers vniformely taught and beleeued these points And as for later Tradition the authoritie thereof is doubtfull deseruing no credit further than it confirmeth that which it deliuereth by the testimonie of Witnesses more infallible than it selfe They which haue liued in succeeding Ages haue no certaine meanes to assure them what the antient Fathers taught but either their owne Bookes and Monuments or the testimonie of their Coaeualls And later Traditioners may both corrupt the Writings of the Fathers and also by report impose a false Tenet vpon them Our Aduersarie therefore beats the ayre when he laboureth to gayne the Fathers vnto his part vpon the sole Testimonie of latter Tradition and vpon a Negatiue Argument taken from the silence of the Romane Church omitting in partialitie towards it selfe the Narration of such Collections and Oppositions as were made against the Doctrine thereof out of the Fathers But when wee charge the Papalls with Noueltie wee proceed vpon more euident grounds First wee prooue that the Romish Faith opposed by vs hath no foundation or warrant in sacred Scripture Secondly the same is an addition to the antient Rule of Faith Thirdly the said Doctrine is not deriued by perpetuall and vniforme Tradition from the Apostles Fourthly the primitiue Fathers vertually opposed this Doctrine For although these Popish Articles as they are now explicitely maintained were not in perfect being in the dayes of the antient Fathers and therefore they could not so punctually or literally oppose them as wee doe yet in their Disputations Tractats and exposition of Scripture they vtter many things from which wee may collect that they beleeued not these Articles and that the same were no part of the Catholike Faith in their dayes and that if such Opinions had beene thrust vpon the Church for Articles of Faith in their dayes as now they are they would haue opposed them But our Aduersarie pleaseth himselfe immoderately with his Negatiue
Argument concluding That because no Historicall and expresse opposition was made against these Doctrines by the antient Fathers therefore the Tradition of the present Romane Church concerning these Doctrines is Apostolicall As if a man should conclude That because no expresse opposition was made against the Pharisees by the antient Iewish Church therefore their Traditions were diuine But if the sequele of this Argument be good then the Proposition following is necessarie to wit Euerie Doctrine against which the antient Fathers haue not made expresse and literall opposition is Apostolicall But this is false because some Heresies sprang vp in the Church after the decease of the antient Fathers and against those they could make no such opposition vnlesse they had beene endued with Propheticall inspiration But if as our Aduersarie obiecteth euerie Doctrine is Apostolicall against which the antient Fathers made no expresse and Historicall opposition then the Articles following which Protestants maintaine are Apostolicall to wit The Romane Bishop and Councell may erre The substance of Bread and Wine remaine in the holy Eucharist after consecration The common Prayer and Seruice of the Church which the vnlearned frequent ought to be vttered in a knowne Language These I say and the like Articles according to the Iesuits Argument must be Apostolicall because no expresse Historicall or literall opposition was made against them by the antient Fathers But the Iesuit will peraduenture except That euerie Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church against which the Fathers haue made no expresse opposition is Apostolicall and not euerie other Doctrine This verily or any thing else as wilde and absurd may be pretended but it must be prooued before it can merit any credit And if the Romane Church may erre and change her Doctrine after the decease of the antient Fathers then the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Romane Church is of the same qualitie with the Doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of other Churches But the first is true Rom. 11. 22. and there is nothing promised in Diuine Writ to the Romane Church to free the same from Error more than to the Churches of 〈◊〉 Antioch Ephesus c. For Hierusalem was the prime Mother Church Esa. 2. 3. Luc. 24. 47. and the first Seat of all the Apostles Ephesus was the Episcopall Sea of S. Iohn and it was once a Ground and Pillar of Truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. and Antioch was the Episcopall Sea of S. Peter Baron Annal. to 1. anno 39. nu 20. And yet euerie one of these Apostolicall Churches are departed from their antient integritie Wherefore except Romists can demonstrate by diuine testimonie that their Prelates and Pontifes haue singular and ample promises beyond other Apostolicall Churches they begge the question when they arrogate sole perfection infallibilitie and immutabilitie to themselues THE SECOND PART of the Iesuits Disputation concerning the supposed Errors of the PROTESTANTS IESVIT THe Conclusion of this Point shewing that Protestants erre fundamentally ANSVVER THis Conclusion is inferred vpon false Premises and therefore it is a Lying Conclusion And if Protestants erre not in all or any of the Articles obiected eyther materially or pertinaciously then they erre not fundamentally IESVIT Out of all this appeares that the Romane is the true Church and consequently that Protestants haue fundamentall Errors about Faith ANSWER If the Antecedent were graunted yet the Consequence is not necessarie for the Church of Africa in the dayes of Saint Cyprian was a true Church and yet they which beleeued otherwise touching rebaptising than that Church erred not eyther materially or fundamentally IESVIT Errours are fundamentall that is damnable either in regard of the matter because against some substantiall Article of Faith the knowledge whereof is necessarie for the performance of a required Christian dutie or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denies the Catholicke Church ANSVVER The distinction of errours into fundamentall and preterfundamentall is collected out of the Scriptures 1. Cor. 3. 12. Phil. 3. 15 16. 2. Tim. 2. 18. Col. 2. 19. Heb. 6. 1. And the same is found in the Fathers and in the Schoolemen in tearmes aequiualent As all verities according to St. Augustine are fundamentall without the knowledge and faith whereof people cannot attaine saluation so likewise all errours directly opposing and destroying right Faith concerning those necessarie and essentiall verities are fundamentall 1. Tim. 6. 3. 1. Cor. 15. 4 c. Gal. 5. 2. All necessarie and essentiall veritie either concerning Faith or good manners according to St. Augustine is deliuered in plaine places of holy Scriptures and therefore they which accuse others of fundamentall errour must produce plaine and manifest Scripture against them And if after such ostension Errants continue obstinate they are guiltie both before God and men of damnable Heresie and deserue the title and punishment of Heretickes These things being premised concerning the Subiect of the Iesuits Proposition I denie that errours in secondarie points defended against the common tenet of the Catholike Church are alwayes fundamentall for 〈◊〉 Cyprian with 80. Bishops of Affrica did stifly defend Rebaptising against the common iudgement of the Catholicke Church and yet S. August freeth them from the guiltinesse of damnable errour Secondly if all such errour be damnable yet the Protestants are innocent because they defend no errour great or small wilfully or obstinately neither doe they oppose but humbly submit themselues to the iudgement of the true Catholicke Church The Pharisees of Rome enroabe themselues with glorious titles but where doth the word of Christ endow them with priuiledges beyond other Churches shew vs out of the holy Euangelists or the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles that you are the onely Catholicke Church All fundamentall veritie is deliuered in the plaine Texts of Scripture Aug. d. Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. And all fundamentall errour is condemned by manifest Scripture Et Catholica fides in Scripturis manifesta est The true Catholike faith is manifest in the Scriptures Aug. d. Agon Christ. c. 28. Ecclesia nonin parietibus consistit sed in dogmatum veritate Ecclesia ibi est vbi vera fides est The Church of Christ consisteth not of outward Titles and walles but of the veritie of Doctrine Wheresoeuer true Faith is there is the Church saith S. Hierom sup Psal. 133. Where Faith is there is the Church saith Saint Chrysostome Where right Faith is not there is not the true Church Et Ecclesia est Hierusalem cuius fundamenta posita sunt super montes Scripturarum And the Church is Hierusalem whose foundations are placed vpon the mountaines of the Scriptures Eruite igitur aliquid manifestum quo demonstretis Ecclesiam If therefore Papals will force vs to beleeue that they are the only Catholicke Church and that we must follow their Pope
quantitie of the worke 2. Cor. 9.6 Fourthly the reward is certaine and infallible yea more certaine than any temporall benefit which man presently inioies in the world Gen. 22.16 Fiftly there is in all good Works a dignitie not of desert or equiparance either in respect of God of whom we can deserue nothing or in respect of the reward but only of grace diuine similitude goodnesse and honour Phil. 4.8 Sixtly the reward of good workes is called a crowne of righteousnes 2. Tim. 4. 8. because it is bestowed on them which exercise righteousnes and in regard of their righteousnes but merit of condignitie and righteousnes are 〈◊〉 tstings as appeareth in Angels and Infants which haue righteousnes and are crowned with glorie and yet they doe not merit Seuenthly the antient Fathers maintained no merit of condignitie but by the word Mereri they vnderstood either to obtaine or to impetrate and this is manifest because they applie the word Merit not only to iust men but also to sinners saying that they merited Repentance remission of Sinnes the calling of Grace c. Eithtly the prime part of mans iustice is the remission of his sinnes and the righteousnes of Faith for without these there can be no true and liuing morall righteousnes and where these are found good Workes are neuer wanting IESVIT SIxtly Their errours against Baptisme the gate and entrance into Christian life whereof they deny the vertue to sanctifie men and the 〈◊〉 thereof for infants to whom they grant Saluation without Baptisme ANSWER ALthough some persons haue been Christians before their Baptisme as S. Augustine saith of Cornelius Euen as in Abraham the justice of Faith was precedent and the seale of Circumcision followed after so likewise in Cornelius spirituall Sanctification by the gift of the holy Ghost went before and the Sacrament of regeneration in the lauer of Baptisme succeeded yet notwithstanding the ordinarie gate and entrance into Christian life is Baptisme S. Ambrose siue Prosper d. vocat Gentium lib. 1. cap. 5 The beginning of true life and righteousnesse is laid in the Sacrament of Regeneration that looke where man is new borne there also the veritie of Vertues themselues may spring Neither do Protestants deny the vertue and efficacie of Baptisme to sanctifie men but according to the holy Scriptures Eph. 5.26 Tit. 3.5 Gal. 3.27.1 Pet. 3.21 Acts 22.16 Rom. 6.3 and the antient Church they teach and maintaine That this Sacrament is an instrument of Sanctification and remission of sinnes The Liturgie of the Church of England in the forme of administration of Baptisme hath these words Seeing now D. B. that these children be regenerate c. Wee yeeld thee heartie thankes most mercifull Father that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy Spirit to receiue him for thine owne child by adoption c. And master Hooker saith Baptisme is a Sacrament which God hath instituted in his Church to the end that they which receiue the same might therby be incorporated into Christ and so through his most pretious merit obtaine as wel that sauing Grace of Imputation which taketh away all former guiltinesse and also that infused diuine vertue of the holy Ghost which giueth to the powers of the soule their first disposition towards future newnesse of life Zanchius hath these words When the Minister baptiseth I beleeue that Christ with his hand reached as it were from heauen besprinkleth the child baptised with water with his bloud to remission of sinnes And in another place The holy Ghost mooueth vpon the water of Baptisme and sanctifieth the same making it to be a lauer of Regeneration Caluin saith Per Baptismum Christus nos mortis suae fecit participes vt in eam inseramur By Baptisme Christ hath made vs partakers of his death that we may be ingraffed into it And in another place If any man demand How can infants which want vnderstanding be regenerate I answer Although we are not able to fadome or vnfold the manner of this Worke of God 〈◊〉 it followeth not from thence that the same is not done And the same author with others of his part maintaine the former Doctrine concerning the efficacie of the Sacrament of Baptisme and they differ only from Lutherans and Pontificians First In that they restraine the grace of Sanctification only to the elect Secondly In that they deny externall Baptisme to be alwaies effectuall at the very instant time when it is administred But our Aduersaries must be ouer rigid if they shall censure questions of this nature which are touching circumstance so hardly as to make euery such difference a fundamentall errour especially because some among themselues as the Master of the schole reporteth affirme the same Thirdly whereas the Obiector addeth that Protestants denie the necessitie of Baptisme for Infants granting them Saluation without Baptisme he must vnderstand that necessitie is either absolute or else of precept and supposition We verily maintaine the latter necessitie of Baptisme for the saluation of Infants against the Pelagians and Anabaptists and the contempt and wilfull neglect of this holy Sacrament is damnable to such as are guiltie of this contempt and our Church prouideth diligently that all Infants if it be possible may receiue Baptisme before they depart this life But if it fall out ineuitable that new borne babes descending of Christian parents cannot receiue this Sacrament not onely Protestants but the antient Church it selfe and discreeter Papists haue thought it more pious to hope of Gods indulgence towards such infants than to aggrauate his vengeance with such rigour and extremitie as the Trent Fathers and their disciples do First the antient Church allotted onely two seasons in the yeare for Baptisme which they could not in their charitie haue thus restrained to set times if they had beene persuaded as moderne Papals are Secondly Gerson Biel and Caietan with many other famous Pontificians affirme That Infants departing this life without Baptisme may be saued by the speciall Grace of God and by the prayers and faith of their parents And the words of Thomas Elysius a late Pontifician are very remarkeable saying Opinio quam tenent Theologi plurimi Ecclesia secundum communem legem est satis dura onerosa non conformis preceptis Christi quae sunt suauia leuia The opinion of many Diuines which is commonly holden by the Church concerning the damnation of Infants deceasing without Baptisme is ouer hard and rigid and in no sort conformeable to the precepts of Christ which are sweet and easie And the same Authour Non est haeretica cum non sit contra Fidem Catholicam sea ei conformis maxime secundum fidei pietatem This opinion which propugneth the saluation of Infants vnbaptised is not hereticall for it is conformeable and not
no Lye nor his Power any Inconstancie Because therefore Christ hath a true and perfect Bodie both in regard of substance and matter and also in respect of quantitie stature measure posture proportion c. and because euerie true humane bodie by the Ordinance of the Creator who hath formed and constituted the seuerall kinds and natures of things after a speciall manner is determined to one indiuiduall place at one instant and must also haue distinction and diuision of parts with a length latitude and thicknesse proportionall to the quantitie thereof Therefore except God himselfe had expressely reuealed and testified by his Word that the contrarie should be found in the humane bodie of Christ and that the same should haue one manner of corporall being in Heauen and another in the holy Eucharist at one and the same time a Christian cannot be compelled to beleeue this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed vpon the sole Voyce and Authoritie of the Laterane or Trident Councell Some learned Papists confesse ingeniously That secluding the Authoritie of the Church there is no written Word of God sufficient to enforce a Christian to receiue this Doctrine And moderne Pontificians are not able to confirme their present Tenet to wit That Christs humane bodie may be in many vbities or places at one time and that the whole bodie of Christ is circumscriptiuely in Heauen and according to the manner of a Spirit and of the Diuine nature it selfe without extension of parts in euerie crumme of the Sacramentall formes This Doctrine I say Papals are not able to confirme by the vnanimous Testimonie and Tradition of the antient Church Therefore because the same is grounded neither vpon Scripture nor Tradition they begge the question when they alleadge Gods omnipotent power for it must first of all and that vpon infallible Principles appeare That God will haue it thus before his omnipotencie be pleaded that he is able to make it thus But the Iesuites Sophisme whereby hee would intangle vs within the snares of fundamentall Errour when wee denie Christs bodily presence in many places at once proceedeth in this manner No bodie can be truely receiued in many places at once vnlesse the same be corporally present in many places at once The Bodie of Christ is truely receiued in many places at once to wit in euery place where the holy Eucharist is administred Ergo The Bodie of Christ is present in many places at once I answere The Maior Proposition is denyed for there is a twofold manner of true Presence and consequently of Receiuing one Naturall by the hand and mouth of the bodie Another Mysticall and Spirituall by the deliuerie of the holy Ghost and by the apprehension and action of the soule First The holy Ghost truely and verily reacheth and presenteth the Obiect which is Christs Bodie and Blood crucified and offered in Sacrifice for mans Redemption Secondly The reasonable soule being eleuated by a liuely and operatiue Faith apprehendeth and receiueth the former obiect as really verily and truely after a spirituall and supernaturall manner as the bodie receiueth any corporeall or sensible obiect after a naturall manner Iohn 1. 12. Ephes. 3. 17. Fulgentius saith Filium Dei vnicum per fidem recipiunt They receiue the onely Sonne of God by Faith Our Sauiour saith That holy Beleeuers receiue the Flesh and drinke the Blood of Christ Iohn 6. 50 53 54. Credendo by 〈◊〉 v. 35.47 Paschasius hath these words The flesh and blood of Christ c. are truely 〈◊〉 by Faith and vnderstanding It is not lawfull to eate Christ with teeth This Sacrament is truely his flesh and his blood which man eateth and drinketh spiritually 〈◊〉 saith Hold readie the mouth of thy Faith open the iawes of Hope stretchout the bowels of Loue and take the Bread of life which is the nourishment of the inward man Eusebius Emisenus When thou goest vp to the reuerend Altar to bee filled with spirituall meates by Faith behold honour and wonder at the sacred Bodie and Blood of thy God touch it with thy minde take it with the hand of thy heart and chiefly prouide that the inward man swallow the whole Saint Ambrose Comedat te cor meum panis Sancte panis viue panis munde veni in cor meum intra in animam meam Let mine heart eate thee oh holy Bread oh liuing Bread oh pure Bread come into my heart enter into my soule Saint Augustine There is another Bread which confirmeth the heart because it is the Bread of the heart And in another place Then is the Body and Blood of the Lord life to each man when that which is visibly taken in the Sacrament is in very truth spiritually eaten spiritually drunken Now from the former Testimonies it is manifest that the Bodie and Blood of Christ may truely and really bee eaten and receiued by operatiue Faith in the Sacrament And if it bee further obiected That spirituall eating and drinking of the Bodie and Blood of Christ may bee without the Sacrament I answere That the same is more effectually and perfectly accomplished in the Sacrament than out of the Sacrament because the holy Ghost directly and in speciall when the Sacrament is deliuered exhibiteth the Body and Blood of Christ as a pledge and testimonie of his particular loue towards euery worthie Receiuer and the liuely representation and commemoration of Christs death and Sacrifice by the mysticall signes and actions is an instrument of the Diuine Spirit to apply and communicate Christ crucified and to increase and confirme the Faith Charitie and pietie of Receiuers Lastly It is remarkeable that vntill the thousand yeeres and more after Christs Ascension Orthodoxall Christians beleeued that the Bodie and Blood of Christ were truely and really present and deliuered to worthie Receiuers in and by the holy Eucharist according to St. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 10.16 And that the same must be spiritually receiued by Faith or else they profited nothing But the manner of Presence which some Modernes now obtrude by Consubstantiation or by Transubstantiation was not determined as an Article of Faith And to say nothing of Consubstantiation the defence whereof inuolueth them in many absurdities which vndertake for it it is apparant that Transubstantiation is a bastard plant and vpstart weed neuer planted by the heauenly Father but the same sprang vp in the declining state of the Church and it is perplexed and inuolued with so many absurdities and contradictions to Veritie formerly receiued that our Aduersarie was transported with partiall folly when he presumed to ranke the refusall of this new and prodigious Article among fundamentall Errours IESVIT EIghtly Their denying the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution the necessarie meanes for remission of finnes committed after Baptisme ANSVVER THe Obiector by Penance vnderstandeth not Repentance as it is a vertue for Protestants beleeue true
prime foundation of Christianitie is Christ himselfe 1. Cor. 3. 11. 1. Pet. 2.6 The Church is the seruant and Spouse of Christ the House of God whereof Christ himselfe is the grand Lord and Builder But wee haue learned in the Gospell That the seruant is not greater than his Lord Ioh. 13. 16. Hereupon S. Augustine Enchyrid cap. 56. Good order requireth that the Church be placed after the Trinitie as an House after the Inhabiter his Temple after God and the Citie after the Founder And if the Aduersarie replie That although it be a lesse Article in regard of the Obiect yet the denyall thereof is of greater consequence because it maketh men guiltie of Heresie c. I answere Granting that the denyall of the whole Article being rightly expounded maketh men Heretickes but I denie that a Christian which beleeueth this Article is no Hereticke if hee beleeue and maintaine any Errour against the plaine Doctrine of the holy Scripture which hee knoweth or which hee is bound Necessitate 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 to know beleeue and maintaine Saint Hierom vpon the Galathians saith Whosocuer to wit in waightie points vnderstandeth the Scriptures otherwise than the sence of the holy Ghost whereby they were written requireth may bee called an Hereticke although hee depart not out of the Church Tertullian saith Whatsoeuer in points Diuine and Sacred is repugnant to Veritie is Heresie Albertus saith Hee is an Hereticke which followeth his owne opinion and not the iudgement of the Scripture Occham Hee is an Hereticke which with a pertinacious minde imbraceth any Errour the contradictorie doctrine whereof is contained in holy Scripture Two things constitute an Hereticke First Errour and false Doctrine as the materiall Secondly Malicious and pertinacious adhearing to the same or defending the same as the formall A man may haue both these without any explicite denying the Article of the Catholicke Church For the Trueth which hee gainesayeth may be plainely deliuered in the holy Scripture and hee may reade the same and haue sufficient meanes to know it in the Scripture and maliciously or inordinately resist the holy Ghost speaking by the Scriptures Act. 7.51 Our Sauiour condemneth some for Heretickes calling them false Prophets Murtherers and Theeues Mat. 7.15 Ioh. 10.5 Not because they opposed the present Church for some of these were principall Rulers of the Iewish Church Mat. 23.1 but because they taught and beleeued contrarie to the Scriptures Mat. 22.29 Saint Augustine d. Bapt. c. Don. li. 4. c. 16. speaketh not altogether as the Iesuit 〈◊〉 him but saith onely That hee would not affirme of such a person who being baptised in the 〈◊〉 Church beleeued as Photinus the hereticke did supposing the same to be Catholicke Faith that he was an hereticke he absolutely affirmeth not that such a person was no Hereticke but that hee would not pronounce him an Hereticke before hee was conuicted And hee speaketh of Heretickes not as they were in foro coeli according to the iudgement of God but in foro Ecclesiae according to Ecclesiasticall Censure Neither doth hee speake of persons sufficiently conuicted by plaine euidence of holy Scripture and maliciously and inordinately resisting the Truth but of simple Errants misled and seduced through ignorance or infirmitie Doctor Field whose learned Treatise of the Church is nibbled at by Papists but yet remaines vnanswered by them is censured by this Obiectour for saying without any Proofe that an Errant against a fundamentall point is an Hereticke though he erre without pertinacie But the Iesuit reporteth amisse when hee saith Doctor Field deliuered this Assertion without Proofe for in the Margine of his Booke he confirmeth the same by the testimonies of Gerson and Occham two famous Doctors of the Roman Church And it is remarkeable that the Iesuit censuring the Doctour himselfe produceth no Argument out of diuine Authoritie to confirme his owne Position but resteth onely vpon the single testimonie of one Father which as I haue alreadie shewed speaketh not to his purpose IESVIT Hence Jinferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold against the Romane Church which I haue prooued to be the true Catholicke Church For he that holds any priuate opinion so stiffely as rather than forsake them he denyes and abandons the Catholike Church a mayne Article of his Creed erreth fundamentally as is cleare But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stifly as thereupon they haue denied and abandoned the Catholicke Church to wit the Romane ANSWER The mayne Proposition of this Section to wit Protestants 〈◊〉 fundamentally according to the second kinde of erring c. is denied and the Assumption of the Syllogisme whereby the Obiectour laboureth to prooue the same is palpably vntrue For Protestants maintaine no priuate opinion either stiffely or remissely whereby they haue denied and abandoned the true Catholicke Church First They maintaine no doctrine as matter of Faith but that which is deliuered in holy Scripture and which consenteth with the Primitiue Church either expresly or virtually But such doctrine is not priuate opinion because the holy Ghost which is the supreame gouernour and directour of the Church and the Prophets and Apostles which were inspired from heauen are the Authours thereof Secondly The Romane Church is not the Catholicke Church but an vnsound part of the generall visible Church as it is prooued by the Learned of our part whereunto the Aduersaries haue as yet made no replie IESVIT Neither doth it import that they retaine the word hauing reiected the sence seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter beleeued makes men Christians Neither is it enough to say that they beleeue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the onely Elect a meere fancie but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by sucsion of Bishops which thus I prooue ANSWER We retaine both the words and the sence of the Article and the Catholicke Church in the Apostles Creed in respect of the militant part thereof is a Church of right beleeuers and especially of iust and holie persons and principally and intentionally and as it comprehendeth both the militant and triumphant the congregation of all the elect for this Church is the mysticall and liuing bodie which Christ saueth Ephes. 5. 23. It is the Church of the first borne which are written in Heauen Heb. 12.23 It is the Church builded vpon the Rocke against which the gates of Hell shall not preuaile either by Haeresie Temptation or mortall Sinne Math. 16. 18. Math. 7.24 And if it be a meere fancie to hold this then Gregorie the Great with many other of the antiēt Fathers were fantasticks for teaching in this manner But the Church of the Creed is not alwaies the Church Hierarchicall for the Church in the
it had beene a sacred image of Christ or of some Saint and which was worshipped by some Christians newly conuerted from Paganisme with heathenish honours But if this glosse had beene likely it is very improbable that Cardinall Bellarmine and some other also who haue written since Vasques would haue esteemed it so lightly And Epiphanius his text will not beare this exposition For he saith that at the time when he wrote that Epistle he did not remember to wit perfectly whose image this was but if Epiphanius himselfe did not remember whose image it was whether of Christ or of a Saint or of some other man how knowes this Iesuit that it was the image of a prophane person Besides if it had beene the picture of some prophane person or Pagan superstitiously worshipped wherefore was Epiphanius silent in relating hereof considering that the bare narration of so grosse a fact would most apparently haue iustified the whole proceeding but he affirmeth only in defence of his action That entring into an Oratorie and there espying a vaile or hanging whereon was figured the image of a man which he did not when he wrote the Epistle remember whether it were Christ his picture or any other of the Saints he cut the same in peeces and withall commanded that no such painted vayles should hereafter be suffered to hang in the Church IESVIT Wherefore seeing this Minister so much esteemed in the Church of England saying what he can deuise in proofe of the Romane Churches change about Images brings nothing but manifest falshoods so many in so few lines any indifferent man may conclude that worship of Images hath continued without change euer since the Apostles For if any change in such matter as this had beene made it would haue beene most euident when and by whom so great a Noueltie was introduced ANSVVER The Minister whom you depraue was no otherwise esteemed in the Church of England than 〈◊〉 an ordinarie Student and professour of Theologie neither was his authoritie in handling of controuersies greater than the waight of his argument and disputation should deserue And your Hyperbole saying That he bringeth nothing but manifest falshoods is rather an vndigested cruditie of rayling words than a true censure of him against whom you are better able to declame then dispute But your threadbare argument whereby you labour to prooue That worship of Images hath continued without change euer since the Apostles because it would haue beene most euident when and by whom so great a noueltie was introduced hath at the least three lame feet First The Antecedent is false for it is euident to iudicious men when and by whom this noueltie was brought in as for those which are blinded with superstition and haue a feared conscience nothing is euident to such Secondly This Argument presupposeth that Worship of Images was generally practised among Christians in the dayes of the Apostles and in the Primatiue Church for otherwise why shall Protestants be bound explicitely to assigne the time of Alteration If this practise was not Apostolicall and Primatiue the succeeding practise whensoeuer it began and whether we can assigne or not assigne when and by whom maketh not the same lawfull Thirdly Ab ignoratione rei ad negationem non sequitur It is inconsequent to argue Protestants cannot out of humane Historie assigne the moment of time when worship of Images first began to be practised in the Church Ergo This practise is not an Innouation For Papists cannot assigne the moment of time when Heathens first began to worship Baal and Ashtaroth or when the Progenitors of Abraham began to serue other Gods Iosh. 24. 2. And yet they will iudge the consequence to be absurd which should inferre because Papists cannot assigne when and by whom such Innouations began therefore they were perpetuall Wee expect diuine Reuelation to warrant Adoration of Images for vnlesse that appeare the same cannot bee a necessarie dutie in Religion But the Iesuit would ambush himselfe in the Laborinth of Historicall Discourse which can produce onely humane beleefe when it is plaine and certaine but being also vncertaine and not faithfully kept it may perplex and deceiue and beget contention whereas on the contrarie Diuine Reuelation settles the conscience and makes the Truth manifest IESVIT §. 3. The places of Exodus and Deuteronomie with no probabilitie vrged against the worship of Images by Protestants that make them Against Image worship Protestants bring in the place of Exodus Chap. 20. ver 4. 5. and of Deuteron cap. 5. ver 6. 7. Thou shalt not haue false gods before me Thou shalt not make to thy selfe a grauen Jmage nor any likenesse either in the heauen aboue or on the earth below or of things that are vnder waters or vnder ground Thou shalt not adore nor worship them Which place I wonder they can thinke strong enough to ouerthrow a Custome in which the rules of Nature the principles of Christianitie the perpetuall Tradition of Gods Church doth settle Christians for this place makes against them or not against vs which I prooue thus The Images we are forbidden to worship we are forbidden to make Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Jmage thou shalt not adore them nor worship them Contrariwise The Jmages we may lawfully make we may also lawfully adore or worship if they be Images of venerable and adorable persons But the Images which we worship of Christ Protestants make yea some to wit Lutherans set them vp in their Churches and they are Images of an adoreable person Ergo They cannot condemne our Adoration of Jmages except likewise they condemne their making them as against Gods Law ANSVVER The places of Scripture alleaged by Protestants against Adoration of Images Exod. 20. 5. Deut. 5.8 are a part of the Morall Law therefore if the worshipping of Images was prohibited vnto the Israelites in the same it is also forbidden Christians and to worship Images is vnlawfull in the state of the New Testament The Aduersarie wondreth why Protestants should thinke that the 〈◊〉 places of Exodus and 〈◊〉 are strong enough to ouerthrow Image Worship being 〈◊〉 vpon 〈◊〉 of Nature Christianitie and Tradition First This latter Clause is onely a vaine ostentation and repetition of that which is formerly confuted Secondly The reason whereupon he groundeth his confident speech saying Which place I wonder they can thinke strong enough is wonderous weake as it will appeare by the Resolution and Answer of his Obiection This Argument in forme is If all worship of Images is prohibited Exod. 20. c. then all making them is also prohibited for the same Precept which saith Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them saith in the former part Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any grauen Image c. But all making of Images is not prohibited Exod. 20. Because Protestants themselues allow some kinde of Image making Ergo All worship of
Catholicke But necessitie hath no Law for if the Scriptures may be suffered to speake Papistrie must fall like Dagon before the Arke IESVIT Catholickes on the contrary side though they boast not of Scriptures as knowing that nothing is so clearely set downe in it but malapert errour may contend against it with some shew of probabilitie yet haue Scriptures much more cleare and expresse than any that Protestants can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the Image of Christ crucified in the first Apostolicall Church S. Paul to the Galathians saith O ye foolish Galathians who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth before whose eyes Christ Iesus is liuely set foorth crucified among you The Greeke word corresponding to the English liuely set foorth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to paint foorth a thing insomuch as euen Beza Iesus Christus depictus crucifixus Iesus Christ painted crucified before your eyes so that we haue in plaine and expresse tearmes that Christ was Painted crucified in the Apostolicall Churches which the Apostle doth allow thence drawing an Argument to prooue the Galathians were sencelesse and sottish that keeping in their sight Christ painted as Crucified they would be saued by the Law and not by the merits of his Crosse for it was madnesse and folly to paint Christ and honour him as crucified and not to thinke that by his death vpon the Crosse he redeemed the world ANSVVER There is reason why Romists which stile themselues Catholickes but are not should bee sparing in boasting of Scripture but the reason assigned by the Aduersarie which is that Scriptures may be peruerted by Errants is vnsufficient for it is common to Tradition and to Histories and monuments of antiquitie to be peruerted and abused and the same happeneth not by the kind and nature of the Scripture but accidentally through the malice and subtiltie of man peruerting the right wayes of the Lord. And there is sufficient matter in the sacred Scripture to demonstrate veritie and to conuince Errants when they peruert the right sence And whereas you affirme in the next place that Romists haue Scriptures more cleare and expresse than any that Protestants can bring for themselues euen about the vse of the Image of Christ. First If this were true it prooueth not the question That Images ought to be worshipped but onely that they may bee vsed for Historie Ornament and Signification as the Cherubins and other Pictures of the Temple in the old Law for Vse being a generall and Worship a speciall you cannot conclude affirmatiuely from the former to the latter Secondly You depart from your owne receiued Principles when you indeuour to prooue Image worship by Scripture for the same according to your doctrine is a diuine Tradition and such a Tradition according to learned Bannes as is neither expresly nor infoldedly taught in holy Scripture Wherefore then doe you attempt to prooue Iconolatrie out of Scripture which being in your Tenet a Tradition is Doctrina tantum non Scripta a Doctrine altogether vnwritten It is a vaine thing to promise to fetch Treasure out of a Chest or water out of a flint stone in which a man himselfe confesseth there is none Thirdly St. Paul his Text Galath 3.1 Nullis machinis can by no ingens or deuices be wrested to your Tenet All Expositors antient and moderne which haue Commented vpon this Text are against you and you haue neither the letter nor matter of the Text fauourable to you The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon which you insist is translated by your owne Interpretors Proscribed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iud. v. 4. Prescribed and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15.4 Haue beene written and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. 3. 3. I haue written before And whereas you flye to Beza translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Depictus Painted before he telleth you in his Annotation that hee vnderstandeth not artificiall but Theologicall depainting not externall but spirituall to wit by the euident and powerfull Preaching and Doctrine of Saint Paul Christ Iesus was so liuely reuealed and set foorth to the vnderstanding of the Galathians as if they had indeed beheld him crucified before them And in this manner Chrysostome Theophilact and Oecumenius expound Saint Paul and with them agree your owne Doctors Aquinas Adam Sasbot Estius Cornelius Iustinianus Vasques Salmeron c. There is no small difference betweene vocall and spirituall depainting and betweene materiall or artificiall betweene painting vpon mindes and painting vpon materiall Tables betweene intellectuall beholding Christ Iesus crucified in the Storie of the Gospell or in the Sacrament and in a visible Statue or painted Table And therefore from St. Pauls affirming the former the Iesuits latter followeth not IESVIT I know that some Catholickes expound this place That Christ was painted out vnto the Galathians Metaphorically by preaching which I doe not denie but this doth not repugne with the other sence that he was also materially painted as crucified the which being more conforme to the natiue and proper signification of the words is not to bee forsaken but vpon euident absurditie especially seeing it hath more connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse which is to prooue the Galathians sencelesse in forsaking Christ crucified painted before their eyes for to forsake Christ crucified set forth by preaching as the Sauiour of the world though it be impious yet is not sencelesse yea rather Saluation by the Crosse of Christ did seeme follie vnto the Gentiles But to haue Christ painted as crucified before mens eyes honouring him by Christian deuotion in regard of his crucifixion and death and not to expect Saluation by him is sottish and senceles And of this materiall painting of Christ Athanasius expoundeth this place whom Turrianus citeth wherefore I may iustly say that we haue more cleere and expresse Scripture for the vse of Images than haue Protestants for their vulgar Translations ANSVVER First yeeld vs but one Father or learned Papist who in their Commentaries expound this place literally according to your sence Secondly It is neither comformable to the signification of the words for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be written afore and not to be pictured before neither hath it any necessarie connexion with the drift of the Apostles discourse c. For the Galathians being Christians conuerted from infidelitie and not Heathens or Iewes to whom the Crosse or death of Christ vpon the Crosse seemed foolishnesse 1. Cor. 1.18 were more sencelesse that is to say more void of right iudgement by forsaking Christ Iesus crucified which was by the preaching of the holy Ghost and Sacraments ordained by God euidently reuealed to their conscience and receiued by Faith than if they had forsaken him painted onely in a Crucifix for to forsake a thing written in the heart and beleeued
of Saints and Angels IESVIT I Haue ioyned these two Controuersies together hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficultie of them both being the same to wit Worship and Inuocation of Angels and Saints For I am most fully persuaded that if your Maiestie did allow Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer denie that Deuotion vnto the Blessed Virgin Mother of God whom you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our Prayers that seeme to giue her Titles aboue that which is due to a Creature about which I shall in the end of this Discourse endeuour to giue your Maiestie satisfaction ANSVVER ALthough it were granted that some kind or manner of Petition or Compellation made by the Church Militant to the blessed Saints and Angels were lawfull and that we might request them to be Comprecants and to make intercession to God in our behalfe yet the Inuocation of them according to the practise of the Romane Church wherein they pray first of all to Saints and in the last place to Christ and their excessiue worship by Vowes Oathes Offertures conioyning their satisfactions with Christs and confidence in their merits and adoring their Images cannot be iustified for this manner of Deuotion hath no foundation expresse or infolded in Diuine Reuelation and the Primitiue Church did not appoint or practise the same And it encroacheth so neerely vpon the Office of Christ our sole Redcemer Mediator and Aduocate that without expresse and manifest Precept or approbation of the Holy Ghost wee may not esteeme it lawfull The Doctrine of our Church concerning Inuocation and Adoration of the blessed Trinitie our accesse to God by Supplications and Prayers in the name of Iesus Christ our dependance vpon the sole Merits and Satisfactions of our all-sufficient Redeemer and Sauiour haue Precept Example Promise Reasons and Warrantie deliuered in the expresse manifest and indubitate Word of God Ioh. 14. 13 14. cap. 16.24 1. Ioh. 2.1 Heb. 4. 15 16. 1. Pet. 2.5 Heb. 13.15 Also wee haue certainetie of Faith That Christ Iesus our Intercessor and Aduocate hath distinct and perfect knowledge particular and generall of our qualitie state and actions Heb. 4.13 His office is to make intercession for vs Rom. 8.34 Heb. 7. 25. He inuiteth vs most louingly to come vnto him Math. 11.28 Our heauenly Father alwayes heareth him Iohn 11. 42. His compassion towards vs exceedeth the pietie of any creature Ioh. 10. 11. 15. 13. Heb. 4 15. Wee may more safely and with greater comfort speake to our Sauiour than to any Saint or Angell the holy Spirit helpeth our infirmities and teacheth vs to make intercession according to the will of God Rom. 8.26 27. Therefore our praying to God in the name of Christ onely our supplication to the Father to accept vs for the sole merits of our Sauiour is a most safe and faithfull deuotion and our assurance is grounded vpon the word of faith and hauing such promises we cannot be deceiued in our hope 2. Tim. 2.13 Tit. 1. 2. But on the contrarie Romish inuocation directed to Saints Angells and the blessed Virgin their oblation of the merits and satisfaction of creatures with many other branches of their holy seeming deuotion haue neither precept example or promise in the large booke of God notwithstanding the same booke is most abundant in teaching the dutie and forme of prayer And some of our best learned Aduersaries confesse that the doctrine of inuocation of Saints is neither expresly nor infoldedly taught in holy Scripture Therefore his most excellent Maiestie our Soueraigne Lord and King to whose sacred person the Iesuit directeth his former speech may with vnspeakeable ioy and comfort glorie that he is in this article a defender and propugner of that faith which is taught from heauen by the holy Ghost and Papisticall inuocation is no plant growing in the Paradise of holy Scripture by their owne confession neither haue they any meanes infallible to ascertaine themselues and others that the same is a plant which the heauenly Father hath planted or that their deuotion in this kind is necessarie profitable or acceptable to God IESVIT In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonies vndeniable if neede be That worship and inuocation of Saints hath beene generally receiued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine A thing so cleere that Chemnitius doth write in this sort Most of the Fathers as Nazianzen Nissen Basill Theodoret Ambrose Hierome Austin c. did not dispute but auouch the soules of Martyrs and Saints to heare the petitions of those that prayed they went often to the monuments of Martyrs and inuocated Martyrs by name And seeing these Fathers praysed and practised this custome as receiued from Ancestours and as a matter of faith condemning the contradictors thereof as Nouelists and Heretikes to wit Aerius and Vigilantius as is confessed I may further conclude that that custome did not then begin but was come downe from the Apostles which is confirmed by testimonie of the Magdeburgians in acknowledging that in the Fathers next 〈◊〉 the Apostolicall times were found Non obscura vestigia Inuocationis Sanctorum as appeareth by the testimonie of Saint Ireneus tearming the 〈◊〉 Virgin the aduocate of Eue that is of her children ANSVVER You presuppose that which notwithstanding your facing you will neuer bee able to prooue to wit That innocation of Saints according to the doctrine and practise of the late Roman Church hath beene generally and vniuersally receiued as an article of faith or necessarie dutie euer since the dayes of Constantine neither hath Chemnitius whom you alleadge affirmed this but rather said the contrarie First he saith That in the Primitiue Church vntill two hundred years after Christ this doctrine and practise was vtterly vnknowne Secondly he affirmeth that about the yeare 240. some seedes of this doctrine began to be sowne in the Church by Origen Thirdly He saith expresly that for three hundred and fiftie yeeres and vpward the publike practise of Inuocation was vnknowne in the Church And then about the yeere 370 it began to be spoken of in publicke assemblies by Basil Nyssen and Nazianzen vpon occasion of their Panegyricall Orations Fourthly He addeth That notwithstanding these Orations it was not generally and vniuersally receiued in those times but both doubted of and also reprooued and condemned by some and about the 400. yeere Saint Chrysostome interposed and laboured to reduce people to the antient forme of Inuocation And proceeding in his Historicall Narration he sheweth out of Nicephorus lib. 15. cap. 28. that Petrus Gnapheus Anno 470 condemned by the first vniuersall Synode of Heresie was the first Author among the Grecians of mixing
your owne Glosse Nazianzen might by an Apostrophe speake to Cyprian not thinking or at least not being assured that he heard him Sixtus Senensis deliuereth this obseruation concerning the Fathers That in their Sermons wee may not take their words strictly and in rigour because they many times breake out into declamations and enunciate and inculcate matters by Hyperboles and other figuratiue speeches We finde in Lipoman one speaking to the girdle of the blessed Virgin in this manner O veneranda zona fac nos haeredes aeternae Beatae vitae hanc nostram vitam ab interitu conserua Tuam haereditatem tuum populum O intemerata zona intemeratum conserua ô venerable girdle make vs heires of eternall and blessed life and preserue this our present life from perdition ô vndefiled girdle preserue thy people from pollution If our Aduersaries will haue this speech to be figuratiue they haue more reason to grant the same touching Nazianzene of whom it is certaine that hee doubted whether the B. Saints heare all our prayers or not IESVIT And not onely Fathers but also Scriptures speake of Saints in the same sort our Sauiour saying Make to your selues friends of the riches of iniquitie that when you dye they may receiue you into the eternall Tabernacles If then the Saints of God by the mouth of veritie it selfe be said to receiue their friends when they die into the eternall Tabernacles because God mooued by their prayers admits them into the blissefull vision of his essence Why may not the Church and her children craue the blessed Virgins intercession in these words Mother of mercy receiue vs in the houre of death And seeing God is tearmed in Scripture Mercy Why should not she be stiled Mother of Mercy that is vndoubtedly Mother of God especially seeing that in and of her the Author of mercy and grace was conceiued and borne and she filled with grace and charitie aboue all other Creatures ANSWER Our Sauiour speaketh not of blessed Saints but of indigent people to whom men distribute their almes and these are said to receiue their benefactours into heauen because they are the obiect of charitie and beneficence for which Christ receiueth mercifull persons into heauen Math. 25.35 But was any mans vnderstanding so poore and beggerly as therefore at any time to inuocate beggers and in giuing almes to vse this forme of prayer Oh blessed Mendicants receiue our almes and receiue vs your benefactours into heauen Also some expositours referre the former saying to God and the Angels which receiue charitable persons when they decease into the state of blessednes Neither do Romists when they stile the blessed Virgin Mother of mercy and pray vnto her to receiue them at the houre of death vnderstand these words 〈◊〉 but properly for they hold that she is a Mother of mercy not onely by way of Intercession but of distribution and dispensation and she receiueth soules into heauen by her office and authoritie This is affirmed by Rutilius Benzonius a moderne Roman in his Commentarie vpon the Magnificat And Stellarium Coronae Mariae saith She hath this right because she hath bought vs with a Price And Viegas the Iesuit citeth Arnoldus Carnotensis saying She is placed ouer all creatures and her glory is not onely common but the very same with her sonnes And Viegas applyeth the words of Ecclesiasticus to her In me is the grace of all life and veritie in me is all hope of life and vertue Paulus Cararia saith Whatsoeuer Christ giueth must passe vnto vs by the hands of Mary as by a Mediatrix Osorius the Iesuit saith Euen as the heauens haue that eminencie that all generation perfection and motion of things inferiour depends vpon them so likewise God bestoweth all spirituall gifts to men by Mary IESVIT That other phrase much disliked by your Maiestie That God reseruing Justice to himselfe hath giuen away his Mercie to his Mother is not vsed by the Church in any of her Prayers nor allowed of by Catholike Diuines nor will wee iustifie it being an harsh and vnfitting Metaphor though thereby the Authors thereof meant to expresse a Truth to wit that the blessed Virgin is exceeding gracious with her Sonne and her intercession verie potent alluding to a phrase of Scripture Hester cap. 5. 3 6. cap. 7. 2. Mar. 6. 23. whereby such as are gracious with a Prince are said that they may haue any thing of him though halfe of his Kingdome So diuiding Gods Kingdome into Iustice and Mercie to shew how gracious the blessed Virgin is with her Sonne they say God hath giuen her one halfe of his Kingdome to wit his Mercie which is a Metaphor farre-fetcht not to be vsed howsoeuer in Charitie it may be excused ANSVVER It is not a Phrase onely but a blasphemous Doctrine which his Maiestie misliked For what can be more impious than to maintaine That Christ reseruing the Kingdome of Iustice to himselfe hath graunted the Kingdome of Mercie to his Mother To veyle this Sacriledge the Iesuit affirmeth two things First That this forme of speaking is not vsed by the Romane Church nor approoued by Catholike Diuines secondly That being expounded charitably it containeth a Truth But these excuses are Figge-leaues and painted Sepulchers for learned Papists both of elder and moderne times maintaine the same to wit Thomas Bonauenture Gerson Gabriel Biel Antoninus Bernardinus Gorrhan Holcoth Rutilius Benzonius Blasius Viegas Osorius Paulus Cararia Bonauenture saith O God giue thy Iudgement to the King thy Sonne and thy Mercie to the Queene his Mother Gerson Gorrhan c. say The B. Virgin is so magnified at this day that shee may rightly be called the Queene of Heauen yea and of Earth for shee hath preheminence and iufluxiue vertue ouer all Shee hath the moitie of Gods Kingdome if one may presume to say so vnder the Type of Hester and Assuerus For the whole Kingdome of God consisteth of Power and Mercie and Power being reserued to God himselfe the moitie of the Kingdome to wit Mercie is shared after a sort with the Mother and Spouse of Christ reigning together with her Sonne Benzonius saith The whole Kingdome of God consisteth of Iustice and Mercie as it were of two Moities Psal. 84. Now to the end that God might honour his Mother diuiding as it were his Kingdome he hath reserued Iustice to himselfe and his Sonne c. and the other part of his Kingdome which is gouerned and compassed with Mercie he hath graunted to the Queene his Mother Euen as King Assuerus offered halfe of his Kingdome to Queene Esther and as Raguel graunted halfe of his goods to Tobia c. as Moses Exod. 24.6 tooke halfe of the bloud and put in Basins and halfe of the bloud he sprinkled on the Altar so Cod put as it were halfe of his Kingdome that is that part of the bloud of Christ from which
Mercie floweth into the admirable Vessell and Basin the Virgin Marie and the other part to wit of Iustice which was poured vpon the Altar he hath left vnto Christ. Thus writeth Benzonius a famous Romane both by birth and Religion in our dayes Blasius Viegas a moderne Iesuit applyeth also this absurd comparison of Assuerus and Esther to Christ and the Virgin Marie And these Authors with the rest whom they follow doe not intend onely to teach That the blessed Virgin is very gracious with Christ in respect of her intercession but that shee hath a right and authoritie as a Queene Regent to distribute mercie and benefits where shee pleaseth and to dispence with the Lawes of Iustice when there is cause as appeareth by the words of Ozorius the Iesuite citing out of Nunne Bridgets Reuelations Christs words following My mother in my Kingdome ruleth as a Queene c. and therefore shee may dispence with Lawes made by me when there is iust cause And by this speech Nunne Bridget intendeth to shew that Christ did vse the helpe of his mother Marie in ruling his Kingdome now this Osorius was a Iate Preacher in Portugall Our English Iesuits when they returne to vs dissemble and cloake this Superstition not because they dislike it for they and the rest are all Birds of a feather and feed their silly chicks with the same carraine but they prudently consider that such notorious blasphemies being published would appeare odious and hinder their successe in beguiling vnstable soules and minister greater aduantage to their Aduersaries therefore like the Steward in the Gospell commended for his craft but not for his honestie when their Tenet is an hundred they write downe fiftie and when their Doctrine is blasphemous they confesse a pettie ouersight or vnfitnesse in the phrase and manner of speaking But if in good earnest they disliked the former assertions why hath not the grand Senior of Rome siue cum Concilio siue sine Concilio condemned rased and purged out these sacrilegious blasphemies especially because in other Authours their expurgatorius Index hath Eagles eyes and a line or sentence cannot escape these Critickes if there appeare obloquitie or antipathie to their inueterate forgeries Now for a Conclusion of the former Question let it be obserued That the Aduersarie is deficient in the demonstration of his Popish Tenet concerning Inuocation of blessed Saints and Angels for he hath produced no Diuine Testimonie from sacred Scripture no Tradition from the Apostles no plaine and resolute definition of approoued Councels or Primatiue Fathers no sufficient argument of naturall reason yea the mayne Principles of his Doctrine are litigious and dubious amongst Pontificians themselues Hee hath strugled playing fast and loose with our Arguments and spent himselfe in soluing or rather in eluding of obiections but he confirmeth not his owne St. Augustine saith That in things diuine or which concerne saluation they offend grieuously Qui certis incerta preponunt which preferre vncertainties before that which is indubitate Nostra fides certa est ex Doctrina Apostolica nouo veteri Testamento confirmata Our faith concerning the direct inuocation of the deitie by Christ our Mediatour of intercession is right and a certaine Apostolicall Doctrine confirmed by the Old and New Testament The Popish Appendix concerning Inuocation of Saints wanteth all Scripture proofe and whatsoeuer else may be pretended for it is dubious and litigious therefore our Doctrine is of faith and the Popish Tenet of humane opinion or presumption THE FOVRTH POINT THE LITVRGIE AND PRIVATE PRAYERS FOR THE IGNORANT IN AN vnknowne Tongue IESVIT THe Custome of the Romane Church in this Point is agreeable to the Custome of the Churches in all ages and also of all Churches now in the world bearing the name of Christian though opposite vnto the Romane only those of the pretended reformation excepted which constāt concurrence is a great figne that the same is very conforme vnto reason and not any where forbidden in Gods Word which will easily appeare if we looke particularly vnto the same ANSVVER YOu lay your foundation of this Article vpon two apparant vntruths for the Doctrine and custome of the present Romane Church is not onely not agreeable but opposite both to the Doctrine and Practise of the antient Catholicke Church and also to the custome of other Churches which are not absolute Protestants First It is the common voyce of the Fathers That the Liturgie and Seruice of the Church was in their dayes and ought to be vsed in a knowne tongue Origen saith That in his dayes euery nation prayed to God in their owne Language the Grecians in Greeke the Romanes in Latine and all other people in their proper tongue Iustin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus affirme That the Priest and the people prayed ioyntly and in common in the publicke Seruice which argueth that the people vnderstood the Prayers And St. Cyprian requires That peoples hearts and words agree and that they heare and vnderstand themselues when they pray to God Saint Basil saith When the words of Prayer are not vnderstood by them which are present the minde of the Precant is vnfruitfull neither doth any man hereby reape any profit St. Chrysostome St. Ambrose affirme the like And St. Augustine requireth people to vnderstand what they pray and sing for if there be onely sound of voyce without sence they may bee compared to Parrats Owsells or Popiniayes And some of the best learned Papists to wit Thomas Aquinas Lyra Cassander acknowledge That in the Primatiue Church the common Seruice was vsed in the vulgar tongue Secondly it is false according to the Tenet of Bellarmine himselfe that all other Churches which differ from the Protestants haue their publique seruice in Hebrew Greeke or Latine Bellonius and Aluares affirme the contrarie of the Armenians and Abissines and Eckius of the Indians and Sigismundus Baro and Hosius of the Russians and Ledesma of the Egyptians and Armenians And AEneus Syluius reporteth That when Cyrillus and Methodius had conuerted the Saluons vnto Christ were suitors that they might administer the common Prayers and Seruice among them in their vulgar tongue The Pope in the Conclaue consulting about this matter a voice was heard as it were from Heauen saying Let euerie Spirit praise the Lord and let euerie tongue acknowledge him and hereupon they were permitted to vse their owne tongue And it appeareth by the Decretals that the Roman Church in former times did ordinarily appoint this for the words of the Canon are For as much as in many places within one Citie and one Diocesse there be nations mingled together speaking diuers tongues c. We therefore commaund that the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses prouide meet men to minister the holy Seruice according to the diuersitie of their
manners and tongues Thirdly it is repugnant to the nature and end of vocall Prayer that the same should be exercised in a forme of words which people that pray together vnderstand not for prayer is an ascending of the mind to God and according to Aquinas and other Schole-men it is an action of the vnderstanding facultie and in the same people confesse their sinnes and request of God such things as they haue need of They giue thankes for benefits spirituall and temporall general and speciall conferred vpon them and the effect of prayer dependeth vpon their inward humiliation and sence of their wants 2. Chro. 34.27 Psal. 51.19 and vpon their speciall faith in the diuine promises Math. 9.28 Marc. 9.23 and Marc. 11.29 And Tertullian saith God is not so much an hearer of the voice as of the heart But these things cannot be performed where people vnderstand not what they confesse request or praise God for And words are appointed to instruct excite and edifie men and if they vnderstand them not to what vse serueth vocall prayer for we vse not words to teach God but to instruct and excite our selues And hereby the Popish euasion is answered wherein they affirme that euen as When a Supplication is preferred to a King or Iudge which the Suppliant vnderstandeth not it is all one in what language soeuer the same be preferred the Iudge vnderstand it So likewise because God vnderstandeth all languages it mattereth not though people pray to him in a strange tongue for our words in vocal prayer concern our selues mutually principally but God himselfe requireth the vnderstanding and affection of our heart Read S. Augustines words cited in the margent Also the Iewes vnder the Law and the Prophets prayed in a language which they vnderstood our Sauiour and his Apostles and the Primitiue Church did the like and the gift of languages was bestowed vpon Pastors and people in common Act. 2.3 Also the former Doctrine is so apparant that some of the best learned Romists teach that publicke seruice in a knowne language is most fruitfull and conuenient Caietan saith It appeareth by S. Pauls Doctrine that it is better for the edification of the Church that common Prayers which are made in the hearing of the people be said in a vulgar tongue vnderstood indifferently by Priest and people than in Latine Lira saith If the people vnderstand the prayer of the Priest they are better brought to God and they answere Amen with greater deuotion And the reason hereof is manifest for deuotion compunction desire and affection depend vpon vnderstanding and follow the same and the more distinct and particular the vnderstanding of the obiect of these is the more feruent and perfect the actions are IESVIT For we may imagine a triple state of Liturgie in an vnknowne tongue The first in a language altogether vnknowne in which no man in the Church speakes no man vnderstands besides the celebrant himselfe nor he neither but by Enthusiasme or inspiration of the holy Ghost Without question it is inconuenient that publique prayer should be said in a language in this sort vnknowne and this is prooued by the reasons the Apostle brings against an vnknowne tongue in the Church ANSWER This first imagination is a Chimera or 〈◊〉 for there was neuer in the world any such kind of common or ordinarie Seruice or Liturgie And S. Paul 1. Cor. 14. condemneth in generall the vse of vnknowne tongues in the congregation vnlesse they be interpreted and referred to mentall edification As for the vnlearned Ideot which is ready to ioine with the Priest in prayer what is it to him whether the Priest speake by Enthusiasme or by discipline an vnknown language his ignorance and impossibilitie of speciall concurrence in prayer is the same as well in the one as in the other IESVIT Secondly in a language vnknowne to most euen of the better sort of the Church yet some know it and other may with facilitie learne it To vse a language in the Church for publique prayer in this sort vnknowne cannot be prooued vnlawfull nor forbidden by the Apostle seeing the reasons brought by him against a language vnknowne make not against this For S. Paul reprehends in the publique Liturgie a language vnknowne as the Minister of the Church that supplies the place of the Ideot and ignorant cannot vpon his knowledge of the goodnesse of the prayer say thereunto Amen in the name of them all But when the language is knowne to some of the Church and may with facilitie be learned of others there is or may easily be found one able to supplie the place of Jdeot and ignorant and answere in their person Amen out of his intelligence of the prayer in that vnknowne tongue ANSVVER That is forbidden by the Apostle to bee vsed in prayer and consequently it is vnlawfull whereby all states and sorts of people being of ripe yeres may not be edified in their vnderstanding and to which being read pronounced or heard they are not able to say Amen hauing some distinct vnderstanding of the things which are spoken 1. Cor. 14.16 17. 19 20. but all states and sorts of people being of riper yeares cannot be edified in their vnderstanding neither are they able to say Amen c. to prayers which are heard by them being read or pronounced in a strange language Ergo Common prayer read and pronounced in the Church in a strange tongue is prohibited by the Apostle and consequently such forme of ordinarie prayer is vnlawfull The Iesuit restraineth the words of S. Paul either to the Minister supplying the place of the Idiot or to the Clerke of the congregation But the Apostle requireth that all those which ioyne in prayer and among these the Idiots and vulgar sort be edified in their minds and they must pray and giue thanks vnderstanding the sence of words spoken and vpon this vnderstanding say Amen And except saith he ye vtter by the tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significant words or words carrying a perspicuous sence with them ye shall speake in the ayre and be as Barbarians to the hearers v. 9.11 and the Idiot mentioned by him v. 16. is not the Priest or the Clarke alone but the vulgar sort of people ignorant of the language and words which are vsed in preaching reading or praying as all the Fathers and sundry Pontificians deliuer which comment vpon this text As for the Latine the same is as vncouth to a great part of the congregation as to the Chineses they can onely gape at it and returne home from Masse and Mattens as wise as they went for ought they learne by the language The old rule was Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor vlli and accordingly your Masse Priests are meere barbarians to the ordinarie sort of people IESVIT Notwithstanding the Roman Church doth not
meanes by Catechising c. is a going about the bush the effect is vncertaine and vnsufficient to affoord distinct vnderstanding of an vnknowne language IESVIT Now that S. Paul did command that Seruice should be in such a language as euery woman in the Church might bee able to vnderstand it word by word is incredible nor are our Aduersaries able to prooue it ANSWER A most ridiculous Paralogisme for admitting that S. Paul descended not precisely to euery single word explained in such manner that euery particular woman might at the first hearing vnderstand the same yet the conclusion followeth not That he commanded not the common Seruice should be in a knowne language First your selues acknowledge that Preaching and Prophecying should be in a knowne tongue and yet euery word or perhaps euery sentence cannot speaking morally bee vttered so plainely that euery person shall at the first sight distinctly conceiue the meaning Secondly the ignorance of the distinct notion of euery word hindereth not sufficient edification when the ordinarie necessarie and common passages of the publike Seruice are intelligible IESVIT Neither can they shew by any records of Antiquitie that such a Custome was in the Primatiue Church yea the contrarie may more than probably bee shewed because the drift of the Church in appointing Liturgies or set formes of publicke Prayer at the Oblation of the Eucharisticall Sacrifice was not the peoples instruction but for other reasons First That by this publike Seruice a continuall daily tribute of homage of Prayer of Thankesgiuing might be publikely offered and paid vnto God Secondly That Christians by their personall assistance at this publicke Seruice might protest and exercise exteriourly Acts of Religion common with the whole Church represented by the Synaxis or Ecclesiasticall meeting of euerie Christian Parish Finally To the end that euerie Christian by his presence yeelding consent vnto the publicke Prayers Praises and Thankesgiuings of the Church and as it were subscribing and setting his Seale vnto them by this assisting at them might ordinarily participate of the graces benefits and fruits which the Church doeth obtaine by her Liturgies and publicke Oblations Now for this end there is no need that euery one should vnderstand word by word the Prayers that are said in the publicke but it suffiseth that the Church in generall and in particular Pastours and Ecclesiasticall persons dedicated vnto the Ministeries of the Church and who watch being bound to giue an account of soules committed vnto their charge haue particular notice of all the Prayers that are said and that all that will may be taught and instructed in particular if they will vse diligence and desire it ANSWER We can prooue by Records of Antiquitie that the publike Seruice was ioyntly performed by the Ministers and people in a language common to both And the drift of the antient Church in their Seruice was that God might bee honoured by voyce heart and minde of all which were present Iohn 4. 24. But God in the state of the Gospel is not honoured with dumbe shewes and with lip labour nor with Prayers and Praises which the Offerers vnderstand not The reasons which you produce to prooue That it is not necessarie for vnlearned people to vnderstand the Common Seruice or Liturgie are lame and disjointed First Although the sole or principall end of appointing set formes of publicke Prayer was not to teach or instruct people in knowledge but to worship God c. yet because the latter cannot intirely be performed without the former because they which come to God with sound of words without sence and vnderstanding of matter offer the sacrifice of fooles therefore the placing of the one excludeth not the other for although the end of priuate Prayer is to worship God Psal. 50. 15. yet our Aduersaries themselues holde it requisite that such Prayer be made in a knowne Language Also one end of celebrating and receiuing the holy Eucharist is to commemorate and shew foorth the Lords death vntill his comming againe 1. Cor. 11. 25 26 but without vnderstanding the Language wherein the Lords Supper is administred people cannot call to remembrance or shew foorth the Lords death at least wisè so clearly and distinctly as is fit for them to doe Secondly A distinct and explicite inward deuotion ioyned with externall saying Amen is more effectuall and pleasing to God than a confused and generall But when people vnderstand the publike Prayers and Seruice of the Church in a familiar Language they are inabled to conioyne distinctly and explicitly inward and outward deuotion mentall and vocall saying Amen Therefore it is most expedient and necessarie for the Church to celebrate Diuine Mysteries and offer publicke Prayers in a Language which the people vnderstand IESVIT Moreouer the Churches antiently euen in the purest times of Christianitie had Chancells into which Lay-men might not enter and so could not particularly and distinctly vnderstand the Prayers said by the publicke Minister of the Church within the said Chancels they did also vse to say a good part of the Liturgie secretly so that their voyce was not audible vnto any yea the Greeke Church did antiently vse a vaile wherewith the Priest was for the time of the sacred Oblation compassed about which are manifest signes that the Church did neuer thinke it necessarie that all the publicke Liturgie should be heard much lesse word by word vnderstood by the whole vulgar multitude present thereat ANSWER It is not certaine at what time Chancells began neither were all Lay Persons prohibited to enter for the Emperour had his seate within the Chancell vntill the dayes of Theodosius the Elder as Theoderit and Sozomene report And although Lay persons were not seated in the Quire or Chancell yet the Seruice was pronounced by the Ministers in that place with an audible voyce so as the people in the bodie of the Church heard the same Iustinian the Emperour made this Decree following Wee command that all Bishops and Priests within the Romane Monarchie shall celebrate the sacred Oblation of the Lords Supper c. not in secret but with a lowd and cleare voyce that the mindes of the hearers may bee stirred vp with more deuotion to expresse the praises of the Lord God for so teacheth the Apostle 1. Cor. 14. Honorius in gemma Animae lib. 1. cap. 103. It is reported that in antient time when the Canon of the Masse was openly recited c. Iohn Billet cited by Cassander saith In times past the Masse was pronounced with a lowd voyce whereupon Lay people knew the same c. And mumbling and whispering in the Masse is not much more antient than Pope Innocent the third The Liturgies also fathered vpon S. Basil and S. Chrysostome haue a knowne Mother to wit the late Roman Church but there is besides many other iust exceptions so great dissimilitude betweene the supposed Fathers and the Children that they rather argue the dishonest
dealing of their Mother than serue as lawfull witnesses of that which the Aduersarie intendeth to prooue by them The Vaile in the Greeke Church of which S. Chrysostome speakes Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antioch was not vsed to depriue the people of hearing but it was a ceremonie admonishing and signifying that prophane and vncleane persons were vnworthie to behold or pertake the sacred mysteries And as this Father sheweth Hom. 3. in Ephes. the drawing open of the curtaines signified the opening of Heauen and the descending of Angels at the celebration of the holy Eucharist Metrophanes a Monke of Greece in a certaine tractate testifyeth the forme or vse of the Vaile or Curtaine in the East Church to be That the Priest may within or vnder the same prepare aforehand the things requisit for the administration of the Sacrament and when this is done then the Canopie is drawne at the pronouncing of the holy Creed which is vttered with a loud voice euen as all other parts of the Liturgie are that all people may heare Now this action signifieth according to Dionisius that God reuealeth these mysteries to those only which are Orthodoxall in Faith and hee communicates his diuine grace to none but those which are sound in the diuine worship and to such all things are manifested whether men or women poore or rich c. The Iesuit therfore is ignorant of the reason wherefore the Greeke Church vseth a Canopie and shutteth and openeth the same at the holy Communion for the same was not done to take away audience of any part of the Seruice from lay people for the whole Liturgie from the beginning to the ending was pronounced with a loud voice but to admonish and signifie the due preparation which all persons were to vse when they pertake the sacred mysteries IESVIT Besides it is certaine that the Scripture was not read in any language but Greeke ouer all the Church of the East as S. Hierom witnesseth Also the Greeke Liturgie of S. Basil was vsed in all the Church of the East and yet the Grecian was not the vulgar language of all the Countries of the East as is apparant by manifest testimonies of the Cappadocians Mesopotamians Galatians Lycaonions Egyptians Syrians yea that all these countries and most of the Orient had their proper language distinct from the Greeke is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles No lesse manifest is it that the Latine Liturgie was common antiently for all the Churches of the Westerne parts euen in Africke as appeareth by testimonies of Augustine but it is manifest that the Latine was not the vulgar language for all nations of the West And though the better sort vnderstood it yet some of the vulgar multitude onely knew their owne mother tongue as may be gathered out of the same S. Augustine who writes that he pleading in Latine against Cryspinus a Bishop of the Donats for possession of a village in Africke whereunto the consent of the villagers was required they did not vnderstand his speech till the same was interpreted to them in the vulgar African language So that the Christian Church did neuer iudge it requisit that the publique Liturgie should be commonly turned into the Mother language of euery nation nor necessarie that the same should be presently vnderstood word by word by euerie one of the vulgar Assistants neither doth the end of the publique diuine Seruice require it ANSWER Omitting things doubtfull this is apparant that common people both of the East and West had the vse of the Scriptures in such a language as they vnderstood for otherwise the Fathers would not haue exhorted them to read the holy Scripture but such exhortations are most frequent in S. Chrysostome S. Hierome and in other Fathers Read before pag. 279. And that the people of Asia vnderstood Greeke and the Africans Latine is prooued by the learned of our part out of many Authors and where this was wanting people had Translations and Seruice in their natiue tongue Also such people as were conuerted to Christianitie if they wanted Translations in their Mother tongue were careful to learne the ordinarie language in which diuine Seruice was vsed and wherein the holy Scriptures were commonly read But what proofe can the Aduersarie make that Christian people altogether ignorant of the language vsed in the publique Seruice came into those congregations and were pertakers of the holy Sacraments IESVIT As for the comfort that some few want in that they do not so perfectly vnderstand the particulars of diuine Seruice it may by other meanes bee aboundantly supplied without turning the publique Liturgies into innumerable vulgar languages which would bring a mightie confusion into the Christian Church First the whole Church should not be able to iudge of the Liturgie of euerie countrie when differences arise about the Translation thereof so diuers errours and heresies may creepe into particular countries and the whole Church neuer able to take notice of them Secondly particular countries could not be certaine that they haue the Scripture truely translated for thereof they can haue no other assured proofe but onely the Churches approbation nor can she approoue what she doth not vnderstand Thirdly were vulgar Translations so many as there be languages in the world it could not be otherwise but that some would be in many places ridiculous incongruous and full of mistakings to the great preiudice of soules specially in languages that haue no great extents nor many learned men that naturally speakethem Fourthly the Liturgies would be often changed together with the language which doth much alter in euerie age as experience sheweth Fiftly in the same countrie by reason of different dialects some prouinces vnderstand not one another And in the island of Iaponia as some write there is one language for noble men another for rustickes another for men another for women Into what language then should the Iaponian Liturgie be turned Finally by this vulgar vse of Liturgie the studie of the two learned languages would bee giuen ouer and in short time come to be extinct as we see that no antient language now remaines in humane knowledges but such as haue beene as it were incorporated in the publique Liturgies of the Church and the common vse of learned tongues being extinct there would follow want of meanes for Christians to meet in generall Councells to communicate one with another in matters of Faith Jn a word extreame Barbarisme would be brought vpon the world ANSVVER They cannot be some few onely in this case but the maior part yea an hundred to one which want the benefit and comfort of the holy Scriptures and publique Seruice of the Church And to supplie this want by preaching or priuate instruction it is morally speaking impossible it may be performed more compendiously and easily if Papists would chuse rather to follow S. Pauls doctrine 1. Cor. 14. than stifly to adhere to the late custome of
for imitation Romists also haue yet a farther slight in their Checkstone trickes of beades forsooth to blesse and sanctifie them by the touch of Relickes or by the Popes benediction that such trash may be sold the dearer by their pettie Chapmen THE SIXT POINT THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBSTANTIATION IESVIT YOur Excellent Maiestie submitting your Iudgement vnto Gods expresse word doth firmely beleeue the body of Christ to be truely present in the most venerable Sacrament of the Altar which Doctrine doth naturally and necessarily infer whatsoeuer the Church of Rome holds as matter of Faith concerning the manner of his presence ANSVVER HIs Sacred Maiestie a true defendour of the antient Catholicke and Apostolicke Faith to his immortall praise submitteth his iudgement in this and in all other articles to the expresse word of God reuealed from Heauen by the holy Ghost and externally preached and penned by the Prophets and Apostles And concerning the sacred Eucharist he firmely beleeueth that in the holy vse thereof the verie Bodie and Bloud of Christ are truely really and effectually presented and communicated to all faithfull and worthie Receiuers But that the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation to wit that after consecration the substance of bread and wine is abolished and the shapes accidents and quantitie thereof onely remaine or that the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are inclosed substantially and corporally vnder the accidentall formes before participation or that dogs and swine truely eat the flesh and drinke the bloud of the sonne of man he cannot beleeue vntill demonstration be made that this Faith is taught by Gods expresse word and was antiently beleeued by the true Catholique Church IESVIT To declare this and together answer an obiection much vrged by some Protestants That they beleeue the bodie of Christ to be in the Sacrament but say they are not bound to beleeue the manner that not being expressed in Scripture ANSWER When the substance of a point is reuealed and the distinct and particular manner concealed it is sufficient to beleeue the former without searching into the latter And not only some Protestants but the Fathers also and some learned Pontificians deliuer thus much concerning the sacred Eucharist Bandinus and the master of the Sentences say Touching the manner of conuersion in the Sacrament some affirme one way and some another c. We say with S. Augustine This mysterie is safely beleeued but not with safetie searched into Cyrill of Alexandria We ought firmely to beleeue the holy mysterie but let vs neuer in matters thus sublime so much as imagine to vtter the manner how And againe The manner how this is done can neither be conceiued by the mind nor expressed by the tongue Theophilact When we heare these words of Christ vnlesse yee eat the flesh of the sonne of man c. Wee ought firmely to beleeue the same and not enquire after what manner And with these agreeth Caluin sup Ephes. 5.32 IESVIT We must note that men are bound firmely to beleeue the manner of a mysterie reuealed when the same belongs to the substance thereof so that reiecting the manner we reiect the beleefe of the substance of the mysterie This is euident and may be declared by the example of the mysterie of the Incarnation the substance whereof is That in Christ Iesus the nature of God and the nature of man are so vnited that God is truely man and man is verily God The manner of this mysterie is ineffable and incomprehensible yet we are bound to beleeue three things concerning it which if we denie we deny the mysterie in substance howsoeuer we may retaine the same in words First that this vnion is not onely metaphoricall by affection as two persons that are great friends may truely be said to be all one but also true and reall Secondly this reall vnion of Natures is substantiall and not accidentall so that thereby the nature of man is not only accidentally perfected by receiuing excellent participations of the diuine nature power wisdome and maiestie but also substantially the verie fulnesse of the Godhead dwelling corporally and substantially in him Thirdly this substantiall vnion is not according to the Natures so that the nature of God and the nature of man become one and the same nature as Eutiches taught but hypostaticall whereby God and man became one and the same person These particulars about the manner of the Incarnation though high and subtile and imcomprehensible to reason Christians may and must beleeue because they belong to the substance of the mysterie and are declared by the Church in generall Councells though the vulgar be not bound explicitly to know them ANSWER When the distinct and speciall manner is reuealed and belongeth to the forme and being of an Article we are obliged to inquire and firmely to beleeue the same according to the instance giuen about the personall vnion But when the same is not distinctly and plainely reuealed nor of the substance of the mysterie it is more safe according to the holy Scripture and Fathers to be ignorant of that which is abstruse and hidden than to be curious beyond our modell Exod. 19. 17. Pro. 25.27 Act. 1.7 Rom. 12.3 1. Cor. 4.6 Col. 2.18 Touching things inscrutable S. Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is better to be soberly ignorant than naughtily intelligent S. Hierom Melius est aliquid nescire securè quam cum periculo discere it is better to be ignorant of some things with safetie 〈◊〉 to seeke to learne them with perill S. Augustine Melior est fidelis ignorantia quam temeraria scientia and Iustine Martyr It is the part of euerie prudent and pious man in matters diuine sometimes to giue the wall to that which exceedeth his modell S. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The verie Cherubims vaile their faces when it is come thus farre Saluianus in like manner saith Sacriligae temeritatis quoddam genus est si plus scire cupias quam sinaris It is sacrilegious temeritie to couet to know that which thou art not permitted But the questions of Theologie which are de modo concerning the distinct manner in many cases want sufficient grounds in diuine Reuelation to vnfold them and therefore in things of this nature humble scilence is more safe than temerarious definition IESVIT Jn this sort we say That the manner how our Sauiours bodie is in the Sacrament of his last supper must be beleeued and may not be denied as farre as it concernes the verie life being and substance of the mysterie reuealed which mysterie in substance is That the Bodie of Christ is present in the Sacrament in such sort that the Priest Minister thereof demonstrating what seemeth bread may truely say thereof in the person of Christ This is my Bodie This supposed as the substance of the Mysterie I inferre that two Catholicke Doctrines concerning the manner of this Mysterie
belong to the substance of this Mysterie and cannot be called in question without danger of misbeleefe First the Reall presence of the whole Bodie of Christ vnder the formes of bread Secondly that this is done by Transubstantiation ANSWER Whatsoeuer is certainely reuealed in holy Scripture concerning the manner of Christs Presence in the Sacrament must be beleeued and not denied and so much is reuealed as is sufficient to inable the Minister people to vnderstand by Faith that Christs word and promise saying This is my bodie are infalliblie true and alwayes fulfilled when his Ordinance is obserued But Christ affirmeth not that the shapes of bread and wine are his Bodie and Blood neither that he is present by carnall vnion of his naturall Bodie and Blood with the formes or accidents of the Elements or that his Bodie and Blood are present in the holy Eucharist by Transubstantiation IESVIT §. 1. That the Reall presence of the whole Bodie of Christ vnder the formes of Bread belongs to the substance of the Mysterie TO prooue this I suppose as certaine that the Bodie of Christ is truely and really in the Sacrament of his Supper This I may iustly suppose seeing your Maiestie doth professe to hold a presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament no lesse true than we hold and consequently you will not vnderstand the words of Christ figuratiuely as Sacramentaries doe 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 onely a presence by imagination and conceit as is euident ANSVVER Reall presence is taken two wayes First for a true and effectuall presence of the body and blood of Christ so as man receiuing the externall signes by his naturall parts receiueth also the thing signified and presented by the action of his spirituall facultie to wit by an operatiue faith Ioh. 6.51.53 54 55 56 57. Secondly for a corporall presence when the thing signified and presented is according to the naturall substance thereof contayned vnder the shapes of the outward signes and together with them conueyed into the mouth stomacke and bodily parts His most excellent Maiestie and all his Orthodoxall people beleeue reall presence according to the first acceptation but the fame is denyed according to the latter acceptation The Iesuit being ignorant of this distinction or else dissembling the same disputeth as followeth They which hold a reall presence of Christs body no lesse true than Papists themselues hold cannot vnderstand the words of Christ This is my body c. figuratiuely But his Maiestie holdeth a reall presence of Christs body no lesse true than Papists themselues hold Ergo His Maiestie cannot vnderstand the words of Christ This is my body figuratiuely I answer The Maior of the former argument is denyed for a true reall and effectuall presence of Christs body and blood may bee taught and deliuered by a figuratiue speech for First the mysticall head is really truely and effectually present to the mysticall body and yet notwithstanding this presence is taught in holy Scripture by figuratiue words Read Psal. 45. Salomons song Eph. 5. Ioh. 15. Secondly one part of our Sauiours words about the Sacrament to wit This cup is the new Testament in my blood Luc. 22.20 is figuratiue by confession of Romists themselues and yet they hold the thing expressed and meant by those words to be really giuen It is false therefore which the Iesuit and his consorts affirme That Protestants expounding the words of Christ This is my body figuratiuely doe by this sence ouerthrow the true presence of Christs body and bloud in the holy Eucharist and bring in onely a fantasticall and imaginarie presence for a mysticall Presence wrought by the power of the holy Ghost is as reall and true a presence in one kind as a corporall and carnall presence is in another kind But the Romists themselues are the men which contending for their carnall Presence giue vs a fantasticall body of Christ in stead of a true and naturall body and Phantasticall Elements to wit Accidents and emptie shadowes of Elements in stead of the substantiall creatures of Bread and Wine by this absurd doctrine vtterly subuerting the holy Sacrament IESVIT Wherein as your Maiestie knowes they contradict the antient Church which teacheth expresly That Christ did not say this is a figure of my body but this is my body and exhorts vs to beleeue Christ on his word he said This is my body I pray you let vs beleeue him whom we haue beleeued veritie cannot vtter vntruth and herein acknowledge with your Maiestie a most high and incomprehensible Mysterie which were no Mysterie at all the words being vnderstood in a meere figuratiue sence ANSWER The question is not Whether Christ vttered these words or not This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my bloud Neither is there any doubt of the veritie of our Sauiours speech or whether we must beleeue his word or not to which purpose Gaudentius speaketh but the question is concerning the sence of the words to wit whether This is my body This cup is the new Testament in my blood are to be expounded literally Arguments for the negatiue part are these which follow First if the substance of Bread and Wine be deliuered in the Eucharist our Aduersarie will grant that the words are figuratiue because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be prooued in the sections following both out of Scripture and Fathers that the substance of Bread and Wine are deliuered in the holy Eucharist Secondly the words whereby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaries Thirdly if the words be taken properly then the body of Christ and the bloud of Christ are deliuered and receiued without the soule and deitie of Christ for in proprietie of speech the body is a distinct and diuers thing from the soule and likewise the blood Fourthly that which Christ deliuered to bee eaten and drunke by his Disciples he did sacramentally eate and drinke himselfe Luc. 22.15 as S. Hierome S. Chrysostome Euthymius with many Schoole-men affirme But if the words be litterally vnderstood then he did eat his owne body and drinke his owne blood Fiftly if the words be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his passible and mortall body to the Disciples but I trow no Iesuit will maintaine that a body mortall and passible can be in many Hosts or mouths at once neither can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching and feeling thereof or diuiding one part thereof from another Sixtly if our Sauiours words be literally 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 Ioh. 6.49.50 51.54.56 Seauenthly if our Sauiours words were literall regular and plaine as Papists pretend then they themselues could not bee distracted and diuided about the sence thereof But they are notoriously diuided First Some of them say that the Pronoune This signifieth nothing Others say it signifies the Bread Alex. Hales Hocest corpus meum sensus est signatum hoc signo quod est panis transubstantiandus in corpus meum est corpus meum that is The sence of these words This is my body is the Bread presently to bee transubstantiate into my body is my body Some say it signifieth the Accidents and formes of Bread others it signifieth the body of Christ. Some say it signifieth confusedly that which is contayned vnder the formes And euery of these opinions hath sundry crookes windings and limitations Secondly Touching the Verbe substantiue est is some expound it by continetur vnder these formes my bodie is contained Others expound it by Erit This shall be my bodie when the sentence is ended Some say it signifieth Transmutatur It is changed and conuerted Thirdly Touching the words Corpus meum my Bodie Some say it is Materia prima The first matter of Christs Bodie Others The materiate Bodie with the reasonable soule Others A Bodie organicall without reference to being a liuing Bodie or a dead Others A liuing Bodie Some say it is a Bodie without quantitie dimensions or parts Others A Bodie hauing quantitie without extension figure order of parts Others A bodie hauing quantitie without extrinsecall reference to place an immateriall Bodie like vnto Angels and Spirits and they resemble the same by the Image of mans face reflecting in a glasse A Bodie hauing the stature of a man and yet contained in euerie crumme of bread Thus whiles Romists denie that there is a figure in our Sauiours words they fall into innumerable absurdities in stead of the true and perfect bodie of Christ crucified for vs and communicated in the holy Eucharist they reach vs a fantasticall bodie and a very vaine shadow and Image of Christs reall bodie But the Aduersarie to make the contrarie Tenet appeare Catholicke affirmeth That the antient Church expresly denied our Sauiours words to be figuratiue and in his Margen he pointeth out certaine Authours Euthymius Theophilact Damascene c. I answere although these Authours being none of them antient but post nati affirme that Christ in the holy Eucharist deliuereth not onely a figure of his bodie but his true bodie which is also our Tenet yet they say not that there is no trope or figure in our Sauiours words Theophylacts words are Non tantum figura exemplar est corporis Christi c. It is not onely a figure or similitude of Christs bodie Euthymius Esaias beheld a fierie coale the coale was not simply or onely wood but fierie wood such is this fierie coale in this great Mysterie Secondly It is to be obserued that these Authours teaching that bread and wine are Sacramentally or mystically conuerted doe also maintaine that the said Elements remaine in their materiall substance and that Christs bodie and blood are receiued into the spirituall powers of the soule and they say farther That Christ changeth the worthie Receiuers into his Bodie IESVIT As for some places of Fathers brought to the contrarie how they are to be vnderstood your Maiestie is not ignorant Saint Augustine saying That Christ gaue to his Disciples a figure of his Bodie and Blood spoke not of a bare emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present as likewise in another place when he saith Christ affirmed it was his Bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie though there he may seeme to speake in the opinion of the Manichees who held That Christ had not true flesh but a meere figure shape and shaddow of flesh against whom in that place he vndertakes to prooue That the figure of a thing may bee tearmed the thing it selfe Argumento ad hominem that Christ said This is my Bodie when hee gaue but a figure of his Bodie to wit as you thinke Tertullian hath this speech 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 explication thereof but vnto hoc in this maner hoc id est figura corporis mei est corpus meum This to bee Tertullians meaning appeares by the drift of his discourse in that place for Tertullian is to shew that whereas in the Old Testament Bread was afigure of the Bodie 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 truely and really his Bodie taking Bread into his hands saying this that is This figure of my Bodie is my Bodie as if he said Bread which antiently was a figure of my Bodie I doe now make to be truely and really my Bodie and this is an vsuall phrase in Tertullian who not to interrupt the sentence of holy Scripture addeth his explication of the subiect not presently but after the Attribute as when he said Christus mortuus est id est vnctus the sence whereof is Christus id est vnctus mortuus est ANSWER Many of the Fathers treating of the Sacramentall signes call them Figures Representations Similitudes Memorials Antitipes c. of the Bodie and Blood of Christ. But that which is a figure similitude and representation of a thing is not properly the same Saint Augustine It is a figuratiue speech commanding vs to be partakers of the Lords Passion and sweetly and profitably to keepe in minde that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vs. The Lord did not sticke to say This is my bodie when hee gaue the signe of his bodie Origen This I speake of the typicall and figuratiue bodie Saint Ambrose Which is the figure of the bodie and blood of the Lord Iesus Saint Chrysostome In the sanctified vessell there is not the true bodie of Christ but a mysterie of his bodie is there contained Gratians Glosse The Diuine bread which representeth the flesh of Christ is called The bodie of Christ but improperly Beda Substituting his flesh and blood in the figure of bread and wine Druthmarus The blood of Christ is aptly figured thereby Bertram Bread and Wine is figuratiuely the Bodie and Blood of Christ. And Tertullian more antient than any of these saith That Bread representeth the Bodie of Christ And he saith in two places That it is a figure of Christs Bodie The Iesuit in his answer to these plaine testimonies taketh notice onely of S.
Augustine and Tertullian and concerning the first he saith that S. Augustine spake not of a bare and emptie figure but of the figure of a thing really present but this answere is deceitfull for the Sacramentall elements are a true and liuely figure and not a bare and emptie signe of the Bodie and Bloud of Christ. And although the Bodie and Bloud of Christ are not essentially contained and inclosed in the shapes or materiall substance of the elements yet they are really communicated by the holy Ghost at and by the faithfull and worthie receiuing of these diuine mysteries The second place of S. Augustine admitteth not the Iesuits solution for one difference betweene the Manichee and this Father was concerning Moses his words Deut. 12.23 Thou shalt not eat the Bloud for the Bloud is the Soule S. Augustine saith Possum interpretari praeceptum illud in signo esse positum I may expound that commandement by saying it was set downe in a signe for Christ doubted not to affirme This is my bodie when he gaue a signe of his Bodie In these words S. Augustine teacheth that as the Bloud is called the Soule after the manner of a signe so likewise the Bread in the holy Eucharist is called the bodie of Christ because it is a signe of his bodie This similitude prooueth that S. Augustine held our Sauiours words This is my Bodie to be a siguratiue enunciation which is the thing affirmed by vs. Tertullian affirmeth expressely of Bread which he receiued into his hand and distributed to his disciples that it is a figure of Christs Bodie And the Aduersaries 〈◊〉 expounding his words in this manner The figure of my bodie is my bodie is voluntarie or rather sophisticall for the words immediately following are he called bread his Bodie and in other places he maketh bread the subiect of the proposition This is my Bodie But the accidents and shape of bread are not bread neither did our Sauiour when he said This is my Bodie demonstrate the forme only of Bread or command the formes only of Bread and Wine to be corporally receiued for he did demonstrate that which was sacramentally changed but the accidents of Bread and Wine are not changed into Christs Bodie and Bloud by the confession of Papists themselues IESVIT This supposed I inferre that the bodie of Christ is present in the mysticall Supper not onely to the faithfull that receiue the Sacrament nor onely to the place or Church where the holy Synaxis is celebrated but vnder the formes of Bread in the verie same place therewith This manner of presence is cleerely consequent vpon the precedent and that granted this cannot be denyed For the reason for which Christians hold the bodie of Christ to be really truly present in the Sacrament is because they cannot otherwise in proper and plaine sence verifie the word of Christ to say of Bread this is my bodie Wherefore we must either put no real presence at all or els put such a real presence as is able to verifie the foresaid speech in proper and rigorous sence But if the bodie of Christ be not in the same place with the consecrated Bread contained vnder the formes thereof 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 and be substantially present in the Church where the Sacrament is giuen yet this supposed presence would no waies further the verifying of the words of Christ This is my Bodie except his bodie be vailed and couered with the sensible accidents of Bread so that it be demonstrated by them and pointing vnto them one may truely say This is the Body of Christ. For why should consecrated Bread be tearmed truely and substantially the Bodie of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Wherefore the Fathers affirme that Christ is so in this Sacrament as he is vailed with the semblances of Bread as S. Cyrill of Hierusalem in his Booke highly commended by Dr. Whitaker saith Let vs therefore with all certitude receiue the Bodie and Bloud of Christ For vnder the forme of Bread is giuen Thee his Bodie Yea Caluin saith In the supper Christ Jesus to wit his Bodie and Bloud is truely giuen vnder the signes of Bread and Wine ANSVVER Although the mysticall words be not vnderstood properly and rigorously yet we may truely and really though spiritually eat the Flesh and drinke the Bloud of the sonne of man by a liuing Faith Ioh. 6.54 1. Cor. 10.16 The food which entreth into the bodie must be locally present but this food entreth not into the bodie but it is the bread of life which nourisheth the substance of the soule saith S. Ambrose But the Obiector demandeth Why consecrated bread should be tearmed truely substantially the body of Christ if his bodie be not so much as in the same place with it Our answer is because of the Sacramentall vnion betweene the signes and the bodie of Christ represented and spiritually communicated to the worthie receiuor by that signe As a Kings crowne may be called a kingdome because it is a signe thereof and the placing thereof vpon the head may be a meanes of conferring a kingdome So likewise in Sacramentall speeches the outward signe is called by the name of the thing signified because it representeth it and is by diuine institution an effectual instrument to applie and communicate the same 1. Cor. 10.16 And by the same reason Christs Bodie may be said to be in the bread and his Bloud in the Cup not by locall presence or as wine is contained in a vessell which S. Cyrill affirmeth not but vertually and by relation and spirituall donation because when the Minister deliuereth the outward signe and the Communicant receiueth the same The holy Ghost deliuereth and communicates the thing signified to the beleeuing soule IESVIT Whence it is also consequent that the whole bodie of Christ is contained vnder a consecrated Host be the same neuer so little for by this mysterie the bodie of Christ is demonstrable by the sensible accidents so that consecrated bread may be termed truly really substantially the bodie of Christ not a parcell or part thereof only But were not the bodie of Christ wholly and entirely vnder the formes of bread consecrated bread could not truely and properly be tearmed the bodie of Christ but a sole part and 〈◊〉 thereof Againe we haue no reason to beleeue the bodie of Christ is truely and really present in the Sacrament but only to the end that it may in the Supper be truely and really eaten to nourish and feed mens soules And if he be eaten onely mentally by Faith we haue no ground to thinke that he is present more than mentally by Faith the presence of his bodie being ordained vnto the manducation thereof for else why did he institute this Sacrament
Cup the Blood of Christ. And Paschasius after him saith That the Flesh or Bread is not lawfully receiued without the Cup or Blood But whatsoeuer our Sauiour himselfe and his Apostles and their successours and the antient Church by perpetuall succession taught and practised a thousand yeeres and vpward yea euen the Latine Church it selfe and the Easterne Churches to this day the Romish generation exalting it selfe aboue God not onely presumeth to commit Sacriledge at home but it censureth the followers of Christs Testament of damnable Heresie Now that they may with some colour aduance their owne Tradition against the Ordinance of Christ they prie into euery corner and inuent friuolous Glosses and Pretexts as wee shall further perceiue by that which followeth in our Aduersaries Discourse IESVIT Hence wee may probably inferre That Christ gaue no speciall Precept thereof because Christ hath commanded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist than what by the substance of the Institution and nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circumstances belonging thereunto to be ordained by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustine noteth saying Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authoritie to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whom he was to dispose and order his Church So clearely doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commandement to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are contained in the substance of the Institution of the Sacrament of which kinde Communion vnder both kinds cannot be as hath beene prooued which will farther appeare by pondering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept ANSVVER Ecclesiasticall power to adde detract or alter any thing about Sacraments is confined to things adiaphorous and Saint Augustine in the place obiected speaketh expresly of these but the materiall parts of Sacraments belong to their substance euen as the matter of the heauens is of the substance of the heauens and the matter of the Scripture is of the substance of the Scripture And if in the holy Eucharist the Element of Wine is not of the substance thereof then the Eucharist may bee administred without wine also the kinde of the Element may be changed and milke or broath substituted in the place of wine and the Communion may be celebrated in wine without bread In all compounded things the moitie of the matter is the moitie of the substance and whatsoeuer Iesuited Romists teach I see not how their Laickes can truely say that they haue at any time in all their liues beene partakers of this Sacrament for if halfe a man be not a man then likewise halfe a Communion is not a Communion If they except That they receiue the Blood of Christ Consecutiue or by Concomitancie I reply This Answere solueth not the difficultie for I dispute of the materiall Element and the direct receiuing thereof and not of receiuing the blood of Christ spiritually or any other way Now the wine is a moitie of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and therefore if they receiue not the wine they receiue not the one halfe of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and consequently they receiue no Eucharist for as the poope of a ship the prowe being broken away is no ship and as halfe a cloake is not a garment to keepe a man warme so likewise halfe a Communion is no Sacrament And concerning the being of Christs Blood in the bread by Concomitancie I answere If this were granted they receiue not Christs blood Sacramentally but some other way for nothing is receiued Sacramentally but that which is caused by the words of consecration Ergo It is not there Sacramentally and consequently it is not receiued Sacramentally IESVIT The words of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me doe no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he said Doe this in remembrance of me onely of the Sacrament in forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Doe this as often as you drinke in memorie of me that the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complaine of her neglecting Gods Precept For this Precept Doe this being the onely Precept giuen by Christ to his Church as shall afterwards appeare and giuen absolutely of the forme of Bread conditionally of the forme of Wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christs Precept by Communion vnder one kinde ANSWER The first reason vpon which you presume that our Sauiours words Doe this in remembrance of me are not Preceptiue in regard of Communion in both kinds is an emptie shadow without substance of matter Our Sauiour in your Tenet saith not Doe this as often as you Lay men communicate but whensoeuer you receiue the cup and drinke then doe it in remembrance of me But if this be the whole sence then Christs words must be resolued against sence in this manner As often as you Lay people drinke which needeth neuer to be done by you according to Romish Diuinitie Doe this nothing in remembrance of me Secondly Quotiescunque biberitis as often as you drinke maketh not the Precept conditionall in respect of the cup more than of the bread for in the very next verse it followeth Quotiescunque ederitis panem hunc as often as you shall eate this bread and therefore if as often as you shall drinke restraineth the speech in regard of the cup then as often as you shall eate restraineth the Precept in regard of the bread And Haimo saith Idem sensus est c. There is the same sence of Doe this being referred to the cup as of Doe this being referred to the bread But Doe this referred to the bread is a Precept Ergo Doe this referred to the cup is also a Precept But the Romanist infatuated with this conceit croweth as followeth That the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue the least plausible shew c. The Vermine is deceiued in calling vs Aduersaries of the Church for wee are fast friends to the true Catholicke Church and we are Aduersaries to Romists an vnsound Church no otherwise than Saint Paul was to the Galathians when he said Am I therefore become your enemie because I tell you the truth Gallat 4. 16. And touching the fancie of this Obiectour I adde That euen as when Saint Paul said 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether yee eate or drinke or whatsoeuer thing else ye doc doe all to the glorie of God If these words should be resolued in this manner As often as ye eate and drinke doe this to the glorie of God the placing of this word As often restraineth not the speech from being a Precept so likewise when Saint Paul saith As often as ye shall drinke doe this in remembrance of me this manner of speaking altereth not his words from
present and the Doctrine was personally pronounced to them alone Also Math. 18.9 15.22 the like is found concerning other doctrines and precepts and yet these doctrines and precepts are common to all Christians The Romists if they were not partiall could distinguish betweene personall precepts deliuered to the Apostles onely as they were by office Pastors of the Church and betweene common precepts deliuered vnto them as Christians and as they represented the whole body of the Church But the Obiectour addeth That we are not able to demonstrate that this Precept Drinke yee all of this was common I answere First if that which Christ said to the Apostles S. Paul spake to the whole multitude of Beleeuers then Christs words vttered to the Apostles were common But the first is true 1. Cor. 11. 28. And S. Hierome inferreth vpon the same Oportet Coenam dominicam esse communem quià ille omnibus Discipulis suis qui aderant equalitèr tradidit Sacramenta The Lords Supper ought to be common because Christ deliuered the Sacraments of his Bodie and Bloud equally to all the Disciples that were present Secondly If Communion in both kinds hath not foundation in Christs words vttered to the Apostles then Communion in one kind wanteth foundation in Christs words and institution and if it haue not foundation in Christs words then it wanteth all foundation for S. Paul grounds his whole Doctrine touching the holy Eucharist vpon our Sauiours words and institution 1. Cor. 11.23 Thirdly If the reason why the Apostles receiued the Cup was because they were Priests then all Priests being present at the communion ought to receiue in both kinds although they administer not but this is repugnant to the practise of the Romane Church Fourthly It is not certaine that the Apostles were Priests when Christ ordained and administred the Eucharist for that they were not Priests Math. 18. is affirmed by our Aduersaries and that they were made Priests Luke 22. by the words Hoc facite as Bellarmine Suares Henriques Hosius Canisius c. say can neuer be prooued for what force is there in Hoc facite to conclude Priestly Ordination and if Hoc facite prooueth Priesthood then Lay men are made Priests when the words Doe this in remembrance of mee are spoken to them in part or respectiuely Hitherto we haue found nothing in our Aduersaries but Sophistrie of words and Theomachie against Diuine Institution and Apostolicall Tradition But to hold correspondence with the rest the Iesuit addeth IESVIT Secondly These words Accipite manducate bibite Take eate drinke were certainely spoken vnto the same persons and they runne so together in rancke that no man can with probabilitie make the one outrunne the other But the command Accipite which signifies Take with your hands for it is a Precept distinct from Manducate which is take with your mouth was giuen to the Apostles onely not vnto all the faithfull else wee must say That all Communicants were bound to take the consecrated Bread and Cup with their hands who euer heard of such a Precept in the Christian Church ANSWER This Argument truely propounded is All persons commanded to eate were commanded to take None but the Apostles were commanded to take for if Lay men were commanded to take they must alwayes receiue the Eucharist in their hands Ergo None but the Apostles were commanded to eate This Obiection fighteth against Lay mens receiuing in one kinde which vntill 〈◊〉 we supposed Papists had permitted but it seemeth that they will haue the whole vse of the Sacrament depend vpon the Popes deuotion and pleasure But touching the Argument I denie the Assumption for Lay men were commanded to take that is to receiue at least into their mouthes and then to manducate that is to chew or swallow and to let the Element receiued passe into their stomack To take with the hand is agreeable to Christs manner of Administration and it was vsed in the Primitiue Church but the same is not of absolute necessitie for some Communicants may want hands or the naturall vse thereof but to receiue into the mouth and then to manducate or drinke is commanded The Iesuit imagineth that all taking is by the hand and thus he prooueth himselfe to be neither good Grammarian nor Diuine Virgill saith Illos porticibus rex accipiebat in amplis where accipio is to entertaine S. Paul saith Per quem accepimus gratiam Rom. 1. 5. By whom we haue receiued grace and Apostleship ca. 8.15 Ye haue receiued 〈◊〉 the spirit of Adoption The Angell said Ioseph thou sonne of Dauid feare not to take Mary thy wife Math. 1. 20. His Bishopricke let another man take Act. 1.20 IESVIT The third reason is because there was a peculiar and personall cause Why Christ should giue that particular Councellor Admonition for the imperatiue word doth not euer signifie a precept but often an aduise or a permission as your Maiestie well knowes to his Apostles at that time to wit because he would haue them all not onely drinke of his bloud but also would haue them drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating the same anew this is more manifest in the Protestants opinion who thinke the Chalice whereof Christ said in S. Mathew Bibite ex hoc omnes to be the same whereof he said in S. Luke Accipite diuidite inter vos non enim bibam amplius de hoc genimine vitis For this being supposed the words Drinke ye all of this imports the same as Diuide this Cup amongst you But Diuide 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 and that also in such measure as the Cup without new filling and consecration might suffice for all to drinke therof What All men in the world Or all Christians that should succeede them to the Worlds end Christ neuer intended that one Cup for all nor is it indeed diuided or parted with vs but the Apostles dranke it vp amongst them Wherefore referring my saying to your Maiesties learned censure I conclude that to me it seemes cleere that the precept or rather direction Drinke ye all of this was but personall confined vnto the number of all there then present ANSWER The Precept Drinke ye all of this saith the Iesuit was personall and concerned the Apostles onely because our Sauiour commanded them All to drinke of the same Cup without filling and consecrating it anew But if Drinke ye all of this had imported a generall duty then Christ could not haue stinted them to one single Cup. This obiection is grounded vpon a false Principle which is all Precepts are Personall in regard of their substance wherein any circumstance is Personall Nothing can be more absurd and false than this Position for in the Decalogue it selfe some things were Personall as appeareth by the Preface Exod. 20.2 Likewise in many generall or common
Preepts of the old and new Testament some personall circumstances may be noted and yet the substance of the Commandement is generall 1. Cro. 28.9 Pro. 30.1.3 Math. 18.2.3 Ioh. 13.13 14. Also we may consider a twofold vnitie of the Cup Specifical and Indiuiduall to drinke of the same indiuiduall Cup euen as to eate of the same indiuiduall loase is an accidentall circumstance But to drinke and receiue the common kind to wit the fruit of the Wine this is the substance of the Commandement If we parallell the Obiection the defect is manifestly ridiculous It is not of the substance of Christs Commandement That lay People shall receiue consecrated Bread at the Communion because the Bread which Christ gaue his Disciples was of one Indiuiduall loafe but the bread of one indiuiduall loafe will not suffice all men in the world therefore the Precept of receiuing consecrated Bread was Personall and concerned the Apostles only Now if a man should vse this Argument which in substance is the same with the Iesuits he had in my opinion more cause to blush for shame than to glory before the Presence of a most iudicious and learned King as this vaine Boaster doth IESVIT Another text of Scripture some vrge to prooue That Communion vnder one kind is commanded to wit the famous place out of the sixt chapter of S. Iohn Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Where our Sauiour vnder the penaltie of loosing eternall life commands not onely eating but also drinking Perchance your Maiestie doth not stand much vpon this as not beleeuing that chapter of S. Iohn to concerne the Sacramentall sumption of our Sauiours Flesh as also some learned Catholikes hold Not withstanding though we grant that Chapter to concerne the eating and drinking in the Sacrament as most of the Fathers teach yet this obiection may be easily satisfied by the former Principles for as we distinguish in the Sacrament the substance and the manner The substance being to receiue the body of Christ the manner in both kinds by formall eating and drinking so the same distinction is to be made in our Sauiours Precept about this Sacrament For howsoeuer his words may sound of the manner of receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance to wit that we really receiue his body and bloud which may be done vnder one kind This is made cleere by the Precept by our Sauiour giuen about another Sacrament to wit Baptisme where though his words seeme to define the manner yet his mind was but to determine the substance He saith to his Apostles Baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost To baptise signifies the same that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is not to wet or sprinkle with water but to put and plunge into the Water by immersion bathing them in water in which respect Baptisme is tearmed by the Apostle the Lauer or Bath of the renouation of the holy Ghost And yet because the Church teacheth Baptisme by 〈◊〉 or sprinkling to be sufficient and substantiall Baptisme no lesse than Baptisme by immersion Christians must and doe so interpret the words of Christ Baptize that is plunge into the water all Nations to command onely cleansing and washing in substance not the manner thereof by immersion as his words may seeme to import and the Primitiue Church did the first sixe hundred yeares practise Jn this like sort the words Vnlesse you eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke of his bloud you shall not haue life in you be preceptiue no further than they signifie reall receiuing of his body and bloud not the manner of both kinds as may appeare by the intention of the Commaundement For as Christ gaue this Precept of Eating and Drinking onely to the end that wee might haue life in vs so likewise he meant to command the same no further than it was necessary to this end But eating formally the body of Christ vnder the forme of Bread and vertually and implicitly his bloud as contayned within his Sacred body suffiseth that we may haue life in vs as he promiseth in the same place He that eateth this Bread shall liue for euer What necessitie then is there to vnderstand this Precept of formall receiuing in both kinds But further I adde the coniunctiue particle and signifies disjunctiuely the same that vel or as Argentum aurum non est mihi and particularly of this Sacrament He that eateth and drinketh vnworthily eateth and drinketh damnation the sence is disjunctiue eateth or drinketh vnworthily In this sort the words of Christ Except you eate and drinke is to be vnderstood disjunctiuely Except you eate the flesh or drinke the bloud of the Sonne of man you shall not haue life in you Which disjunctiue sence to be the sence intended in this place may be prooued because else Christ should be contrary to himselfe for seeing in the ver 59. of this Chapter He promiseth life eternall to eating onely Qui manducat panem viuit in aeternum If in the foure and fiftie verse of the same Chapter he require vnto himselfe life euerlasting eating and drinking both he should in the space of a few lines speake contraries And because this is impossible wee interprete the place disiunctiuely vnlesse you eate or drinke c. ANSWER Cardinall Bellarmine affirmeth that the Text of Saint Iohn cap. 6. is to be expounded of the holy Eucharist and not onely of spirituall receiuing but also of Sacramentall eating and drinking the Bodie and Blood of Christ And hee saith that although some Catholickes to wit Gabriel Biel Cusanus Caietan Ruard Tapper Hesselius and 〈◊〉 expound this Chapter of spirituall Receiuing yet other Pontificians hold as himselfe doth with Bellarmine also agree Suares Vasques Gregorie Valence Salmeron Barradius c. From this Exposition it followeth That Communicants when they partake the holy Eucharist ought to receiue in both kindes for our Sauiour saith Iohn 6.54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood c. 55. My flesh is meate indeed and my blood is drinke indeed 56. Hee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him 53. Except ye eate the flesh and drinke the blood of the Sonne of man c. Our Aduersarie after some staggering about the place Ioh. 6. condescendeth at last to Bellarmines Tenet and admitting that Saint Iohn treateth of Sacramentall Receiuing answeres the former places by a distinction of substance and manner saying That howsoeuer Christs words may sound of the manner of Receiuing in both kinds yet his intention is to command no more than the substance and he prooueth this by the example of Baptisme wherein although according to the letter dipping and plunging
into the water is required yet according to the Intention sprinckling is sufficient But heere I demand of the Romist Whether any thing touching the manner of receiuing the Eucharist is deliuered in Christs words or not And if nothing then our Sauiour treateth not either of Spirituall or Sacramentall eating or drinking for both these belong to the manner and if hee speake about the manner then the Blood of Christ must be Sacramentally receiued as well as his Bodie but it is not receiued Sacramentally vnder bread alone because to receiue Sacramentally is to receiue vnder the proper and indiuiduall signe representing the Blood receiued which is Wine And implicite and vertuall receiuing of Christs Blood is spirituall drinking and this is performed out of the Sacrament and not onely in the same The last euasion is That in the words of Christ Et is taken for Aut that is vnlesse you eate the flesh or drinke the blood of the Sonne of man ye haue no life c. This poore Cauill borrowed from Claudius de Saincts is against the letter of the Text and if it be admitted then it will follow That it is not necessarie to drinke the blood of the Sonne of man implicitely and vertually and the reason why Christ nameth bread alone vers 51. is in opposition to Manna for the Sonne of God descended from heauen by incarnation and propounded himselfe incarnate as an obiect of Faith and because he was the spirituall Life and food of mans soule by donation of his Word and Grace and heerein excelled Manna which was onely corporall bread But in the sacred Eucharist Christ is represented as hauing perfected mans saluation and this representation is made by two sensible signes wherein his suffering of death by separation of bodie and soule and of bodie and blood is visibly proposed and whosoeuer receiueth him Sacramentally as he was sacrificed on the Crosse must receiue him by both the signes because in both and not in one alone there is a representation of his Passion and of the effusion of his blood As for the Iesuites instance in the manner of Baptising whether by plunging or by sprinckling the same is not to purpose For in our Question the Dispute is about taking away one of the Elements and materiall parts of a Sacrament in Baptisme onely a circumstance in the manner of applying and vsing the Element was altered by the Church But from alteration of a thing accidentall or of circumstance to inferre a libertie to defalcate a substantiall part is sophisticall IESVIT §. 5. Communion vnder one kinde not against the Practise of the Primitiue CHVRCH CErtaine it is that the Primitiue Church did very often and frequently vse Communion vnder both kindes so that Lay men had by prescription a right to receiue in both kindes yea they were bound thereunto by the Obligation of custome not by Diuine Precept ANSWER THe Primitiue Church in all her publicke Assemblies and congregations administred the holy Eucharist to the people in both kinds perpetually and not frequently onely or often as the Iesait minseth And Iustin Martir saith That the Apostles prescribed this as commanded by Christ and Saint Cyprian hath these words Lex esum sanguinis prohibet Euangelium precipit vt bibatur Whereas the old Law forbade the eating of blood the Gospell commandeth to drinke the blood and in his 63 Epistle Many Bishops c. depart not from that which our Master Christ commanded and performed Praecepit iussit but others of ignorance and simplicitie In Calice Dominico sanctificando 〈◊〉 ministrando In consecrating and ministring the Cup to the people doe not that which Christ our Lord and God performed and taught Petrus de Occhagauia saith that the words Et plebi ministrando Deliuering it to the people are not St. Cyprians But this man went by heare-say as appeareth both by the elder later Edition of Cyprian And that this was the constant Doctrine of this Father is manifest by other places cited in the Margen Therefore it is palpably vntrue which the Iesuit venteth They were bound thereunto by Obligation of Custome and not by Diuine Precept IESVIT Also because the Manichees being impiously per suaded that wine was the gall of the prince of darknesse did superstitiously abstaine from the Chalice The Church in detestation of this errour commaunded for a time Communion vnder both kinds Vpon which ocasion Gelasius Pope made the decree recorded by Gratian aut integra Sacramenta suscipiant aut ab integris arceantur And why because such Abstinents 〈◊〉 qua superstitione docentur astringi that is were superstitious not abstaining out of any deuotion but out of impious persuasion of the impuritie of Gods creature Wherefore the crime with which some Protestants charge vs That our receiuing vnder the sole forme of Bread is to iumpe in opinion with the Manichees we may as Doctor Morton confesseth reiect as injurious saying That it was not the Manichees 〈◊〉 from wine but the reason of their for 〈◊〉 that was iudged hereticall This custome was the cause that Cyprian saieth That the Law 〈◊〉 the eating of bloud but the 〈◊〉 commaunds the same should be drunke not only because some Christians to wit Priests are bound to 〈◊〉 the Bloud of Christ but also because Christ in his 〈◊〉 did 〈◊〉 the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds Whence grew the custome of the Primitiue Church to receiue in both kinds and by custome there grew further an Oligation to drinke of the 〈◊〉 there were some iust cause of 〈◊〉 as in the sicke and in some that by nature loathed wine ANSVVER One errour begets another It was formerly said that Communion in both kinds was vsed by the Fathers as a matter of custome onely and not because of precept now it is added that this was done only because of the errour of the Manichees I answere First before euer the Manichees appeared in any number Communion in both kinds was in practise as appeareth by the Apostles and by Ignatius Dionysius Iustin Martyr Ireneus Tertullian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Saint Cyprian Secondly although Pope 〈◊〉 in his Sermon speaketh of the Manichees yet Vasques the Iesuit saith That he commanded not the vse of the Cup because of them but required that these Heretickes which feigned themselues Catholickes and came to the holy Communion receiuing the Bread and taking the Cup into their hands pretending that they drunke the Wine and yet did not should carefully be obserued Thirdly touching the place of Pope Gelasius the same Author saith That whereas some of his part applie the same to the Manichees yet this exposition agreeth not with the last branch of the Canon for therein Gelasius teacheth that the mysterie of the Eucharist is of that nature in regard of it selfe that without grieuous sacriledge it cannot be diuided and seuered
giue the sicke only the Bread Secondly if Paulinus of whom Erasmus saith it is the same Craftsman which hath corrupted so many things in the writings of S. Hierome and S. Augustine report truely touching S. Ambrose this prooueth not That Communion in one kind was in ordinary vfe but that S. Ambrose being speechlesse and without vnderstanding and deceasing instantly after the Bread was put into his mouth and consequently being preuented by death receiued by reason of this accident one materiall part of the Sacrament onely IESVIT Secondly it was an antient custome in the Church to giue the Sacrament vnto Lay men especially vnto Eremites to be carryed in most pure linnen corporalls home to their houses to be taken in the morning before all other meates but there is no signe or token in Antiquity That the Faithfull together with the consecrated Bread did carry away with them consecrated Wine yea diuers Histories shew the onely forme of Bread was carryed away and consequently that the Church did not then esteeme of Communion 〈◊〉 one kind as of a Sacrilegious mayming of the Sacrament as Protestants now doe ANSVVER It was an antient custome to send the Communion to Persons absent in both kinds as appeareth by the Historie of Exuperius in S. Hierome And Gregorie Nazianzen saith of his sister Gorgonia if her hand had laid vp any Portion of the types or tokens of the pretious body and of the bloud c. And as touching sicke persons Why should we not iudge that the same order and proportion was kept in sending the Sacrament to them at their houses as was obserued when sicke persons came to the Communion Table or Altar in the Church IESVIT Thirdly it was an antient custome in the Graecian Church to consecrate the holy Eucharist on Saturdayes and Sundayes and on the other dayes of the weeke to communicate Ex praesanctificatis of the praesanctified forme st hat is consecrated on the Saturday or Sunday before Now it is not probable that they did consecrate Wine to indure fiue or sixe dayes long for feare specially in such hot Countreyes the same should grow sower Wherefore for the most part they did communicate vnder one kind ANSWER The Office of the Greeke Church making mention of the Sacramentall signes consecrated or sanctified before they were vsed nameth Bread and Wine For thus wee reade in the same That after the Priest hath sanctified the Bread hee powreth Wine and Water into the sacred Cup and rehearseth the accustomed words c. And the Liturgie Praesanctificatorum of the Presanctified signes according to Genebrards 〈◊〉 speaketh both of the body and of the bloud presented in the mysticall signes It appeareth also by Balsamon vpon the 52 Canon of the Synod in Trullo that both the Elements were consecrated at least vpon two seuerall dayes in the weeke and Baronius acknowledgeth That in antient times the Eucharist was reserued in both the kinds now if it was consecrated and reserued in both kinds Why should we imagine that it was not deliuered and receiued in both kinds IESVIT Fourthly the Manichees liued in Rome and other places shrouding themselues among Catholikes went to their Churches receiued the Sacrament publikely with them vnder the sole forme of Bread and yet they were not noted nor there discerned from Catholikes A manifest signe that Communion vnder one kind was publikely in the Church permitted at the least vpon some iust causes that might be pretended For how could the Manichees still refusing the Cup haue beene hidden among these antient Christians if they had beene persuaded as now Protestants that receiuing vnder one kind only is a Sacriledge If one in the Church of England should refuse the Cup but once in a publike Communion in the Church would he not be incontinently noted ANSWER The holy Eucharist in the dayes of Pope Leo the first was administred in both kinds and Romists could neuer as yet produce any one sufficient testimonie or example that so much as any one congregation of Christians in antient times receiued in the open Church vnder one kind And although the place obiected out of Leo doth in speciall concerne the Manichees yet it sheweth plainely that the present doctrine and practise of the Roman Church is not consonant to the antient practise of the same Church Neuerthelesse our peruerse Aduersary argueth against vs out of this place of Leo saying That if the Communion had not sometimes beene administred vnder one kind the Manichees practise in refusing the Cup could not haue passed vnmarked but must necessarily haue beene obserued I answer First The Manichees were espied and discouered otherwise how could the Pope reprooue their practise Secondly Vasques the Iesuit saith That these Heretikes receiued the Cup into their hand but dranke no Wine and among a multitude of Communicants some few might hold the Cup to their mouth and make shew of drinking and yet receiue no Wine IESVIT The last Argument is practise of the Apostles that is of the first Christians vnder them of whom wee reade in the Acts of the Apostles Erant perseuerantes in Doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractionis Panis Orationibus speaking of sucred Eucharisticall Bread the taking whereof was ioyned with Prayer which vnto the newly baptised was straight giuen after Baptisme and yet there is no mention of Wine So that Protestants if they will haue these Christians to haue Wine they must out of their owne liberalitie by way of interpretation bestow it vpon them seeing the words of the Text doe not affoord it them To this Apostolicall practise wee may adde the example of Christ who gaue to his two Disciples in Emaus the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of Bread That the Bread Christ gaue was Eucharisticall and consecrated the words of the Text insinuate some learned Fathers affirme and the miraculous effect of opening their eyes to know Christ and their returne to Hierusalem and the Church of the Apostles in all hast confirmes it That they receiued at the hands of Christ the Sacrament vnder one onely kind of Bread is euident by the context of the Holy Narration which saith That vpon our Sauiours breaking and giuing them Bread they knew him and bee straight vanished out of their sight So that here also if Protestants will haue Wine giuen to these Disciples they must by the superabundance thereof in their Expositions supply 〈◊〉 want thereof in Scripture yea the Scripture in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 capable of that Exposition the Apostles acknowledging of Christ in the verie fraction and giuing of Bread and our 〈◊〉 departing in the same moment leaues not-time for him to giue them Wine after the Bread ANSWER Your last Argument is poore and drowsie and perhaps you imagine that at this your Feast if yet we may be said to drinke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sine Calice we haue drunke well before and therefore in the
conclusion you giue vs that which is worst Iohn 2. 8. The Antecedent or leading part of your Argument is dubious and the Consequence also is infirme First you are not able to prooue out of the Texts Act. 2.42 or Luk. 24.30 that Christ and his Apostles in those places administred the holy Communion for there may be Prayer and breaking of Bread and yet no Sacrament 1. Tim. 4. v. 3.4.5 Also the place Act. 2. 42. may be vnderstood of dealing bread by Eleemosinarie dole to the poore And although some of the Fathers apply these Scriptures to the Eucharist according to the mysticall sence yet other Fathers are contrarie yea many Pontificians expound these Texts of common food or bread and not of the Eucharist But if the first Exposition were true yet Communion in one kinde cannot be hence inferred for either the words are proper or figuratiue If Romists will presse them according to the letter then no wine at all was then vsed by Christ Luc. 24. or by the Apostles Act. 2. and consequently it followeth 〈◊〉 If they will yeeld that there is a 〈◊〉 in the words then euen as when wee reade in sundrie places of Scripture That people meet together to 31.34 〈◊〉 2.10 wee vnderstand by a part of the 〈◊〉 the whole not 〈◊〉 wine or other in the 〈◊〉 Texts making literall mention of bread onely must be vnderstood as mentioning a part of the spirituall Feast for the whole Neither is there any force in the Argument ensuing which is Their eyes were opened to know Christ Ergo They 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bread for the eyes may be opened by Miracle Grace and by Donation of Faith Act. 10. 14. without receiuing Eucharisticall Bread The holy Eucharist is not a sole or 〈◊〉 cause of grace 〈◊〉 there are other caufes and meanes besides and therefore the Illation is inconsequent 〈◊〉 an effect which may proceed from diuers and fundrie 〈◊〉 to one speciall and determinate efficient cause But the Aduersarie proceedeth saying That after breaking of bread Christ straight way vanished out of their sight and they hastened to Hierusalem with all speed Therefore there was no space after receiuing the Bread for the sumption of Wine The Reader may perceiue by these and other such like writhings of the Text vpon what foundation Popish Faith is builded First The word Straight wayes is not in the Narration Luke 24. Secondly The receiuing a small quantitie of Wine could neither hinder our Sauiours expedition nor the Apostles iourney to Ierusalem Thirdly How appeareth it that receiuing Eucharisticall Bread made the Disciples more agile in bodie and prompter in minde to trauell to Hierusalem for two Disciples ranne to the Sepulchre with as much allacritie and expedition as was possible 〈◊〉 20. 4 and yet they had at that present time receiued no Eucharisticall Bread Yea on the contrarie the Apostles of Christ after the receiuing of the holy Eucharist doe all of them flie away and forsake their Master Math. 26.58 This collection therefore The Disciples hasted to Hierusalem Ergo They receiued the Eucharist is dissolute and not much vnlike that of Pope Boniface the eight God said Let vs make two great lights Ergo The Pope is greater than the Emperour IESVIT These bee the Warrants that Communion vnder one kinde hath being the greatest that may bee whereby appeares that the Roman Church is furnisht with all kinde of proofe in this point in which she doth seeme to her Aduersaries to be most forsaken of Antiquitie Now supposing Communion vnder one kinde to be good and lawfull That the Church could preseribe it and That shee had iust reasons to prescribe it J will let passe without proofe as a thing not doubted of by your Maiesties excellent wisedome ANSVVER All your warrants for halfe Communions are meere Impostures and audacious words and figments Commota semel excussa mens ei seruit à quo impellitur saith Seneca The mind which is disordered and put out of frame becomes a slaue to that which impells it This is verified in you you want all kinds of iust defence for your Sacriledge in mangling and dismembring the holy Communion yet hauing once ouershot your selues and become slaues to your owne conceit of not being subiect to errour Litigare magis quam sanari vultis you chuse rather to make warre with heauen than to retract your errour for they warre with heauen which oppose the Testament of the Sonne of God the Tradition of the holy Apostles and the practise of the Primitiue Church and this is your case although you list not to see it or rather seeing to acknowledge it THE EIGHT POINT WORKES OF SVPERERROGATION SPECIALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE TREASVRE OF THE CHVRCH IESVIT IT is hard if not impossible to giue satisfaction in this point vnto any that is not aforehand persuaded of the Catholicke Doctrine of Merit ANSVVER THe word or name of merit is taken in two notions First properly strictly and vniuocally Ro. 4.4 Deu. 7.10 Secondly improperly largely and equiuocally Eccle. 16.15 The first is tearmed by Schoolemen Merit of Condignitie and the latter Merit of Impetration or of Congruitie If the Iesuit maintaine Merit according to the first acceptation then out of all question the Doctrine of Merit is not Catholicke If he maintaine Merit according to the second notion then Popes pardons and workes of Supererogation cannot be inferred or concluded from the doctrine of Merit for how can that action bee applied to other persons as satisfactorie which is rewarded by God of his free fauour and grace aboue the desert of the person himselfe which hath wrought it IESVITS §. 1. The Doctrine of Merit declared THis Doctrine is much misliked by Protestants as proud and arrogant yet not so much misliked as misunderstood their dislike growing from misconstruction thereof For Catholickes hold that no worke is meritorious with God of it owne nature but to make the same meritorious many graces are required and those most diuine and excellent particularly these seuen ANSVVER CAn any thing be more arrogant and foolish than for a miserable begger and sinner whose iustice is rather in remission of sinnes than in perfection of vertues to maintaine that God should be vniust if he rendred not heauen to mans good workes And yet this proud Doctrine is deliuered by the Rhemists and by some other Romists But our Aduersarie laboureth by distinction to salue this Pharisaisme saying Good workes are not meritorious by their nature but by many graces c. I answer If he should maintaine that Good workes merit iustification or perseuerance not by their Nature but by Grace this distinction would not free his Tenet from error so likewise it is erroneus to maintaine that Good works merit glorie by Grace for that which is of Merit is not of Grace but of debt And diuine grace doth not eleuate vertuous actions by adding vnto them a force of meriting but
remission of sinnes and because he is intreated by the same to release the punishment deserued The first kind of satisfaction was made by Christ alone both for fault and guilt of sinne The latter according to the speaking of sundry Fathers is performed by penitent Persons by their contrition 〈◊〉 confession and other penitentiall actions Fiftly repentance may be exercised priuately onely before God or els openly and before men The antient Church obserued a seuere discipline and imposed vpon notorious and enormious sinners open penance causing them to make satisfaction to the Church and to testifie their vnfeigned repentance to God by externall signes and by actions of humiliation and mortification Also in the dayes of the Fathers sinners which had voluntarily confessed their offences to the Pastours of the Church were by them inioyned to a strict manner of humiliation and exercise of workes of charitie and mortification And the fathers stiled these Penitentiall actions by the name of Satisfaction partly in respect of men offended partly in the regard of Offenders themselues who because they did that which was inioyned them by their spirituall guides to appease the indignation of God were said to make satisfaction But the Fathers did not hereby exalt Poenitentiall deedes to a sufficiency or equalitie of satisfying Gods iustice for this effect is proper onely to the actions aud passions of the Sonne of God but they tearmed that satisfaction which they iudged meet or necessary for sinners to performe that they might preuent Diuine indignation and whereby they might repaire the spirituall detriment which they had incurred by falling into sinne Sixtly and lastly Marsilius ab Inguen a famous Schoolman obserueth 〈◊〉 That Satisfaction sometimes importeth all the actions 〈◊〉 or imperate which a sinner must performe on his part that God may be pacified and thus it containeth Contrition Confession c. Sometimes it noteth onely those Acts which follow Contrationand Confession and are either voluntarily assumed or imposed by a Confessour The Fathers vsed the word Satisfaction in the first notion and they knew no Sacramentall Satisfaction but onely of Discipline or priuate humiliation Now the Romists in their course of Doctrine haue miserably 〈◊〉 all this First That which the Fathers speake of the fault and guilt of sinne they wrest to the temporall paine of mortall sinne remayning after the remission of the euerlasting guilt Secondly That which the Fathers stiled Satisfaction improperly and by way of deprecation they make Satisfaction of Condignitie yea in rigour of Iustice and for veniall sinnes more effectuall than Christs satisfaction Thirdly That which in the ancient Church was a worke of discipline or Christian mortification they make Sacramentall Fourthly Whereas the Fathers placed Satisfaction in all 〈◊〉 actions inward and outward and especially in such actions as were commanded by God as necessarie to obtaine remission of sinnes The Romists restraine the same to externall actions succeeding Contrition and Confession and principally to electious and voluntarie actions Fiftly The Fathers gaue not absolution to 〈◊〉 vntill such time as they had accomplished the penitentiall actions inioyned Romists set the Cart before the Horse and absolue before satisfaction is made which is as one saith To set Easter before Lent IESVIT But J suppose they are to your Maiestie well knowne and therefore in the proposed difficultie supposing the satisfaction for sinne to be possible you mooue this doubt Whether the penitents can so fully satisfie for themselues as their satisfactions may superabound and bee referred vnto the treasure of the Church to satisfie this doubt three Propositions are to be prooued ANSWER It is well knowne to his gracious Maiestie that you peruert the meaning of the Fathers and from the word Satisfaction vsed by them in one Notion you argue to another that is from Satisfaction impetrant which is an action or fruit of the vertue of Repentance you conclude your Romish Sacramentall Satisfaction of Condignitie IESVIT The first That Good workes of Saints that are poenall and afflictiue doe not onely merit heauen but also satisfie for sinne this is prooued giuing of Almes for the loue of Christ is meritorious witnesse our Sauiour himselfe who to the iust in reward of their Almes will giue The Kingdome prepared from the beginning of the world ANSVVER First You argue out of Saint Matthew 25. 34. from reward of Workes to merit of Workes But you must obserue that there is a reward of meere bountie as well as of desert 〈◊〉 127.2 Ezech. 29.18 Gen. 30.18 Also 〈◊〉 reason and cause why the kingdome of Heauen is bestowed is not meritorious but some causes are dispositiue 〈◊〉 or impetrant IESVIT And it is also satisfactorie for sinne witnes Daniel who gaue this councell vnto the Babylonian King Redeeme thy sinnes with Almes-deeds and thine iniquities with mercies vnto the poore ANSWER The place of Daniell 4.24 according to the vulgar Translation speaketh of redeeming sinnes in regard of the fault and eternall guilt and not onely of temporall punishment Also of redeeming sinnes in this life and not of redeming them in Purgatorie Besides if Nabuchadonosor were an vniust person Esa. 14.15 then according to your owne position he could not make satisfaction for sinne Lastly the punishment threatned and foretold in that Scripture is such as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth belongeth not to the Court of Penance and Papall Indulgences And if Popes Pardons and Romish Satisfactions could deliuer sinners from frenzie and losse of outward goods and temporall dominion the mad-men in Bedlam and decayed merchants and other afflicted persons throughout the Christian world would become suitors to his Holinesse to insert these and other such like temporall calamities into the Patent of his Indulgences and Iubilees Also the place of Daniell is vnderstood litterally of breaking of sinnes by almes-deeds as if one preaching to an extortioner should say Breake off thy sinfull courses by imitating Zacheus c. Now what merit is there in this or what immediate satisfaction to God for this is rather satisfaction to man in regard of ciuill iniurie Lastly there is no ground either in Scripture or in Tradition for this Romish doctrine to wit the temporall paine of personall sinne remaining after this life may be remooued or expiated by humane satisfactions for whatsoeuer is spoken in holy Scripture or by antient Fathers concerning redeeming sinnes by Satisfaction belongs to the fault and eternall paine of sinne as well as to the temporall punishment and the satisfaction must be performed by the delinquent person himselfe in this present life Also the redemption or satisfaction possible to be performed by man is by way of deprecation onely and not by iust compensation And if there were a Purgatorie because the paines thereof would be proportioned and stinted by the diuine Will and Decree it could not rest in the
the Church of God and to make themselues the better capable of that extraordinarie glorie and blisse which was prepared as a Crowne for such as transcend others in vertue Secondly If they had superaboundant Satisfactions that is If they endured Afflictions and Tryalls more than were necessarie to satisfie for the Temporarie paine of their personall sinnes these superabundant Passions should not want a sufficient fruit and effect 2. Cor. 4. 17. 2. Tim. 4. 8. And the want of the proper fruit of Satisfaction beeing recompenced with a large encrease and surplusage in another kinde can be no dishonour to God or losse to them For euen as it is in Prayer although the most proper fruit and effect thereof is to obtayne the thing requested of God and yet if God denie the particular request 2. Cor. 12. a iust mans Prayer considered as it is Prayer wanteth not the fruit if God otherwise bestow that which is equiualent to the thing requested So likewise if a man could super-abound in satisfying for his owne sinne his Satisfaction were not fruitlesse if God make requitall by any other kind of benefit equall or transcending the proper fruit and effect thereof IESVIT The second is the glorie of Christ whose merits were so powerfull as to purchase to the Church of God such excellent and admirable Saints so pure of life so perfect in Penance as their satisfactions might suffice to pay the debt of temporall paine due vnto others ANSWER If one should affirme It is more for the glory of Christ to haue his merits so potent as to purchase to himselfe a People and Inheritance which in this life is perfectly innocent and iust needing no remission of sinnes than to purchase a people carrying alwayes about with them the remainders of sinne he should not honour Christ but prooue himselfe a lyer 1. Ioh. 1. 8 10. So likewise to affirme That it is a greater honour to Christ to haue his merits aduanced so farre as that by the vertue thereof men are made satisfiers of Diuine Iustice together with Christ carries a shew of honouring Christ but it is in truth a sacrilegious errour And Papists may as well affirme that it is for Christs greater glorie to make men subordinate Iustifiers Redeemers or whatsoeuer else their vertiginous fancie shall suggest IESVIT The third reason is To make men loue the Church and societie of Saints whereby they come to bee partakers of the aboundancie of her treasures to pay their grieuous debts This is that comfortable Article which the Apostles put downe in the Creed to be knowne of euery one The Communion of Saints This is that which made King Dauid exult saying I am partaker with all them that feare thee and keepe thy Commandements And in this respect the Apostle exhorteth vs 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 exhorting them to be liber all towards Titus and Luke For the present let your abundance in temporall goods supply their want that 〈◊〉 their abundance in pious workes may bee a suppliment vnto your want This hope to supply in this kinde the spirituall needs of Christians by the abundance of his sufferings made Saint Paul so much reioyce in them I ioy saith hee in my sufferings for you and I make full the things that want of the sufferings of Christ in my flesh for his Bodie which is the Church And againe Cupio impendi super impendi pro vobis Out of which words Origen gathers that Saint Paul as a kinde of Victime or Sacrifice did expiate the sinnes of others not satisfying for the iniurie against God nor for the eternall punishment due but for one outward and transitorie effect of sinne to wit the debt of temporall paine In this sence also Saint Augustine interpreteth the former words of the Apostle Of suffering in his bodie the things wanting of the sufferings of Christ Patitur Christus in membris suis id est in nobis ipsis ad Communem hanc quasi Rempublicam Nam quisque pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus ANSWER The true loue of the Church and of the Saints is grounded vpon veritie and not vpon Romish Fables 2. Epist. Iohn vers 1. And Communion of Saints in the Apostles Creed in respect of the liuing is Copartnership in Faith in Veritie in the bond of Loue in pious and charitable Offices and Actions and in the manifold graces of Christ and towards the defunct it is Communion of Loue Imitation Hope and expectation of the same Glory But neither Scripture nor Fathers teach That the liuing Saints haue Communion with the Saints defunct by partaking their superabundant Satisfactions Eph. 4. 15 c. 1. Ioh. 1.3 Rom. 12.4 The saying of Dauid Psal. 119.63 I am partaker with all them that feare thee and keepe thy Commandements prooueth That this holy man made righteous Persons his Friends and Associates and that he shunned the fellowship of the wicked Psal. 101.6 But of Communion of Satisfactions he speaketh not a word Also what a miserable inference is this Dauid was partaker of all them which feared God and kept his Commandements Ergo He was Partaker of their Satisfactions and those to God-ward Is there no other bond or Act of Fellowship but this onely Haue all they which feare God and keepe his Commandements according to the state of this life superabundant Satisfactions Yea How appeareth it that Dauid had need of other mens Satisfactorie deedes For he was a man after Gods owne heart full of Grace and abounding in works of mortification Psal. 6.6 102.9 Psal. 35. 13 yea of that ranke to wit a great Prophet which our Aduersary himselfe saith Receiue not but Communicate superabundant Satisfactions to others wanting them S. Pauls text Col. 1.12 speaketh of Partnership of heauenly inheritance and not of Satisfactions The next place 2. Cor. 8. 14. is expounded by Pontificians themselues of Almesdeedes in this life and the sence according to Cardinall Caietan is You Corinthians abound with temporall goods the Saints of Hierusalem are in want the matter will bee reduced to an equalitie if your plentie supply their indigencie But if with Hugo Carensis and Lyra the latter part of the words should be expounded of Spiritualls it belongeth to such spirituall gifts as are communicable from one member of the Church Militant in this life to another as instruction exhortation speciall prayer c. and not to Satisfactions to be made to God by one for another much lesse of applying such satisfactions of the deceased to the liuing or to others deceased The places Col. 1. 24. 2. Cor. 12. 15. are forced by Romists to speake to purpose which the Apostle intended not S. Paul saith Col. 1. 24. Ireioyce in my sufferings for you and fill vp or accomplish 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those things which are behind or wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the afflictions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christ in my flesh 〈◊〉 his body which is the Church The first part of these words prooueth that S. Paul suffered for the Collossians But because he might suffer for the confirmation of their faith or as an example of patience or by way of persecution because he preached the Gospell to them and other Churches it cannot be concluded that hee suffered to make satisfaction for their sinnes Secondly The next words conclude not Satisfaction for Christs Afflictions and Passions are of two kinds Some Personall and in his owne flesh Some By Sympathie and compassion in his members The first are satisfactorie the second are exemplarie purgatiue probatiue or for the edifying of the Church S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not the first Esa. 63.3 for then Christs sufferings vpon the Crosse were imperfect but both S. Paul and all other iust persons which patiently beare affliction and indure the Crosse supply and accomplish that which is yet wanting in Christ as he is considered in a mysticall vnion to his Church Christ saith to Saul Act. 9.4 Saul Saul Why persecutest thou me and v. 5. I am Iesus whom thou persecutest S. Augustine and S. Gregorie say That Christ and the Church are one mysticall Body Therefore when the members suffer the head suffers and the afflictions of the members are the afflictions of Christ 2. Cor. 1. 5. 1. Cor. 12. 12. It is also remarkeable that not onely the Fathers but the maior part of Popish Doctors expound this Scripture in such sort that it serueth not at all to maintaine Papall Indulgences And Estius a moderne Pontifician saith That whereas 〈◊〉 of his part straine the Text of S. Paul to prooue Satisfactions and Indulgences himselfe is of mind that the said Doctrine cannot effectually be prooued by this place The other place 2. Cor. 12. 15. I wil verie gladly spend and be spent for you or as the Rhemists translate I most gladly will bestow and will my selfe moreouer be bestowed for your soules affoordeth no argument for Satisfactions and Pardons Caietan Estius Iustinian and other Popish expositors themselues deliuer the sence of this Text in manner following S. Paul manifesteth his paternall affection to the Corinthians saying I am readie not only as a Father to bestow all that I haue vpon you so farre am I from seeking any thing of yours but also to spend my life for you Now by what Art or Engine can Papists extort Pardons or Satisfactions out of this Text doth it follow that if Saint Paul be readie to spend himselfe life and state for the good of his flocke therefore there is a rich stocke and treasure of superabundant Passions and Satisfactions laid vp by S. Paul to bee spent by the Corinthians at their need Surely our Aduersarie intended rather to deride the world than to giue men satisfaction when he presented vs with such inconsequent stuffe But the Iesuit secondeth his former inference by a testimonie of Origen I answer Origen in the place obiected speaketh of purging sinne it selfe by the passions of Martyres and not of the temporall mulct or paine of sinne onely But the bloud of Martyres purgeth not sinne it selfe by way of condigne Satisfaction our Aduersaries being witnesses but at the vttermost by way of Deprecation now Deprecation and Satisfaction properly taken are of diuers natures The place of S. Augustine is strained against his meaning for this Father speaketh of all the members of Christ which suffer for their Masters cause But in our Aduersaries Tenet all that suffer for Christ haue not superabundant Satisfactions but onely some And this Father is so farre from maintaining workes of Supererogation as that he saith Pro modulo nostro exoluimus quod debemus pro posse virium nostrarum quasi canonem passionum inferimus c. According to our small measure we pay that which we are obliged vnto and according to our power we cast in as it were the stint of our passions but they which pay a stint and render that whereunto of right they are obliged haue not superaboundant Passions or workes of Supererogation IESVIT This was the practise of the Primitiue Church which at the petition of constant confessours in prison did release the penalties that sinners were inioined to performe to satisfie non onely the discipline of the Church but also the wrath of God after the remission of sinne still continuing vnto the infliction of temporall paine as appeareth by the testimonie of S. Cyprian And that this relaxation of temporall paine was done by applying the abundant satisfaction of holy Confessours and designed Martyres vnto the poenitents that receiued indulgence at their intercessions appeares by Tertullian For hee 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 Catholique custome of remitting penalties vnto sinners for the merits of Martyres speaking thus Let it suffice the Martirs that they haue cancelled and satisfied their owne sinnes Jt is ingratitude or pride for one prodigally to cast abroad vpon others that which as a great benefit was bestowed vpon him And speaking vnto the Martir saith Jf thou bee a sinner how can the oyle of thy lampe suffice both for thee and mee By which haereticall impugnation appeares that the Catholicke Doctrine then was that men might satisfie one for another and that the abundant satisfactions of some that suffered exceedingly as Martirs were applied for the Redemption of some others more remisse and negligent not from eternall but onely temporall punishment ANSWER You are an vnfaithfull Relatour of the practise of the Primitiue Church which was as followeth After foule and enormous knowne offences committed by Christians and especially after denying the Faith or Sacrificing to Idols offendours were put to a grieuous and long Penance It fell out sometimes that there was iust reason why the rigour of Penance should be mittigated either in respect of the kinde of duresse imposed or in regard of the length and continuance Which fauour the Bishops and Pastours of each Church not the Romane onely had authoritie by the Canons to grant as they saw iust cause This mitigation and relaxation of Penance was called by the name of Pardon and Indulgence and in the same there was no buying or selling no reference to Purgatorie Secondly Whereas you pretend that Popes Pardons were in vse in the Primitiue Church many of your owne part controll your impudencie to wit Durand Antonine Maior Roffensis Angelus de Clauasio Cassander And 〈◊〉 denyes That the Church hath any Treasurie 〈◊〉 of the merits of Christ and of the Saints The 〈◊〉 is maintained by Angelus de Clauasio
which haue forsaken the fountaine of liuing Waters and hewed them out Cisternes euen broken Cisternes that can hold no Waters Ier. 2. 13. And if any man worship the beast and his Image and receiue his marke in his forehead or in his hand the same shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God c. and hee shall be tormented with fire and brimstone Apoc. 14. 9 10. And on the contrarie they which heare the voyce of Christ speaking by the holy Scriptures and build their faith vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ himselfe being the head corner stone Eph. 2. 20. Ioh. 10. 27 all they which keepe the commuandements of God and the faith of Iesus Apoc. 14. 12. refusing to worship Angells Col. 2. 18. or dead Images 1. Ioh. 5. 20 which call vpon God in the name of Iesus onely which receiue the holy Eucharist in both kinds according to our Sauiours Precept and the constant practise of the Primitiue Church which beleeue free remission of sinnes and iustification by a liuely faith for the sole merits of Christ which honour the King as Gods Supreame Vicegerent which praise God with vnderstanding and inuocate the blessed Trinitie in a knowne Language and maintaine obedience to all Morall and Euangelicall Commandements and submit their priuate iudgement to the authoritie of the Apostolicke and Catholicke Church All these I say build their soules vpon the Rocke and not vpon the sands the gates of hell cannot preuaile against them and maugre all the limmes of Antichrist they shall neuer perish neither shall any man plucke them out of their Sauiours hand IESVIT How dreadfull then must the danger bee of liuing out of the lap of the Roman Church that is of a Church of infallible authoritie This Church hauing a most glorious succession of Bishops from the Apostles deserues aboue all other the protection of your Maiestie that by a long line of religious Catholicke Ancestours succeeding in the right of two Illustrious Kingdomes and being so beneficiall vnto mankinde and so efficatious to maintaine vnitie cannot giue ouer hope of your fauour whom singular preseruation in the wombe of your glorious Mother against the barbarous attempts of Hereticall diuision that would haue brought you to an immature end shewes to bee by Gods infinite wisedome preordained for some singular good of mankinde specially by your meanes to quench warres and dissentions and to bestow the blessings of Peace and vnion on this Land Your title to the Crowne of England springs from the peacefull coniunction of the two renowned Roses which before were mortall enemies and fought so manie cruell fields that if wee consider the great effusion of blood wherein each of them were bathed wee shall hardly discerne the one from the other by the diuersitie of colour Your Maiesties person is the roote of a more happie Vnion of two most glorious Kingdomes by your Sacred Person combined in assured Peace which in the Histories of former times are by no other markes more famously knowne than by their mutuall warres Nothing remaines to bee added for the full consummation of this Ilands happinesse and your Maiesties immortall glorie but the quenching of discord about Religion by bringing them backe againe to the Roote and Matrice of the Catholicke Church to the principall See from which Sacerdocall and Sacred Vnitie springs whereby your Maiestie shall extend the blessings of Peace from this Iland to the rest of Europe from the bodie vnto the soule and Crowne your temporall Peace and felicitie with eternall For both which not onely I but all of my Profession yea all Catholickes will offer vnto Almightie God our daily Prayers ANSWER Sir Declamator you vsurpe Radamanthus his office ouer his head and being a delinquent make your selfe a Iudge Wee vnderstand your vttermost strength in propugning the absolute Soueraignitie of the Roman Church The essence of your Creede in this and other points consisteth in supposall and conceit For our selues wee are assured by that which cannot deceiue vs The vndoubted Word of the eternall God that our Faith and Religion is according to Veritie and wee shall bee iudged at the latter Day not by the conceit of our Enemies but by the Word and Gospell of Christ Rom. 2. 16. Now the lappe of your Romane Church since the dayes of Hildebrand and his faction is inlarged to a vast sise and wee are departed from the filthinesse which is the skirts of that lap but not from any branch of the Catholicke Faith Disprooue vs if you bee able by Diuine authoritie and then make ostentation at your pleasure But in the meane time iudge charitably of vs who are more readie to entertaine Truth than you to persuade vs. As for glorious fuccession about which your triumph if you want the life and soule thereof to wit Apostolicall Doctrine and if according to the relation of your bosome friends the same in the verie externall face thereof hath beene miserably blasted pardon vs if we make not our finall and absolute dependence vpon it And to proceede to the last part of your Declamation wherein you sollicite his Maiestie to aduance your Superstition putting him in remembrance of his preseruation in his Mothers wombe and of the vniting of the two renowned Roses You must vnderstand that his Maiesties royall Person was preserued in his Mothers wombe and at the Powder Treason by the God of Truth and hee flourisheth as a Cedar of Libanus with all honour happinesse and safetie and with enioying the vnfained loue of all his Loyall Subiects by the Faith Profession and Protection of that Veritie which is taught of God and which will make him blessed at his latter end But if hee should which is impossible bee persuaded to giue eare to such Betuefeus as many of your Crue are the White Rose you speake of by your malice might againe turne Red for wheresoeuer the soales of your feet take fast footing your manner is to die all things in blood either by Ciuill Warre or by Fire and Faggot But I wonder vpon what surmise Romists can build their vaine hope of surprising his Maiestie by plausible Blandishments and Insinuations These Inchantments are fit for lapsing Ladies and other mutable Camelions But our Lord the King is as an Angell of God discerning Good and Euill The Aduersarie himselfe hath felt the force of the Wisedome of this Solomon and one may sooner with a twined thread plucke vp a tall Cedar by the roote or with a Fishers line hale the greatest rocke from the bottome of the Sea than transplant this great and religious Constantine out of the Paradise of Sacred Scripture into the darke Thicket of humane Traditions and night-sprung weedes Nec dicere aliquid nec facere contra Christum potest cuius spes fides virtus gloria omnis in Christo est Cyprian lib. d. Lapsis It is impossible that
enough not spared to say That what the B. would not acknowledge in this cause you would wring and extort from him then indeed you said as before that it had erred And this no man denyed But euerie Error denyes not Christ the Foundation or makes Christ denie it or thrust it from the Foundation F. The B. said That the Error was not in Point fundamentall B. The B. was not so peremptorie His speech was That diuers learned men and some of your owne were of opinion That as the Greekes expressed themselues it was a Question not simply Fundamentall The B. knowes and acknowledges that Error of denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne to be a grieuous Error in Diuinitie And sure it would haue grated the Foundation if they had so denyed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Sonne as that they had made an inequalitie betweene the Persons But since their forme of speech is That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Sonne and is the Spirit of the Sonne without making any difference in the consubstantialitie of the Persons the B. dares not denie them to be a true Church for this though he confesses them an erroneous Church in this particular Now that diuers learned men were of opinion That à Filio per Filium in the sense of the Greeke Church was but a Question in modo loquendi in manner of speech and therefore not fundamentall is euident The Master and his Schollers agree vpon it The Greekes saith hee confesse the holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Sonne with the Apostle Galat. 4. and the Spirit of Truth S. Ioh. 16. And since Non est aliud It is not another thing to say The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Sonne then that he is or proceeds from the Father and the Sonne in this they seeme to agree with vs in eandem Fidei Sententiam vpon the same Sentence of Faith though they differ in words Now in this cause where the words differ but the sentence of Faith is the same 〈◊〉 eadem euen altogether the same Can the Point be fundamentall You may make them no Church as Bellarmine doth and so denie them saluation which cannot be had out of the true Church but the B. dares not It ought to be no easie thing to condemne a man of Heresie in foundation of Faith much lesse a Church least of all so ample and large a Church as the Greeke especially so as to make them no Church Heauen Gates were not so easily shut against multitudes when S. Peter wore the Keyes at his owne Girdle And it is good counsaile which Alphonsus à Castro one of your owne giues Let them consider that pronounce easily of Heresie how easie it is for themselues to erre Or if you will pronounce consider what it is that seperates from the Church simply and not in part onely I must needs professe that I wish heartily as well as others that those distressed men whose Crosse is heauie alreadie had beene more plainely and moderately dealt withall though they thinke a diuerse thing from vs than they haue beene by the Church of Rome But hereupon you say you were forced F. Whereupon I was forced to repeat what I had formerly brought against Dr. White concerning Points Fundamentall B. Hereupon it is true that you read a large discourse out of a Booke printed which you said was yours The particulars all of them at the least the B. tells me he doth not now remember and is sure he did not then approoue But if they be such as were formerly brought against 〈◊〉 White they are by him formerly answered The first thing you did was the righting of S. Augustine Which Sentence the B. doth not at all remember was so much as named in the third Conference much lesse was it stood vpon and then righted by you Another place of S. Augustine indeed was which you omit but the place of it comes after about Tradition to which I remit it But you tell vs of a great proofe made out of this place These words containe two Propositions One That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall The other That this is prooued out of this place of S. Augustine 1. For the first That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall It was not the least meanes by which Rome grew to her Greatnesse to blast euerie Opposer shee had with the name of Heretike or Schismatike for this serued to shriuell the credit of the persons and the persons once brought into contempt and ignominie all the good they desired in the Church fell to dust for want of creditable persons to backe and support it To make this proceeding good in these later yeeres this course it seemes was taken The Schoole that must maintaine and so they doe That all Points defined by the Church are thereby Fundamentall necessarie to be beleeued of the substance of the Faith and that though it be determined quite Extra Scripturam And then leaue the wise and actiue heads to take order that there be strength enough readie to determine what is fittest for them But since these men distinguish not nor you betweene the Church in generall and a Generall Councell which is but her Representation for determinations of the Faith the B. though he be very slow in sifting or opposing what is concluded by lawfull generall and consenting Authoritie though hee giue as much as can be giuen to the definitions of Councels truly generall nay suppose hee should graunt which hee doth not That Generall Councels cannot erre yet this cannot downe with him That all Points euen so defined are Fundamentall For Deductions are not prime and Natiue Principles nor are Superstructures Foundations That which is a Foundation for all cannot be one and another in different Christians for then it could be no constant Rule for any nor could the soules of men rest vpon a shaking Foundation No If it be a true Foundation it must be common to all and firme vnder all in which sense the Articles of Christian Faith are Fundamentall And Irenaeus layes this for a ground That the whole Church howsoeuer dispersed in place speakes this with one mouth Hee which among the Guides of the Church is best able to speake vtters no more than this and lesse than this the most simple doth not vtter Therefore the Creed of which hee speakes is a common is a constant Foundation and an Explicite Faith must be of this in them which haue the vse of Reason for both Guides and simple people all the Church vtter this Now many things are defined by the Church which are but Deductions out of this which suppose them deduced right mooue farre from the Foundation without which Deductions explicitely beleeued many millions of Christians goe to Heauen and cannot therefore be Fundamentall in the Faith True
Deductions from the Article may require necessarie beleefe in them which are able and doe goe along with them from the Principle to the Conclusion but I doe not see either that the Learned doe make them necessarie to all or any reason why they should Therefore they cannot be Fundamentall Besides that which is Fundamentall in the Faith of Christ is a Rocke immooueable and can neuer bee varied Neuer Therefore if it be Fundamentall after the Church hath defined it it was Fundamentall before the definition else it is mooueable and then no Christian hath where to rest And if it be immooueable as indeed it is no Decree of a Councell be it neuer so generall can alter immooueable Verities no more than it can change immooueable Natures Therefore if the Church in a Councell define any thing the thing defined is not Fundamentall because the Church hath defined it nor can be made so by the definition of the Church if it be not so in it selfe For if the Church had this power shee might make a new Article of the Faith which the Learned among your selues denie For the Articles of the Faith cannot encrease in substance but onely in explication Nor is this hard to be prooued out of your owne Schoole for Scotus professeth it in this verie particular of the Greeke Church If there be saith he a true reall difference betweene the Greekes and the Latines about the Point of the Procession of the Holy Ghost then either they or we be vere Haeretici truly and indeed Heretikes And he speakes this of the old Greekes long before any decision of the Church in this Controuersie For his instance is in S. Basil and Greg. Nazianz. on the one side and S. Ierome Augustine and Ambrose on the other And who dares call any of these Heretikes is his challenge I denie not but that Scotus addes there That howsoeuer this was before yet ex quo from the time that the Catholike Church declared it it is to be held as of the substance of Faith But this cannot stand with his former Principle if hee intend by it That whatsoeuer the Church defines shall be ipso facto and for that determinations sake Fundamentall For if before the determination supposing the difference reall some of those Worthies were truly Heretikes as hee confesses then somewhat made them so and that could not be the Decree of the Church which then was not Therefore it must be somewhat really false that made them so and fundamentally false if it had made them Heretikes against the Foundation But Scotus was wiser than to intend this It may be hee saw the streame too strong for him to swim against therefore hee went on with the Doctrine of the time That the Churches Sentence is of the substance of Faith but meant not to betray the Truth for hee goes no further than Ecclesia declarauit since the Church hath declared it which is the word that is vsed by diuers Now the Master teaches and the Schollers too That euerie thing which belongs to the exposition or declaration of another intus est is not another contrarie thing but is contayned within the bowels and nature of that which is interpreted from which if the declaration depart it is faultie and erronious because in stead of declaring it giues another and a contrarie sense Therefore when the Church declares any thing in a Councell either that which she declares was Intus or Extra in the nature and veritie of the thing or out of it If it were Extra without the nature of the thing declared then the declaration of the thing is false and so farre from being fundamentall in the Faith If it were Intus within the compasse and nature of the thing though not expert and apparant to euerie Eye then the declaration is true but not otherwise fundamentall than the thing is which is declared For Intus cannot be larger or deeper than that in which it is if it were it could not be Intus Therefore nothing is simply fundamentall because the Church declares it but because it is so in the nature of the thing which the Church declares And it is a slight and poore euasion that is commonly vsed That the declaration of the Church makes it fundamentall quoad nos in respect of vs for it doth not that neither for no respect to vs can varie the Foundation The Churches declaration can bind vs to peace and externall obedience where there is not expresse letter of Scripture and sense agreed on but it cannot make any thing fundamentall to vs that is not so in the nature of it For if the Church can so adde that it can by a Declaration make a thing to be fundamentall in the Faith that was not then it can take a thing from the foundation and make it by declaring not to be fundamentall which all men graunt no power of the Church can doe For the power of adding any thing contrarie and of detracting any thing necessarie are alike forbidden Now nothing is more apparant than this to the eye of all men That the Church of Rome hath determined or declared or defined call it what you will very many things that are not in their owne nature fundamentall and therefore neither are not can be made so by her adiudging them 2. For the second That it is prooued by this place of S. Augustine That all Points defined by the Church are fundamentall You might haue giuen me that place cited in the Margin and eased my paines to seeke it but it may be there was somewhat in concealing it For you doe so extraordinarily right this place that you were loth I thinke any 〈◊〉 should see how you wrong it The place of S. Augustine is this against the Pelagians about Remission of Originall sinne in Infants This is a thing founded An erring Disputor is to be borne with in other Questions not diligently digested not yet made firme by 〈◊〉 Authoritie of the Church their Error is to be borne with but it ought not to goe so farre that it should labour to shake the Foundation it selfe of the Church This is the place but it can neuer follow out of this place I thinke That euerie thing defined by the Church is Fundamentall For first he speakes of a Foundation of Doctrine in Scripture not a Church definition This appeares for few Lines before he tells vs There was a Question mooued to S. Cyprian Whether Baptisme was concluded to the eight day as well as Circumcision And no doubt was made then of the beginning of Sinne and that out of this thing about which no Question was mooued that Question that was made was answered And againe That S. Cyprian tooke that which he gaue in answere from the Foundation of the Church to confirme a Stone that was shaking Now S. Cyprian in all the Answer that he giues hath not one
word of any definition of the Church therefore Ea Res That thing by which he answered was a Foundation of prime and settled Scripture Doctrine not any definition of the Church Therefore that which he tooke from the Foundation of the Church to fasten the Stone that shooke was not a definition of the Church but the Foundation of the Church it selfe the Scripture vpon which it builded as appeareth in the Mileuitan Councell where the Rule by which Pelagius was condemned is the Rule of Scripture Rom. 5.12 Therefore S. Augustine goes on in the same sense That the Disputor is not to be borne any longer that shall endeuour to shake the Foundation it selfe vpon which the whole Church is grounded Secondly If S. Augustine did meane by Founded and Foundation the definition of the Church because of these words This thing is founded This is made firme by full authoritie of the Church and the words following these To shake the foundation of the Church yet it can neuer follow out of any or all these Circumstances and these are all That all Points defined by the Church are Fundamentall in the Faith For first no man denyes but the Church is a Foundation That things defined by it are founded vpon it And yet hence it cannot follow That the thing that is so founded is Fundamentall in the Faith for things may be founded vpon humane Authoritie and be verie certaine yet not Fundamentall in the Faith Nor yet can it follow This thing is founded therefore euerie thing determined by the Church is founded Againe that which followes That those things are not to be opposed which are made firme by full Authoritie of the Church cannot conclude they are therefore fundamentall in the Faith For full Church Authoritie is but Church Authoritie and Church Authoritie when it is at full Sea the time that included the Apostles being past and not comprehended in it is not simply Diuine therefore the Sentence of it not fundamentall in the Faith And yet no erring Disputor may be endured to shake the Foundation which the Church in Councell layes But plaine Scripture with euident sense or a full demonstratiue argument must haue roome where a wrangling and erring Disputor may not be allowed it And there 's neither of these but may conuince the definition of the Councell if it be ill founded And the Articles of the Faith may easily prooue it is not fundamentall if in deed and veritie it be not so And the B. hath read some bodie that sayes Is it not you That things are fundamentall in the Faith two wayes One in their Matter such as are all things as be so in themselues the other in the Manner such as are all things that the Church hath defined and determined to be of Faith And that so some things that are de modo of the manner of being are of Faith But in plaine truth this is no more than if you should say Some things are fundamentall in the Faith and some are not For wrangle while you will you shall neuer be able to prooue That any thing which is but de modo a consideration of the manner of being onely can possibly be fundamentall in the Faith And since you make such a Foundation of this place I will a little view the Mortar with which it is laid by you it is a venture but I shall find it vntempered Your assertion is All Points defined by the Church are fundamentall your proofe this place Because that is not to be shaken which is setled by full authoritie of the Church Then it seemes your meaning is that this Point there spoken of The remission of 〈◊〉 sinne in Baptisme of Infants was defined when S. Augustine wrote this by a full Sentence of a Generall Councell First If you say it was Bellarmine will tell you it is false and that the Pelagian Heresie was neuer condemned in an Oecumenicall Councell but only in Nationalls But Bellarmine is deceiued for while they stood out impudently against Nationall Councels some of them defended Nestorius which gaue occasion to the first Ephesine Councell to excommunicate and depose them And yet this will not serue your turne for this place For S. Augustine was then dead and therefore could not meane the Sentence of that Councell in this place Secondly And if you say it was not then defined in an Oecumenicall Synod plena Authoritas Ecclesiae the full Authoritie of the Church there mentioned doth not stand properly for the Decree of an Oecumenicall Councell but for some Nationall as this was condemned in a Nationall Councell and then the full Authoritie of the Church here is no more than the full Authoritie of this Church of Africke And I hope that Authoritie doth not make all Points defined by it to be Fundamentall You will say Yes if that Councell be confirmed by the Pope And I must euer wonder why S. Augustine should say The full Authoritie of the Church and not bestow one word vpon the Pope by whose Authoritie onely that Councell as all other haue their fulnesse of Authoritie in your iudgement An inexpiable omission if this Doctrine concerning the Pope were true F. Secondly J required to know what Points the B. would account Fundamentall Hee said All the Points of the Creed were such B. Against this I hope you except not For since the Fathers make the Creed the Rule of Faith since the agreeing sense of Scripture with those Articles are the two Regular Precepts by which a Diuine is gouerned about the Faith since your owne Councell of Trent decrees That it is that Principle of Faith in which all that professe Christ doe necessarily agree Et Fundamentum firmum vnicum not the firme alone but the onely Foundation since it is Excommunication ipso iure for any man to contradict the Articles contained in that Creed since the whole body of the Faith is so contained in the Creed as that the substance of it was beleeued euen before the comming of Christ though not so expressely as since in the number of the Articles since Bellarmine confesses That all things simply necessarie for all mens saluation are in the Creed and the Decalogue What reason can you haue to except And yet for all this euerie thing Fundamentall is not of a like neerenesse to the Foundation nor of equall Primenesse in the Faith And the B. graunting the Creed to be Fundamentall doth not denie but that there are Quaedam prima Credibilia Certaine prime Principles of Faith in the bosome whereof all other Articles lay wrapped and folded vp One of which since Christ is that of S. Iohn Euery Spirit that confesseth Iesus Christ come in the flesh is of God And one both before the comming of Christ and since is that of S. Paul He that comes to God must beleeue that God is and that he is a
rewarder of them that seeke him F. I asked How then it happened as Mr Rogers saith that the English Church is not yet resolued what is the right sense of the Article of Christ's descending into Hell B. The English Church neuer made doubt that I know what was the sense of that Article The words are so plaine they beare their meaning before them Shee was content to put that Article among those to which she requires subscription not as doubting of the sense but to preuent the Cauills of some who had beene too busie in crucifying that Article and in making it all one with the Article of the Crosse or but an Exposition of it And sure the B. thinkes and so doe I That the Church of England is better resolued of the right sense of this Article than the Church of Rome especially if she must be tryed by her Writers as you trie the Church of England by Mr Rogers For you cannot agree whether this Article be a meere Tradition or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it Scotus and Stapleton allow it no footing in Scripture but Bellarmine is resolute that this Article is euerie where in Scripture and Thomas grants as much for the whole Creed The Church of England neuer doubted it and S. Augustine prooues it And yet againe you are different for the sense For you agree not whether the Soule of Christ in triduo mortis in the time of his death did goe downe into Hell really and was present there or virtually and by effects onely For Thomas holds the first and Durand holds the latter Then you agree not whether the Soule of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest Pit of Hell and place of the Damned as Bellarmine once held probable and prooued it or really only into that place or Region of Hell which you call Limbum Patrum and then but virtually from thence into the Lower Hell to which Bellarmine reduces himselfe and giues his reason because it is the common opinion of the Schoole Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and beleeues them without further dispute and in that sense which the antient Primitiue Fathers of the Church agreed in And yet if any in the Church of England should not be throughly resolued in the sense of this Article Is it not as lawfull for them to say I conceiue thus or thus of it yet if any other way of his Descent be found truer than this I denie it not but as yet I know no other as it was for Durand to say it and yet not impeach the Foundation of the Faith F. The B. said That Mr Rogers was but a priuate man But said I if Mr Rogers writing as he did by publike Authoritie be accounted onely a priuate man c. B. The B. said truth when he said Mr Rogers was a priuate man And I take it you will not allow euerie speech of euerie man though allowed by Authoritie to be printed to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome This hath beene oft complained of on both sides The imposing particular mens Assertions vpon the Church yet I see you meane not to leaue it And surely as Controuersies are now handled by some of your partie at this day I may not say it is the sense of the Article in hand but I haue long thought it a kind of descent into Hell to be conuersant in them I would the Authors would take heed in time and not seeke to blind the people or cast a mist before euident Truth least it cause a finall descent to that place of Torment But since you hold this course Stapleton was of greater note with you than Rogers is with vs and as he so his Relection And is it the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which he affirmes The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into Hell and that there is a Catholike and an Apostolike Church If it be then what will become of the Pope's Supremacie ouer the whole Church Shall hee haue his power ouer the Catholike Church giuen him expressely in Scripture in the Keyes to enter and in Pasce to feed when he is in and when he hath fed to confirme and in all these not to erre and faile in his ministration And is the Catholike Church in and ouer which he is to doe all these great things quite left out Belike the Holy Ghost was carefull to giue him his power Yes in any case but left the assigning of his great Cure the Catholike Church to Tradition And it were well for him if hee could so prescribe for what he now claymes But what if after all this Mr Rogers there sayes no such thing as in truth he doth not His words are All Christians acknowledge he descended but in the interpretation of the Article there is not that consent that were to be wished What is this to the Church of England more than others And againe Till wee know the natiue and vndoubted sense of this Article is Mr Rogers Wee the Church of England or rather his and some others Iudgement of the Church of England F. But if Mr Rogers be onely a priuate man In what Booke may wee find the Protestants publike Doctrine The B. answered That to the Booke of Articles they were all sworne B. What was the B. so ignorant to say The Articles of the Church of England were the publike Doctrine of all the Protestants or That all Protestants were sworne to the Articles of England as this speech seemes to implie Sure he was not Was not the immediate speech before of the Church of England And how comes the subiect of the speech to be varyed in the next Lines Nor yet speake I this as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest Doctrines against which they ioyntly take exceptions against the Romane Church as appeares by their seuerall Confessions Nor did the B. say That the Booke of Articles onely was the Continent of the Church of Englands publike Doctrine Shee is not so narrow nor hath shee purpose to exclude any thing which shee acknowledges hers nor doth shee wittingly permit any crossing of her publike declarations Yet shee is not such a Shrew to her Children as to denie her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the Foundation as your owne Schoolemen differ And if the Church of Rome since shee grew to her greatnesse had not beene so fierce in this course Christendome I persuade my selfe had beene in happier peace at this day F. And that the Scriptures onely not any vnwritten Tradition was the Foundation of their Faith B. The Church of England grounded her Positiue Articles vpon Scripture and her Negatiue Refute where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed in Scripture nor directly
Yet wee say after Tradition hath beene our Introduction the Soule that hath but ordinarie Grace added to Reason may discerne Light sufficient to resolue our Faith that the Sunne is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply euident in it selfe is presumed to be taught vs otherwise and if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superior Science to which Theologie is subordinate Now men may be apt to thinke out of reuerence That Diuinitie can haue no Science aboue it but your owne Schoole teacheth me that it hath The sacred Doctrine of Diuinitie in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are knowne by the Light of a superior Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the blessed in Heauen In this superior Science this Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more than euident in full Light This superior Science deliuers this Principle in full reuealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles The infallible Light of this Principle made their Authoritie Diuine by the same Diuine Authoritie they wrote and deliuered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church receiued the Scripture and that vncorrupt And since no sufficient reason hath or can be giuen that in any substantiall thing it hath beene corrupted it remaines firme to vs at this day prooued in the most supreame Science and therefore now to be supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God And therefore the B. his answere is good euen in strictnesse That this Principle is to be supposed Besides the Iewes neuer had nor can haue any other proofe that the Old Testament is the Word of God than wee haue of the New For theirs was deliuered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was deliuered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Iewes did beleeue their Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie for so the Iewes argue themselues We know that God spaeke with Moses And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses than they could in following God himselfe Now how did the Iewes know that God spake to Moses How Why apparently the same way that is before set downe first by Tradition So S. Chrysostome We know Why by whose witnesse doe you know By the Testimonie of oùr Ancestors But he speakes not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimonie was Diuine into which namely their Writings the Iewes did resolue their Faith And euen that Scripture of the Old Testament was a Light and a shining Light too and therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And therefore though the Iewes entred this way to their beleefe of the Scripture yet they doe not say Audiuimus Wee haue heard that God spake to Moses but Wee know it So they resolued their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle than an Eare to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition F. And that no other answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this Point B. I thinke I haue shewed that the B. his answere is good and that so no other answere need be made If there were need I make no question but another answere might be made to assure vs of this Point though wee did not admit of any Word of God vnwritten I say to assure vs and you expresse no more If you had said to assure vs by Diuine Faith your Argument had beene the stronger But if you speake of assurance onely in the generall I must then tell you and it is the great aduantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiasticall and humane proofe Men that neuer saw Rome may be sure and infallibly beleeue that such a Citie there is by Historicall and acquired Faith And if consent of humane storie can assure me this Why should not consent of Church-storie assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles deliuered this Bodie of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Iewes enemies to Christ they beare witnesse to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations giue in euidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other enemies of Christianitie can giue such a worthie and consenting Testimonie for any Authoritie vpon which they relye or almost for any Principle which they haue as the Scripture hath gayned to it selfe And as is the Testimonie which it receiues aboue all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Diuine Authoritie in a word written or vnwritten A great assurance and it is infallible too onely then we must distinguish infallibilitie For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Obiect of Beleefe when it is true and remaines so For Truth 〈◊〉 tale as it is Truth cannot deceiue Secondly a thing is said to be infallible when it is not onely true and remainesso actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and vpon such ground as that no degree of falsehood at any time in any respect can fall vpon it Certaine it is that by humane Authoritie Consent and Proofe a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habite of Faith Cui non 〈◊〉 falsum vnder which nor error nor falsehood is But he cannot be assured infallibly by Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falsehood can come but by a Diuine Testimonie This Testimonie is absolute in the Scripture it selfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Word of God That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motiue is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Diuine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolue our Faith And now to come close to the particular The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ which I thinke no true Christian can looke vpon but with a bleeding heart that you and we were all of one beleefe That beleefe was tainted in tract and corruption of time very deepely A diuision was made yet so that both parts held the Creed and other common Principles of Beleefe of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God for our beleefe of all things contained in it depends vpon it Since this diuision there hath beene nothing done by vs to discredit this Principle nay we haue giuen it all honor and ascribed vnto it more sufficiencie euen to the containing of all things necessarie to saluation with satis superque enough and more than enough which your selues haue not done doe not And for begetting and settling a beleefe of this Principle wee goe the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you because wee allow the Tradition of the
present Church to be the first inducing motiue to embrace this Principle onely wee cannot goe so farre in this way as you to make the present Tradition alwayes an infallible Word of God for this is to goe so farre in till you be out of the way For Tradition is but a Lane in the Church it hath an end not onely to receiue vs in but another after to let vs out into more open and richer ground And a better way than you Because after we are mooued and prepared and induced by Tradition wee resolue our Faith into that written Word and God deliuering it in which wee find the Tradition which led vs thither And so wee are sure by Diuine Authoritie that wee are in the way because at the end wee find the way prooued And doe what can be done you can neuer settle the Faith of man about this great Principle till you rise to greater assurance than the present Church alone can giue And therefore once againe to that knowne place of S. Augustine The words of the Father are Nisi commoueret Vnlesse the Authoritie of the Church mooued me but not alone but with other motiues else it were not commouere to mooue together And the other motiues are Resoluers though this be Leader Now since wee goe the same way with you so farre as you goe right and a better way than you where you goe wrong wee need not admit any other Word of God than wee doe And this ought to remaine as a presupposed Principle among all Christians and not so much as come into this Question about the sufficiencie of Scripture betweene you and vs. F. From this the Person doubting called vs and desiring to heare Whether the B. would graunt the Romane Church to be the Right Church The B. graunted that it was B. One occasion which mooued Tertullian to write his Booke de Praescrip aduersus Haereticos was That he saw little or no profit come by Disputations Sure the ground was the same then and now It was not to denie that Disputation is an opening of the Vnderstanding a sifting out of Truth it was not to affirme that any such Disquisition is in and of it selfe vnprofitable If it had S. Stephen would not haue disputed with the Cyrenians nor S. Paul with the Grecians first and then with the Iewes and all Commers No sure it was some abuse in the Disputants that frustrated the good of the Disputation And one abuse in the Disputants is a Resolution to hold their owne though it be by vnworthie meanes and disparagement of Truth The B. finds it here For as it is true that this Question was asked so it is altogether false that it was asked in this forme or so answered There is a great deale of difference especially as Romanists handle the Question of the Church betweene The Church and A Church and there is some betweene a True Church and a Right Church which is the word you vse but no man else that I know I am sure not the B. The Church may import in our Language The onely true Church and perhaps as some of you seeme to make it the Root and the Ground of the Catholike This the B. neuer did neuer meanes to graunt A Church can imply no more than that it is a member of the whole This the B. neuer did nor euer will denie if it fall not absolutely away from Christ. That it is a True Church he graunted also but not a Right as you impose vpon him For Ens and Verum Being and True are conuertible one with another and euerie thing which hath a Being is truly that Being which it is in truth of substance But this word Right is not so vsed but is referred more properly to perfection in Conditions And in this sense euerie thing that hath a true and reall being is not by and by right in the Conditions of it A man that is most dishonest and vnworthie the name a verie Theefe if you will is a True man in the veritie of his essence as he is a Creature endued with Reason for this none can steale from him nor hee from himselfe but Death but hee is not therefore a right or an vpright man And a Church that is exceeding corrupt both in Manners and Doctrine and so a dishonour to the name is yet a True Church in the veritie of essence as a Church is a companie of men which professe the Faith of Christ and are baptised into his Name but yet it is not therefore a Right Church eyther in Doctrine or Manners It may be by this word Right you meant cunningly to slip it in that the B. should graunt it Orthodoxe This hee neuer graunted you For Orthodoxe Christians are keepers of integritie and followers of right things so Saint Augustine of which the Church of Rome is neyther In this sence then no Right that is Orthodoxe Church at Rome And yet no newes that the B. graunted the Romane Church to be a True Church For so much verie learned Protestants haue acknowledged before him and the Truth cannot denie it For that Church which receiues the Scripture as a Rule of Faith though but as a partiall and imperfect Rule and both the Sacraments as instrumentall Causes and Seales of Grace though they adde more and misuse these yet cannot but be a True Church in essence How it is in Manners and Doctrine I would you would looke to it with a single eye For if Pietie and a peaceable minde be not ioyned to a good vnderstanding nothing can be knowne in these great things F. Further he confessed That Protestants had made a Rent and Diuision from it B. The B. I know from himselfe could here be heartily angrie but that he hath resolued in handling matters of Religion to leaue all gall out of his Inke and makes me straine it out of mine There is a miserable Rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men doe most bemoane it Nor is hee a Christian that would not haue vnitie might hee haue it with Truth But the B. neuer said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent The cause of the Schisme is yours for you thrust vs from you because wee called for Truth and redresse of Abuses For a Schisme must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Woe runs full out of the mouth of Christ euer against him that giues the offence not against him that takes it euer But you haue giuen the B. iust cause neuer to treat with you or your like but before a Iudge or a Iurie F. Moreouer hee said hee would ingenuously acknowledge That the Corruption of Manners in the Romish Church was not a sufficient cause to iustifie their departing from it B. I would the B. could say you did as ingenuously repeat as hee did confesse Hee neuer said That Corruption of Manners was not a sufficient cause to
yeere when nor the Pope vnder whom this Addition was made A particular Church then if you iudge it by the Schoole of Rome or the Practise of Rome may publish any thing that is Catholike where the whole Church is silent and may therefore reforme any thing that is not Catholike where the whole Church is negligent or will not But you are as iealous of the honour of Rome as Capellus is who is angrie with Baronius about certaine Canons in the second Mileuitan Councell and saith That he considered not of what consequence it was to graunt to particular Churches the power of making Canons of Faith without consulting the Romane See which as hee saith and you with him was neuer lawfull nor euer done But suppose this were so the B. his speech was not Not consulting but in case of neglecting or refusing Besides you must be put in remembrance too that the B. spake at that time and so must all that will speake of that Exigent of the Generall Church as it was for the most part forced vnder the Gouernment of the Romane See and this you vnderstand well enough for in your verie next words you call it the Romane Church Now I make no doubt but that as the vniuersall Catholike Church would haue reformed her selfe had shee beene freed of the 〈◊〉 yoake so while shee was vnder that yoake the Church of Rome was if 〈◊〉 the onely yet the chiefe hinderance of Reformation And then in this sense it is more than cleare That if the Romane Church will neither reforme nor suffer Reformation it is lawfull for any particular Church to reforme it selfe so long as it doth it peaceably and keepes it selfe to the Foundation F. Which Question I asked as not thinking it equitie that Protestants in their owne Cause should be Accusers Witnesses and Judges of the Romane Church B. You doe well to tell the reason now why you asked this Question the B. sayes you did not 〈◊〉 it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conference if you had you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 receiued your Answere It is most true No man in common 〈◊〉 ought to be suffered to be Accuser Witnesse and 〈◊〉 in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But is there not 〈◊〉 little 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 too that any man that is accused should be the Accused and yet Witnesse and Iudge in his owne Cause 〈◊〉 If the first may hold no man shall be Innocent and if the last none will be Nocent And what doe we here with in their owne Cause against the Roman Church Why is it not your owne too against the Protestant Church And if it be a cause common to both as certaine it is then neither part alone may be Iudge If neither alone may iudge then either they must be iudged by a Third which stands indifferent to both and that is the Scripture Or if there be a iealousie or doubt of the sense of Scripture they must either both repaire to the Exposition of the Primitiue Church and submit to that or both call and submit to a Generall Councell which fhall be lawfully called and fairely and freely held to iudge the difference according to Scripture which must be their Rule as well as priuate mens F. I also asked Who ought to iudge in this case The B. said a Generall Councell B. And surely What greater or surer Iudgement you can haue where sense of Scripture is doubted than a Generall Councell I doe not see Nor doe you doubt for you adde F. I told him That a Generall Councell to wit of Trent had alreadie iudged not the Romane Church but the Protestants to hold Errors That saith the B. was not a lawfull Councell B. It is true that you replyed for the Councell of Trent And the B. his answere was not onely That that Councell was not Legall in the necessarie conditions to be obserued in a Generall Councell but that it was no Generall Councell which againe you are content to omit Consider it well First Is that Councell Legall the Abettors whereof maintaine publikely That it is lawfull for them to conclude any Controuersie and make it be de Fide and so in your iudgement Fundamentall though it haue not I doe not say now the written Word of God for warrant either in expresse Letter or necessarie sense and deduction as all vnerring Councels haue had and as all must haue that will not erre but not so much as probable Testimonie from it nay quite Extra without the Scripture Nay more Is that Councell Legall where the Pope the chiefe person to be reformed shall sit President in it and be chiefe Iudge in his owne Cause against all Law Diuine Naturall and Humane In a place not free but in or too neere his owne Dominion To which all were not called that had deliberatiue or 〈◊〉 voyce In which none had Suffrage but such as were sworne to the Pope and the Church of Rome and professed Enemies to all that called for Reformation or a free Councell And the Pope himselfe to shew his Charitie had declared and pronounced the Appellants Heretikes before they were condemned by the Councell I hope an Assembly of Enemies are no lawfull Councell And I thinke the Decrees of such a One are omni iure nulla and carrie their nullitie with them through all Law And againe Is that Councell Generall that hath none of the Easterne Churches consent nor presence there Are all the Greekes so become non Ecclesia no Church that they haue no interest in Generall Councels It numbers indeed among the Subscribers sixe Greekes they might be so by Nation or by Title purposely giuen them but dare you say they were actually Bishops of and sent from the Greeke Church to the Councell Or is it to be accounted a Generall Councell that in many Sessions had scarce ten Archbishops or fortie or fiftie Bishops present And for the West of Christendome neerer home it reckons one English S. Asaph but Cardinall Poole was there too English indeed he was by birth but not sent to that Councell by the King and Church of England but as one of the Popes Legats for at the beginning of the Councell he was not Bishop in the Church of England and after he was Archbishop of Canterburie hee neuer went ouer to the Councell And can you prooue that S. Asaph went thither by Authoritie There were but few of other Nations and it may be some of them reckoned with no more truth than the Greekes In all the Sessions vnder Paul the third but two Frenchmen and sometimes none as in the Sixt vnder Iulius the third when Henry the second of France protested against that Councell And in the end it is well knowne how all the French which were then a good partie held off till the Cardinall of Lorraine was got to Rome As for the Spaniards they laboured for many things vpon good grounds and were most vnworthily ouer-borne F. So said I would Arrians say of the Councell of Nice The B. would not
whatsoeuer it may now determine into which Error some opposers of the Church of Rome haue fallen And vpon this is grounded your Question Wherein are wee neerer to vnitie if a Councell may erre In relating the B. his Answer to this you are not so candide as you confesse him ingenuous before For his words did not sound as yours seeme to doe That wee should hold with the Councell erre or not erre till another came to reuerse it As if grounds of Faith might varie at the Racket and be cast of each side as a cunning hand might lay them You forget againe omit at least and with what mind you best know the B. his Caution For he said The determination of a Generall Councell erring was to stand in force and haue externall obedience at the least yeelded to it till euidence of Scripture or a demonstration to the contrary made the Error appeare and vntill thereupon another Councell of equall Authoritie did reuerse it Thus then the B. But indeed he might haue returned vpon you againe If a Generall Councell not confirmed by the Pope may erre which you affirme To what end then a Generall Councell And you may answere Yes for although a Generall Councell may erre yet the Pope as Head of the Church cannot An excellent meanes of vnitie to haue all in the Church as the Pope will haue it what euer Scripture say or the Church thinke And then I pray to what end a Generall Councell Will his Holinesse be so holy as to confirme a Generall Councell if it determine against him I for my part am willing a little to consider hereupon the point of Generall Councels How they may or may not erre and a little to looke into the Romane and Protestant opinion concerning them which is more agreeable to the Power and Rule which Christ hath left in his Church and which is most preseruatiue of Peace established or ablest to reduce vnitie into the Church of Christ when that poore Ship hath her Ribs dashed in 〈◊〉 by the Waues of Contention And this Consideration I will venture to the World but onely in the Nature of a 〈◊〉 and with submission to my Mother the Church of England and the Mother of vs all the Vniuersall Catholike Church of Christ. 1. First then I consider Whether all the Power that an Oecumenicall Councell hath to determine and all the Assistance it hath not to erre in that determination it hath it not all from the Catholike vniuersall Bodie of the Church or Clergie in the Church if you will whose Representatiue it is It seemes it hath For the gouernment of the Church being not Monarchicall but as Christ is Head this Principle is 〈◊〉 in nature Euerie Bodie collectiue that represents receiues Power and Priuiledges from that Bodie which is represented else a Representation might haue force without the thing it represents which cannot be So no Power in the Councell no Assistance but what is in and to the Church But yet then it may be questioned Whether the Representing Bodie hath all the power strength and priuiledge which the Represented hath And suppose it hath all the Legall power yet it hath not all the Naturall eyther of strength or wisedome that the whole hath Now because tho Representatiue hath power from the whole and the maine 〈◊〉 can meet no other way therefore the Acts 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 of the Representatiue be it Ecclesiasticall or Ciuile are binding in their strength But they are not so certaine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 as that Wisedome which resides in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Assemblies meerely Ciuile or Ecclesiasticall all 〈◊〉 men cannot be in the Bodie that represents And it is possible so many able and sufficient men for some particular businesse may be out as that they which are in may misse or mis-apply that Reason and Ground vpon which the determination is principally to rest Here for want of a cleare view of this Ground the Representatiue Bodie erres whereas the Represented by vertue of these Members may hold the Principle vnuiolated 2. Secondly I consider That since it is thus in Nature and in Ciuile Bodies if it be not so in Ecclesiasticall too some reason must be giuen why For that Bodie also consists of men Those men neyther all equall in their perfections of Knowledge and Iudgement whether acquired by Industrie or rooted in nature or infused by God Not all equall nor any one of them perfect and absolute or freed from passion and humane infirmities Nor doth their meeting together make them infallible in all things though the Act which is hammered out by many together must in reason be perfecter than that which is but the Child of one mans sufficiencie If then a Generall Councell haue no ground of not erring from the men or the meeting either it must not be at all or be by some assistance and power vpon them when they are so met together And this if it be lesse than the assistance of the Holy Ghost it cannot make them secure against Error 3. Thirdly I consider That the assistance of the Holy Ghost is without Error that 's no question and as little there is that a Councell hath it But the doubt that troubles is Whether all assistance of the Holy Ghost be affoorded in such a high manner as to cause all the Definitions of a Councell in matters fundamentall in the Faith and in remote Deductions from it to be alike infallible The Romanists to prooue there is infallible assistance produce some places of Scripture but no one of them inferres much lesse enforces an infallibilitie The places which Stapleton there rests vpon are these I will send you the Spirit of Truth which will lead you into all Truth And This Spirit shall abide with you for euer And Behold I am with you vnto the end of the World To these others adde The founding of the Church vpon the Rocke against which the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile And Christs prayer for S. Peter That his Faith faile not 1. For the first which is Leading into all Truth and that for euer All is not alwayes vniuersally taken in Scripture nor is it here simply for All Truth for then a Generall Councell could no more erre in matter of Fact than in matter of Faith in which yet your selues graunt it may erre But into All Truth is a limited All into All Truth absolutely necessarie to saluation And this when they suffer themselues to be led by the blessed Spirit by the Word of God And all Truth which Christ had before at least fundamentally deliuered vnto them Hee shall receiue of mine and shew it vnto you And againe Hee shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance which I haue told you And for this necessarie Truth too the Apostles receiued this promise not for themselues and a Councell but for themselues and the whole Catholike
Church of which a Councell be it neuer so generall is a verie little part Yea and this verie Assistance is not so absolute nor in that manner to the whole Church as it was to the Apostles neyther doth Christ in that place speake directly of a Councell but of his Apostles Preaching and Doctrine 2. As for Christs being with them vnto the end of the World the Fathers are so various that in the sense of the antient Church wee may vnderstand him present in Maiestie in Power in Aid and Assistance against the difficulties they should find for preaching Christ which is the natiue sense as I take it And this promise was made to support their weakenesse As for his presence in teaching by the Holy Ghost few mention it and no one of them which doth speakes of any infallible Assistance further than the succeeding Church keepes to the Word of the Apostles as the Apostles kept to the guidance of the Spirit Besides the Fathers referre their speech to the Church vniuersall not to anie Councell or Representatiue Bodie And Maldonate addes That this his presence by teaching is or may be a Collection from the place but is not the intention of Christ. 3. For the Rocke vpon which the Church is founded which is the next place wee dare not lay any other Foundation than Christ Christ layd his Apostles no question but vpon himselfe With these S. Peter was layd no man questions And in prime place of Order would his clayming Successors be content with that as appeares and diuerse Fathers witnesse by his particular designement Tu es Petrus But yet the Rocke euen there spoken of is not S. Peters person eyther onely or properly but the Faith which hee professed And to this beside the Euidence which is in Text and Truth the Fathers come in with very full consent And this That the Gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it is not spoken of the not 〈◊〉 of the Church principally but of the not falling away of it from the Foundation Now a Church may erre and daungerously too and yet not fall from the Foundation especially if that of Bellarmine be true That there are many things euen de Fide of the Faith which yet are not necessarie to saluation Besides euen here againe the promise of this stable edification is to the whole Church not to a Councell at the least no further than a Councell builds as a Church is built that is vpon Christ. 4. The last place is Christs Prayer for S. Peters Faith The 〈◊〉 sense of which place is That Christ prayed and obtained for S. Peter perseuerance in the grace of God against the strong temptation which was to winnow him aboue the rest But to conclude an infallibilitie from hence in the Pope or in his Chaire or in the Romane See or in a Generall Councell though the Pope be President I find no antient Fathers that dare aduenture it And Bellarmine himselfe besides some Popes in their owne Cause and that in Epistles counterfeit or falsely alledged hath not a Father to name for this sense of the place till he come downeto Chrysologus Theophylact and S. Bernard of which Chrysologus his speech is but a flash of Rhetorike and the other two are men of Yesterday compared with Antiquitie and liued when it was Gods great grace and our wonder the corruption of the time had not made them corrupter than they are And Thomas is resolute that what is meant here beyond S. Peters person is referred to the whole Church And the Glasse vpon the Canon Law is more peremptorie than he euen to the denyall that it is meant of the Pope And if this place warrant not the Popes Faith Where is the infallibilitie of the Councell that depends vpon it And for all the places together weigh them with indifferencie and either they speake of the Church including the Apostles as all of them doe and then all graunt the voyce of the Church is Gods voyce Diuine and Infallible or else they are generall vnlimitted and applyable to priuate Assemblies as well as Generall Councels which none graunt to be infallible but some mad Enthusiasts or else they are limitted not simply into All Truth but All necessarie to Saluation in which I shall easily graunt a Generall Councell cannot erre if it suffer it selfe to be led by this 〈◊〉 of Truth in the Scripture and take not vpon it to lead both the Scripture and the Spirit For suppose these places or any other did promise Assistance euen to Infallibilitie yet they graunted it not to euerie Generall Councell but to the Catholike Bodie of the Church it selfe And if it be in the whole Church principally then is it in a Generall Councell but by Consequent as the Councell represents the whole And that which belongs to a thing by consequent doth not otherwise nor longer belong vnto it than it consents and cleaues to that vpon which it is a Consequent And therefore a Generall Councell hath not this Assistance but as it keepes to the whole Church and Spouse of Christ whose it is to heare his Word and determine by it And therefore if a Generall Councell will goe out of the Churches Way it may easily goe without the Churches Truth 4. Fourthly I consider That All agree That the Church in generall can neuer erre from the Faith necessarie to saluation No Persecution no Temptation and no Gates of Hell whatsoeuer is meant by them can euer so preuaile against it For all the members of the Militant Church cannot erre either in the whole Faith or in any Article of it it is impossible For if all might so erre there could be no vnion betweene them as members and Christ the Head And no vnion betweene Head and members no Bodie and so no Church which cannot be But there is not the like consent That Generall Councels cannot erre And it seemes strange to me that the Fathers hauing to doe with so many Heretikes and so many of them opposing Church Authoritie in their condemnation this Proposition euen in tearmes A Generall Councell cannot erre should be found in none of them that I can yet see Suppose it were true That no Generall Councell had erred in any matter of moment to this day which will not be found true yet this would not haue followed that it is therefore infallible and cannot erre I haue not time to descend into particulars therefore to the Generall still S. Augustine puts a difference betweene the Rules of Scripture and the definitions of men This difference is Praeponitur Scriptura That the Scripture hath the Prerogatiue That Prerogatiue is That whatsoeuer is found written in Scripture may neither be doubted nor disputed whether it be true or right But the Letters of Bishops may not onely be disputed but corrected by Bishops that are more learned and wise than they or by
Nationall Councels and Nationall Councels by 〈◊〉 or Generall And euen Plenarie Councels themselues may be amended the former by the latter It seemes it was no newes with S. Augustine that a Generall Councell might erre and therefore inferior to the Scripture which may neither be doubted nor disputed where it affirmes And if it be so with the definition of a Councell too as Stapleton would haue it That that may neither be doubted nor disputed Where is then the Scriptures Prerogatiue I know there is much shifting about this place but it cannot be wrastled off Stapleton sayes first That S. Augustine speakes of the Rules of Manners and Discipline And this is Bellarmines last shift Both are out and Bellarmine in a Contradiction Bellarmine in a Contradiction For first hee tells vs Generall Councels cannot erre in Precepts of Manners and then to turne off S. Augustine in this place he tells vs That if S. Augustine doth not speake of matter of Fact but of Right and of vniuersall Questions of Right then he is to be vnderstood of Precepts of Manners not of Points of Faith Where he hath first runne himselfe vpon a Contradiction and then wee haue gayned this ground vpon him That either his Answere is nothing or else against his owne state of the Question A Generall Councell can erre in Precepts of Manners and both are out For the whole dispute of S. Augustine is against the Error of Cyprian followed by the 〈◊〉 That true Baptisme could not be giuen by Heretikes and such as were out of the Church And the proofe which Stapleton and Bellarmine draw out of the subsequent words When by any experiment of things that which was shut is opened is too weake For experiment there is not of Fact nor are the words conclusum est as if it were of a Rule of Discipline concluded as Stapleton cites them but a further experiment or proofe of the Question in hand and pertaining to Faith which was then shut vp and as S. Augustine after speakes wrapped vp in cloudie darkenesse Next Stapleton will haue it That if S. Augustine doe speake of a Cause of Faith then his meaning is that latter Generall Councels can mend that is explicate more perfectly that Faith which lay hid in the Seed of antient Doctrine He makes instance That about the Diuinitie of Christ the Councell of Ephesus explicated the first of Nice Chalcedon both of them Constance Chalcedon And then concludes In all which things none of these Councels taught that which was erroneous An excellent Conclusion These Councels and These in this thing taught no Error and were onely explained Therefore no Councell can erre in any matter of Faith or therefore S. Augustine speakes not of an emendation of Error but of an explanation of Sense whereas euerie Eye sees neither of these can follow Now that S. Augustine meant plainely That euen a Plenarie Councell might erre and that often for that is his word and that in matter of Faith and might and ought so to be amended in a latter Councell I thinke will thus appeare First his word is Emendari amend which properly supposes for Error and faultinesse not explanation And S. Augustine needed not goe to a word of such a forced sense nor sure would especially in a Disputation against Aduersaries Next S. Augustines Dispute is against S. Cyprian and the Councell held at Carthage about Baptisme by Heretikes in which point that Nationall Councell erred as all now agree And S. Augustines deduction goes on Scripture cannot be other than right that is the prerogatiue of it but Bishops may and be Reprehended for it if peraduenture they erre from the Truth and that either by more learned Bishops or by Prouinciall Councels Here Reprehension and that for deuiation from the Truth is I hope Emendation properly and not Explanation onely Then Prouinciall Councels they must yeeld to Generall and to yeeld is not in case of Explanation onely Then it followes that euen Plenarie Councels themselues may be amended the former by the latter still retayning that which went before If peraduenture they erred or made deuiation from the Truth And if this be not so I would faine know why in one and the same tenure of words in one and the same continuing Argument and deduction of S. Augustine Reprehendi should be in proper sense and à veritate deuiatum in proper sense and Cedere in proper sense and onely Emendari should not be proper but stand for an Explanation If you say the reason is because the former words are applyed to men and Nationall Councels both which may erre but this last to Generall Councels which cannot erre this is most miserable begging of the Principle and thing in question Againe S. Augustine concludes there That the Generall Councell preceding may be amended by Generall Councels that follow When that is knowne which lay hid before Not as Stapleton would haue it lay hid as in the Seed of antient Doctrine onely and so needed nothing but explanation but hid in some darkenesse or ambiguitie which led the former into error and mistaking as appeares For S. Augustine would haue this amendment made without sacrilegious Pride doubtlesse of insulting vpon the former Councell that was to be amended and without swelling Arrogancie sure against the weakenesse in the former Councell and without contention of Enuie which vses to accompanie mans frailetie where his or his friends error is to be amended by the latter Councell and in holy Humilitie in Catholike Peace in Christian Charitie no question that a Schisme be not made to teare the Church as here the Donatists did while one Councell goes to reforme the Lapse of another if any be Now to what end should this learned Father be so zealous in this worke this highest worke that I know in the Church Reuiewing and surueying Generall Councels to keepe off Pride and Arrogancie and Enuie and to keepe all in Humilitie Peace and Charitie if after all this noyse he thought latter Councels might doe nothing but amend that is explaine the former That shift which Bellarmine addes to these two of Stapleton is poorest of all namely That S. Augustine speakes of vnlawfull Councels and it is no question but they may be amended as the second Ephesine was at Calcedon for this Answere giues vp the case For it graunts That a Councell may erre and be amended in Doctrine of Faith and in case it be not amended condemned and reiected by the Church as this of Ephesus and diuerse others were And as for that meere Tricke of the Popes Instruction Approbation or Confirmation to preserue it from Error or ratifie it that it hath not erred the most antient Church knew it not Hee had his Suffrage as other great Patriarkes had and his Vote was highly esteemed not onely for his place but for worth too as Popes were then But that the
so plaine set downe in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessarie deduction out of these prime Articles of Faith Generall Councels determine any thing as they haue done in Nice and the rest there is no inconueuience that one and the same Canon of the Councell should be beleeued as it reflects vpon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet knowne to the Learned by the Meanes and Proofe by which that deduction is vouched and made good And againe the Conclusion of a Councell suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantialitie of Christ with the Father in it selfe considered is or may be indemonstrable by Reason There I beleeue and assent in Faith but the same Conclusion if you giue me the ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by naturall Reason against any Arrian in the World And if it be demonstrable I may know it and haue a habit of it And what inconuenience in this For the weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they haue the Principle graunted they are to rest vpon the Definition onely and their assent is meere Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration euident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconuenience in this Nay the necessitie of Nature is such that these Principles once giuen the vnderstanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would neuer haue required a man to be able to giue a reason and an account of the Hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or haue lawfull interest to giue it when he knew it without preiudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meere Beleefe cannot stand together in the same person in regard of the same thing by the same meanes yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact Knowledge or in whom that must not meerely in points of Faith beleeue the Article or Ground vpon which they rest But when that is once beleeued it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them 7. And now because you aske Wherein wee are neerer to Vnitie by a Councell if a Councell may erre Besides the Answer giuen I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserue or reduce Christian Peace the Romane That a Councell cannot erre orthe Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leaue the Christian World to consider of it as I doe 1. First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or other there be promised and performed to the present Church an absolute infallibilitie or whether such an infallibilitie will notserue the turne as Stapleton after much wriggling is forced to acknowledge One not euerieway exact because it is enough if the Church doe diligently insist vpon that which was once receiued and there is not need of so great certaintie to open and explicate that which lyes hid in the Seed of Faith sowne and deduce from it as to seeke out and teach that which was altogether vnknowne And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of infallibilitie than the present Church which if it follow the Scripture is infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of certaintie which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes 〈◊〉 Prerogatiues in certaintie of Truth that the Scripture hath aboue a Councell and at last concludes That they may be said to be equally certaine in infallible Truth 2. The next thing I consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous infallibilitie in the Church Is it not residing according to power and right of Authoritie in the whole Church and in a Generall Councell onely by power deputed with Mandate to determine The places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers vpon them make me apt to beleeue this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receiue the Keyes of the Church but in the person of the Church Now suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Error and suppose the Key rightly vsed infallible in this yet this infallibilitie is primely in the Church in whose person not strictly in his owne S. Peter receiued the Keyes Here Stapleton layes crosse my way againe He would thrust me out of this Consideration He graunts that S. Peter receiued these Keyes indeed and in the person of the Church but that was because he was Primate of the Church 〈◊〉 therefore the Church receiued the Keyes finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himselfe and his Successors receiued the Keyes in his owne Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I am in a Consideration and I would haue this considered where it is euer read That to receiue a thing in the person of another is onely meant finally to receiue it that is to his good and not in his right I should thinke he that receiues any thing in the person of another receiues it indeed to his good and to his vse but in his right too And that the primarie and formall right is not in the receiuer but in him whose person hee sustaines while he receiues it This stumbling-blocke then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in generall receiued the Keyes and all Power signified by them and by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to vse them and perhaps to open and shut in some things infallibly when the Pope and a Generall Councell too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seeke how to turne these Keyes in their Wards 3. The third thing I consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute infallibilitie in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessarie to saluation and that this power of not erring so is not communicable to a Generall Councell which represents it but that the Councell is subiect to error This supposition doth not onely preserue that which you desire in the Church an Infallibilitie but it meets with all inconueniences which vsually haue done and doe perplexe the Church And here is still a remedie for all things For if priuate respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and fauour of some parties if weakenesse of them which haue the managing if any mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrinch the Councell the whole Church vpon euidence found in expresse Scripture or demonstration of this
miscarriage hath power to represent her selfe in another Bodie or Councell and to take order for what was amisse eyther practised or concluded So here is a meanes without infringing any lawfull Authoritie of the Church to preserue or reduce Vnitie and yet graunt as the B. did and as the Church of England doth That a Generall Councell may erre And this course the Church tooke did call and represent her selfe in a new Councell and define against the Hereticall Conclusions of the former as in the case at Ariminum and the second of Ephesus is euident 4. The next thing I consider is Suppose a Generall Councell infallible in all things which are of Faith If it prooue not so but that an Error in the Faith be concluded the same erring Opinion that makes it thinke it selfe infallible makes the Error of it seeme irreuocable And when Truth which lay hid shall be brought to light the Church who was lulled asleepe by the Opinion of Infallibilitie is left open to all manner of Distractions as it appeares at this day And that a Councell may erre besides all other instances which are not few appeares by that Error of the Councell of Constance And one instance is enough to ouerthrow a Generall be it a Councell Christ instituted the Sacrament of his Bodie and Bloud in both kinds To breake Christs Institution is a damnable Error and so confessed by Stapleton The Councell is bold and defines peremptorily That to communicate in both kinds is not necessarie with a Non obstante to the Institution of Christ. Consider with me Is this an Error or not Bellarmine and Stapleton and you too say it is not because to receiue vnder both kinds is not by Diuine Right No no sure For it was not Christs Precept but his Example Why but I had thought Christs Institution of a Sacrament had beene more than his Example onely and as binding for the Necessaries of a Sacrament the Matter and Forme as a Precept Therefore speake out and denie it to be Christs Institution or else graunt with Stapleton It is a damnable Error to goe against it If you can prooue that Christs Institution is not as binding to vs as a Precept which you shall neuer be able take the Precept with it Drinke yee All of this which though you shift as you can yet you can neuer make it other than it is A Binding Precept But Bellarmine hath yet one better Deuice than this to saue the Councell Hee saith it is a meere Calumnie and that the Councell hath no such thing That the Non obstante hath no reference to Receiuing vnder both kinds but to the time of Receiuing it after Supper in which the Councell saith the Custome of the Church is to be obserued Non obstante notwithstanding Christs Example How foule Bellarmine is in this must appeare by the words of the Councell which are these Though Christ instituted this venerable Sacrament and gaue it his Disciples after Supper vnder both kinds of Bread and Wine yet Non obstante notwithstanding this it ought not to be consecrated after Supper nor receiued but fasting And likewise that though in the Primitiue Church this Sacrament was receiued by the faithfull vnder both kinds yet this Custome that it should be receiued by Lay-men onely vnder the kind of Bread is to be held for a Law which may not be refused And to say this is an vnlawfull Custome of Receiuing vnder one kind is erroneous and they which persist in saying so are to be punished and driuen out as Heretikes Now where is here any slander of the Councell The words are plaine and the Non obstante must necessarily for ought I can yet see be referred to both Clauses in the words following because both Clauses went before it and hath as much force against Receiuing vnder both kinds as against Receiuing after Supper Yea and the after-words of the Councell couple both together in this reference for it followes Et similiter And so likewise that though in the Primitiue Church c. And a man by the Definition of this Councell may be an Heretike for standing to Christs Institution in the very matter of the Sacrament And the Churches Law for One kind may not be refused but Christs Institution vnder Both kinds may And yet this Councell did not erre No take heed of it But your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable than this For consider any Bodie Collectiue be it more or lesse vniuersall whensoeuer it assembles it selfe Did it euer giue more power to the Representing Bodie of it than binding power vpon all particulars and it selfe too And did it euer giue this power any otherwise than with this Reseruation in Nature That it would call againe and reforme yea and if need were abrogate any Law or Ordinance vpon iust cause made euident to it And this Power no Bodie Collectiue Ecclesiasticall or Ciuill can put out of it selfe or giue away to a Parliament or Councell or call it what you will that represents it And in my Consideration it holds strongest in the Church For a Councell hath power to order settle and define Differences arisen concerning the Faith This Power the Councell hath not by any immediate Institution from Christ but it was prudently taken vp in the Church from the Apostles Example So that to hold Councels to this end is apparant Apostolicall Tradition written but the Power which Councels so held haue is from the whole Catholike Church whose members they are and the Churches Power from God And this Power the Church cannot further giue away to a Generall Councell than that the Decrees of it shall bind all particulars and it selfe but not bind the Church from calling againe and in the after calls vpon iust cause to order yea and if need be to abrogate former Acts I say vpon iust cause For if the Councell be lawfully called and proceed orderly and conclude according to the Rule the Scripture the whole Church cannot but approoue the Councell and then the Definitions of it can neuer be questioned after And the Power of the Church hath no wrong in this so long as no Power but her owne may meddle or offer to infringe any Definition of hers made in her representatiue Bodie a lawfull Generall Councell And certaine it is no Power but her owne may doe this Nor doth this open any gappe to priuate spirits For all Decisions in such a Councell are binding And because the whole Church can meet no other way the Councell shall remaine the Supreame Externall Liuing Temporarie Ecclesiasticall Iudge of all Controuersies Onely the whole Church and shee alone hath power when Scripture or Demonstration is found and peaceably tendered to her to represent her selfe againe in a new Councell and in it to order what was amisse Nay your Opinion is yet more vnreasonable For you doe not onely make the Definition of a Generall Councell but the Sentence
pontificatum adeptus esset apud familiares iactare hunc apicem pluris aestimandum qnam quae vendi aut emi à curiosis consueuisset Math. Paris Chron. in Henr. 3. pa. 702. Cum Papa qui forma exemplum totius tenetur esse Religionis vsurarius sit manifestus fomes Symoniae pecuniae sititor acraptor ipsiusque curia forum institorum imò potius meretricale prostibulum b Russin Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 11. 〈◊〉 Dolis apud ignorantes iocus est scientibus vero dolum intendere non aliud est quam risum mouere c Cyprian d. Disciplin Flos ille Ecclesiastici germinis decus atque ornamentum gratiae spiritualis Illustrior portio Dominicigregis a Cyprian Ep. 52. Graues viros semel super Petram solida stabilitate fundatos non dico aura leui sed nec vento aut turbine commoueri Idem d. vnit Eccles. Triticum non rapit ventus nec arborem solida radice fundatam procella subuertit Inanes paleae tempestate iactantur inualidae arbores turbinis incursione euertuntur b Ireneus lib. 5. cap. 20. Ab omni ligno Paradisi escas manducabis ait spiritus Dei id est ab omni Scriptura Dominica manducate c Cyprian Ep. 40. Qui mandatum Dei reijciunt Traditionem suam statuere conantur fortiter à vobis firmiter respuantur Idem Serm. d. lapsis Nec Ecclesiae iungitur qui ab Euangelio seperatur a May 24. 1622. b And the Rom. Court the great misleader in all this For in Iul. 3. time the 〈◊〉 of Trent not dissolued Ru. Tapper in the presence of Lindan with griefeacknowledges Abusus Ro. Curiae enexcusabiles Inexcusable abuses of the Court of Rome Orat 10. c And hee that hath hard Bowells is a stranger to God who in other things and so in the distractions and sufferings of his Church much more is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bonorum viscerū Deus S. Iaco. 5. 11 Et Hypol. Orat de cōsummat Mund. Pia Mosis viscera S. Aug. ser. 18. de verb. Dom. c. 21. d. Phil. 2.21 * These are M. Fishers owne words in the Paper by him spread as also all that follow the Letter F. †Longiore morâ opus est vt soluas quaestionem quam vt proponas Sen. Ep. 48. a 1. Cor. 10. 15. Quis non sine vllo Magistro aut interprete ex se facile cognoscat c. Nouat de Trin. c. 23. loquitur de mysterio Passionis Christi a De 〈◊〉 Cred. cap. 2. a Non ex 〈◊〉 sed Spiritum 〈◊〉 esse dicimus Damascen Lib. 1. Fid. Orth. c. 11. Et Patris per Filium Ib. b Pluralitas in voce saluataê vnitate in re non repugnat vnitati fidei Durand lib. 3. d. 25. q. 2. c Magist. 1. Sent. D. 11. d. Sane sciendum est quod licet in praesenti articulo a nobis Graeci verbo discordent tamen sensu non differunt c. Bandinus l. 1. de Trin. d. 11. Bonauent in 1. Sent. d. 11. A. 1. q. 1. §. 12. Licet Graecis 〈◊〉 quùm dixit Graecos obijcere 〈◊〉 Romanis addendo Filioque quia sine huius Articuli professione salus erat non respondet negando salutem esse sed dicit tantum opportunam fuisse determinationem propter periculum Et postea §. 15. Sunt qui volunt sustinere opinionem Graecorum Latinorum distinguendo duplicem modum procedendi Sed fortè si duo sapientes vnus Graecus alter Latinus vterque verus amator veritatis non propriae dictionis c. de hac visa contrarietate disquirerent pateret vtique tandem ipsam contrarietatem non esse veraciter realem sicut est vocalis Scotus in 1. Sen. d. 11. q. 1. Antiquorum Graecorum à Latinis discrepantia in voce potius est modo explicandi Emanationem Sp. S. quam in ipsaê re c. Iodocus Clichtouaeus in Damasc. L. 1. Fid. Orth. c. 11. Et quidam ex Graecis concedunt quod sit à Filio vel ab eo profluat Thom. p. 1. q. 36. A. 2. C. Et Thomas ipse dicit Sp. S. procedere mediatè à Filio Ib. A 3. ad 1. saltem ratione personarum spirantium Respondeo cum Bessarione Gennadio Damascenum non negasse Sp. S. procedere ex Filio quod ad rem attinet quum dixerit 〈◊〉 esse imaginem Filij per Filium sed existimasse 〈◊〉 dici per Filium quam ex Filio quantum ad 〈◊〉 Ioquendi c. Bellarm. lib. 2. 〈◊〉 Christo c. 27. §. Respondeo igitur Tollet in S. Ioh. 15. Ar. 25. Lutheran Resp. ad Resp. 2. Ieremiae Patriarchae a Eadem penitus Sententia vbi supra Clichtou b Bellaram 4. de Notis Eccl. cap. 8. c Lib. 3. contra Haeres fol. 93. A. d Iunius Animadin Bellarm. Cont. 2. l. 3. c. 23. †F. First righting the Sentence of S. Austine Ferendus est disputator errans c. * F. By which is prooued That all Points defined by the Church are fundamentall a Your owne word b Inconcussâ fide ab omnibus Thom 2.2 q. 1. Art 10. C. c Scotus 1. sent d. 11. q. 1. d Ecclesiae voces etiam extra Scripturam Stap. Relect. Con. 4. q. 1. Ar. 3. Quae maturo iudicio definiuit c. solidum est etiamsi nullo scripturarum aut euidenti aut probabili testimonio cōfirmaretur Ibid. e Et penes Cercopes victoria sit Greg. Naz. de differen vitae Cercopes 1. Astutos veteratoriae improbitatis Episcopos qui artibus suis ac dolis omnia Concilia perturbabant Schol. ib. f Quum enim vna eadem fides sit neque is qui multum de ipsa dicere potest plusquā oportet dicit neque qui parum ipsam imminuit Iren. li. 1. aduers. Haer. c. 3. a Resolutio Occham est quod nec 〈◊〉 nec 〈◊〉 Generale nec summus Pontifex potest facere Articulum quod non suit Articulus Sed in dubijs propositionibus potest Ecclesia 〈◊〉 an sint Catholicae c. 〈◊〉 sic determinando non 〈◊〉 quod sint Catholicae quum prius essent ante Ecclesiae determinationem c. Almain in 3. D. 25. q. 1. b Regula fidei vna 〈◊〉 est sola illa immobilis irreformabilis Tertull. de 〈◊〉 vel cap. 1. In hac fide c. nihil tran mutare c. Athan. epist. ad Iouin de fide c Occham Almain 3. sent D. 25. q. 1. d Thom. 2.2 q. 1. Ar. 7. C. e Scotus in 1. Sent. d. 11. q. 1. a Bellarm. l. 2. de Conc. Auth. cap. 12. Concilia quùm definiunt non faciunt aliquid esse infallibilis veritatis sed declarant Explicare Bonauent in 1. D. 11. A. 1. q. 1. ad finem Explanare declarare Th. 1. q. 36. A. 2. ad 2. 2. 2. q. 1. A. 10. ad 1. b Sent. 1. D. 11. c Aib. Mag. in 〈◊〉 Sent. D.
of Christ crucified it did represent the Sampler and stand for it and by conceit and imagination of the faithfull beholder it was one with Christ to wit by Relation as a signe with the thing signified yet it being not appointed by God to bee worshipped nor being capable of worship according to the nature and qualitie of his kind the Israelites committed Idolatrie in worshipping and burning Incense to it OBIECTION III. There is the same motion of the minde into the Image and the Sampler as we may perceiue by the Image of the King There is not the same motion c. but a diuerse for the mind is fixed vpon the Image as vpon a Signe and as vpon an Obiect inferiour to the Sampler and if there bee the same Motion in any person towards the Image and the Sampler the same proceedeth vpon error and is a false imagination neither doth the Image of a King stand for a very King but for asigne and representation And if there were the same motion of the mind into the Image and the Samplar yet it is inconsequent to say there must be the same Adoration as Peresius Aiala hath obserued IESVIT With this Principle so receiued in Nature wee must ioyne another no lesse knowne and notorious in Christianitie to wit That God full of all honour and glorie to whom all Worship and Adoration is due became truely and verily man as visible and aspectable as any other man and consequently as imaginable that hee may bee figured by an Image no lesse truely and distinctly than another man ANSVVER When Christ liued vpon the earth and was conuersant with men Iohn 1. 14. hee might then perhaps if Diuine prouidence had permitted haue beene figured according to something which was visible in his humane Bodie I say if Diuine Prouidence had permitted because for preuention of Idolatrie and Superstition it fell out in this case as it did with the bodie of Moses And because this was not then performed either by his owne or by his Apostles appointment we can haue no certainetie that the after painting and figuring of him is a conuenient meanes whereby to honour him and to cause deuotion or that Pictures and Images whereby he hath beene figured in latter ages are agreeable to the sampler IESVIT In which Image the hands feet and other parts shall truely by imagination correspond vnto the feet bands and parts of the Prototype and our imaginations from 〈◊〉 passe directly vnto Christ and his parts proportionable to those we behold in the Image so that when we adore with an humble outward kisse the hands and feet of the Image by inward imagination conceipt and affection we kisse and adore the imagined true hands and feet of Christ. Neither are these imaginations false and erronious seeing as Philosophie teacheth no falshood is in meere apprehension or imagination without iudging the thing to be as we imagine As in contemplation men represent and imagine themselues as standing before Gods Throne in the Court of Heauen amidst the quires of Saints and Angels praising and honouring him in their societie not iudging themselues to be truely and really in Heauen that were a falshood and dotage but only 〈◊〉 in themselues such a presence and 〈◊〉 themselues outwardly and inwardly in prayer as if they were present to which kind of imaginations as pious and godly the Scriptures and Fathers exhort vs. In this sort beholding the Image of Christ we apprehend him as therein present not iudging the Image to be Christ but imagining and taking it as it were Christ that when wee outwardly honour the Jmage by kissing the hands and feet thereof mentally by imagination and humble affection of reuerence we adore and kisse the most venerable hands and feet of his pretious bodie ANSVVER It is possible for imagination to build castles in the aire and to conceiue the person of Christ as present to his Image yet if this imagination be fantasticall and if in adoration Christ and Images haue no agreement 2. Cor. 6.16 then worshipping of Images is not worshipping of Christ for it is possible to imagine God to be in the Sunne and to behold the Sunne as Gods Image yet they which vpon such an imagination should worship the Sunne which God hath not commanded must be ranked amongst false worshippers Deut. 4.19 17.3 Iob. 31.26 And whereas the Obiector addeth that according to Philosophie no falshood is in meere apprehension or imagination without iudging the thing to be as we imagine I answer That this being granted concerning fictions yet vpon such imagination there may follow or be inferred that which is false or morally euill to wit if one imagine the Sunne or a Lambe to be the figure of Christ and because in holy Scriptures he is compared to these creatures Mal. 4.2 Iohn 1.29 conceiue them as his image shall it hereupon be lawfull by one and the same motion of the cogitation and affection to worship the creatures with their Creator But that the solution of the former Argument may be more perspicuous I will present the same in forme and then applie mine answer If by imagination we may truely conioine Christ himselfe with his Image then vpon that imagination we may coworship Christ and his Image But the first may be done for he being incarnate may be figured in the Image of a man and being thus figured may be presented to the vnderstanding and people may imagine him as present in or by his Image Ergo Vpon that imagination we may worship Christ and his Image Both the assumpsition and also the sequel of this Argument are denied First taking truely for that which is really true we cannot by imagination so conioine Christ and his painted Image as that we may conceiue them to bee one terminatiue obiect of worship for the reasons formerly deliuered Neither is the Picture or Image of any other person the terminatiue obiect of Loue Reuerence or Worship but onely a motiue and signe of remembrance vpon aspect whereof followeth the former actions inward or outward of Loue Reuerence or Worship not towards the Image but towards the principall Secondly it is inconsequent to argue that because some people imagine the Image and the sampler as things conioined therefore they may coworship them for religious adoration primarie or secondarie is not founded vpon euerie kind of vnion as appeareth in mental Images but vpon certain kinds of vnion to wit First Personal as when the Humanitie of Christ is coupled with the Dietie Secondly Substantiall as where the parts are coupled with the whole Thirdly Causall Relatiue or Accidentall to wit when by diuine ordination things created are made instruments messengers signes or receptacles of diuine grace as the holy Sacraments and the Word and Gospell and the Ministers of the Church c. Christ himselfe is present assistant and operatiue in and by these instruments and hath commanded reuerence to
be vsed towards them accounting the loue faith and honour which are yeelded to his created Word to be loue faith and honour to himselfe Math. 10.14.42 2. Cor. 8.5 Gal. 4.14 Act. 10.34 But Papisticall fancie and imagination produceth none of these nor yet any other true kind of vnion neither hath God almightie in his word commanded duety seruice or worship to be giuen vnto them but on the contrarie by the Doctrine of holy Scripture he condemneth the same IESVIT The Histories of Christian Antiquitie are full of holy men Bishops Kings Queenes and other honourable personages who haue cast themselues downe on the ground before Beggers Lazars and Leapers kissing their feet and their sores out of venerable affection vnto Christ. In which kind memorable is the Charitie of the famous Queene Mathildes daughter of Malcolme King of Scotland and wife to Henrie the first of England whose custome was to wash with her owne hands the feet of poore people amongst whom some were Leapers and had loathsome diseases not disdaining with great reuerence on her knees to kisse their feet with her princely lips And when as the prince of Scotland her brother being then in the Court of England entring into her chamber found her imploied in so humble a seruice astonished thereat rebuked her saying Sister what do you can you with those your defiled lips kisse the king your husband She answered Know brother that the feet of the king of Heauen are more louely and venerable than are the lips of an earthly king Certainely this queene with all other addicted to the like deuotion when they kissed the feet of the poore outwardly with their lips did by imagination full of reuerent affection kisse the feet of Christ Iesus taking the poore as Images of him who said What you do to one of my least ones you do vnto me ANSWER There is great disparitie betweene reasonable creatures the liuing members of Christ the spirituall temples of the holy Ghost and betweene dead and sencelesse stockes which haue eyes and see not eares and heare not noses and smell not Beggers Lazars Leapers c. are recommended to the world by our Sauiour Ioh. 12.8 Luc. 14.21 and they are said to honour their Maker which are charitable to them Pro. 14.31 and he promiseth infinit reward to them which loue and honour the poore Where I pray you hath our Sauiour said of Images of stone wood c. nay of puppets and pranked babies What you do to one of these my least ones you do vnto me Surely the cloathing censing bowing pilgrimage going to Images deuised by mans braine hath neither precept promise example or praise in all Gods Booke neither is there any dignitie or excellencie in them formally or accidentally which may equall them to the meanest reasonable creature An Idol saith S. Augustine is the workemanship of an artificer and if this maker as he hath bestowed figure so he could haue giuen vnderstanding to his creature hee should himselfe receiue honour from the Image which he hath formed And in another place the Artificer is better than that which himselfe formeth Why art thou then ashamed to worship the Carpenter and doest not rather blush when thou adorest that which hee hath formed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Athanasius That which formeth another is better than the thing which is formed IESVIT Out of this the common Obiection of Protestants to wit That the worship of Christs Image is no where commanded in Scripture and therefore is a will Worship may bee answered For as themselues confesse many Actions belonging to Religion whereof there is no expresse Precept nor any practise in Scripture may be vsed when there be Principles in Scripture which prooue the lawfulnesse and necessitie thereof There is no expresse Precept in Scripture to Christen Jnfants nor is it there read that euer any were Christened yet because there be Testimonies which ioyned with reason prooue the lawfulnesse and necessitie of this Baptisme we may and must vse it In Scripture there is no expresse Practise nor Precept of worshipping the Image of Christ yet there be Principles which the light of Nature supposed conuince such Adoration to be lawfull ANSVVER Protestants obiect against Adoration of Images not onely that the same is no where commanded in Scripture but that it is prohibited and condemned Leuit. 26.1 Neither by Commandement vnderstand we expresse and literall Precept onely but deriuatiue and vertuall And could Papists demonstrate the lawfulnesse of this Action by diuine or supernaturall testimonie immediate or deriuatiue in such manner as the Baptisme of Infants is prooued to be lawfull and necessarie wee must approoue the practise thereof IESVIT For Christ being true God full of honour to whom all supreame adoration is due doth and must needs make honourable and adorable anything that represents him that is which must be taken by imagination as if it were his 〈◊〉 But supposing God to be truely man as Faith teacheth the light of nature sheweth that his image truely represents him that is makes him present to the imaginations of the beholders thereof and stands for him Ergo Christ Iesus his image is for his sake venerable and adorable as a thing standing for him in such sort that the honour done outwardly to it is done and ought to be taken as done by deuout and pious imagination to his person whence further is concluded the necessity of this worship ANSWER The Maior Proposition is denyed For although Christ be true God full of honour yet he imparteth not his honour in whole or in part to euery thing which man appointeth to be a representation of him but onely to such things as haue some excellency in them proceeding from his owne ordinance and influence into them Neither is it in the power of men 〈◊〉 their owne Imaginations either to forme representations of Christ capable of honour or when they haue formed them to appoint that they must be honoured and adored For if the Subiects of secular Princes cannot without speciall commission aduance euen worthy persons to dignities and honourable places in the Common-wealth much lesse are mortall men able to deriue the honours which Christ is Lord of to what they please and to inuest their owne handy worke with Christs honour IESVIT For God incarnate being most venerable and full of glory requires of a Christian that that which stands for him and represents him be honoured and adored for his sake ANSWER Not euery thing which stands for him and represents him according to the deuices and imaginations of men no nor euery thing that represents and stands for him according to his owne precept is to be adored with diuine honour as it is manifest in the brazen Serpent IESVIT If the honour due to a King be so great that the same redounds from his person to things about him as to his chaire of State which is honoured with
with himselfe in adoration IESVIT Secondly whereas he saith that the Councell of Nice brought in the worship of Jmages yet forbad that any Image should be adored with diuine honor he both contradicts himselfe and vttereth another manifest falshood He contradicts himselfe in saying that the Nicene Councell forbad diuine worship of any Images Seeing in another place he thus writeth Both the Councell of Nice and the Diuines of the Church of Rome hold the Jmages of God and our Sauiour and the Crosse must be adored with diuine adoration It is apparantly false that the said Nicene Councell brought in the worship of Jmages which might be prooued by many testimonies but this only may suffice that Leo Isauricus before the Councell of Nice opposed Image worship not as then beginning but for many yeares before established in the Church boasting that he was the first Christian Emperor the rest hauing beene Idolaters because they worshipped Images so manifestly did he oppose Antiquitie and so little truth there is in M. Whites Assertion ANSWER The second Nicene Synod brought in the worship of Images not simply but by defining the same to be necessarie and by appointing the practise thereof to be receiued vniuersally otherwise M. Iohn White was not ignorant that the Israelites worshipped molten Images in Dan and Bethell and the Simonians worshipped Images Eusebius Eccles. Hist. lib. 2. ca. 13. and the Gnostickes worshipped Christ his Image Iren. lib. 2. cap. 24. And Marcellina worshipped the Images of Iefu and Paul c. Aug. d. Haer. 7. Haeres The Marsilians also or people thereabout worshipped Images in the daies of Serenus Greg. li. 7. Epist. 109. lib. 9. Epist. 9. But all these were condemned of superstition by the Catholicke Church and the second Nicene Synod was censured and the definition thereof resisted by many as I haue formerly prooued pag. 210. And because the Iesuit rehearseth a storie out of Zonaras an Author which themselues regard not I will requite him with a more certaine Historie out of Roger Houeden a natiue Historian of the affaires of Britaine his words are these Charles the French king sent a Synodal into Britaine directed vnto him from Constantinople in the which booke many things out alas inconuenient and repugnant to right Faith were found especially it was confirmed almost by the vnanimous consent of all the Easterne Doctours no lesse than three hundred or more That Images ought to be worshipped which thing the Church of God doth altogether detest Against which Synodal Booke Albinus wrote an Epistle marueilously confirmed by authoritie of diuine Scripture and carried the same to the French king together with the foresaid Booke in the name of our Bishops and Princes IESVIT Thirdly to passe yet vp higher That Images began in Gregorie the Great his time and that he forbad the worship of them containes other three falshoods First Gregorie is abused who onely commanded that none should worship Images as Gods 〈◊〉 as Gentiles did that some Godhead was affixed vnto them as he elsewhere declareth himselfe And so manifestly did he teach Image worship establishing Pilgrimages vnto them by Indulgences as Frier Bale accuseth him thereof Yea M. Symonds and M. Bale write that Leo an hundred and fortie yeares before Gregorie decreed the worship of Images ANSWER Gregories words are Imagines adorare omnibus modis deuita By all meanes shunne the worshipping of Images Aliud est Picturam adorare aliud per Picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere It is one thing to worship a Picture another by the storie of the Picture to learne what is to be worshipped Non ad adorandum in Ecclesijs sed ad instruendas solummodo mentes fuit nescientium collocatum It was placed in the Church only to instruct the minds of the ignorant and not to be worshipped And in another Epistle Quatenus literarum nescij haberent vndè scientiae historiam colligerent First in these passages of S. Gregorie we find no vse of Images allowed but onely historicall Secondly he saith positiuely They are not set vp to be worship ped but onely to instruct the ignorant And although in the place obiected he saith Non vt quasi Deum colas Not that thou shouldest worship them as God yet he doth not approoue the worshipping of them any other way but addeth We do not bow downe before them as before the Dietie he saith not quasi ad Dietatem as to the Dietie sed quasi ante as before the Dietie Thirdly Cassander a learned Papist confesseth ingenuously That Gregorie the Great forbad all worship of Images But our latter Idolists vse no measure or modestie in eluding and peruerting the euident sentences of the Fathers IESVIT Secondly Polydore in this point is egregiously falsified for he saieth not as the Minister makes him speake All Fathers condemned the worship of Jmages for feare of idolatry but his words are cultum Imaginum teste Hieronimo omnes veteres Patres damnabant metu Idololatriae All the old Fathers as Hierom witnesseth did condemne worship of Images for feare of idolatrie by the old Fathers meaning the Fathers of the Old Testament not of the New which appeares because in proofe of his saying he brings not the testimonie of any Father of the New Testament but onely of the Old as of Moses Dauid Ieremie 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 the Images of God was because they could not paint him aright Cum Deum nemo vidisset vnquam because then no man had seene God Afterwards God saith Polidore hauing taken flesh and being become visible to mortall eyes men flocked vnto him and did without doubt behold and reuerence his face shining with the brightnesse of diuine light and euen then they began to paint or carue his Image alreadie imprinted in their minds and those Images saith he they receiued with great worship and veneration as was reason the honour of the Image redounding to the originall as Basill writes Which custome of adoring Images the Fathers were so farre from reproouing as they did not only admit therof but also decreed and commanded the same by generall Councels in the time of Iustinian the second and Constantine his sonne What man then is there so dissolute and audatious as can dreame of the contrarie and doubt of the lawfulnesse of this worship established so long agoe by the decree of most holy Fathers Thus writeth Polidore and much more to the same purpose in the verie place where the Minister citeth him to the contrarie which shewes how notoriously his credulous Readers are abused in matters of most moment whence appeareth the third falshood that in Gregories daies Images began to be set vp in Churches which to haue beene in Churches long before the testimonies of S. Basil Paulinus Lactantius and Tertullian doe