from no other Church but the Roman is equiualent or equipollent vnto this Euery Church deliuering scriptures vnto Protestants is Roman Wherefore to reduce the Iesuits argument in true forme vnto the first Figure you should haue made the maior (d) For as Logicke teaches In prima Figura maior semper est vniuersalis Vniuersall in this sort Euery Chuch that deliuered vnto Protestants the scriptures is the Catholike The Roman deliuered the Scriptures vnto Protestants Ergo the Roman Church is the Catholike Church If you say the Meanes of proofe in the Iesuits argumeÌ„t is Indiuiduall and so the Syllogisme Expository not according to the ordinary forme why then do you reprehend his argument as being affirmatiue in the second figure seing Expository Syllogismes may be affirmatiue in any figure Are yow a Doctour a Deane a Maister in Israell and know not these things Being so ignorant of Logicke were yow so destitute likewise of discretioÌ„ as yow could not keepe your selfe from carping at the Iesuit as peccant in Logicke Could you not at least haue been silent about figures and formes of arguing concerning which yow speake no more assuredly then a blind man of colours Some may say that though yow be ignorant of Logicke yow do not greatly care because this your Ignorance howsoeuer euident vnto the learned cannot be made palpable vnto the Ladyes who esteeme yow and are lead away by yow I answere Although your Ignorance in Logicke cannot by this discourse be made palpable vnto Ladyes yet the falshood of your Religion euen about your ground and rule of fayth may be made palpable vnto them Yow make the rule of Fayth to be not expresse scripture affirming a thing in so many words for then the Ladyes that can read might straight discouer the falshood of your Religion wherof not one article against vs is expressely deliuered in scripture You therefore I say make the rule of Fayth to be not only Scripture but also (e) The doctrine of fayth is eyther expressely or deriuatiuely coÌ„tayned in Scripture Fran. white pag. 300. What is deduced by necessary consequence according to the rules of Logicke VVottâ—n Triaâ—l pag. 88. what doctrine soeuer is by Principles of reason and Rules of Logicke deduced from the Scripture Now wheÌ„ a thing is deduced from scripture by good consequence by true art and not by Sophistry Ladyes except they haue diligently studyed Logicke cannot possibly know This is euident For nothing is deduced by good consequence from scripture which is not deduced by discourse in lawfull figure forme not by Sophistry or a fallacious shew But the Ladyes cannot possibly know when an argument is in true moode and figure nor consequently discerne Syllogismes from Sophismes which their insufficiency they must needes feele in themselues if they be in their senses Therfore they cannot possibly be assured by the ground and rule of Fayth you prescribe them nor consequeÌ„tly can they groundedly belieue Christian Religion nor be saued They must trust ignorant Ministers who crye Sophistry Sophistry agaynst argumeÌ„ts in lawfull forme as now you haue done not so much out of malice but as I am persuaded out of meere Ignorance of such Rudiments of discourse as men are taught in their childhood The second Example §. 2. YOv not only accuse the Iesuits Arguments of Sophistry when they are lawfull but also pretende to bring inuincible Demonstrations when your Arguments be childish knowne Sophismes Behold hereof notorious Examples Your aduersary to proue the traditioÌ„ of the Church to be more Prime and Originall then the scripture bringes 4. Arguments Yow on the contrary side to requite him in the same number haue set downe other 4. to proue that a Christian is built originally and fundamentally on the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written In these Arguments yow glory (f) Reply pag. 47. and 48. saying That the Iesuits are but funiculus vanitatis a bundle of vanity and a potsheard couered ouer with the drosse of siluer Now these your arguments in comparison of which you so debase the Iesuits are all and euery one of them idle triuiall fallacyes as I will particulerly and cleerely demonstrate The first (g) Reply pag. 48 is That which is most excellent in euery kind is the modell of the rest but I trow yow will grant the Scripture to be the most excellent part of Gods word 2. Pet. 19. August l. 17. cont Faust. c. 5. Ergo the scripture is the modell and patterne of the rest This Argument is constans ex quatuor terminis that is hath foure different termes whereas all true forme of arguing ought to haue only three Scripture is one terme Modell and patterne of the rest a second Most excellent in euery kind a third the most excellent part a fourth for it is not all one to say the excellent thing in euery kind the most excellent part of many partes Amongst whole and totall things the most excelleÌ„t in euery kind may in some sort be said to be the patterne of the rest but amoÌ„gst parts the most excellent is not the ground of the rest In substantuall Compounds the substantiall forme is more excellent then the substantiall matter yet the substantiall forme is not the ground of the matter yea rather the matter is the ground of the forme being the fundamentall radicall cause out of which materiall formes are produced Who sees not that Walles Chambers and Galleryes are more excellents parts of the house and more beautifull then the fundations Yet the fundations are more prime originall and wheron the Walls and Chambers depend and are kept in being In this manner the word of God as written is more excellent in respect of deep and profound learning then Tradition yet the word as deliuered by Tradition is more prime originall fundamentall because it is the sole ground and foundation by which wee know which is the word of God the Apostles deliuered in writing Hence yow are such a Bungler in Logicke as yow vndertake to proue one thing and conclude another Yow vndertake (h) Reply 47. lin 28. to proue that the foundation of Christian Religion is the word of God not as deliuered by tradition but as written yow conclude that the written word is the patterne and modell of all other kinds of Diuine Reuelations Now to be the ground of the rest is different from to be the patterne of the rest yea the ground of thinges is seldome or neuer the patterne of them The grape by common consent is held the most excellent of all kind of fruite and so by your rule the modell and patterne of the rest yet the grape is not the ground the roote and seed of all other fruite nor do all other fruite spring and proceed from it Your second Argument (i) Ibid. pag. 48. A Christian is built fundamentally on the Rocke but the scripture is the rocke Cardinalis Cameracensis quaest vespert
recom Sacrae scripturae Ergo A Christian is built fundamentally on Scripture I wish that this my Discouery may make you wise vnto your eternall Saluation as is doth lay open your shamefull Ignorance vnto your temporall disgrace for here you are so grossely and togeather vnluckily ignorant as you are fallen into the very same fault in Logicke wherof without cause you charged your Aduersary as peccant to wit of making Syllogismes whereof both propositions were affirmatiue in the second figure An argument is affirmatiue in the second figure when the Meanes of proofe is affirmed in both propositions Your Meanes to prooue that a Christian is fundamentally built on Scripture is this terme Built on the rocke and this is the very thing affirmed in both your propositions In your maior Built on the rocke is affirmed of the Christian The Christian or he that is fundamētally built is built on the rocke In the minor the same is affirmed of him that is built on Scripture The Scripture is the rocke that is he that is built on the Scripture is built on the rocke Hence your conclusion Ergo The Christian or he that is fundamentally built is built on the Scripture is affirmatiue in the second figure How fond inconsequent this forme of arguing is you may feele by this of the same tenour with change of matter He that is borne in Sicily is borne in an Iland He that is borne in England is borne in an Iland Ergo He that is borne in England is borne in Sicily This is a folish Sophisme because concluding affirmatiuely in the second figure so is yours For as it is not consequent if a man be borne in an Iland that he is borne in Sicily because there be other Ilands besides Sicily so this is no good consequence A Christian is built on the Rocke Ergo on the Scripture because Scripture is not the only Rocke the word of God as deliuered by Tradition being a rock and ground of Fayth no lesse sure infallible then Scripture or Gods Word as written Abraham Isaac Iacob Ioseph and innumerable other holy persons were fundamentally built in fayth yet not built on Scripture the word of God not being then extant in writing S. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 4. doth write that in his dayes many Nations were Christian and did diligently obserue the true Christian Religion printed in their harts and yet had not any Scripture nor the word of God as written False then is this negatiue which your argument put into true forme doth imply No man is built fundamentally on the Rocke that is not built on the word of God as written Your third argument (k) Reply pag. 48. The seed of fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian But the Scripture is the seed of fayth Ioan. 20.41 for it is the word of God Luc. 8.11 Ioan. 1.18 1. Cor. 4.15 This argument is also an idle fallacy and sophististicall sillogisme for both the propositions thereof are particuler which forme as hath been said is vicious and not lawfull in any figure This you may perceaue by this argument formed punctually according to the shape of yours with chāge of matter The seed of Fayth is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. But the bloud of Martyrs is the seed of Fayth for it is the seed of the Christian Church Ergo The bloud of Martyrs is the roote and foundation of euery Christian. This argument is like yours and both are vaine because the Argument being in the first figure the Maior proposition is particuler which ought to be vniuersall in this sort Euery seed of fayth is the roote of euery Christian The Scripture or word of God as written is the seed of Fayth Ergo. The Scripture or word of God as written is the roote of euery Christian. This argument is in lawfull forme but the maior therof is false for euery seed of Fayth is not the roote of a Christian but only that seed which first breedeth fayth in him and whereon all other seedes depend Now the seed which first breedeth Fayth in Christians is not the word of God as written but the word of God as deliuered by tradition For vpon the credit of Tradition we know the written word and without this ordinarily speaking and without new immediate Reuelation we cannot know the Scripture or written word to be from the Apostles and by them of God Ergo the word of God not as writtē but as deliuered by tradition is that seed of fayth which is the roote of euery Christian. The fourth Argument (l) Reply pag. 48. The Scripture giuen by diuine inspiration is simply and without exception to be receaued and all tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be refused Hence it followes that Scripture is a rule of Tradition and not Tradition of Scripture This argument proceedeth vpon the supposal of an impossibility so is idle sophisticall inept Logitians are taught by their Mayster Aristotle if one impossibility be admitted a thousand other impossibilityes and absurdityes will be thence concuded You suppose in this argument that the word of God as deliuered by full tradition may be repugnant vnto the word of God as written Hence you inferre that Tradition is not simply to be receaued but only so far forth as it agrees with the Scripture Your supposition is blasphemous for the word of God vnwritten cannot be repugnant vnto truth being the words of the Prime VERITY that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This impossibility supposed your cōsequence is not good Ergo Tradition repugnant to Scripture is to be reiected and Scripture to be held only simply as the rule of Fayth For if Gods vnwritten word could be repugnant vnto the written it would not follow that the vnwritten word were to be reiected and the written simply to be receaued but that neyther the written nor vnwritten were to be credited This is cleere because if God may lye and deceyue vs by his word of liuely voyce deliuered by Tradition why not also in his writings deliuered by Tradition What authority doth writing adde to Gods word that God cannot lye in writing if he may lye in speaking I hope I haue shewed apparently these your Arguments wherein you so much glory to be not only false in respect of matter but also fallacious in respect of forme The same I could shew of allmost all the rest of your Arguments of this your Reply Is not then the case of your ignorant Proselites most deplorable and desperate whome you persuade to trust these your halting consequences rather then the perpetuall Traditions of the Church You will haue them to make themselues Iudges not only of what is contayned expressely in Scripture but also of what is thence deriued by Arguments according to the rules of Logicke wherein if they chance to mistake they erre and are damned The third Example §. 3. A Third Example of Logicall Ignorance is your heaping togeather of many fond
resplendant verity of the thing With these promises sayth S. Augustine (c) Quâ promissâ animâ— naturaliter gaudet humana sanorum escas appetendo irruit in vâ—nena fallentium Augustin Ibid. the soules of men are naturally ouerioyed whilest they gape after the promised sight of diuine truth whereof as yet they be not capable the cosening promisers cast into their mouth make them deuoure the poysoned morsells of their falshood Concerning the light of Scripture §. 3. CONCERNING the light of Scripture two thinges are euident First some arguments of probability may be drawne from the Scriptures to proue they are of God which serue for the comfort of Belieuers and may somewhat incline Infidels to belieue vpoÌ„ other greater motiues to wit the authority of God his Church This probable euidence euident probability is al which the testimonies of Scholemen brought by the Minister affirme Secondly the Scripture hath not light to shew it selfe with euident certainty to be the word of God but is belieued to be such without being seene as much as any other point and mystery of fayth to wit vpon the word of God so reuealing deliuered by tradition This is demonstrated because to be the word of God and the rule of fayth is to be true and certayne not only in some partâ— but also in al euery part particle therof so that as sayth our (e) Pag. 16. lin 2. Minister no lyer can speake therein and if (f) Augustin epist. 9. Si ad scripturas admittatur meÌ„dacium quid eis authoritatis remanebit one sentence of Scripture be prooued false the credit of the whole is lost But it is impossible that any man should know by the light euidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture that the Scripture according to euery booke chapter leafe and line is certayne and assured truth and that no lye or falshood is contayned therein as these seauen Arguments euince The first Argument First because the (g) Hieron epist. ad Aug. 19. inter epist. Aug. Scripturae obscurissimae sunt Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen lib. 7. contra Celsum Reuerà multis locis obscurae Vide Bellarm. de Script l. 3. c. 1. Fathers teach and (h) Field Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscurityes in Scripture Protestants euen our (i) Reply pag. 35. Minister acknowledge that there be many darke and obscure passages of Scripture that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficultyes that sometimes one (k) Quid vel falsò suspicentur non inueniunt Aug. l. 2. de doctr Christ. c. â— Whitaker de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest can hardly so much as giue a probable guesse at their meaning but these texts and places cannot be knowne to containe diuine truth no falshood by the euideÌ„ce of the doctrine Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God that is nothing but truth by the euidence of the doctrine HeÌ„ce appeareth that Protestants teaching that â—he Scripture is known to be the word of God and that no lye is contayned therein by the euidence and light of the doctrine coÌ„tradict themselues in saying that in many places it is difficill and darke as they cannot assuredly vnderstand it For how can they know by the light of the sense or doctrine that the texts not vnderstood containe nothing but truth The second Argument Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the maiesty (l) Reply pag. 16. Internall matter maiesty of the bookes Item pag. 30. 68. Field appendix 34. Caluin Instit. l. 1. c. 7. purity of the doctrine but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a maiesty in respect of naturall reason and a shew of sublimity aboue it as the Blessed Trinity yet (m) Sunt quaedaÌ„ in sacris litteris quae quia suboffendunt animos ignaros negligentes sui quae maxima turba populariter accusari defendi autem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis coÌ„tinentur non à multis admodum possunt Aug. de vtil cred c. 1. other points of Scripture seeme vnto reason ridiculous and childish As that the serpent did speake to the woman that Adam and Eue were naked without perceiuing themselues to be so that there was day and night before the sunne was created the like Therfore we must haue some other surer ground then this maiesty of the doctrine to be certayne that the Scripture is nothing but truth Gods infallible word The third Argument Thirdly wheras the (n) Reply pag. 19. Minister much vrgeth the harmony of Scripture to proue the same to be of God Though this harmony appeare in diuers thinges yet who doth not know that innumerable seeming contradictions are obiected against Scripture (o) This is euident vnto al that haue read the coÌ„meÌ„taryes of the Fathers many of which are only probably answered by the Fathers many answered by thinges assumed without proofe only because otherwise we must admit contradiction in Scripture (p) This appeareth particularly in the foure first chapters of Genesis and in the Genealogy of our Sauiour And in concording the Chronologyes of the Booke of Kings some places not fully answered but the Fathers were forced to fly from literall vnto allegoricall senses how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the euidence of the thing thereon ground their faith that the Scripture is of God Or if they could not how can we For what the Minister boastingly affirmeth (q) Reply pag. 24. lin 15. of himselfe and his fellowes we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament This Ministeriall bragge I say of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day aboue all the Ancients by the euidence of the thing is incredible for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures then they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture haue true solutions But no man liuing euer was or is sure by euidence that all the solutions and answeres vsed to reconcile Scriptures be the truth no not Protestants For did they vnderstand assuredly euery text of Scripture and euery seeming contradiction is reconciled could there be amoÌ„gst theÌ„ such different and aduerse exposition of Scripture Therefore no man euer did or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the euidence of the thing nor consequently the Scripture to be of God by the euidence of this harmony The fourth Argument Fourthly wheras the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style affirming that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voyces on men by which they may be known the Iesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men eleuated
inough to know actually some doctrine which is in Scripture but he must know that it is in Scripture and belieue the Scripture â—o be the word of God but ignorant persons cannot know infallibly Scriptures to be the word of God truly translated further then they find them conforme to the doctrine deliuered by the Tradition of the Church Therfore they build their Fayth finally vpon Tradition not vpon Scripture truly translated light of the doctrine shining in true Translations to wit by the light of the doctrine receiued by Tradition of Ancestors and thereupon so firmely belieued as they will acknowledge Scriptures to be truly translated so far and no further then they perceyue them consonant with the fayth deliuered vnto them so that their last and finall resolution for substantiall points is not into Scriptures truly translated into their vulgar tongue but into Tradition by the light whereof they discerne that the Translations are true more or lesse according to the measure of knowledge they haue by Tradition The third Argument IF all the mayne and substantiall poynts of Christian Fayth must be knowne and firmely belieued before we can securely read and truly vnderstand the Holy Scripture then the mayne and substaÌ„tiall points of fayth are belieued not vpon Scripture but vpon TraditioÌ„ precedently vnto Scripture This is cleare because true fayth is not built but vpon Scripture truely vnderstood neyther can Scripture before it be truly vnderstood of a man be to him a ground of assured persuasion But we cannot vnderstand the Scripture securely and aright before we know the substantiall articles of fayth which all are bound expressely to belieue the (i) The Minister here laboureth to proue that the rule of fayth is contained in Scripture and therfore cannot be Tradition vnwritteÌ„ Which discourse is impertinent and the inference false For himselfe grants pag. 150. lin 16. that the rule of fayth is both written Tradition and vnwritten The Doctrine then of TraditioÌ„ is tearmed vnwritten not because it is no waies written but because as the Answerer sayth it is knowne by preaching precedently and independently of Scripture summary comprehensioÌ„ of which poynts is tearmed the Rule (*) Tertul. de Praescr c. 13. of fayth This is (k) The Answerer here brings three ArgumeÌ„ts that coÌ„uince that none can vnderstand Scripture securely and without danger of damnable errour that are not aforehand grounded in the substantiall articles of fayth The Minister though he professe to haue set downe the Answere Verbatim leaueth all this out and then cryeth thus agaynst the Iesuite pag. 34. circa finem That men must be first instructed in the necessary poynts of fayth before they can securedly read and interprete Scriptures is affirmed by the Iesuite but not proued Thus he What not proued The Iesuit bringes three large coÌ„uictiue proofes thereof which you because you cannot answere omit and then cry the Iesuit doth say and not proue This dealing is grosse proued by the acknowledgement of Protestans in whose name (l) D. Feild l. 3. of the Church cap. 4. D. Feild writeth in this sort We hold with the Papists that neither conference of places nor consideration of antecedentia and consequentia nor the knowledge of tongues and lookinge into the originalls â—s of any force vnlesse we find the things which we conceiue to be vnderstood and meant in the places interpreted to be consonant vnto the rule of fayth (m) D. Feild l. 4. of the Church cap. 14. 19. For who can be able to vnderstand the Scriptures but he that is setled in those things which the Apostles presupposed in their deliuery of Scripture Secondly by the experience both of all former ages and this present prouing by too many examples that such as come to reade expound Scripture without being aforehand setled by Tradition in the rule of fayth do fall into errours most damnable against the maynest articles of the Creed as the Creation of the world the blessed Trinity and the Incarnation Baptisme and other So that reading interpretation of Scripture makes not men Christians but supposeth them to be made by Tradition at the least for substantiall poynts such as euery one is bound expressely to know Thirdly we are not more able to vnderstand Scripture then were our Forefathers the auncient Doctors of the Church neither is there reason that we should so thinke of our selues but they thought themselues vnable to interprete Scripture precisely of it selfe by conference of places without the light of ChristiaÌ„ Doctrine aforehand knowne and firmely belieued vpon the Churches perpetuall Tradition from the Apostles witnes (n) Ruffinus Eccles. hist. l. 2. c. 9. S. Basill and S. Gregory Nazianzen the two grande Doctors of the Grecian Church and Origen who thus writes (o) Orig. tract in Matth. cap. 29. In our vnderstandinge of Scriptures we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition nor belieue otherwise but as the Church of God hath by succession deliuered to vs. Ergo no man is able to read interprete Scripture without (p) Protestants affirme as Whitaker contr 1. q. 4. c. 2. and others that no man can vnderstand Scripture that bringes not with him the light of fayth and Christian piety puras sanctas mentes which doth most euidently demonstrate that fayth about substaÌ„tial poynts is grounded on Gods word precedently vnto Scripture That persuasion which is precedent vnto the knowledg of Scripture and is the rule guiding vs in our knowledge of Scripture cannot be grounded vpon knowledge of Scripture But Christian fayth piety as they grant is precedent vnto knowledge of Scripture yea must be brought vnto the reading thereof and direct vs in it Ergo fayth is not originally grounded on Scripture the light assistance of firme Christian fayth aforehand conceiued by the voyce of the Church deliuering what by Tradition from Auncestors she receiued Whence I also conclude that it is exceeding dangerous boldnes in men of this age so to presume on their interpretations of Scriptures gotten by diligent reading and conferring of places as they care not though a (q) Luther de captiu Babyl Tom. 2. Wittenberg pag. 344. thousand of Cyprians Augustins Churches Traditions should stand against them The fourth Argument THOSE that vnderstand the Scriptures aright must be such as they were to whom the Apostles writ and deliuered the Scriptures and whose instruction they intended by their writing but the Apostles as D. (r) Lib. 4. of the Church c. 4. in the margent Feild acknowledgeth wrote to them they had formerly taught more at large that were instructed and grounded in all substantiall and necessary poynts of fayth that knew the coÌ„mon necessary obseruations of Christianity Ergo they that reade and presume to interprete the Scriptures without first knowing and firmely belieuing by tradition at the least all necessary and substantiall poynts of fayth (s) The Minister pag. 34. lin 34. chargeth the
is granted on both sides The only question is by what rule these Doctrines inuolued are vnfolded and made knowne vnto vs as articles of fayth ProtestaÌ„ts say by Scripture and the rules of Logicke and Reason Wotton Triall of the Romish c. pag 88. lin 29. and by other things besides Scripture euident in the light of nature Feild pag 281. lin 20. Catholikes hold that the rule to expound Scripture binding all men to belieue deductions as matters of fayth is not Logicke but the Tradition and definition of the Church And this Catholicke doctrin is proued First because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of vnlearned men aswell as of learned But men vnlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logicke or Logicall deduction for they cannot vnderstand when an argument is good by the rules of Logicke Secondly the Scripture it selfe to supply her wants sendeth vs not to the rules of Logicke but vnto traditions saying 2. Thessal 2.15 Hold fast the Traditions ye haue receaued by word or our epistle They send men to the Church as to the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3.15 which whosoeuer doth not heare is as a heaâ—hen and a publican Matth. 13.5.7 Therfore by the rule of church-Church-Tradition not by the rules of Logicke do we learne autheÌ„tically the confessed virtualities obscurities and inuolutions of Scripture about matters of fayth Thirdly the Fathers about matters inuolued in Scripture send men not vnto Logicke but vnto Tradition auouching the same to be a rule as certaine no lesse estimable then Scripture S. Chrysostome homil 4 in 2. ad Thessal The Apostles did not deliuer all things in Scripture but some things without writing and these are as much to be credited as the written It is a Tradition this is inough seeke no more The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit sanct c. 27. Epiphan haeres 55. 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest Finally we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture For on the one side they contradict the vniuersall custome and Tradition of the Church at the least and as they grant of many ages saying The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred yeares hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world so that an vniuersall Apostacy was ouer the whole face of the earth for many hundred yeares Perkins Exposit. of the Creed pag. 307. 400. On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable and they sometimes challenge no more homini non prorsus alienato probabilior apparet Whitak contr 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem Others alledge Scripture not with as probable colour as we doe Iohn White defence pag. 321. Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we giue vnto their Scripturall arguments seeming and appearing solutions Now we Catholikes thinke it to be Hereticall as S. Augustine sayth insolent madnes vpon probabilities vpon Arguments froÌ„ Scripture that receaue seeming solutions to contradict the Christian vniuersall Tradition of many hundred yeares For what the Minister saith this to be done by Sophistry is ridiculous For if to giue seeming plausible and probable solutions vnto Scripturall arguments against the full Tradition of Christianity be Sophistry what is true Theology On the other side if for men to stand against the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages vpon arguments they confesse to be probably and seemingly answered be Christianity what is hereticall Obstinacy Fifthly whereas you obiect that pag. 199. lin 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatiuely agaynst Heretikes in this sort Doctrine is not cleerly deliuered in Scripture therefore it is not to be receaued as Fayth You must know that the Fathers proceed vpon a supposition that was knowne vnto all and granted by the Heretickes themselues to wit that the doctrins they disputed agaynst were not the full and publicke Tradition of the Catholike Church For seing Scripture as we haue shewed doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof so likewise the Fathers when they vrge that all doctrine is to be reiected which is not in Scripture still suppose that that doctrine is not the publicke Tradition of the Church Where we must also note that the Fathers did not only require of Heretikes proofe from Scripture by way of deduction Logicall inference for such all heretiks did pretend and herewith deluded seely sots as now Protestants doe but they required of Heretikes to shew their doctrine in Scripture ipsis dictionibus sayth Irenaeus l. 2. c. 36. expressely and in tearmes and proue it not by texts sayth S. Augustine de vnitat Eccles. c. 3. which require sharpenes of wit in the auditors to iudge who doth more probably interprete them not by places quae vel interpretem quaerunt which require an interpreter and an arguer making Logicall inferences vpon the text so concluding for his purpose but by places playne manifest cleere which leaue no place to contrary exposition and that no Sophystry can wrest them to other sense to the end that Controuersyes which concerne the Saluation of soules be defined by Gods formall word and not by deductions from it according to Logicall forme For sayth S. Augustine what more vniust then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere Hence the Fathers negatiue argument from Scripture ouerthroweth Protestant Religion for thus I argue Nothing is matter of Fayth and of necessity which is not formally and expressely reuealed by the word of God eyther written or vnwritten deliuered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition But no Heretikes euer did nor our Protestants now do or can pretend perpetuall publicke Tradition vnwritten for their doctrins agaynst the Catholicke and Roman Church nor can they proue their Tenets ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura by Scripture auerring them in expresse tearmes Only they clayme texts which as themselues confesse receaue seeming appearing solutioÌ„s agaynst which they haue nothing to say but that this is done by Sophistry so bringing the busines of the Saluation of the world to be decided by contentioÌ„ of wit Therefore their doctrins are to be reiected as vnchristiaÌ„ Finally it is great vanity in you to thinke that the Traditions vnwritten mentioned by Fathers are conforme to your Doctrine writing as you doe pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers vnderstand not the Fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their vnwritten Tradition and affirme those thinges to be Apostolicall which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light Thus you with much bitternesse and no lesse falshood For what Gerson de signis ruinae Eccles. sig 5. sayth of the heresyes of his age to wit
〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten that this is the prime ground of â—ayth more fundamentall then Scripture you most larâ—ely labour to refell and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti-â—hristian and impudent assertion to depresse the written â—ord of God exalt the prophane bastardly Apocriphal â—â—aditions of the Pope This is bitter inough yet cerâ—â—ynly you teach that there be traditions maintayâ—ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority or 〈◊〉 you speake ineptly not knowing what you affirâ—e For some two pages before this your reprochfull words to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture the doctrine thereof Thus you I demand of you These subseruient Traditious about fayth and doctrine be they contayned in Scripture or not If they be your distinction is senselesse one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other for if subseruient traditions be traditions coÌ„tayned in Scripture what more inept then to say traditions eyther contayned in Scripture or subseruient If they be not contayned in Scripture but condistinct from them then according to your distinction there be some traditions not contayned in Scripture which maintayne and vphold the authority of Scripture and the verity and doctrine thereof If you grant this as you must vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamentall then Scripture For thus I argue That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture is more fundameÌ„tall then Scripture That which doth mantayne and vphold the authority of Scripture is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scripture Ergo That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture is more fundamentall then Scripture Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient condistinct agaynst written Tradition the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture So that eyther you know not what you doe write or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure as Antichristian impudeÌ„t prophane bastardly Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy No more sense or iudgement is there in the distinctioÌ„ you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant militant pag. 49. The tearme Church say you is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament Hebr. 12.23 Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27 And thus it comprehendeth both the Church militant triumphant Thus you distinguishing the Church of belieuers into militant and Triumphant whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers What more ridiculous and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse simplicity through want of reflexion that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine which wittingly willfully you mantayne though being no lesse exorbitant then this The doctrine is that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude who (a) Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309. by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity and other mysteryes that you are like not vnto men (b) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. which see a farre off a certayne obscure glimmering of the light but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is behold the sayd light in it selfe Verily to tearme the Church militant a multitude of BEHOLDERS resolued of truth by manifest light euidence is as Exoticall and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology as to call the Church triuÌ„phant a multitude of BELEEVERS that warre and walke by Fayth As for your Protestant triuÌ„phant Church if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God without seing the light lustre and resplendant verity of the doctrine thereof as you pretend they did not I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world to wit in the number of them of whom the Apostle writeth Ioan. 2.9 credunt contremiscunt Ignorance in Scripture SECT IV. CONCERNING Holy Scripture you brag intollerably in euery page of your Reply how the same standeth cleerly on your side and that the Iesuit hath not been able to proue any of the Nine Poynts by Scripture How vaine this your vant is doth appear by the Reioynder wherin you are proued almost in euery controuersy to forsake the litterall and plaine sense of Scripture and to deuise now figuratiue typicall and mysticall interpretations How idlely also you dispute out of Scriptures for matters of greatest moment which you most confidently maintayne in your Religion is made euident by what hath been shewed concerning your arguing for the preteÌ„ded Diuine Ordinance binding ignorant Laymen to read the Scripture Notwithstanding that your ignorance herin may more indeniably appeare I will add here some other arguments and tokens of the same to wit vnto what shamefull shifts you are forced to answere Scriptuâ—es brought by your Aduersary in the behalfe of Caâ—holicke doctrine You deny the Text and Context of Scripture §. 1. FIRST many times you are enforced by your aduersary when you cannot answere to deny the â—ext context of Scripture wherof I alleadge two â—xamples The Iesuit pag. 480. to proue that Christ â—romised eternall life vnto the worthy participant â—f the sacrament vnder the forme of bread bringeth â—he words of our Sauiour Iohn 6. Qui manducat hunc â—anem viuet in aeternum he that eateth this bread shall â—ue for euer You in the place quoted answere The â—cripture Iohn 6.51 saith not whosoeuer eateth sacraâ—entall bread without wine shall liue for euer but if any â—â—te this bread which came downe from heaueÌ„ to wit Christ â—â—sus incarnate shall liue for euer And then it followeth â—nlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke 〈◊〉 blood you shall not haue life in you Iohn 5.53 Thus 〈◊〉 Now marke vnto what straytes maugre your â—â—agging you are brought by the Iesuite First you are not acknowledge these words cited by the Ieâ—â—ite he that eateth this bread liueth for euer to be our â—â—uiours but onely those If any shall eate c. Wherâ—â— they be our Sauiours the expresse text of Scripâ—â—re in so many words syllables Iohn 6.59 which â—â—yth He that eateth this bread liueth for euer Seâ—â—ndly you are compelled to answere that Christ â—â—ter he had said he that eateth this bread liueth for â—â—er said Vnlesse you eate the flesh and drinke the â—â—oud of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in â—ou By which ensuing senteÌ„ce he did as you thinke â—eclare the former If any eate this bread c. that it must not be vnderstood of Sacramentall bread without wine This is
Scriptures Fathers speak as they please This your cogging in Scripture is already discouered Now about the Fathers Seauen Testimonies of S. Augustine about Scripture and Tradition falsifyed §. 1. TO note some few of the many Pag. 22. lin 5. to make S. Augustine seeme to fauour your Protestant fancy that men are resolued in fayth by the resplendent Verity and euidence of the Christian Doctrine you cite him as saying (*) Cont. Ep. Fund c. 4. Manifest Verity is to be prâ—fered before all other thinges wherby I am hâ—ld in the Catholike Church In this quotation the word other is cogged into the text to change the sense as if S. Augustine had sayd I haue many motiues to belieue the Catholike Doctrine amongst other the manifest verity of the things reuealed this is the chiefest of all S. Augustines true text is manifest verity so cleerly shewed as no doubt therof can be made praeponenda est omnibus is to be preferred before all these thinges whereby I am held in the Catholike Church Hence it is cleere that the manifest Verity was not the stay and motiue of S. Augustines fayth For what is preferred before all the motiues that stayed him in the Catholike Church was none of his motiues But he saith that manâ—fâ—st verity so cleerly shining as no doubt thereof can be made is to be preferred before all his motiues Ergo S Augustin was not befooled with this foppery that Fayth is resolued finally into the manifest resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine and thinges reuealed in Scripture Neere to the same (a) Pag. 21. lin â—2 and in marg lit b. c. place you cite S. Augustine (b) Aug. l. 2. de Baptis c. 3. saying That former councells are corrected by latter Whence you inferre that the Tradition of the Church is fallible For what sentence of the Church is infallible if that of Councells be fallible In which say you some Papists place the soueraignty of Ecclesiasticall authority Heere you shew Ignorance and Falshood Ignorance about the doctrine of Catholikes For though some preferre the Councell before the Pope others the Pope before the Councell in case the whole Councel should be opposite to the Pope in matters of Fayth to be defined which case yet neuer happened yet all preferre perpetual Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles before both Pope and Councell For how can we know that Church definitions made by Pope Councell be infallible but by Tradition Some may say that is cleerly proued by Scripture It is true but how shall we know the texts assumed in this proofe to be the Apostles Scripture but by Tradition How should we be so sure that we truly expound the Texts aright did we not see the Tradition and practise of the Church to haue been still conformable to the sense we giue of those Scriptures Your Falshood is in that you conceale the words that immediatly follow in S. Augustines sentence which had you set down Aug. lib. 2. de Baptis c. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emeÌ„dari cùm EXPERIMENTO â—erum aperitur quod clausum erat it would haue been euideÌ„t that he doth attribute fallibility and corrigibility vnto Councells only in matters of fact or Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners For the whole sentence is Amongst plenary Councells the former are corrected by the latter cùm experimento rerum c. when by EXPERIMENT of thinges something is brought to light which before was hidden Now the truth of matters and mysteries of Fayth is not brought to light by tyme and experience but the truth of matters of fact is of which One sayth Quicquid sub terra est in apricum proferet aetas Therefore S. Augustine speakes not of matters of Fayth but of matters of fact or of Ecclesiasticall Lawes about manners which in some cases tyme and experience doth discouer to be inconuenient therefore to be recalled In the same place to prooue S. Augustine (d) Pag. 21. in lit b. c. held that the Church in her perpetuall Traditions may be deceaued you cite him saying (e) Aug. l. 2. cont Crescon c. 21. Eâ—clesiastici Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur Ecclesiasticall Iudges as men may be deceaued and (f) Lib 2. de Baptism c. 3. EpiscoporuÌ„ litteras quae post confirmatum Canonem Scriptae sunt c. licere reprehendi Non debet Ecclesia se Christo praeponere vt putet à se iudicatos baptizare non posse ab Illo autem iudicatos posse cùm Ille semper veraciter iudicet Ecclesiastici autem Iudices sicut homines plerumque falluntur the writings of any Bishops since the Apostles may be questioned and called into doubt I do not doubt but you know in your conscience that S. Augustine in both the places is alleadged oppositely to his meaning In the first place he speaketh not about Church-errours in matters of fayth but about errors in matters of fact or Church iudgments concerning criminall causes For this is his whole sentence The Church ought not to preferre herselfe before Christ as to say that men condemned by him as wicked may validely baptize but such as she doth condemne may not seeing He in his iudgements neuer erreth whereas Ecclesiasticall Iudges as being men are often deceaued Who doth not see that you wrong Saint Augustine to bring this his testimony for his holding the perpetuall Tradition of the Catholicke Church hand to hand from the Apostles by the succession of Bishops to be fallible And no lesse iniuriously you produce him in the second testimony For he speaketh of single Bishops considered ech of them by themselues that their writings are obnoxious vnto errour and so may be questioned and examined by Scripture thence inferring that the Donatists should not wonder that he did examine the Epistle of S. Cyprian agaynst the Baptisme of Heretikes so cleere it is he speakes of single Bishops not of Tradition by the full consent of Bishops Pag. 37. lin 33. For only Scripture you cite the same S. August as thus writing (g) August in epist· 1. IoaÌ„ tract 3. The Church hath only two breasts wherwith she feedeth her Children the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t You corrupt this place by addition false translation First by adding to the text the word only to make men belieue S. Aug. held that no doctrine of Fayth is to be belieued which is not cleerly contayned in Scripture whereas (h) l. 4. de Baptis c. 6. 24. l. 5. c. 22. he hath an expresse principle to the contrary many tymes repeated in his workes Sundry thinges to wit of fayth such as was the doctrine that Baptisme giuen by Heretiks is valide are most iustly belieued to be the Apostles though they be no where written in the Scriptures Secondly S. August sayth not as you traÌ„slate that the Churches two breasts are the Scriptures of the Old New TestameÌ„t
S. Augustine the cause you Donatist pretend is nulla none at all it is an vntruth (u) Calumniarum suarum â—umos â—actantes D. Baptis l 5 c 1. Caecilian hauing cleered himselfe from that crime and byn absolued in all maner of Courtes Yea though the same were true yet by (x) Restat vâ— fateantur nulla maloruÌ„ etiam cognitorum tali communione Ecclesiam maculari 〈◊〉 cùm fassi fuerint non inuenient causam cur se ab Ecclesijs separauerinâ— your owne principles it is conuinced to be no iust cause Wherefore your separation is not only Schisme but most eminent and notorious Schisme For then is Apeâ—â—issimum autem sacrilegium eminet Schismatis cùm NVLLA fuit causa Separationis the Sacriledge of Schisme most notoriously eminent when there was NO cause of separation He doth not say When there is no iust cause of separation Schisme is coÌ„mitted as though there might be some iust cause and then Schisme is not committed but when there is no cause of all which may with any colour or shew be pretended for separation then Schisme is not only committed for it is still committed when separation is made from the whole Christian world what cause soeuer be pretended but then it is notoriously most euidently committed Behold how changing the text of S. Augustine and agaynst Iustice cogging into the same the word iust you make his speach to haue a sense iust contrary to his meaning How iustly might I charge you with obscuring out-facing of the truth by forgery which calumniously without any proofe you obiect vnto the Sacred Councell of Trent But like to like such a Religion such an Aduocate Seauen Testimonies of other Fathers falsifyed §. 2. LET vs also discouer some of your corruptions about other Fathers besides S. Augustine For the fulnes of Scripture about all poynts of fayth you cite these wordes of (*) Serm. de Bapt. S. Cyprian Christian Religion findes that from this Scripture the rules of all learning flow and that whatsoeuer is contayned in the discipline of the Church doth arise from this and is resolued into this These wordes Puritans might better then you alleadge for their Geneuian Principle that not only Church-doctrine but also Church-discipline must be contayned in Scripture proued by the cleere Texts thereof But happily they neuer saw it or if they did they durst not be so impudent as to alledge it as you do agaynst the meaning of the Authour For S. Cyprian speakes not of the whole volume of Scripture but only of twelue or thirteene wordes therof to wit this little senteÌ„ce (z) Praecipis Domine vt diligam te de proximo iubes vt ad meam eum mensuram complectar c. Legat hoc vnum verbum in hoc mandato meditetur Christiana Religio inueniet ex hac Scriptura omniuÌ„ doctrinarum regulas emanasse c. Loue thy Lord God with all thy hart thy neighbour as thy selfe This would haue appeared had you not omitted the wordes immediatly precedent in the very same sentence Let Christian Religion reade this one word and meditate on this commandment and it shall find that from this Scripture the Rules of all learning flow c. And this example may serue to make euident to the eye your perpetuall Protestant Impertinency in alleadging wordes of the Fathers in which they commend the perfection fulnes of Scripture for your fancy of only-only-only Scripture For the Fathers meaning is that all is contayned in Scripture in a generall and confuse manner not so particularly and distinctly as Scripture may be the sole rule for all necessary poynts of Fayth This is cleere for what they say of the whole Scripture they say of some principall particle thereof as of this Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart and thy neighbour as thy selfe But no man that is in his iudgment will say what this sole sentence is a sufficient Rule of Fayth for all necessary poynts of Doctrine and Discipline Therefore their commendations of the plenitude of Scripture can inforce no more then that all is contayned in Scripture in some generall manner not so particularly but that for explication and distinctioÌ„ of many poynts the rule of Churches Tradition is necessary For the clarity of Scriptures that vnto them that know not the Tradition of the Church they are easy you (b) pag. 45 lin 10 cite S. (c) Homil. 2. de verbis Isa. Vidi Dominum Chrysostome Scriptures are not like Metalls which haue neede of workemen TO DIGGE THEM OVT but they deliuer a treasure ready at hand to them which seeke hidden riches in them It is sufficient that thou looke into them c. Here you falsify the Text of S. Chrysostome by adding vnto it to digge theÌ„ out whereby you make both the Father to contradict himselfe and his speach to be senselesse For if the Riches of the Scripture be hidden in the Text thereof as he sayth how is it a Treasure ready at hand without digging or searching How it is inough to looke into the booke to find it Had you digged deepely into the golden Mine of S. Chrysostome you would perchance haue found out his true meaning not haue imposed vpon him this false and pernicious doctrine S. Chrysostome in getting gold out of mines doth consider that a double labour is to be vndergone The one to digge out that earth wherwith Gold is mingled The other to seuer the gold froÌ„ the earth The first labour he sayth is necessary that we find out the Treasure true sense of Scripture we must sayth (d) Chrysost. Homil. 40. in Ioan. FODERE nos profundius iubet vt quae altè delitescunt inuenire possimus Idem in Gen. Homil. 37. Indagatis Profundis verum sensum veritatis percipere he not only looke into the booke not only attend to the bare reading but we are coÌ„manded to DIGGE DEEPELY that wee may find out the thinges that lye hidden in the bottome For wee digge not for a thinge that lyes open and READY AT HAND but for a treasure that is hidden in the deepe Thus S. Chrysostome How directly against his mind do you make him say that the sense of the Scripture is a treasure so ready at hand and obuious as we need not digge for it In respect of the second labour to wit of seuering drosse from Gold when the same is found this labour S. Chrysost. sayth is needlesse in regard of the Scripture In metallis difficile est inuenire quod venantur Etenim cùm metalla Terra sint Aurum non aliud quam Terra similitudo celat aspectum eorum quae quaeruntur In Scripturis non est eadem ratio Neque enim proponitur Aurum terrae commixtum sed Aurum purum c. In Mines sayth he men haue difficulty to â—ind out what they hunt for The Mines being earth and Gold also earth this
so contemptible in the eye of men that verily the worke of the worlds creation doth not more cleerly discouer God the Authour of Nature then this of the worlds Conuersion doth shew it selfe to proceed from the Authour of grace Fourthly the miraculous coÌ„tinuance of a Christian Catholike Church spread ouer the world foretold by our Sauiour notwithstanding so many persecusecutions by the Iewes Heathens Heretikes Polititians and dissolute Christians Against this Principle of ResolutioÌ„ Ministers (d) Chalenour in his Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam p. 1. c. 6. Field l. 3. cap. 15. and our Minister (e) Reply pag. â—16 citing in particular obiect that miracles are only probable not sufficient testimonies of diuine doctrine yea (f) Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. cap. 14. Bellarmine sayth we cannot know euideÌ„tly that miracles are true for if we did we should know euidently that our fayth is true so it should not be faith I Answer that such euideÌ„ce as doth exclude the necessity of pious reuerence affection vnto Gods word euidence I say enforcing men to belieue cannot stand with true fayth If we knew by Mathematicall or Metaphysicall euidence that the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were true perchance this euidence would compell men to belieue and ouercome the naturall obscurity and seeming impossibility of the Christian doctrine And therefore as Bellarmine sayth we cannot be mathematically and altogeather infallibly sure by the light of nature that miracles are true Notwithstanding we must not deny what Scriptures affirme (g) Ioan. 5â— 36. that miracles are a sufficient testimony binding men to belieue and consequently that we may know them to be true (h) Suarez de fide disput 4. sect 3. n. 9. Videntibus coÌ„stare poterat euideÌ„tia naturali vera esse quae agebantur by Physicall euidence as we are sure of things we see with our eyes or of such as being once euident to the world are by the worlds full report declared vnto vs. Neyther doth this Physicall euidence of miracles take away the merit of Fayth The reason is because this euidence not being altogeather and in the highest deâ—ree infallible by it selfe for our senses may sometymes be deceaued is not sufficient to ouercome the naturall obscurity darknes seeming falshood of things to be belieued vpon the testimony of those miracles For the mystery of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Reall Presence and the like seeme to reason as impossible as any miracle can seeme euident vnto sense Hence when fayth is proposed by miracles ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming euidence of the miracles and the seeming darkenes and falshood of the Christian doctrine Agaynst which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by the sole eâ—idence of miracles except he be inwardly holpen by the light of Gods spirit mouing him by pious affection to cleaue to the doctrine which is by so cleere testimonyes proued his word As a man shut vp in â— chamber with two lights wherof the one maketh â—he wall seeme white the other blew caÌ„not be firmly â—esolued what to think till day light enter obscuring both those lights discouer the truth Euen so a man looking vpon Christian doctrines by the light of Christian miracles done to proue them will be mooued to iudge them to be truth but looking vpon â—hem through the euidence of their seeming impossibilities vnto reason they will seeme false nor will he be able firmely to resolue for the side of faith vntill the light of diuine grace enter into his hart making him to preferre through pious reuerence towards God the so proposed authority of his word before the seeming impossibility of mans reason The third Principle demonstrated §. 3. BEING resolued that the doctrine of God is sauing truth the Apostles doctrine the doctrine of God we meete with a third Enemy who labours to driue vs out of the beateÌ„ high way to know what doctrine is the Apostles This Enemy is the Heretike a domestike Enemy and therfore more dangerous These men graunt the doctrine of Saluation to be supernaturall and reuealed the reuealed to be the Apostolicall and no other but they will haue the rule of knowing what doctrine the Apostles taught to be speciall illumination of the spirit not Catholike Tradition For there is a double kind of Tradition from the Apostles that may be pretended The one publicke by the vniforme perpetuall teaching of Pastours The other secret by the teaching of some priuate men pretending to haue been taught more singularly and highly then other men by the Apostles The second kind of Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles by the secret teaching of an inuisible Church Heretikes haue pretended but neuer the first of publike and Catholike Tradition The cause why Heretikes prescribe the course to resolue by illuminations is because an Heretike will not admit doctrines deliuered vnto him by the consent of his Christian Ancestors but with choyce receaue some and reiect others as he findeth good Whence he hath the (d) Tertull. de praescript cap. 6. Haereses dictae Graeca voce exinterpretatione Electionis Name Heretike that is one who is his owne caruer and chooser in matters of Religion still (e) Augustin l. 7. de Gen. ad lit c. 9. Neque enim non omnes Haeretici Scripturas Catholicas legunt pretending for all his fancyes Scripture vnderstood by the light of the spirit If Catholike Tradition were by him admitted as a rule infallible to know what doctrine the Apostles preached he could not haue liberty to choose according to his best liking but would be bound (f) Nobis nostro arbitrio non licet indulgere sed ê— Apostoli fideliter consignarunt accipere to receaue the forme of Religion made vnto him by Tradition of Ancestours Hence agaynst this way of Catholike Tradition he bandeth with might and mayne charging the same to be fallible that errours may secretly creep into it teaching men to retyre vnto the inward teaching of the spirit as the only secure meanes to know which be the Apostolicall Scripturs which the Apostolicall interpretation of them Agaynst this Enemy is the third principle of true Christian Religion The Apostolicall doctrine is the Catholike to wit the doctrine that is deliuered from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of Fathers vnto whole ChristiaÌ„ worlds of ChildreÌ„ that in matters of ChristiaÌ„ Religion Heresy that is priuate election and choyce may haue no place About this principle faith is resolued and assured by a third perfection belonging to God as he is Prime Verity This is that he cannot so much as conniue vnto falshood whereby he become any way accessory of deceauing then that simply readily religiously belieue what they haue iust reason to thinke to be his word But there is iust and sufficient reason to belieue that doctrine deliuered by ful and perpetuall Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles is verily their doctrine and therefore
Gods Ergo God being the prime verity cannot permit Catholicke Christian Tradition to be falsifyed How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible independently of Scripture §. 4. HENCE is answered the common Obiection which Protestants make that Tradition of doctrine from hand to hand made by men is fallible subiect to errour for they may deceaue or be deceaued If We answere that Christian Catholicke Tradition of doctrines is infallible through Gods speciall assistance They reply this infallibility of traditioÌ„ through diuine assistaÌ„ce cannot be knowne but by the Scripture and so before we can build our fayth on Tradition as infallible we must know the Scripture to be the word of God and consequently we cannot build our persuasion of the Scriptures being Apostolicall and diuine on Tradition except we comit a Circle I Answere First that Catholicke Tradition is proued to be (m) Est suÌ„mus gradus certitudinis humanae de qua SIMPLICITER dici potest noÌ„ posse illi falsum subesse Suarez de gratia l. 9. c. 11. n. 11. Et hoc ibid. probat simply infallible by the very nature thereof For TraditioÌ„ being full report about what was euident vnto sense to wit what doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliuered vnto the world it is impossible it should be false Worlds of men cannot be vniformely mistaken and deceaued about a matter euident to sense and not being deceaued being so many in number so deuided in place of so different affectious and conditious it is impossible they (n) Neglexerit officiuÌ„ suum Villicus Christi c. Quî verisimile vt tot tantae Ecclesiae in vnam fidem errauerint variasse debuerat error EcclesiaruÌ„ Caeterùm quod apud multos vnuÌ„ inuenitur non est erratuÌ„ sed traditum Tertullian de praescript c. 28. should so haue agreed in their tale had they maliciously resolued to deceaue the world Wherefore it is impossible that what is deliuered by full Catholicke tradition from the Apostles should be a thing by the traditioners first deuised Secondly I say that how soeuer human Tradition may be by nature fallible yet the Christian Catholicke is assisted of God that no errour can creep into the same Which diuine assistance to be due vnto it is demonstrated by the perfection of Diuine verity by the nature of tradition precedently independently of Scripture and therefore without any Circle by two Arguments The first is the same we before touched God beâ—ng Prime Verity cannot conniue that the meanes of conueying the Apostles doctrine vnto posterity which bindeth Religious belieuers to receaue the same as his word should secretly be infected with damnable Errour For being Infinit Verity in his knowledg this cannot be done without his priuity Knowing thereof being infinit veracity in his teaching the truth he cannot yield that the meanes of conueying his truth obliging men to belieue should â—mperceptibly be poysoned whereby men for their deuotion vnto his Verity incurre damnation This being so I assume But the Catholicke tradition of doctrine from the Apostles bindeth Christians to whome it is deliuered to belieue the same as Gods word This I proue When doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Gods word men are bound to belieue it But that is sufficiently proposed as Gods word vnto Christians which is vnto them sufficiently proposed â—s Doctrine of the Apostles Now that Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is sufficient proposition and proofe that that Doctrine is the Apostles is proued first because Catholicke tradition of doctrine is by nature simply infallible as hath bin shewed but proposition knowne simply to be infallible is sufficient to bind men to belieue Secondly Catholicke tradition that is the report of a world of Ancestors coÌ„cerning sensible matters of fact is so pregnant and obligatory as it were insolent madnes to deny it In so much as euen (o) Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. n. 9. Quaerunt quis nos certiores fecerit à Moyse aliis Prophetis haec fuisse scripta quae sub eorum nominibus leguÌ„tur c. quis non colaphis flagellis castistandum illum insanum dicat Certô certiùs est ipso rum scripta non aliter peruenisse ad posteros quà m de manu in manuÌ„ TRADITA Caluin sayth that such as deny the tradition of Ancestors concerning the authors of the Canonicall bookes are rather to be reformed with a Cudgell then refuted by Argument Thirdly God himselfe sendeth children vnto the tradition of their Ancestors to learne of them the sensible workes of his miraculous power done in former ages (p) Deuteron 32.7 Aske thy Father and he will tell thee thyne Auncestors and they will certifye thee Fourthly the proofe of tradition is so full and sufficient as it conuinceth infidels For though they be blind not to see the doctrine of the Apostles to be Diuine yet are they not so voyd of common sense impudent and obstinate as they will deny the doctrine of Christian Catholicke tradition to be truly Christian Apostolical Whence two thinges are euident First that Catholicke tradition from the Apostles is an externall sufficient proposition and a conuincing argument that the doctrin so deliuered is Apostolicall consequently Diuine reuealed Doctrine Secondly that Heresy which stands agaynst this tradition 〈◊〉 willfull obstinacy and madnes and worse then Paganisme The second argument God being Prime verity binding all men that will be saued to know and firmely belieue the Apostles doctrine euen vntill the worlds end cannot conniue that the only Meanes to know this doctrin perpetually and euer after the â—postles decease be secretly insensibly poysoned with errours agaynst the truth of Saluation This is â—eere The only meanes whereby men succeeding â—he Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures â—nd doctrins they deliuered to the Primitiue Cathoâ—icke Church is the Catholicke tradition by worlds â—f ChristiaÌ„ Fathers Pastors vnto worlds of Chriâ—tian children and faythfull people Ergo Catholike Tradition is by God the Prime verity so defended â—reserued assisted as no errour agaynst Saluation â—an be deliuered by the same consequently it apâ—eareth by the very notion of prime Verity indepenâ—ently of Scripture that Catholicke tradition is â—roued to be infallible through Gods speciall assiâ—tance â—he difference between Propheticall and ordinary Diuine Illumination by which Protestants Cauills are answered §. 5. AGAYNST the Minor of the former argument Protestants obiect first that though the testiâ—ony of tradition be a good (q) Reply pa. 15. lin 32. morall human and proâ—able proofe that these Scriptures were by the Apoâ—tles deliuered yet the chiefe ground of fayth in â—his poynt is inward illumination the testimony â—f the spirit speaking within our hart and assuring 〈◊〉 of the truth I answere God may assure men of â—ruth by inward inspiration two wayes first by the â—â—ght of inward teaching and inspiration without â—he mediation and concourse of any externall inâ—allible ground of assurance Secondly by the light
to wit to be True to be Reuealed of God to be Preached and deliuered of the Apostles The highest ground by which I am perswaded that my fayth is true is the authority of God reuealing it The highest ground on which I am resolued that my Fayth is reuealed is the credit and authority of Christ Iesus his Apostles who deliuered the same as Diuine and Sacred But the highest ground that moueth me to belieue that my fayth was (c) The Mynister and especially the Bishops Chaplin pag. 16. 17. charge the Answerer to resolue fayth of the Scriptures being the word of God into only Tradition This is a slaūder for he doth distinguish expresly in scripture the being preached by the Apostles from the being reuealed of God or his word This second property is spirituall and hidden and belieued not vpon Tradition from the Apostles directly but vpon the word of the Apostles so affirming confirmed with the testimony of miracles wrought by the Holy GHOST but to be preached and planted in the world was a publike sensible thing so is knowne by Tradition hand to hād from the Apostles Thus the Church as belieuing her doctrine to be true is built vpon God as belieuing her doctrine to be of God is built on the Apostles as belieuing her doctrine to be the Apostles is built on the Tradition of Pastours succeeding them The ground and pillar of Truth by office as our Minister graunts pag. 9. lin 5. preached by the Apostles is the perpetual tradition of the Church succeding the Apostles that so teacheth me Into this principle (d) Aug. cont epist. Fund cap. 5. Saint Augustine resolued his fayth agaynst the Manichees who pretended that the Scriptures of the new Testament had been corrupted confuting them by the Tradition of the Church affirming That he would not belieue the Ghospell did not the Authority of the Catholike Church induce him assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point For though he belieued the Gospell to be soueraignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God reuealing it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as Sacred preached it yet that this Ghospell as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more (e) The Minister forced by this testimony graūteth two things which ouerthrow his cause first pa. 22. l. 13.14 that Nouices and simple persons ground their fayth on the authority of the Church as also Field graunteth appendix part 1. pag. 11. now I assume But the fayth of Nouices is sauing fayth as S. Aug. there sayth contra Epist. Fundamenti c. 2. and cōsequently their fayth is diuine Ergo sauing supernaturall fayth is grounded on the authority of the Church Secondly he graunts pag. 23. lin 2. 3. that The Church as including the Apostles can proue the Scripture whence it is cōsequent that the Scriptures are not principles knowne by themselues but haue another higher diuine principle by which they are proued The Church comprehending the Apostles being as Protestāts grāt Field l. 4. of Church c. 21. of greater authority then Scripture excellent proofe then the testimony of the present Church descending by the cōtinuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles Neyther can we imagine an higher except we fly to particular priuate reuelation which is absurd The second Argument SECONDLY I proue that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianity are persuaded about all substantiall points of fayth by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian fayth in all points necessary and sufficient vnto saluation but they haue not fayth of all these mayne and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neyther vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages so if they belieue vpon Scrpture they belieue vpon Scripture translated into their Mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truly translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build on it they must first know what are the mayne and substantiall points (f) To this proofe that Christians belieue their Creed more firmely then any translation the Minister hath not answered one word nor can answere for it is conuincing as appeares by this syllogisme Perswasion more certayne and firme cannot be grounded on perswasion lesse firme and certayne Such as are true Christians belieue the articles of their Creed more firmely then they do that Scriptures are truly translated into their vulgar tongue Ergo True Christians do not build their Fayth of the Creed on Scripture translated but on doctrine knowne to be the Apostles formerly and more firmely then that Scripture is truly translated firmely belieue them so that they would not belieue the Scriptures translated agaynst them For if they know them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truly translated If they doe not before hand firmely belieue them why should they be ready to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations that differ from thē Ergo (g) The Minister pag. 26. sayth That Ignorant men resolue their faith into Scripture yet not into Scripture so distinctly knowne as they can tel the names of the seuerall Bookes Authours and Sections and so they resolue implicitly not explicitly This is idle For if they know the doctrine of the Scripture because it is written though they know not the name of the booke nor number of the Chapter Verse nor the formall text what groūd firmer thē their Creed haue they this to belieue originally before they know any Scripture they haue fayth grounded on the Traditiōs of Ancestors by the light wherof they are able to iudge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely belieue by Traditiō And this is that which Protestants must meane if they haue any true meaning when they say that the common People know Scriptures to be truly translated by the (h) The Minister is forced to fly to a found paradoxe confuted already That vnlearned Rusticks know the Scripture to be Gods word by the matter and forme of the bookes and by seing the resplendent verity of the doctrine pag. 28. lin 3. He addeth lin 7. That they which actually resolue their fayth into the doctrine of Scriptur do virtually mediatly resolue the same into the very Scripture though they know not that it is written in Scripture This is friuolous and false For the Pagan and Infidells that know hony to be sweet and taken in abundance to be hurtfull should virtually resolue their persuasion into the very Scripture because they actually belieue a thing affirmed in Scripture Prou. 25. 27. Yea the Iew belieuing that Christ was crucified belieues a doctrine of Scripture doth he therefore resolue and build virtually vpon Scripture No. That one build on Scripture it is not
is sufficient for euery man seing the Apostle speakes not of euery man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the man of God that is one already fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the mayne poynts of Christian fayth and godly life such an one as Timothy was The Scriptures for men in this manner aforetaught and grounded in fayth are abundantly sufficient who will deny it But this proueth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely-onely-onely Scripture as Protestants bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme Hence also we may conclude that the (z) The Minister to proue Scriptures are cleere vnto Infidels that haue not the Spirit of fayth heapes many testimonies of Fathers that teach Scriptures in some matters to be cleere Who denyes this they are so to the faythful not vnto Infidels not vnto them that are vnsetled in the Catholike fayth yea many places he brings speake expressely only of the faythfull pious Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt as S. Augustine others by him alleadged affirme and therefore are brought impertinently to proue the sufficiency clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels pag. 34.35.36 many allegatiōs of Fathers which Protestants bring to proue the Scripture to be cleere in all substātiall points are impertinent because the fathers speake of mē aforehand instructed in all substantiall poynts who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer them in Scripture as they that heare Aristotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his booke of nature most difficill to be vnderstood of thē that neuer heard his explicatiō either out of his owne mouth or by Tradition of his Schollers I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiesty sufficiently demonstrated this first GROVND of Catholicke fayth to wit That a Christian is originally and fundamentally builte vpon the word of God not as written in Scriptures but as deliuered by Tradition of the Church successiuely from the Primitiue vpō the authority wherof we belieue that both Scriptures and all other substantiall articles of fayth were deliuered by the Apostles thence further ascending inferring they came from Christ and so from God the prime veracity author of truth THE SECOND GROVND That there is a visible Church alwaies in the world to whose Traditions men are to cleaue That this Church is One Vniuersall Apostolicall Holy §. 3. THIS principle is consequent vpon the former out of which six things may be clerly proued First that there is alwaies a true (a) The Minister still cōeth forth with his distinctiō that by Church we may vnderstand a Hierarchy of mitred prelates thē he denyes that there is still a church teaching the truth in the world Secondly for a number of belieuers smaller or greater teaching and professing the right sayth in all substantial points then he grants there is still a true Church of Christ in the world This distinction so much repeated specially pag. 57. and 58. is impertinēt for by Church we vnderstād not euery small number of right belieuers but a Christian multitude of such credit and authority as vpon her tradition we may be sure what Scriptures doctrines were the Apostles For this is a fundamentall pointe necessary to be knowne that so we may know what Doctrine is of God and it cannot be knowne but by Tradition of the Church as hath bene proued Now whether this Church be Mitred or not Mitred goe in Blacke or in White or in Scarlet doth little import Let the Minister but shew vs a Church that hath euident Tradition of Doctrine hand to hand frō the Apostles we will say she is the true Church though she haue no Surplisse or Miter but be as precise as Geneua it selfe but if there be no Church in the world but this Hierarchy of Mitred Prelates whose Tradition hand to hand can assure men which be the Scriptures and doctrines of Religiō deliuered by the Apostles men ought not to beare such spleen against a Miter or Corner-Cap or Surplisse as in respect of them to fly from the Church that onely hath Catholicke Tradition from the Apostles Church of Christ in the world for if there be no meanes for men to know that Scriptures and all other substantiall Articles came from Christ and his Apostles and so consequently from God but the Tradition of the Church then there must needes be in all ages a Church receiuing and deliuering these Traditions els men in some age since Christ should haue bene destitute of the (b) The Minister pa. 59. lin 15. sayth A corrupt Church may deliuer vncorruptly some part of sacred truth as the Scripture and Creed by which men may be saued Answer We may conceaue two wayes of deliuering an incorrupt text The one Casuall by chance and so a corrupt Church yea a Iew an Infidell a child may deliuer an vncorrupt Copy of the Bible The other Authentike assuring the receauer this to be the incorrupt text of the Apostles Scripture and binding him so to belieue This Authentik and irrefragable Tradition cannot be made by a false Church erring in her Traditiōs as is cleer Now it is necessary to saluation that men not only Casually haue the true Scripture but must be sure that the text therof be incorrupt Therfore ther must be stil a Church in the world whose Tradition is Authentike that is a sufficient warrant vpon which men must belieue Doctrines to come from the Apostles ordinary meanes of saluation because they had not meanes to know assuredly the substantiall Articles of Christianity without assured Fayth wherof no man is saued Secondly this Church must be alwaies (c) The Minister pag. 61. lin 15 lin 26. obiects that in time of persecution the true Church may be reputed an impious sect by the multitude and so not be knowne by the notion of True and Holy nor can her truth be discerned by sense and common reason I answere As there are foure properties of Church-doctrin so likewise there are foure notions of the Church The first is to be Mistresse of the sauing truth According to this notion the Church is inuisible to the naturall vnderstanding both of men and Angels For God only his Blessed see our Religion to be the truth The second is to be Mistresse of Doctrine truly reuealed by secret inspiration According to this notion ordinarily speaking the Church is inuisible to almost all men that are or euer were the Apostles onely and the Prophets excepted The third to be Mistresse of Doctrine which Christ and his Apostles by their Miraculous preaching planted in the world According to this notion the Church was visible to the first and Primitiue world but now is not The fourth to be Mistresse of Catholike doctrine that is of doctrine deliuered and receaued by full Tradition and profession all the aduersaryes therof being vnder the name of
firmely any Minister of the Catholicke CHVRCH affirming a booke to be Scripture vntill we see cleerly that he deliuers therein the consent of the Catholike Church which then is euident vnto vs when we see him preach it freely and openly and no Pastour to contradict him therein may deceyue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they thēselues liued not in the Apostles dayes nor saw with their owne eyes what coppyes the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the authority of the holy Catholike Apostolicall Church Now the Minor that they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparant for what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition from Auncestors tyme out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles Which is accordingly acknowledged by (*) Whitaker l. 3. de Ecclesia p. 369. M. Whitaker (d) M. Doue in his persuasion others but particularly by (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word Luther himselfe Ergo the Roman Church is the one holy Catholik Apostolical Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the text of Scripture And if the true Apostolicall Text then also (e) Luther contra Anabap. tō 7. Germā Ien. fol. 169. §. 2. A Papistis sumpsimus Dei verbum sacram Scripturam c. alioquin quid de istis omnibus nos sciremus Thus Luther shewing that Protestants receaue the Scripture not only from the Roman Church but also vpon her authority word the true Apostolicell sense This I prooue if the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but togeather with the Text the true (f) We doe not say that the Apostles did deliuer the true sense of all their Scriptures making a large and entire commentary of all difficil texts as the Minister cauilleth pa. 121. but only that togeather with the text they deliuered the sense about the mayne and most principall points this sense thus deliuered by Traditiō with the text is to be admitted as religiously and reuerently as the text sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posterity then they who by Tradition rereiue from the Apostles the true Text must togeather receiue the true sense But as (g) Chemnit in exam Cōcil Trid. part 1. fol. 74. D. Bancroft in the Suruay pag. 379. principall Protestants affirme No mā doubteth but the Primitiue Church receyued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not only the text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sēse Which is agreable to the doctrin of (h) Vincentius Lyrinen cap 2. the Fathers that from the Apostles togeather with the text descends the line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense Whereupō S (i) Aug. de vtilit Creden c. 14. Augustine argueth that they that deliuer the text of Christs Ghospell must also deliuer the exposition affirming that he would sooner refuse to belieue Christ then admit any interpretation contrary to them by whome he was brought to belieue in Christ. For they that can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense why may they not also deliuer a false text as receyued frō the Apostles An argument conuincing and (k) Though the Minister pag. 123. storme at this confidence of his Aduersary in tearming it vnanswerable yet by deeds he confirmes the saying to be true in not answering but chāging the force thereof quite another way saying It is this The text of the Scripture may be as easily corrupted as the sense Ergo All they which can deliuer by vniforme Tradition a false sense may also deliuer a false text In this argument he denyeth the antecedent or assumption I answere First as I sayd the argument is peruerted and the medium or meanes of proofe changed for there is great difference betwixt Being as easy Being as possible seing a thing may be as possible as another and yet not so easy That ten men should conspire to deceaue me is not so easy as that three should so conspire as is euident Yet it is as possible as the other because no reason can be brought to proue that three may so conspire that proues not that also ten may do the like In the same manner though we should grant the sense may be more easily mistaken by the Church then the text yet it is as possible that the Church be mistaken in the sense Because no reason proues that vniforme Tradition can be mistaken in the sense that proues not that it is possible that the Church may be mistaken in the text though perchance not so easily Now if the Church in her vniforme Tradition may be mistaken about the text then is not Traditiō a sufficient ground of infallible perswasion that the text is the Apostles and so fayth is ouerthrowne which hath no other ground to know assuredly the incorrupt Scriptures deliuered by the Apostles but Traditiō as hath been prooued Secondly it is false that the sense and doctrine of Scripture concerning mayne and substantiall articles of fayth may be sooner corrupted and a false sense persuaded to the Church then a false text The reason is manifest because millions of Christians know by Tradition the doctrine of Scripture about mayne points that know not all the texts by which the same is proued yea perchance truly certainly not so much as one For example the doctrine that there are Three Diuine Persons and One God is so ingrauen in the harts of all euen simple Christians as you may sooner pull out their harts then make them belieue that this is not the Christian fayth whence no man can deny the Trinity but he is presently noted by al. On the other side this text 1. Ioan. 5.7 wherby the Trinity is proued There be three that giue testimony in heauen the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one millions do not know and so it is more easy to take from Christians this text then the doctrine therof And the same reason is of any other text the texts being stil commonly farre more vnknowne then the doctrine of the Creed such substantiall points vnanswerable The fourth Argument MY fourth proofe I grōnd vpō a Principle most certayne and set downe by (*) In the summe of the Conference before his Maiesty p. 75. your Gracious Maiesty That the Romane Church was once the mother Church and consequently the one holy Catholike Apostolicall Church all other Churches being her daughters and that she is not to be forsaken further then it can
saith he is Apostolical against which the ancient Fathers made no expresse opposition then these Protestant articles are Apostolicall that the Roman Bishop and Councell may erre that the substance of bread wine remayne after consecration that common prayer ought to be vttered in a known language I answere Not euery doctrine against which the Fathers doe not expresly oppose is Apostolicall for some heresies were not thought of in that tyme as this Protestant persuasion That Common prayer must be sayd by the publike Minister in a language vulgarly vnderstood of euery woman and that it doth not suffice that the more principal persons of the Church vnderstand it word by word and the rest being instructed doe for matter and substance though not word by word So not euery doctrine not opposed but euery doctrine that is taught confessedly as Christian doctrine by some anciēt Fathers was neuer expressly by name opposed by any of the Fathers Doctrine I say thus taught neuer opposed as such deliuered by full Tradition is infallibly Apostolicall Such are our doctrins as may be proued euen in the particular exāples brought by the Minister as for the contrary particularly in this first instāce of their doctrine That the Roman Bishop Councells may erre For was this Protestant doctrine neuer opposed by any Father doe not the Magdeburgians Centur. 4. col 550. acknowledge the auncient Ecclesiasticall Canon that the Councels are not to be celebrated without the sentence of the Roman Bishop And the Fathers held such Cōncells had the holy Ghost so as they could not erre so cleerly as Luther complaynes Postill Wittemb Dom. 8. post Trinitatem fol. 114.6 § 3 Gregory Augustin and many other holy Fathers erred in taking from vs power to iudge our Teachers commanding vs to belieue the POPE and Councells For this misery is very auncient in the Church Thus he This answere is full and a certayne ground of perswasion else as I sayd common people could neuer know the assured Tradition of their Auncestours vpon which they must as I prooued build their Chistian beliefe seing as D. Field in the epistle Dedicatory also noteth There be few and very few that haue leasure or strengh of Iudgenent to examine particular controuersyes by Scripture or Fathers but needes must rest in that doctrine which the Church deliuers as a Tradition neuer contradicted by any Orthodoxe Fathers To discredit therfore a cōstant receaued Tradition it is necessary to bring an Orthodoxe contradiction thereof not newly found out by reading the Fathers but a contradiction by the same of antiquity deliuered vnto posterity which kind of contradiction they cannot find agaynst any point of Catholike doctrine For let them name but one Father whom Antiquity doth acknowlege as a Contradictour of Inuocation of Saints Adoratiō of the Sacrament Reall Presence Prayer for the dead they cannot certainly though they bring diuers places to proue a thing which Antiquity neuer noted or knew of before that the Fathers be various and wauering about these points The Conclusion of this point shewing that Protestants Erre fundamentally §. 6. OVT of all this appeares that the Roman Church is the true Church and consequently (u) The Minister cauilleth at this cōsequence but it is euident for the Church is but One in which only saluation is had and if the Roman be this Church Protestants are not saued out of it that Protestants haue (*) The Minister in making answere vnto this Paragraffe is from the beginning to the end not only exceeding bitter and full of rayling but also impertinent not vnderstanding the state of the cōtrouersy nor what the Iesuite vndertaketh to proue The Iesuites conclusion bendeth against some Protestants with whom he dealt in his Conferences holding there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Roman Church and the Protestant that men may be saued indifferently in the one and the other Protestant doctrines wherein they differ from the Roman though they should be errours not being fundamentall and damnable errours The Iesuits intention was agaynst these men not to proue absolutely that Protestants erre for then he would haue proued the Nine obiected articles to be errours by such testimonyes of Scriptures and Fathers as would haue puzzeled the Minister but supposing as giuen and not granted by his aduersaryes Dato non concesso that Protestants erre he vndertaketh to shew their errours to be mayne fundamental and damnable and that the mantayners therof cannot be saued and so no saluation to be had but in the one Catholike Church Hence it is euident that the Ministers labour to shew that the Protestant doctrines be not errours is impertinent for this the Iesuite did not intend to proue but supposing they are errours to proue they are damnable and fundamentall errours agaynst Adiaphorists that hold there is no fundamentall difference betwixt the Protestant and Roman Church fundamentall Errours about fayth Errours are (x) The Minister sayth that errours fundamentall must be conuinced to be such out of Scripture citing to this purpose the saying of S. Augustine De doctrin Christian. lib. 2. cap. 3. In these thinges that are cleerly deliuered in Scripture are contayned all those things which contayne fayth and good manners I answere S. Augustine sayth not that all necessary thinges are contayned expressely in Scripture not in particular and distinctly but in generall and according to the genericall name of necessary vertues as his words fully set down declare which are these All things that contayne fayth and good manners to wit hope and charity No doubt but the genericall dutyes of Fayth Hope Charity are expressely euen in so many words set downe in Scripture though not all particularityes about them seing now all Protestants graunt that some things are contayned in Scripture inuoluedly and implicitly that is in other tearmes intricately and obscurely fundamentall that is damnable eyther in regard of the matter because agaynst some substantiall matter of fayth the knowledge whereof is necessary for the performance of a required Christian duty or in regard of the manner they are held to wit so obstinately as in defence of them one denyes the Catholike Church Errours fundamentall of the first kind Protestants haue diuers particularly these Nine First their doctrine agaynst Tradition vnwritten wherby the (y) By Tradition is vnderstood Doctrine known precedently independently of Scripture though perchāce the same be written This doctrine precedētly knowne vnto Scripture the Minister professeth that Protestants deny pag. 105. lin 24. consequently they erre fundamētally For here by they be forced to make the resolution of their fayth by the euidence of the thing and light of the matter agaynst the first ground of Christiā Religiō that in this life we walk by faith not by euidēce as hath been shewed Foundation is ouerthrowne on which we belieue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath been shewed Secondly their denying the (z) The Minister
deceased many yeares before was the Authour of SALVATION vnto them that had lost theÌ„selues by their slouth (*) Homil. 2. in Psal. 50. Dauid mortuus est sed merita eius vigent homo mortuus viuo Patrocinatur Dauid is dead but his merits liue the dead man is the patron of the liuing (m) Serm. de virtute vitio Ad mortuos confugieÌ„s propter eos peccata remittit for their sake that are dead God forgiueth sinne S. Ephrem (n) Ephem serm de Lau. SS Martyrum Vt vestris precibus saluari merear Assist me o holy Martyrs before the throne of the diuine Maiesty that by your PRAYERS I may be SAVED S. Augustine (o) August lib. qq in Exod q. 108. SignificaÌ„tur Martyres sancti quoruÌ„ orationibus propitiatur Deus peccatis populi sui By the red skins of the wheathers wherwith God would haue the vâ—yles of the Tabernacle couered we presently vnderstaÌ„d our Sauiour made red and purpled with his bloud in his passion But they likewise signify the holy Martyrs by whose prayers God is propitiated and appeased for the sinnes of his people S. Maximus sayth (p) Maximus serm de martyr Tauric Euadimus inferni tenebras propriis eorum meritis attamen consocii sanctitate By deuotioÌ„ vnto Saints we auoyd the paines of hell by their very merits being their fellowes in sanctity S. Euthymius (q) S. Euthym Monachâ—â— in encomio ad beatam Virginem Mariam Dum hic manemus nos protegas supplicamus vt nobis parcat filius tuus Deus perennibus tuis precibus O vnspoted virgin mother thy Sonne and God pardon vs our sinnes by the incessancy of thy praying for vs. And could the holy Fathers thinke worship and inuocation of Saints with confidence in their merits not to be a matter of fayth which they so constantly teach and commend to be a meanes of saluation and remission of sinne The fifth Demonstration That which the Fathers did practise in their greatest needes and in the chiefe acts of Religion when the vse of true ChristiaÌ„ deuotion was most necessary that they hold as assured and certayne deuotion exercise of diuine fayth and Christian piety Such is the worship and Inuocation of Saints with confidence in their merits vnto which the Saints of God did fly in their greatest distresses S. Iustina Virgin and Martyr being strongly assaulted with fleshly temptations caused by magicke incantation fled as S. Nazianzen writeth (r) Nazian orat in S. Cyprian Mariam VirgineÌ„ rogauit vt periclitanti Virgini opem ferret vnto the protection of the B. Virgin intreating her to assist a Virgin that was in that danger wherby she got the victory S. Nazianzen himselfe being in the like affliction with great humility openly in the Church prayeth vnto S. Basil (s) Idem orat in S. Basil. O Sacrum Diuinum caput carnis stimulum c. tuis siste precibus c. O deare Saint looke downe on vs from heauen and eyther stay with thy prayers this sting of the flesh giuen me of God for my instruction or else encourage me manfully to resist it Theodosius (t) Ruffin l. 2. Histor. c. 33. Emperour being to go in expedition agaynst Eugenius the Pagan Tyrant made togeather with the Bishops Clergy and people solemne Letanyes processions vnto the Tombes of the Apostles and Martyrs where prostrate on the ground before their shrines auxilia sibi fida intercessione SaÌ„ctorum poscebat craued assured assistance by the intercession of Saints Generall Councells being to decide controuersies about the highest mysteries of ReligioÌ„ (*) Concil Chalcedon can 11. the whole councell prayed vnto Saints as that most holy Councell of Chalcedon Holy Flauian liueth with God the Blessed Martyr pray for vs. As also did S. Augustine (u) Augustine lib. 5. de Baptism contr Donatist cap. 2. Adiunet nos Cyprianê° orationibus suis. entring into the discussion of a most difficill controuersy prefixeth this Deuotion Holy Cyprian help vs with his prayers In the very act of Martyrdome when they were presently to goe out of this world they did Inuocate Saints as did Saint Acyndimus Finally the whole Christian Church at the sacrifice of the Masse still hath vsed the same as appeareth by all ancient (*) The Roman that of Ierusalem the Aethiopian Anaphora Syriaca that of Millan S. Basill S. Chrysostome Lyturgies that are extant for though the Priest in the act of sacrifice doe not inuocate Saints by direct and formall prayer as sayth S. Augustine (x) August l. 8. De ciuit c. 27. Quis audiuit stantem sacerdotem ad altare c. dicere in precibus Offero tibi sacrificium Petre Who euer heard the Priest being at the Altar to say I offer sacrifice to thee Peter or to thee Paul yet the same (z) Idem tract 8. in Ioan. Sic eos commemoramus vt magis orent ipsi pro nobis vt eorum vestigiis inhaereamus serm 27. de verbis Apostol S. Augustine doth witnes that at the holy table commemoration is made of Martyrs that they will pray for vs that we may follow their stepps And S Cyrill of Ierusalem before S. Augustine (a) Cyrill Hierosol Cathec 5. Cùm hoc sacrificium offerimus memoriam facimus c. primùm PatriarcharuÌ„ Prophetarum Martyrum vt Deus orationibus illorum deprecationibus suscipiat preces nostras When we offer sacrifice we make coÌ„memoration of Patriarkes Prophets Apostles Martyrs c. that God by their prayers and supplications will admit of our petitions Wherfore seing the most holy and ancient Fathers in their owne most grieuous distresse in the greatest necessityes of the Church in businesses of highest vniuersall importance in the tyme of the most dread Christian sacrifice did vse prayers and Inuocation of Saints with assured coÌ„fidence in their merits who can doubt but they held the same as a point of Christian Religion wherof they were assured by fayth Gods expresse word deliuered by Tradition The sixt Demonstration What the Fathers held as a Christian custome and doctrine confirmed by most certayne and euident miracles that they held as a diuine and supernaturall truth The Fathers held worship and Inuocation of Saints with confidence in their merits as a Christian deuotion coÌ„firmed by most manifest and certayne miracles as (b) August lib. 22. de ciuitat c. 9. c. 10. S. Augustine sayth Miracles are done by the intercession and impetration if not also by the immediate operation of Saints And againe Martyrs do Miracles or rather God for the prayers intercessions of Martyrs In confirmation whereof the testimonyes of S. Basill Nazianzen Nissen Chrysostome Ambrose Hierome Augustine Prudentius Paulinus Gregory the Great Gregory Turonensis and others might be plentifully alleadged The seauenth Demonstration What the Fathers taught as a necessary supernaturall duty of Christian humility they taught as a matter of fayth The Fathers
11.1 ad Cor. I heare saith he what the words of the supper import For Christ doth giue vs not only the benefit of his death and resurrection but also the very body wherin he died and arose againe from death Yea libro de Coena inter eius opuscula pag. 133. he saith that Negare veram corporis sanguinis substantiam to deny the true substance of the body and blood of Christ to be giuen in the supper is execrabilis blasphemia auditu indigna an execrable blasphemy against which we ought to stoppe our eares The Caluinian Doctrine that Christs body being only in heauen is Spiritually present not only by fayth not only according to the effects of his grace but also in his bodily substance yet only vnto the faythfull receauer not vnto the Sacramentall signe is both against Gods word and implicatory in reason First it is no lesse then the Zuinglian against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For our Sauiour by saying Take eate this is my body drinke yee all of this for this is my blood Matth. 26. doth auerre the Sacrament to be his body and blood in respect of that taking and eating vnto which by these words he doth inuite and exhorte But by this speach he doth inuite and exhorte vnto Sacramentall and corporall taking and eating This appeareth by the immediat practise of the Apostles who vpon these words of our Lord tooke the Sacrament with their corporall mouth This also our aduersaryes cannot deny seing they vrge by vertue of these wordes corporall receauing in both kinds Therfore the words of our Sauiour auerre the reall presence of his body in substance in respect of corporall taking and eating with the mouth of flesh which Doctrin Caluinists stiffely deny only holding the substantiall communication of Christs body in respect of spirituall receauing by the facultyes of the soule Secondly their Reall Presence is a fiction to no purpose For there is no reason to put the Reall Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament but only in respect of verifying the word of our Sauiour This is my body in a true and reall sense so making the thinge Christ had in his hand and which was demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly really his body But Caluinists put not a Presence which maketh the thinge Christ had in hand and demonstrated by the Pronowne This to be truly and really his body but only by figure This I proue That which is the body of Christ in figure and shew and not in substance is not truly really Christ his body Euen as what is a man in shew and figure not in essence and substance is not truly and really a man But Caluinists say that This or the thinge which Christ hath in his hands was Christs body in shew figure and not in substance Ergo they put not a Reall presence which makes that which Christ had in his hand did demonstrate by the particle This to be truly his body It is therefore a fiction deuised to satisfy the Caluinian fancy not the Christian fayth or the rigurous truth of Gods word Thirdly by this Doctrine they bind themselues and others to belieue an high and incomprehensible Mystery without any necessity or compulsion from Gods word For what can be more vnintelligible then that there should be true and reall vnion according to substance betwixt two distinct indiuiduall substances that be distant the one from the other as farre as heauen is from earth Hence Caluin saith libro de Coena that this is sublime arduum quod neque quidem cogitatione complecti possimus in Cap. 11.1 ad Cor. arcanum mirificum Spiritus sancti opus quod intelligentiae nostrae modulo metiri nefas sit But the word of God doth not inforce this Caluinian Mystery nor is there sufficient ground to affirme it This is proued because the mystery of their Reall Presence either hath no ground in Scripture or is grounded on these words of the Institution Take eate this is my body But Caluinists on these words cannot ground the incomprehensible mystery of their reall presence For they vnderstand these words of our Sauiour in a Figuratiue sense and say that they are not true properly and literally Now a mystery of Fayth cannot be grounded vpon the Figuratiue sense of a place of Scripture yea vpon meere Figuratiue construction of Scripture to obtrude vnto others an article of necessary beliefe is impudency as saith S. Augustine Epist. 68. Non nisi impudentiss mè nititur quis aliquid in Allegoria positum pro se interpretari nisi habeat manifesta testimonia quorum lumine illustrentur obscura Therfore the Caluinian Reall Presence is a mystery incomprehensible grounded on meere figuratiue construction of Gods word not backed by any literall text and consequently it is belieued without necessity or any Diuine and supernaturall warrant Hence I Inferre two things first that the belieuers of the Caluinian Reall Presence are vnwise For what greater folly then for men to deny their wits and breake their heads to belieue an hard and difficill matter in belieuing wherof ther is no merit of fayth In belieuing the Caluinian Reall Presence there is no merit of Fayth For the merit of Fayth is to captiuate our Vnderstanding vnto mysteryes cleerly deliuered by the word of God not vnto mans figuratiue expositions therof yea no figuratiue exposition aboue reason is to be belieued except it be proued by some literall text or be deliuered by the full Tradition as Gods word vnwritten Secondly I inferre that Caluinists beare more reuerence vnto Iohn Caluin then vnto Iesus Christ for Caluins mystery is belieued by Caluinists being confessedly a Doctrine most hard difficill incomprehensible and yet not the literall sense of Gods word but Caluins figuratiue comment ther-vpon On the other side Transubstantiation being acknowledged by them to be the litterall and proper sense of the word of Christ Iesus so that without Transubstantiation his word this is my body cannot be literally true as our Minister doth confesse pag. 397. yet because it is hard difficill incomprehensible Caluinists cannot be brought to belieue it What is this but to be more ready to belieue Caluin then Christ Specially seing the mystery of Christs literall sense is not so hard and vn-intelligible as Caluins figuratiue construction For one may more easily conceaue a body to be in two places at once which the litteral sense of Christs word doth inforce then a body to be truly and substantially giuen where truly and substantially it is not which is the article of fayth by Caluins figuratiue construction obtruded The Arguments agaynst the litterall sense of Christs Word vayne and idle §. 3. THE Minister to prooue that the words of the institution are to be figuratiuely vnderstood bringeth seauen Arguments pag. 391. one pag. 401. and three other pag. 418. but the first and third of these three are the same with the second
alwayes directeth in their publike doctrine But wicked persons sayth S. Augustine retayne the figure or outward shape of a member but they are not in truth the body of Christ Non sunt de compage domus Dei they are not of the frame of the house of Christ. Ergo. Thus you How false and absurd this your Doctrine is I will not stand to shew by Scriptures and Fathers which are cleere and plentifull in this point For though Christ as he is the head and fountaine of sanctifying Grace cannot haue wicked and damnable members that receiue influence from him yet as he is the head and fountaine of all spirituall gouernement and authority he may haue damnable subiects and members and from him power and authority may flow vnto them But omitting this I will make your Folly and Ignorance apparent by prouing that this your argument is inept in respect of forme in the matter so absurd as you contradict your selfe you ouerthrow your owne Church you crosse the maine streame of Protestant Doctrine First your argumeÌ„t eueÌ„ in respect of form is fond for you change the medium or means of proofe arguing from the time preterite to the present (i) Reply pag. â—00 in fine Wolues hypocrites impious Persons BE NOT the true Church Romish Prelats HAVE BEEN Hypocrites Wolues and impious Persons Ergo. The Romish Prelates be not the true Church Who doth not feele this manner of arguing to be inept as good no better then this A sucking Child is not a Preacher and Minister of the word Francis White hath been a sucking Child Ergo. He is not a Preacher or Minister of the word Hence though your paradoxe that the Church which hath a wicked man for Pastor cannot be the true Church were true your tale that some Popes haue been wicked were also graunted yet it is not hence consequent that the Romane Church is not now the true Church but at the most that it was not the true Church for the tyme that it had some wicked Pope for supreme Pastour Secondly you contradict your selfe about the doctrine that wicked Pastours cannot faithfully preserue and deliuer the true word of saluation for pag. 52. you thus write to the contrary The promises of Christ made to the Church concerning his presence assistance to his Sacraments preached and administred according to his commandement are fulfilled when WICKED Persons execute the office and performe the worke of outward Ministry For although the wicked like the CarpeÌ„ters of Noahs arke reape no benefit to theÌ„selues yet God almighty CONCVRRETH with their ministery being his owne Ordinance for the saluation of all deuout Communicants Thus you If this be true as it is most certaine then may wicked persons faythfully and constantly deliuer Apostolicall Traditions about matter of Saluation This sequele I proue They with whose ministery God doth concurre for the saluation of all deuout worthy coÌ„municants being bound so to do by his promise doe constantly and faithfully deliuer Apostolicall Traditions concerning the doctrine of saluation and are infallibly directed so to do This is euident because when God concurreth with his Ministers to teach the truth they neuer erre nor deliuer in matter of fayth and saluation false doctrine But God doth still and infallibly concurre with them with whom to concurre he hath bound himselfe by promise euer and alwayes euen to the consummation of the world Wherfore if God hath bound himselfe to his Church that he will concurre euen with the wicked Ministers of his word in their teaching for the saluation of all deuout worthy communicants as you affirme pag 52 lin 18. then wicked persons may deliuer faithfully constantly Apostolicall traditions concerning fayth and saluation and are infallibly directed so to do which you deny pag. 54 lin 6. manifestly contradicting your selfe within lesse then a leafe Thirdly you ouerthrow your owne protestant Church For if that caÌ„not be the true Church directed by God according to his infallible promise wherin wicked men haue sitten as visible rulers gouernours then Protestants and all of their communion cannot be the true Church out of which saluation is not had For I hope they will not be so impudent as to deny but they haue had some wicked meÌ„ for their rulers and Pastours Was not King Henry the eight ruler Gouernour of the Protestant Church and yet their owne Historyes paint him forth as a monster for beastlines cruelty and impiety Was not Cranmer a most wicked persecutour and murtherer of diuers Saints not only of Catholikes but of sundry Foxian martyrs who were by him sent to the fire And yet he was a ruler gouernour in the Protestant Church Wherfore the argument which you set in distinct letters lines as of speciall weight may be with the same force forme applied against your Protestant Church in so many words only by placing the words Protestant in lieu of Romish Wolues Hypocrites impious Persons are not the holy Catholike Church Protestant Prelates and Visible Rulers haue been Wolues Hypocrites impious persons Ergo. Protestants are not the Holy Catholike church out of which there is no saluation Fourthly what more opposite to the common streame euen of the Protestant Doctrine then that that Church cannot be the temple house of God in which wicked and impious men sit or haue sitten as visible rulers Commonly all Ministers foolishly I confesse yet earnestly endeauour to proue that the Pope is Antichrist because he sitteth in the Temple and Church of God as Christs Vicar and as her supreme Visible Head Ruler vnder Christ which Doctrine you your selfe suppose as certaine pag. 588. were you make this Exclamation What a misery will it be if it fall out as it is certaine it will that at the Day of Iudgement the greatest part of English Romistes be found to haue followed the man of sinne the sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God so that he sit in the temple of God shewing himselfe as if he were God Thus you I vrge not the folly of this your Exclamation in that it is a fond supposition of the Question yea a taking of that as certaine which not onely Catholiks but also learned Protestants deny Your selfe haue you not lately since the writing of this Reply approued (k) The Appeale vnto Caesar of Richard Montague a Booke by Order of his Maiesty in which that Authour doth often and earnestly (l) Second part c. 5. pag. 141. professe not to beleeue the Pope to be that Antichrist further affirming that Protestants out of affection haue been to violently forward to pronounce the Pope is that man of sinne sonne of perdition yea that some out of violent and transported passion no doubt make it an Article of their Creed wheras their arguments be so far from the force of demonstratiue as they are not persuasiue Thus this Authour in that Booke which you haue
subscribed vnto as containing (m) See the Approbation I Francis White c. nothing but what is aggreable to the publike Faith and Doctrine established in the Church of England And yet heere yow say It is certaine that the Pope is the man of sinne sonne of perditioÌ„ so shewing your selfe to be of their number whome the said Authour in that very place doth rebuke as Omnium horarum homines Halters in opinions for priuate ends I omit also your folly in exclaming at the misery of English Romists for that they adhere vnto your supposed Antichrist not marking that to cleaue to the Antichrist of your forming must euen according to your owne principles be singular happines For Antichrist according to your Tenet doth sit gouerne in the House and Temple of God and so by the same breath wherwith you make men vassals of Antichrist you make them Gods Domesticks his House his Temple Will it be misery to be found such at the day of Iudgement Yea rather the Church of Christ the Temple of God being onely one out of which no saluation is had what a misery will it be at the day of Iudgement wheÌ„ by your owne mouth you shall be conuinced to haue forsaken that company which you confesse to be the Church and Temple of God through feare of your owne shaddow and fancy For what can be more foolish then to fasten the name of Antichrist vpon the Gouernour of the ChristiaÌ„ Church who doth dayly professe to belieue in Christ Iesus the sonne of God and Sauiour of the world who by his Adherents doth more then all the world besides defend and propagate amongst Pagans his most holy Name Religion But to let these things passe marke how you coÌ„tradict your selfe in saying on the one side that that caÌ„not be the House Temple of God which now hath or in former times hath had wicked Pastours On the other side that that is the House and Temple of God in which the Man of sinne that is a succession of wicked Pastours hath a long while for many ages gouerned and doth rule and gouerne So hard is it for men blinded with passion agaynst Christian Doctrine deriued by succession from the Apostles to run in their passionate conceipts without falling into the pit of open contradiction whereby their folly comes to be manifest vnto all men The third Errour You profâ—sse Infidelity about the Blessed Sacrament §. 3. THVS you write pag. 179. To that part of the Iesuits speach that we deny the Reall Presence or else the mayne Article of the Creed that Christ is still in heaâ—en because we will not allow a body in two places at â—nce I answere We cannot graunt that one indiuiduall â—ody may be in many distant places at one and the same â—nstant of time vntill the Papalls DEMONSTRATE THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF by teâ—timony of Scripture or the ancient TraditioÌ„ of the Church â—r by apparent reason Thus you This is playne deaâ—ing and open profession of Infidelity For what â—s heretical obstinacy but to reiect the word of God â—bout the mysteries of our Fayth in the playne exâ—resse and literall sense vntill the possibility of â—hat sense be first demonstrated No Heretike was eâ—er so barbarous as to prefer his reason beyond Gods word so farre as to affirme that the word of God contrary to his reason was false Their impiety was to reiect Gods word about some mistery of fayth in the literall sense flying to morall and mysticall interpretation because they could not comprehend and therefore would not belieue the possibility of the playne and litterall sense The Arrians did not deny the word of Scripture saying (n) 1. Ioan. â— 7 of the Father Word and Holy Ghost these three are one nor the Word of Christ (o) Ioan. 10.30 I and my Father are one to be true morally and mystically in respect of vnity by singular affection and consent betwixt these three persons They were Heretikes for denying the truth of these wordes in the proper and substantiall sense because the same seemed to them impossible For seing that we might not expound the Scriptures about mysteries of fayth to an easy figuratiue sense when the same according to the letter goeth beyond the capacity of our vnderstanding God doth so often in holy Writ (p) Gen. 18.17 Numquid Deo quid est difficile Hieâ—rm 32.17 Non est difficile tibi omne verbum Et v. 27. Numquid mihi difficile erit omne verbuÌ„ Luc. 1.37 Non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbuÌ„ Et Deo omnia possibilia sunt Matt. â—9 26 Luc. 18.27 Omnia possibilia sunt credenti Mar. 9.22 assure vs that nothing is impossible or difficile vnto him and (q) Iob. 9.10 That he can do things incomprehensible without number What greater obstinacy then for Christian men to professe that they will neuer belieue his word about the mysteryes of fayth in the literall sense vntill the possibility of the sense be demonstrated vnto them that is brought within the compasse and comprehension of their wit You may perchance excuse your selfe by saying the words of Christs institution This is my body takeÌ„ in the literall sense do not inforce that Christ according to his corporall substance is in two places at once I answere this you cannot say without contradicting not only the word of Scripture as is proued in the Reioynder but also your selfe For you do plainly affirme that this our doctrine yea euen Transubstantiation is contayned in the literall sense of the words of the Institution If say you the substance of bread and wine be deliuered in the Eucharist then the wordes are figuratiue and cannot be true in the proper sense because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly Thus you (r) Reply pag. 3â—7 whereupon I thus argue That without which the word of Christ cannot be true in the proper and literall sense is inforced and prooued by the word of Christ taken in the literall sense But except the substance of bread be absent and Christ in lieu thereof present according to his corporall substance the word of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall and proper sense as you affirme Ergo Transubstantiation and the presence of Christ on earth according to his bodily substance in lieu of bread is inforced proued by the literall sense of the word of Christs institution Wherfore to professe as you â—o neuer to belieue Christs body to be in two places at once vntill it be demonstrated vnto you to be possible is to professe you will not belieue the word of God in the literall sense about mysteries of fayth further then the possibility thereof can be made euident vnto you Is not this to professe Infidelity Secondly you may say that when you require that we demonstrate by testimony of Scripture that a body may be in two places at once you meane not that we bring texts of
Scripture that demonstrate by reasō how this is possible but only that we bring places that expresly say that This is possible vnto God For as you say pag. 438. In the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body there is not a sillable concerning accidēts without a subiect or of a bodyes being in two places at once or concerning any miracle wrought by Gods omnipotency I answere that likewise in this text of Scripture (s) Ioan. 1 1◠The Word was made flesh there is not a sillable that a perfect substantiall nature can exist without proper personality or that two complete natures can subsist togeather in the same Hypostasis nor of any miracle done by the diuine omnipotency yet because this text of Scripture about the mistery of the incarnation cānot be true in the literall sense except those hard incomprehensible things be graunted to be possible by diuine omnipotency we must togeather with the mistery implicitly belieue that God can separate proper subsistance from complete substantiall natures that two natures infinitly distant in perfection can subsist in the same Hypostasis though the Scripture doth not expressely so affirme In like manner though the words of Christ This is my body do not expressely say that his body may be in many places at once nor that accidents can exist without a subiect by diuine omnipotency yet because this his word whereon we grounde our fayth concerning this mistery cannot as your selfe graunt be true in the proper and literall sense except Transubstantiation and the Presence of his body in many places at once be belieued hence we must togeather with the reall presence and litterall sense of Gods word implicitely belieue these miracles to be done Wherfore in saying you will neuer belieue them except their possibility be first demonstrated vnto you through ignorāce of Theology you professe Infidelity For to resolue not to belieue seeming implicācies inuolued in the misteries of faith except they be eyther seuerally expressed as possible in Gods word or els demonstrable by reason is the right way to belieue iust nothing there being no mistery of faith which doth not imply some difficultyes the possibility of which is neyther expresly auerred in scripture nor can be demonstrated by reason A fourth Example of your Ignorance in Theology §. 4. I Adde another Example about the Blessed Eucharist wherein you discouer grosse Ignorance not only against Theology but euen common sense And this Example may serue as a patterne how insufficiently and impertinently you answere the Iesuites argument The Iesuit pag. 406. argueth in this sort Christ doth affirme that the Sacrament is truly really substantially not the figure and effect of his body but his very body but how can consecrated bread be termed truly really and substantially the body of Christ if his body be not so much as in the same place with it Thus you answere pag. 406. To the effecting hereof locall corporall presence is not necessary A Father and his Sonne may be absent by distance of place one from the other yet the Sonne is TRVLY AND REALLY VNITED with his Father so as his Fathers nature is in him and he hath right in his Fathers person and state A mans goods may be at Constantinople and yet he liuing in England is a true possessour and owner of them and he may communicate and vse them and distance of place hindreth not his right and propriety Now although there be a difference betweene things temporall and spirituall yet thus farre there is agreement that euen as we possesse temporall things being locally absent so likewise we may receyue and partake Christs body and bloud by the power of Fayth and donation of the Holy Ghost according to a celestiall and spirituall manner Thus you Now behold how many wayes yow discouer grosse Ignorance in this answere First were all that you say true yet is it impertinent and ineptly brought in answere of the Iesuits argument For the question is not whether men may receiue by the vertue of Fayth and donation of the holy Ghost sanctity and grace through the merits of Christs body and bloud that are absent for this al acknowledge to happen in Baptisme and to be possible in the Eucharist if Christ had so ordained The question is about the truth of Gods word whether consecrated bread may be truly and really called the body of Christ being as you say a thing not only indiuidually distinct but also locally distant from his body A man being in London may possesse iuridically an Horse that is in the Countrey is it therfore true to say that this man in London is truly really the Horse in the Countrey A Merchant in London may haue great treasures of money in Constantinople and a right to lay them vp in his Coffers at London may one therfore shewing his empty coffers at London say truly this is a treasure of money In like manner suppose which is false that a man hath iuridicall authority ouer Christs body absent and existing in heauen to dispose therof at his pleasure may he therfore be sayd to be truly and really Christs body May one therefore shewing the Sacrament being in your Tenet an empty thing in respect of containing Christs bodily substance say truly therof This is really Christs body and corporall substance who will maintaine such absurdities that is sober Wherefore your discourse that a man may truly posesse a thing absent serues nothing to satisfy the Iesuites question how can consecrated bread be truly verily really the body of Christ if he be not so much as present in place with it Secondly what more absurd then what you affirme that a man may not only in right possesse but really and truly vse his things that be absent Can a man in London vse and ride on his horse that is at Yorke Or a Merchant in Bristow feed on his grapes that are growing in his vineyard in Spayne If they cannot and it is ridiculous to say they can how can a man existing on earth receaue truly and really Christ distant from him as farre as the highest heauen Receaue him I say not in a signe only according to gracious Effects but euen according to his body and corporall substance with their mouth of flesh For Christ did not say This is a figure of my body or this is soule-feeding grace giuen by the merit of my body and bloud but This is my body euen to your corporall mouth wherewith I bid you to take and eate it Thirdly who cā forbeare laughing to heare you so soberly affirme that the Son that is absent from his Father as far as Constantinople is from London is not only morally by Loue and Affection but TRVLY and REALLY VNITED with his Father For Vnion is the way vnto Vnity so that whensoeuer two indiuiduall things are truly really vnited by this vnion is made a third indiuiduall thing distinct frō ech of them a part from all other
THEE â—ise vnto saluation made vnto Timothy in regard he was aforehand taught and grounded in the fayth of Tradition cannot be challenged of them that are â—f a differrent stampe from Timothy to wit men â—hat were neuer taught the fayth of Tradition or â—lse so vngrounded therein as vpon a seeming euiâ—ence of Scripture they be ready to chaÌ„ge their fâ—rst â—eceiued fayth Hence it is manifest that the Iesuit â—ad reason to say Ministers abuse Gods word when â—hey cite it the Scriptures are able to make vs wise vnto â—aluation making that common to all men which was spoken onely to Timothy and vnto such as he was Will you haue another example of the same kind The Iesuit saith the words of Christ Do this in remembrance of mee was spoken of the Sacrament in the forme of bread not vnder the forme of wine For our Sauiour speaking of the SacrameÌ„t vnder the forme of 〈◊〉 saith (h) 1. Cor. 11. not absolutely doe this as he did of bread 〈◊〉 conditionally do this as ofteÌ„ as you drinke in memorâ—â— of me that the Aduersary of the Church might not haue 〈◊〉 much as a plausible shew to condeÌ„ne coÌ„munâ—o in one kind 〈◊〉 against Gods word You after much bitter rayling calling the Iesuit infatuated Romanist vermine for 〈◊〉 vrging you beyond your learning answere thus 〈◊〉 the end Touching the fancy of this obiection I furtheâ— say that euen as when S. Paul said 1. Cor. 10.31 whetheâ— yee eat or drinke or whatsoeuer else you do do all to the glory of God If these wordâ— should be resolued 〈◊〉 this manner As often as yee eate or drinke or do any thing else do all to the glory of God the placing 〈◊〉 this word as often restrayneth not the speach froÌ„ being a precept so likewise when S. Paul saith As often as yeâ— drinke do this in remembrance of me this manneâ— altereth not his words from being a commandement Thus you confirming the Iesuits answere For no example could haue been deuised or imagined more fit to shew that Christs words as ofteÌ„ as you drinke import not an absolute but onely a conditionall precept Which thus I demoÌ„strate You grant that the words of Christ Do this as often as you drinke in remembrance of me be preceptiue in the same manner as no more then these of S. Paul as often as yee eate or drinke or walke abroad or do any thing else do all to the glory of God But no man that hath his right senses will say that this speach doth absolutely command Christians to eate or drinke or sleepe or ride or walke or to do any of the like actioÌ„s of human life but onely doth conditionally command or direct men that when they will eate or drinke or sleepe or â—â—de or walke that they do all to Gods glory Ergo 〈◊〉 words of Christ saying do this as ofteÌ„ as yee drinke 〈◊〉 â—emembrance of me do not imply an absolute precept of â—â—â—nking of the cup but onely a conditionall direction that â—â—en men drinke they do that Sacramentall action in â—emory of his Passion So that in lieu of soluing the 〈◊〉 of the Iesuits argumeÌ„t you intangle your selfe 〈◊〉 tye the same more fast You send the Iesuite to God for an Answere §. 6. THE Iesuit (i) See the Reply pag. 256. chargeth the Protestant doctrine that holy Images may be lawfully made not â—â—wfully honored to be destitute of all shew of Scripâ—â—re For the (k) Exod. 20.4.5.6 Deuter 5.6.7 text of the Law is no lesse cleer aâ—â—inst the making of such Images then against their â—eing adored Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any image â—â—ou shalt not worship nor adore them HeÌ„ce he argueth â—he images which by this precept we are forbidden 〈◊〉 adore be such as by the same we are forbidden to â—ake But the Images of Christ be not such Images 〈◊〉 we are forbidden by this precept to make Ergo â—â—ey are not the Images we are forbidden by this â—â—ecept to adore And wheras Protestants expound 〈◊〉 first part of the precept Thou shalt not make â—â—em to wit with purpose and intention to adore â—his exposition saith the Iesuit is not onely violent â—â—ainst the text but also incongruous against sense For 〈◊〉 (l) Some may obiect that God doth forbid Adultery in the 6. Commandment Non â—oechaberis and yet in the ninth he forbids by speciall commandment the purpose and intention of adultry Non concupisâ—es vxorem proximi tui I Answere that the ninth Precept doth not forbid the doing of â—â—â—nges with purpose and intention of Adultery for this was sufficiently forâ—â—â—den in the sixâ— precept but this supposed forbiddeth inward desires lusts 〈◊〉 Adultery though without doing any thing with purpose and intention thereâ—â—â— And so our Sauiours Praecept Matth. 5.28 Not to looke vpon a woman to lust 〈◊〉 her supposeth the doing of things with intention of Adultery to be vnlawâ—â—â— and forbiddeth the looking vpon a woman with lustfull delight desire 〈◊〉 without intention of doing the act of Adultery prohibition of things doth likewise forbid the doing thinges with intention to doe agaynst the Preceâ—â— Hence I argue The Precept thou shalt not adore Images doth forbid the making of them with intentioâ— to adore as much as the precept Thou shalt not kill doth forbid the making of weapons with intention to kill But the precept thou shalt not kill doth so fully and sufficiently forbid the doing of any thing with intention of murther that it had been superfluoâ—â— to haue set downe that precept in this forme Thou shalt not make or weare weapons with intention to kill thou shalt not kill Therfore without sense weâ—â— the precept Thou shalt not make any Images Thoâ— shalt not adore them had the first part no more sensâ— then you giue it to wit Thou shalt not make Imaâ—ges with intention to adore Besides as to make an image to adore is Idolatry 〈◊〉 to take it in hand to looke on it to that purpose whâ—â— theÌ„ was not such looking on or taking in hand witâ— purpose of adoratioÌ„ forbidden aswell as making 〈◊〉 if looking on theÌ„ with intention to adore them is 〈◊〉 cleerly forbiddeÌ„ in the precept Thou shalt not adoâ—re theÌ„ as there needed not further expression whâ—â— need was there or reasoÌ„ that making of images with intention to adore should be more largly or fully expressed You answere As for the Iesuites interrogâ—â—tions Why then What need was there we refeâ—â— him to the Lawgiuer to challeÌ„ge or demand reasons of him And as for our selues we rest vpoÌ„ the reuealed will of God not daring to question or demand reason of his actionâ— Thus you Wherby it is manifest that you grant thâ— Iesuites arguments against your expositioÌ„ of Scripture to be so cleere as you cannot answer them 〈◊〉 must send him to God to aske an answere of hiâ— â—ndeed if Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any images with â—â—tention to adore them
thou shalt not adore them were â—he text and very letter of Gods word you might â—ith lesse shame haue confessed your ignorance that â—ou can say nothing in defence of the text In which â—ase the Iesuit I presume would willingly haue â—ad recourse vnto God by prayer entreating him â—o enlighten his vnderstanding with some sufficient â—eason would haue hoped to haue obtained his â—uite If not yet would he haue belieued Gods word â—o haue had some congruous sense though he saw â—ot the same this being reuerence due to the word â—f Supreme Verity But now this saying Thou shalt not make any Imaâ—es with purpose to adore them is not the text of Gods word but a Ministers addition vnto his word preâ—ended by way of exposition Hence the Iesuits arâ—uments for which you send him vnto God to haue â—hem answered tend not agaynst the text of Gods word but agaynst a Ministers explication thereof This being so why should the Iesuit finding your inâ—erpretation to be sottish and senselesse to his seeâ—ing goe vnto God and not vnto you for a solutiâ—n of his questions agaynst it What Law bindeth â—im to adore your additions to Gods word as diuine Oracles such as he must belieue though he cannot â—omprehend Why should he goe vnto God pray â—im to vnfold the high misteryes of your Ministeriâ—ll wisdome which you confesse you do not vnderâ—tand your selfe Why may he not without more aâ—oe thinke your doctrine to be incomprehensible â—hrough want of reason as are the fooleryes of fanâ—y not through height of wisdome as the misteryes of fayth Shew I say some reason that obligeth Iesuits to accept of your interpretations of Scripture which they can proue to be sottish and senselesse so cleerly as you cannot answere or else confesse that the Iesuit by conference of texts by consideration of Antecedents Consequents by the drift of the place hath so conuinced your expositioÌ„ of falshood as you haue not a word to reply in good sense but to be rid of his vrging you send him vnto God for an Answere Your innumerable grosse Impertinencyes in cyphering and scoring of Scriptures §. 7. YOV haue a manner of arguing proper to your selfe at least which I find by none of your ranke more frequently vsed then by your selfe This is to set downe a conceit of your owne wordes suting with your owne humour and then to score Bookes chapters and verses of Scripture on heapes without relating the words as if your conceit were in those places recorded in so many syllables And because in this kind of cyphering consists the strength of your whole booke I will by some store of examples decypher the grosse vanity thereof and consequently of your whole Booke First you often cite texts and chapters of Scripture that are not so making your selfe like vnto God qui vocat ea quae non sunt Pag. 10. lin 24. to prooue that Protestants acknowledge the lawfull authority of the Church you cite 2. Thessal cap. 5. Wheras the second to the Thessalonians hath only three chapters Pag. 106. lin 17. to prooue that Christians may depart from the Christian Church wherof they are â—embers without ioyning vnto any other Christiâ—n Church you cite Hos. 10.17 wheras that chapter â—â—th only 15. verses not one to the purpose you â—â—eage it Pag. 45. lin 17. for this your saying the Scripâ—â—re is the seed of faith you cite Iohn 20.41 wheras that â—wentith chapter hath verses only thirty one not â—ne of them hath this sentence The Scripture is the â—sed of Fayth Had you cited the wordes though you â—ad erred in the booke chapter or verse we might â—aue holpen your mistaking now God only knowâ—th the texts you intended Secondly the places you cypher not only do â—ot contayne the sayings for which you cypher â—hem expressely and in so many words but also â—hey are commonly so infinitly impertinent and so â—arre from the matter you intend to proue as being â—ited and applyed to your purpose they are most riâ—iculous Pag. 224. lin 26. to proue that you Ministers â—aue such Vnion with God as Religious Adoration â—s due vnto you you cypher Act. 10.34 which â—ayth Then Peter opened his mouth and sayd of a truth I perceiue that God hath no respect of persons Pag. 30. lin â—5 to proue Scripture is the voyce of God you cypher Luc. 1.7 which sayth Saluation from our enemyes and from the hands of all them that hate vs. Pag. 105. lin 13. to proue that right Fayth may be preserued in persons liuing in a corrupt visible Church as Wheate among Tares you cypher 1. King 19.11 And he sayd go forth and stand vpon the mountayne before the Lord and behold the Lord passed by Pag. 106. lin 16. to proue that Christians may separate from all Christian Churches and beginne a new Christian Church of themselues you cypher 2. Cor. 6.14 which saith Be not yoked togeather in marriage with Infidells Pag. 223. lin 4. to proue that in adoration Christ his Image haue no agreement you cypher 2. Cor. 6.16 which sayth What agreement betweene the Temple of God and Idolls Pag. 30. lin 23. to proue that the Scripture is a diuine light shewing it selfe to be heauenly you cypher 2. Cor 4.6 God hath shined in our harts to giue the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ Iesus Pag. 558. lin 3. to proue that liuing Saints haue not Communion with the Saints defunct by partaking their superabundant satisfactions you cypher Ephes. 4.15 But speaking the truth in loue you may grow vp to him in all thinges who is the head euen Christ. To the same intent in the same place you cypher 1. Iohn 1.3 That which we haue seene and heard we declare vnto you that you may haue fellowship with vs and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Sonne Christ Iesus Pag. 546. lin 1. to proue that the reward of works may be giuen of free bounty and not of debt you cite Psalm 127. v. 2. It is vayne for you to rise vp early or to sit vp late to eate the bread of sorrow for so he giueth his beloued sleep Also to the same purpose you cypher Ezech. 29. v. 18. Euery head was bald and euery shoulder was pealed yet had he no wages nor his army for Tyrus Pag. 551. lin vlt. to proue that the B. Virgin said the Lords Prayer or Pater Noster whereof one petition is Forgiue vs our trespasses you cite Act. 1.14 They continued in prayer and supplication togeather with the women and Mary the Mother of Iesus Which text proueth the Virgin prayed but that her prayer was vocall and not pure mentall and if vocall that she sayd Pater Noster rather then Magnificat or Benedictus or some of the psalmes of Dauid who that is sober would vndertake by this text to conclude Pag. 43. lin 2. to proue that the Scripture is sufficient in genere regulae for
Ministers you cypher 1. Tim. 6.12 Fight the good fight of fayth lay hold on eterâ—all life whereunto thou art called Ibid. lin 3. to proue â—he Scripture to be sufficient for spirituall men you â—ypher 1. Cor. 2.15 But he that is spirituall iudgeth all â—hinges and is iudged of none which proueth the conâ—rary if it proue any thing to wit that the spirituâ—ll Man is not iudged and ruled by Scripture but raâ—her the Scripture is iudged and ruled by him Pag. â—0 lin 21. to proue that we wrong you in saying â—ou derogate from the Church you cite Matth. 18. â—7 He that heareth not the Church let him be as a Heathen publican Ibid. to the same purpose you cypher Heb. â—â— 17 Obey your Prelates and submit your selfe vnto them â—ag 169. lin 22. to proue that no Church euer priâ—â—d the oblation meritts of Christs passion more â—â—ghly and religiously then you do you cypher Heb. â— 14 With one oblation he did consummate for euer the â—â—nctifyed and Ephes. 5.2 He gaue himselfe a sacrifice 〈◊〉 vs to a sweet smelling sauour Iohn 1.29 Behold the â—ambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world â—ct 4.12 There is not Saluation in any other Name Pag. â—1 lin 1. to proue we wrong you by saying you aâ—â—int that (m) The words of Iohn White way pag. 126. EVERY particuler MAN examine â—â—dge of the Church her teaching you cite 1. Cor. â— 19 Are all Apostles Are all Prophets Are all teachers â—re all workers of miracles If one would study to apâ—â—y Scriptures impertineÌ„tly I am persuaded he could â—â—rdly deuise greater impertinencyes then these â—hich are so riâ—e in euery page of your booke so that it was intolerable folly for your Poet and Paynter to represent this your Voluminous cyphering of Scripture with a crowne vpon it bidding men to Behâ—â—â— grace and wisdome in your looke and Truthes Triumphâ—â—â— your booke For if this kind of cyphering of Scripture be Wisdome what I pray you is the last Extreme anâ— Non-plus of (*) I wonder you would not be warned to be more wise by the Booke of Quaeres or Prurit-anus For you cite the Scripturs as impertinently in good earnest as he did in iest to shew your Ministeriall Folly Folly You cite cypher Scriptures that make agaynst you §. 8. HEREVNTO I adde that the texts you cypheâ— many tymes make agaynst you Pag. 548. lin 19. to proue that reward is giuen vnto workes of Graâ—â— and bounty aswell as of Desert you cypher Rom. 4 4. which sayth to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt Could any text be deuise more directly agaynst the purpose you cite it For by this place ioyned with a sentence of yours I conclude vnanswerably our Catholike doctrine of Merit The reward which is giuen to him that worketh in regard of the Goodnes and Righteousnes of his worke is giuen not of grace but of debt But Eternâ—â— life is tearmed a Crowne of glory because it is bestowed 〈◊〉 them which exercise Righteousnes and in regard of thâ— righteousnes the true inherent dignity sanctity and purity of their workes Ergo Eternall life is a reward oâ— good workes giuen to Gods children of debt not 〈◊〉 meere grace and bounty The Maior is S. Paules by you cyphered in this place the Minor your ownâ— in so many words pag. 174. in fine and 1â—9 so thâ—â— the text of Scripture by you cited proueth inuinciâ—bly the doctrine of Merit against which you cite iâ— Pag. 558. lin 4. to proue that liuing Saints haue no communion with Saints defunct by partaking the â—â—perabundant satisfaction you cyte Rom. 12. v. 4. We haue many members in one body and euery member hath â—ot the same office This text proueth the contrary to â—hat you intend to wit that Satisfactions are communicable betwixt Saints for from this text I arâ—ue thus If Saints liuing Saints deceased be memâ—ers of the same body hauing different offices then â—here must be betwixt them coÌ„munion in all things which superabound in some members and are neeâ—ed of other for this we see to be that fellowship which by the institution of nature the members of â—he same body ought to enioy the one with the oâ—her But the Myrrh of mortifications and satisfactions superabound in many most rare innocent and penitent Saints in heauen and is no lesse needed of diuers other Saints vpon the earth that haue done many sinnes and cannot do such great pennance Therfore the Myrrh of superabounding Pennance and Satisfaction ought to flow downe from deceased Saints in heauen vnto their fellow-members the needy Saints that liue on earth The Iesuite (n) See the Reply pag. 523. sayth that the first Precept Thou shalt loue thy Lord God with all thy hart c. bindeth not man to loue God in this life with Beatificall loue nor to be alwayes in actuall imployment of his loue on him but only to loue sincerely and inwardly to the keeping of all commandements without any mortall offence which breaketh friendship with God desiring though not inioying the happynes of beatificall loue This he sayth is the meaning of S. Bernard and S. Augustine when they say the perfection of the next life is contayned in this precept to wit in voto not in re This doctrine you impugne pag. 525. lin 26. saying That the Saints of God hauing obserued other commandements brake the first commandement and did vndergo corporall payne after the breach thereof How proue you this marry you cypher Heb. 11.31 They were stoned they were sawen a sunder they were slayne with the sword Doth this text proue the Saints transgressed the first Commandment That they were corporally afflicted for their not louing God with all their hart Doth it not rather shew the contrary that they loued God perfectly and were temporally tormented because they so loued him with al their hart that they would rather vndergo most cruell and barbarous deaths then offend him or abandon the truth of his word which is as our Sauiour saith the highest degree of Charity Pag. 10. lin 20. You deny the Church to be infallible in her Traditions and Definitions yet say you we acknowledge her lawfull authority for expounding Scripture and maintayning vnity in right fayth In proofe hereof you cite Matth. 18.17 Who so heareth not the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and Publican You could not haue inuented a text that doth more inuincibly shew the coÌ„trary of what you intend Let vs make this text of Scripture the Maior and your Protestant doctrine the Minor and put your Argument in forme then will you see how handsomely you proue that you acknowledge all the lawfull authority of the Church The Scripture saith The Church is of so great absolute infallible authority that whosoeuer doth not heare her is to be held as an Heathen and a Publican Protestants say the Church is so subiect to
for theÌ„ it would follow that she hath no milke in her two breasts but written doctrine but he sayth her two breasts are the two Testaments of Diuine Scriptures Hence you may gather that in ech of her breasts in ech of the Testaments the milke of Scripture is contayned but that only the milke of writteÌ„ doctrine is in them contayned you cannot from this text truly cited inferre therefore both by addition and transposition of wordes you help the dyce To proue That the Tradition of the Church hath no credit or authority but from Scripture and that though this Tradition might be false yet Fayth would subsist because there remayneth allwayes an higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit God speaking in the Scripture To proue this I say you (i) Pag. 90. in margin lit c cite this text of (k) Augustin lib. 11. 〈◊〉 Faust. c. â— Tanquam in sede quâ—dam in sublimi collocata est cui seruiâ—t omnis Fidelis pius intellectus S. Augustine It is placed as it were in an high throne of authority vnto which euery faythfull and pious vnderstanding must be subiect What is this Why doe you not name it Because you durst not set downe the wordes that immediatly precede which make cleerly agaynst you to wit these (l) Excellentia Canonicâ—â— authoritatis Veteris Noui Testamenti Apoâ—stoloruÌ„ confirmata temporibus per SVCCESSIONES EpiscoporuÌ„ Propagationes Ecclesiarum tanquam in sede quadam sublimiter constituta est c. The Canonicall authority of the Scriptures confirmed in the Apostles dayes is by SVCCESSIONS of Bishops propagations of Churches placed in an high throne of authority c. How directly is this testimony of S. Augustine agaynst that which you would proue thereby How hath Tradition no credit or authority but from Scripture if the Scripture by successiue tradition of Bishops hand so hand froÌ„ the Apostles hath gotten quoad nos in the persuasion of the Christian world the high seate of Diuine authority to be honoured as Gods word vnto which euery maÌ„ must yield If this successiue Tradition on which as S. Augustine teacheth our persuasion about the authority of Scripture dependes be made weake fallible by Protestants how shall the Scripture be able to keepe her credit and authority in our Fayth Verily it cannot except Christians will cease to rely on the authority of God reuealing and on doctrine deliuered by the succession of Bishops hunt after Diuine and Apostolicall Scripture by the sent and smell of the doctrines deliuered therein as you doe Likewise by addition of the Particle Only you falsify the saying of (*) Pag. 95. lin 31. in Marg. lit Paschasius For whereas he (m) Paschas in Matth. c. 28. Cum electis semper adfuturum se promittit sayth Christ promised to be with his Elect all dayes vntill the consummation of the world you cite him as saying Only with the elect More grossely in the same place you falsify Druthmarus for whereas (n) In cap. 28. Matth. he sayth Christ is with the Reprobate by the presence of his Godhead but with the Elect in another manner you make him say Christ promiseth to be only with the elect contrary to his meaning who teacheth that the presence and perpetuall assistance of our Sauiour are so vnited vnto his Church her Pastors that they may not erre but still teach all that he coÌ„manded but that presence whereof that Text properly speaketh is not only affoarded vnto the Elect but vnto wicked men for the Saluation of all worthy Communicants as your selfe (o) Pag. 52. lin 14. affirme You (q) See pag. 105. rayle bitterly against the Iesuit for prouing that your Protestant Church cannot be the true Church nor part thereof because you seuered your selues from the Roman Church and did not ioyne vnto any preexistent Christian Society of Pastors but aparted your selues froÌ„ the Communion of the whole world For this his argument you rayle agaynst the Roman Church for a whole leafe pag. 106. and 107. Where thus you conclude your foule Foliall Inuectiue They since their Synode of TreÌ„t haue proceeded from euill to worse (s) The Minister in proofe of all this bringes nothing only in the Margent he nameth the Massacre of Paris Was that done by the Fathers of the Councell of Trent Doth that proue obscuring and out-facing of Truth Had not the Protestants then slayne been Traytors agaynst their king Was not the king informed of their plot to murdâ—r him his mother his brethren the cheiefest of his Nobles If to preuent his owne instant death the king did by martiall law without Iuridicall forme proceed agaynst knowne Rebells iâ— this such a thing as yow may say It surpasseth all perfidious Stratagems and immane Cruelty of Infidels what idle Eloquence is this obscuring outfacing the truth with forgery and sophistry They haue conspired agaynst Kingdomes and States they haue surpassed professed Infidells in perfidious stratagems and immane cruelty And whereas they expelled vs by Excommunication and chased vs away from them by persecution yet this Roman Aduocate taxeth vs with Schisme Apostasy neuer remembring what (*) lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. S. Augustine long since deliuered The Sacriledge of Schisme is then committed when there is no iust cause of Separation Thus by long continued fierce bitter blasts of false reproach you diriue your vnwary Reader vpoÌ„ the hidden rocke of a falsifyed sentence of S. Aug. as though this most Diuine Doctour had insinuated the lawfullnes of reuolt separatioÌ„ from all ChristiaÌ„ Churches What can be more false He disputeth agaynst the Donatists who had seuered themselues from the Christian world pretending that CaeciliaÌ„ Bishop of Carthage other Catholikes had giuen vp the Holy Bibles to the fire S. Aug. doth conuince them of Schisme two wayes First because this pretence were it true is not iust for there can be no iust cause of separation from the whole world and of beginning a new distinct Christian Church These be his wordes (t) Augustin ep 48. ad Vincent Fieri non potest vt aliqui iustam causam habeant qua communionem suam separent à coÌ„munione Orbis terrarum eamue appellent Ecclesiam Christi quòd se iuste ab omnium geÌ„tium communione separauerint Ibid. Nos ideo certi sumus neminem se à coÌ„munione omnium Gentium iuâ—â—è separare potuisse c. We are certayne that none could iustly separate themselues from the Communion of the whole world And againe It is no way possible that any should haue reason to separate themselues from the coÌ„munion of the whole World and so tearme themselues the Church because vpoÌ„ iust cause they haue deuided theÌ„selues from the Society of all nations Thus S. Aug. What can be more direct agaynst that doctrine for which you cite him Or more efficacious to conclude that you Protestants are guilty of damnable Schisme Secondly sayth
would blush to confirme your slaunders with such seely and ridiculous proofes Other Fathers impudently falsifyed as if they did denye what they do most constantly mantayne and proue §. 4. YOW are so bold in your Falshood as you dare cite the Fathers for your fancy where ex professo euen of purpose they dispute agaynst it and proue the contrary Pag 85 lin 26. you say the gifts of doing Miracles were neuer promised in the Scripture to be perpetuall and are longe since ceased Augustin Retract l. 1. c. 13. Now S. Augustine doth in that place say and proue the contrary to wit that though Miracles be not now ordinarily annexed vnto the office of teaching and administration of Sacraments as they were in the Primitiue Church yet Miracles are done and frequently done so that they are for multitude innumerable I neuer meant saith (a) August lib. 1. retract c. 13. he as though that now no Miracles are done in the name of Christ for that in Milan a Blind-man receaued his sight at the Shrine of the Martyrs and sundry the like miracles my selfe did euen then know to haue been done In which kind so many are wrought in this our age as we neyther know theÌ„ all nor can number them we know How durst you name this testimony to proue Miracles to be ceased Also that Miracles cannot be sufficient testimonyes of Christian Fayth as the (b) Si non opera in eis fecissem quae nemo alius fecit peccatum non haberent Ioan. 15. â—4 5.20 Ego habeo TestimoniuÌ„ maius Ioanne Opera enim quae dedit mihi Pater vt faciam ipsa testimonium perhibent de me Scripture tearmeth theÌ„ you (c) Pag. 112. lin 24. cite Suarez the Iesuit (d) De fide Catholica contra Sect. Anglican l. 1. c. 7. §. 3. saying Haec adulterari possunt ita exteriùs fingi vt noÌ„ sint necessaria signa verae fidei Miracles may so be adulterared and externally falsifyed that they can not be necessary signes of the true Fayth Thus you cite Suarez but how grossely These be not the wordes of Suarez but wordes spoken by way of obiection in the behalfe of Protestants for their Paradoxe That the Church is inuisible This is then your argument in Suarez Without fayth the true Church can not subsist But there are no infallible externall visible signes of true fayth seeing euen Miracles themselues may be forged and counterfaite Ergo the Church cannot be assuredly knowne by visible markes Suarez having vrged this argument with others largely he sayth (e) Ibid. § 8. Notwithstanding all this we must belieue the Church to be visible And to the Argument about Miracles (f) Ibid. c. 8. §. 9. Non ad cognoscendam singulorum credentium fidem sed ad cognoscendam congregationem verè credentium he sayth that though they be not certayne tokens of the sanctity of the person that doth them yet they are sufficient signes to proue that true Fayth sanctify are in the Church wherein they are done So that what Suarez the Iesuit setteth downe out of Protestants as to be by him refelled you produce as the assertion and doctrine of Suarez If you belieue that God will seuerely punish those that deceaue soules in matter of Religion by forgery and fraud I wonder how you did not feare to cite (g) Pag. 160. lin vlt. in marg lit a S. Chrysostome Homil. 3. vpon the Acts as affirming That no Monarchicall and supereminent actions were exercised by S. Peter no vassallage or subiection yielded him by the rest of the Apostles In your margent you cite these wordes his Petrus egit omnia ex communi discipulorum sententia nihil ex authoritate nihil cum imperio Peter did all thinges by common aduise of the disciples nothing by way of authority and command Thus you cite S. Chrysostome Now see your falshood He saith not as you cite him vniuersally Peter neuer did any thing by way of authority and command but speaking of the electioÌ„ of S. Matthias he sayth that in this busines he did all by common aduise not by way of authority and then addeth presently that this not vsing authority was wisedome and modesty not want of authority in Peter Behold his wordes so pregnant for Peters Monarchy as nothing can be spoken more fully Why doth he Peter communicate this busines with them (h) Quid An non licebat ipse eligere Licebat quidem maximè Verumtamen non id fecit ne cuiquam gratificari videretur What Had he not power to make the election him selfe He might verily haue done it alone without any question but he did not least he should be thought partiall to some one had he chosen him by this sole authority And agayne This was the wisedome and foresight of this Doctour He sayd not We alone are sufficient to teach and although he had right to appoynt an Apostle as much as they all had that is he could alone haue done as much as togeather with them in respect of his eminent power yet this doing it with aduise was agreable to the vertue of the man and because eminency in spirituall power is not an Honour but Care of subiects yet worthily (i) Meritò primus omnium authoritatem vsurpat in negotio vt qui omneâ— habebat in manu Ad huÌ„c enim dixit Christus tu conuersus confirmâ— Fratres â—uoâ— doth he FIRST before them all EXERCISE AVTHORITY in the busines who had ALL THE REST AT HIS DISPOSITION and will For this is he vnto whome our Lord sayd Thou being conuerted confirme thy BrethreÌ„ Thus S. Chrysostome Could any thing â—e deuised more full to shew that Peter had and did â—xercise Monarchicall authority specially seing S. Chrysostome in that very place saith further vpon the wordes Peter rising vp in the midst of the Disciples sayd (k) Quomodo cognoscit creditum sibi à Christo Gregem quam in hoc Choro est princeps Behold how feruent is Peter how he doth acknowledge â—nd oueruiew the FLOCKE COMMITTED to HIM by Christ How doth he shew himselfe PRINCE Primate â—f this Quire Behold likewise the modesty of Iames He â—ad the office of Bishop of Hierusalem yet he speaketh noâ—hing Consider also the singular modesty of the rest of the Apostles (l) Quo pacto conceduÌ„t ei solium non ampliùs disceptantes how they YIELD the THRONE of Primacy â—nto him not striuing for it amongst themselues as they â—ad formerly done Thus S. Chrysostome which thinges â—re so cleere for Peters exercising Monarchicall Priâ—acy and for the Apostles yielding Vassallage vnto â—im that it is manifest you could not cite this place â—ut agaynst your Conscience knowing you did but â—elude soules in matters of Saluation agaynst the â—ruth Grosse Imputations with manifest Falshood imputed vnto Card. Baronius §. 5. WHAT impudency it is for you to write as you doe pag. 114. lin 14.
(a) Baron an 1089. n. 11. Non eos homicidas arbitramur It is monstrous â—octrine which was hatched by Pope Vrban and approued 〈◊〉 Baronius that they are not to be iudged Murtherers â—hich slay Excommunicate persons As who should say â—ope Vrban and Baronius affirme that to murther â—ny way any Excommunicate persons is no sinne â—ut your slaunder will seeme moÌ„strous when their â—octrine according to truth is set downe This it is Certayne Cleargymen and Schismaticall Priests of â—ewd and dissolute life excommunicated by the Church did agaynst the lawes of the Church take armes and were slayne in the field (b) In a battayle fought betwixt Henry Emperour Egbert Marquesse of Saxony as men may iustly be in lawfull warre Now because the law of the Church censures such as strike Cleargymen they that killed these wicked seditious priests in the field had a scruple and demanded absolution and pennance of their Bishop The Bishop wrote of the matter to Pope Vrban who answered (c) Iuo part 10. c. 54. That although he did not iudge those that thus had killed such Excommunicate persons in the battaile to be murtherers yet that the discipline of the Church might be kept also because such as killed theÌ„ though the fact were lawfull might haue had some sinister and insincere intention therein as doing it out of priuate emnity that therefore the Bishop (d) SecunduÌ„ intentionem eorum modum congruae satisfactionis iniunge should according to their intention desire inioyne them a measure of congruous pennance Hence it followes that it is no sinne to kill any excoÌ„municate person euen Priests when they be inuaders of our life and in iust warre but vniuersally that it is no sinne to kill any excommunicate person what way soeuer is not Pope Vrbans Monstrous Doctrine but a Monster of your ProtestaÌ„t slaundering out of a monstrous desire you haue to delude and enrage men with lyes agaynst the Catholicke Church In the same page 114. lin 29. You thus write of Baronius (e) Baron Anno 1106. n. 14. Cardinall Baronius coÌ„mendeth to the skyes yong Henry the Emperours sonne for rebelling agaynst his naturall Father for deposing imprisoning him and bringing him with sorrow to the graue What Turke or Sauage would be the Encomiast of such vnnaturall and enormous Villany Thus you Let the truth be examined and then it will appeare that Baronius his commendation â—f yong Henry is not to the skye but your slaundeâ—ing of Baronius comes froÌ„ as low as the pit of Hell â—irst it is false according to truth of the History that â—enry the Fourth Emperour dyed of sorrow in the â—estraynt which he had layd vpon him by his Sonne (f) See Baronius ibid. and all other Historians that write of these matters nay he was in that durance vsed with such mildâ—es and liberty as he easily got away gattered forâ—es and inuaded his Sonne who by his owne conâ—ent and by the voyces of all the Electours and â—rinces of the Empire had been made crowned â—mperour This is your first vntruth that Baronius â—rayseth that imprisoning of the Father wherein he â—as brought with sorrow to his graue by his Sonne Secondly Baronius doth not commend yong â—enry at all for that fact but only speaketh conâ—itionally and on both sides no more in his prayse â—en his disprayse For hauing set downe the letters which the Emperour Henry the Elder now being at â—â—berty wrote full of complaynt agaynst his sonne â—aronius thus turneth his speach to the Reader If (g) Baron Tom. 12. pag. 46. â—hou sit Arbiter betwixt the Father the Sonne as for â—he Sonnes procuring his Fathers restraynt and deposition â—rom the Empyre by the Peeres and Princes thereof the â—onne is not to be condemned IF as he pretended HE â—ID this sincerely out of (h) Si verè pietatis intuitu prout prae se tulit ea omnia praestitit PIETY to bringe his Faâ—her vnto a better mind and to make him seeke to be absolâ—ed from Excommunication wherwith he had been so many â—â—mes tyed and chayned On the other side IF as his Faâ—her complaynes HE DID those thinges by wicked plots â—nd stratagems by periury and breaking his oath giuen to â—is Father verily HIS DEED CANNOT DE PRAISED 〈◊〉 wonderfull is the Iustice of God that this Emperour â—â—ould suffer the same persecution from his wicked Sonne which he had by perpetuall incorrigible hatred for many yeares together offered vnto his spirituall Father Thus Baronius Hence it is apparent that as Baronius and Bellarmine were great friends in their life so they are by you slaundered in the same maÌ„ner after their death That Bellarmine may seeme Turkish and guilty of propension to Turcisme you make him say The Scripture affirming a thinge is not therefore to be belieued more then Mahomets Alcoran whereas he only sayth conditionally I should not firmely belieue the Scripture affirming a thinge did I not aforehand belieue the Scripture to be diuine as I do not the Alcoran though it say of it selfe that it is of God EueÌ„ so to make Baronius seeme more sauage then any Turke wheras he sayth conditionally If yonge Henry did restrayne his Father sincerely out of piety for the good of his Father that he might returne to the Church be absolued of excommunication afterward peacebly inioy his Empyre this kind of seuerity was indeed piety you make the proposition absolute and make Baronius say It was piety in the Sonne to vse Cruelty to his Father The Reader I do not doubt seeth the exorbitancy of this false dealing I must needs adde another falsification you (i) Pag. 56. in margin lit c. vse towardes Baronius accusing him as blasphemously extolling the Authority of the Pope in this saying (k) Baron Ann. 373. num â—1 Vt planè appareat ex arbitrio dependisse Romani Pontificis Fidei Decreta sancire sancita mutare Whence it appeareth that it was in the power of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth and to recall the established This you bringe as if Baronius had held the Pope may make and vn-make Decrees about the Truth of Fayth making that to be Truth which before was Errour and that Errour which before was Truth So easily do you belieue charge any Barbarous and Inhumane conceyte vpon Catholicke Authors But he that shall consider attentiuely the Antecedents Consequents of the place will see that Baronius speaketh not of Decrees of Fayth in regard of the truth of Doctrine which are Eternall and so immutable that if the Pope should endeauour to change them he were (l) Decret d. 40. c. 6. Si Papa by Catholicke Doctrine an Heretike and to be deposed but only of decrees of fayth about keeping or denying Communion vnto persons suspected of Heresy in regard of doubtfull propositions This would haue appeared had you cited the wordes of Baronius that immediatly follow This is his whole
senteÌ„ce Hence (m) Baron Tom. 4. pag. 306. Decreta sancita muâ—are DECERNERE quibuscum à reliqua Ecclesia COMMVNICANDVM sit it may appeare that it did depend on the iudgment of the Roman Bishop to establish Decrees of Fayth and to recall the established and to DECREE with whome the rest of the Church were to keep COMMVNION Hence it is euident that Baronius speaketh of Decrees of fayth declaratiue with whome Communion in Fayth is to be kept that those are mutable as the Church shall see cause For the better vnderstanding whereof we must know that it was the practise or Heretikes (n) Sic Verba temperant sic ambigua quaeque concinnaÌ„ vt nostram aduersariorum confessioneÌ„ teneant Hieron epist. ad Pammach Ocean as S. Hierome noteth to couch their Errours in such ambiguous wordes that taken one way they sounded Heretically another way they carryed a Catholike sense Hence vpon the arising of new Heretikes euen the Catholike Fathers were sometymes deuised some coÌ„municating with some denying communion vnto such Dogmatizants The decision of these doubts is to be made by the Catholik Church and the supreme Pastour thereof in which case the Church may change her decrees For when there is sufficient reason to thinke that such propositions be taken by the Authours in the Hereticall sense Decree is to be made that no communion be held with them If afterward it appeare by good proofe that they meant the said propositions according to the Catholike sense they may be receaued by some latter Decree and the former Decree about auoyding their Communion may be repealed In this sense true is the saying of S. Augustine (o) Lib. 5. de Baptism c. 1. That former Councels are reformed by later when by experimeÌ„t of things what before was hidden commeth to light In this sort ancient Councells (p) In coÌ„cilio Ephes. Christiparae nomeÌ„ explosum est Canis de B. Virg. l. 3. c. 19. made this decree of Fayth that none should tearme the most Blessed Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christs Mother because by that Title Heretikes did meane tacitely to imply that she was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Mother And yet this Decree of Faith is now by custome repealed because it now appeareth that such as tearme her Christes Mother meane not therby to deny that she is truly and verily Gods Mother This is that which Baronius saith for speaking of the Apollinarians who did vtter their Errours (q) Ruffin de adulterat libror Origen in doubtfull wordes he saith that first by Pope Damasus they were reiected as Heretikes and Catholikes were forbidden to communicate with them Afterwards these (r) Greg. Nazian ad Chelid epist. 2. Apollinarians falsely gaue out that the Councell of the Westerne Church including principally the Roman Bishop had againe receaued theÌ„ into Communion Vpon the newes of this report S. Gregory Nazianzen thus writeth Those that agree with Apollinaris say that they were admitted by the Councell of the West or Roman Bishop by whome it is manifest they were once condemned Yet (s) Hoc osteÌ„dant nos acquiescemus let them but shew this and we yield For it is manifest (t) PERSPICVVM enim eos veritati assenâ—iri nec enim aliter se res habere potest si hoc consecuti sunt that their doctrine doth agree with the true Fayth for it cannot otherwise be if they haue obtayned this This S. Gregory Nazianzen Hence Baronius doth inferre against Heretikes that the Grecian Fathers did beare such reuerence vnto the Roman Church and Roman Bishop belieuing he could not erre that if his Decrees declaratiue of doubtfull ambiguous propositions should change alter they were ready to change and alter with him and to thinke that manner of speach in matters of Faith most fitting for the present which he did for the present allow This I say is all that Baronius doth affirme not that the Pope may change his Decrees about the truth of the articles and mysteries of Fayth as you in your blind auersion would impose vpoÌ„ him catching at words syllables of euery lesse cleere sentence which to be the right iogge (u) Aguntur spiritu maligno in pios vt Satanicâ virulentia incensi EORVM VERBA ET SCRIPTA NON MALOTIO SE INTERPRETARI non possint Loc. commun Martini Lutheri 5. Classe pag. 26. of the Caluinian spirit Luther long agoe noted THE CONCLVSION BEHOLD good store of your Ignorances Impertinencyes Misallegations of Scriptures Wilfull Vnconscionable Falshoods in your producing the Fathers which I offer vnto your Picture to adorne that Crowne which in your Glorious Humour you haue caused to be set ouer your Booke in the second page therof giuing it the Title of Wisdome and Truths Triumph Verily no Iewells and Gemmes can sit the Crowne of such Wisdome and Truth as yours is better then these being made in this Censure Cleere Shining Illustrious by manifest proofe My purpose was to haue discouered many besides these yea more then an hundred no lesse notorious then these about the Nine Points with many other eminent Vntruths but now I perceaue that hereby your Picture would grow though not disproportionable to the greatnes of your Desert yet into a greater bignes they Paper-Images vse to haue which commonly are still lesse then their Patterns I must therefore remayne indebted vnto you for the rest which are many hundreds engaging my selfe to pay the last farthing of this debt whensoeuer the same shall be exacted with sufficient assurance that the performance thereof shall auayle not only to your personall Disgrace but also to the publicke Good by conuersion of so many by you miserably seduced soules Although I must confesse that the former are so many and so cleere as they may sufficiently resolue such as depend on you of their miserable and dreadfull danger and mooue them to returne to the truth if they erre through weaknes of Vnderstanding not through willfulnes of hart For as S. Cyprian sayth (x) Lib. aduer Demetrianum initio Qui ad malum motus est mendacio fallente multò faciliùs ad bonum mouebitur veritate cogente such as haue been simply lead away vnto euill by the fallacy of lying will more easily be brought backe agayne vnto Good by the force of Truth FINIS THE ANSWERE VNTO The Nine Points of Controuersy Proposed by our late Soueraygne of Famous memory vnto M. Fisher of the Society of IESVS AND THE REIOYNDER Vnto the Reply of D. Francis VVhite Minister Et faciam VOS fieri PISCATORES Hominum Matth. 4.19 And I will make YOV FISHERS of Men. Permissu Superiorum M.DC.XXV His Maiestyes Note deliuered vnto M. Fisher. SOME of the principall points which with-hold my ioyning vnto the Church of Rome except she reforme her selfe or be able to giue me satisfaction Are these 1. The worship of Images 2. The Prayings Offering oblations to the Blessed Virgin
Controuersy in which all other are inuolued and by the decision therof resolued the Church (b) 2. Tim. 3.15 Math. 16. Isa. c. 2. v. 3. Dan. c. 2. v. 35. being the Pillar and Foundation of truth the eminent Rocke and Mountaine filling the whole world on the toppe wherof standeth the Tradition of sauing doctrine conspicuous and immoueable If this Church be ouerthrowne the totall certainty of Christianity cannot but with it togeather fall to the ground if it be hidden made inuisible men must needes wander in the search of the first deliuered Christian doctrine without end or hope of euer arriuing at any certayne issue And if this CoÌ„trouersy be not examined and determined in the first place disputatioÌ„ by (c) Non ad Scripturas prouocandum nec in ijs constituendum certamen in quibus aut nulla aut parùm certa victoria Tertull. in praescrip c. 19. Scripture will proue fruitlesse by the sole euidency wherof no victory can be gotten against proteruious errour or at least no victory that is very (d) The Minister pag. 8. sayth that by the Church appareÌ„t victory caÌ„not begotten more then by the Scripture which is false For apparent victory is that wherby men are forced to yield or els to disclame from the authority of the Iudge If the true Church be found out and made Iudge men may be forced by her sentence to yield vnto truth or els to disclame from the Iudge which yet we see is not done by the Scripture For men that allowe the same Scripture to be Iudge neyther are forced to yield vnto truth nor to appeale from the Scripture yea sayth Luther Tom. 2. Witt. in Concion Domin octauae post Trinit fol. 118. Neuer any Heresy was so pestilent or foolish that did not couer it selfe with the veyle of Scripture apparent neither will answeres about particular Doctrines easily satisfy a mind preoccupyed with a long continued dislike of them BECAVSE the Minister hath repeated sundry false Principles and moued many doubts about the Resolution of Fayth declared in the two ensuing Grounds of the Iesuits Answere Because also this CoÌ„trouersy is the grouÌ„d of the rest by which they are finally resolued and except it be cleered in the first place Heresy will be still hyding it selfe in the obscurity thereof Hence I haue thought necessary in this very Entry to superadde and prefixe this ensuing Treatise A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE RESOLVTION OF FAITH For the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies about Tradition Scripture the Church THIS Treatise is deuided into two Partes In the first I will set downe and refute the Protestant forme of Resolution In the second declare and proue the Catholicke The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared §. 1. PROTESTANTS perceaue that if they pretend to belieue Christian Religion without seing the truth thereof vpon the sole authority of God reuealing they must consequently belieue that God reuealed it vpon the word and authority of the Apostles who preached the same to the world as doctrine vnto them reuealed of God then agayne that the Apostles did thus preach publish it by (d) Quid Apostoli praedicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt Tertull. de praescrip c. 19. the light of the Church succeeding theÌ„ deliuering it haÌ„d to hand as froÌ„ them which TraditioÌ„ if they admit as a certayne infallible rule they are (e) To this purpose they say So long as we stay vpon the Fathers we shall still continue in our old Popish errors Peter Martyr de votis pag. 476. Luther de serâ—uo Arbitrio Tom. 2. Wittemberg pag. 434. Pomeran in Ionam Napier vpon the reuelations Calius Curio alij brought into streights and mightily pressed to receaue many doctrines of Tradition which they are now resolute neuer to belieue Therefore to lay the axe to the roote they would fayne build their fayth on an higher ground then the authority of God darkely reuealing to wit (f) Iohn White defence pag. 309. None can belieue except God illuminate their hartes but such as haue this illumination do SEE MANIFESTLY the truth of thinges belieued on Diuine illumination whereby they see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued whereby they are (g) Francis White Orthodoxe pag. 108. adding that Protestants herein are like to a man that sees a farre off an obscure glimmering but coÌ„ming to the place beholds the light it selfe And the same is taught by Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 7. n. 2. and the rest conuicted in conscieÌ„ce by the euidence of the thing it selfe that their Religion is Diuine by the lustre and resplendent verity of the matter of Scripture and maiesty of the doctrine thereof sensed according vnto their manner The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments §. 2. THis pretence of Resolution so much (h) Pag. 19. lin 4. pag. 28. lin 3. ibid. lin 28. pag. 68. lin 20. The Maiesty and lustre of Heauenly doctrine is such as it appeares illustrious though propounded by meane and obscure persons as a rich Iewell doth manifest his owne worth repeated by our Minister in this Reply is refelled by 6. arguments as being extremely arrogant ignorant disorderly fond desperate the deuise of Sathan The first Argument First what more Arrogant then to challenge ordinary illuminations more high rare and excellent then the Apostles had The Apostles though they had this priuiledge that Christian Religion was to them immediatly reuealed of God yet did they not see the resplendent verity shiâ—ing truth of the Doctrine therof but saw darkely belieuing what they did not see as S. Paul doth (i) 1. Cor. 13.12 Videmus nunc in speculo in aenigmate we se through a glasse darkely that is we be sure by belieuing Gods word of what we do not see testify Therefore illuminatioÌ„ shewing manifestly the truth of things belieued challendged by Protestants is more high rare and excellent light then that the Apostles had what greater (k) Innumerabiles sunt qui se Videntes non solùm iactant sed à Christo illuminatos videri volunt Sunt autem haeretici Augustin tract 43. in Ioan. arrogancy Swenkfeldians equall themselues vnto the Apostles pretending immediate reuelation and teaching from God such as the Apostles had but Protestants pretending to see manifestly the truth of things belieued equall themselues vnto the Blessed whose happines is to see (l) Fides est credere quod nondum vides cuius Fidei merces est videre quod credis Augustin de verb. Apostol Serm. 29. what we belieue specially seing one point of the doctrine Protestants pretend to see is the blessed Trinity the true light and resplendent verity whereof a man caÌ„not see manifestly without being blessed The second Argument Secondly what greater Ignorance against the Rudiments of Christian Religion then to resolue Christian fayth by the euidence and resplendent verity of the
doctrine matter and of things belieued What is Diuine fayth but to belieue things we do (m) Argumentum non appareÌ„tium Hebr. 11.1 Fide credimus ea quae non videmus Aug. de Gen. ad lit l. 12. c. 31. Et Enchirid. c. 8. Fides quam diuina eloquia docent est earum rerum quae non videntur not see vpon the word of God reuealing them whom we know to be worthy of all credit so that howsoeuer some learned men may otherwise see some doctrines reuealed by the light of reason yet neuer by the light of fayth for fayth is that vertue wherby we (n) Fides inchoat meritum Aug. l. 1. retrac c. 23. Et epist. 106. Fides meretur gratiam bene operandi merit and please God by shewing reuerence to his word but what merit or God-a-mercy is it to belieue what we see manifestly (o) Augustin tract 79. in Ioan. Laus fidei est si quod creditur non videtur Gregor hom 26. in Euang. Cyprian Serm. de Natiu Christi Haec fides non habet meritum conuicted by the euidence therof What pious affection to Gods word doth a man shew by seing it to be the truth The third Argument Thirdly it is extreamest Disorder as S. Augustine sayth (p) August de vtilit credendi c. 14. Priâ—s videre velle vt animum purges peruersum atque prae posterum est first to see that we may belieue wheras we ought first firmely to belieue what we do not se that so we may (q) See this Ministers reply pag. 16. The matter and forme of the Bookes shew themselues to be Diuine merit to see what wee haue belieued But Protestants pretend first to see the resplendent verity of Scriptures doctrine thence concluding (q) See this Ministers reply pag. 16. The matter and forme of the Bookes shew themselues to be Diuine that the Scripture being so high and diuine truth as they forsooth see it to be cannot but be reuealed of God and if (r) If Diuine then Apostolicall Reply pag. 19. reuealed of God then preached by the Apostles if preached by the Apostles then the full publike tradition of the Church in all subsequent ages (s) Pag. 105. the Minister sayth If we can demonstrate we mantayne the Religion which the holy Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to proue we are the true Church though we could not nominate any visible Church of our Religion out of History though the Preachers Professors therof were neuer seene nor can be named Thus disorderly they place the Cart before the Horse they know that their Religion is supernaturall truth before they be sure that it is either the doctrine of the Church or of the Apostles or of God The fourth Argument Fourthly it is great blindenes and (t) Field appendix part 2. pag. 20. doth acknowledge that they who see not this light of Scripture and yet pretend it must be brayne sicke and franticke want of common sense for men that digladiate amongst themselues about Scripture and the doctrine therof which is diuine and heauenly and which not to pretend that they are enabled by the spirit to discerne heauenly writings doctrines and senses from humane by the euidence of the thing as easily as men distinguish light from darknes hony from gall Protestants disagree and contend bitterly about the very Scriptures they dayly peruse see and behold which text and sense is diuine and heauenly which not as to omit many other Examples about (t) Luther praefat in Epist. Iacobi edit Ienensi Chemnitius Enchyrid pag. 63. The Epistle of Iames the second of Peter the second and third of Iohn the Epistle of Iude the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall the Epistle of Iames and about the sense of these words This is my body and yet they (u) Iohn White sayth they know the senses of Scriptures to be diuine by their owne light shyning and by their owne shewing it selfe in them as sweetnes is knowne by it owne tast Caluin lib. 1. Institut c. 7. §. 2. in fine Non obscuriorem veritatis suae seipsum scriptura vltâ—ò praese fert quà m coloris suires albae nigrae saporis res suaues amarae challenge resolution in these matters by the light of the spirit making them to see manifestly the truth of the thinge and to discerne true scripture in text and sense from false as easily as the light of the Sunne from darknes what can be more fond and ridiculous The fifth Argument Fifthly if no man be saued without diuine and supernaturall fayth and if supernaturall fayth be resolued not by the authority of the Church of God but by the resplendent verity of the Doctrine what hope of saluation can wise and prudent men expect in the Protestant Church Without diuine illuminatioÌ„ making them to see the truth of things belieued they cannot haue supernaturall fayth nor be saued if Protestants say true Wise prudent men cannot be so fond as to belieue that they see manifestly the truth of the things they belieue by Christian fayth as the truth of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Reall presence of the Resurrection of the dead and other like articles belieued What (x) Protestants are forced by this argument to contradict themselues For sometymes they teach that fayth builded on the authority of the Church is but human and acquisite not sufficient vnto Saluation Thus our Minister pag. 14. And yet at other tymes they teach that Nouices and weakelings haue fayth sufficient vnto saluatioÌ„ whose sayth is built vpon the authority of the Church this also is taught by the Minister pag. 22. saying Nouices in fayth ground their historicall fayth vpon the authority of the Church then can they expect but most certaine damnation in the Protestant Church if this Protestant way to resolue supernaturall fayth be the truth The sixt Argument Finally no deuise more proper of Satan to entrap simple soules then the promise of cleare and manifest Truth this being the very (y) Timeo ne sicut Serpens Heuam seduxit astutiâ suâ ita corrumpantur sensus vestri excidaÌ„t simplicitate quae est in Christo. 2. Cor. 11.3 meanes of delusion wherby he deceyued our first parent Eue and (z) Gen. 3.4 wonne her to tast the forbidden fruite for what more gratefull vnto men that grone vnder the (a) Augustin de vtil cred c. 9. Vera Religio sine quodam graui authoritatis imperio iniri rectè nullo pacto potest yoke of Christian authority pressing them to belieue what they do not see theÌ„ this (b) Haeretici non se iugum credendi imponere sed docendi fontem aperire gloriantur Augustin Ibid. promise of Heresy Follow vs you shal be like vnto God seeing the truth you shall by following vs not darkly belieue but know good from bad truth from falshood in matters of Religion by euidence
by grace cannot discerne the same to be his voyce and word This is spoken with more confidence then consideration God hath an (s) Ioan. 1. Eternall Increate manner of speaking to wit the production of the Eternall Word by which the Blessed discerne him from all other speakers by the euidence of blisse-full learning but no created manner of speaking (t) This is also true wheÌ„ God speaketh inwardly to the soule For in that speaking he vseth the natiue intellectuall tongue that is the vnderstanding Faculty of the soule his diuine inspirations being apprehensions of vnderstanding of the will and affections Hence this inward speaking is not by the meere souÌ„d knowne to be Diuine but by the coniecture of some effects or by speciall reuelation is so proper to God as it can be knowne to be his speaking by the meere sound of the voyce without speciall reuelation or els some consequent miraculous effect Which I declare and proue by this argument If there were a man that had no proper sound and accent of voyce but could and did exactly vse the voyce of euery man as he pleased this man could not be known by his voyce Likewise if a man had no proper stile in writing but could perfectly write the stile of any authour as he should thinke good he could not be knowne from other writers by his phrase But God hath no proper external sound or accent of voyce nor any proper stile or phrase in writing but vseth the propeâ— tongue of those men whome it pleaseth him to inspire folding vp his heauenly coÌ„ceites in the Prophets naturall language whence ariseth (u) The differeÌ„ce of stile betwixt the Apocalyps and the Ghospell of S. Iohn is noted by Dionysius Alexandrinus apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 10. And Caluin Institut l. 1. c. 8. noteth variety of stile amongst the Euangelists Prophets Dauidi Isaiae â—ucunda suauis fluit oratio Apud Amos Pastorem Ieremiam ZachariaÌ„ asperior sermorusticitatem sapit such difference of stiles amongst the sacred writers So that it is great want of discretioÌ„ to thinke to know a book to be of God by the stile abstracting from the matter Now the matter is such as it doth not with euidence certainly shew it selfe to be nothing but truth as hath beene prooued Learned men as hath been sayd may from within Scripture gather arguments that probably perswade that the same is the word of God but euident probability cannot be the ground of persuasion certayne and ineuident it may be a comfortable coÌ„firmation not an assured foundation of Fayth The fifth Argument If Scriptures be not cleere and euident but only to such as haue the light and faculty of fayth they cannot be the prime principles of Fayth euident in themselues not prooued by the principles of faith This is cleere because euery faculty supposeth her principles by the light of them which the student bringes with him she sheweth truths pertineÌ„t vnto her skill that were hidden But the Scriptures are not cleere and euident but to such only as haue aforehand the light and faculty of fayth yea they be dark obscure vnto Infidels as not only the (x) Verbum eius infidelibus nox est Hilarius in cap. 10. Matth. 2. Caluin l. 1. Iustit c. 8. n. 9. Fathers teach but also Protestants graunt Therefore the Scriptures be not the prime principles of fayth supposed before fayth which Infidells seeing to be true resolue to belieue the mysteryes of Fayth but only are secondary truths darke and obscure in themselues belieued vpon the prime principles of fayth The sixt Argument Hence ariseth the sixt argument which is à priori If Scriptures may be prooued by the light of a superiour principle of Fayth they are not the prime principles of sayth euident in themselues and indemonstrable But Scripture is prooued by a superiour more euident principle of faith For the doctrine of the Scripture is proued to be true because God the prime verity authour of Scripture cannot deceaue nor be deceaued Now that prime verity cannot deceaue nor be deceaued is a principle of fayth superiour and more euident then that the Scriptures be of God and diuine Therfore Scripture is not the supreme indemonstrable principle of Fayth but is proued to be truth by the authority of God reuealing it to be of God by the miracles of the Apostles publishing it to be the Apostles by the tradition of the Church deliuering it as such euen as all as other mysteryes of Fayth are proued The seauenth Argument Finally Protestants for this their fancy of finall resolution of fayth by the resplendeÌ„t verity of the doctrine haue not any argument worth a rush Their chiefe Argument are two First Scripture is a principle of fayth but principles are to be euident in themselues and to be knowne by their own light This argument much often vrged by you your (a) Way pag. 37. Defence cap. 20. Brother is seely because al principles must not be euideÌ„t in theÌ„selues but only the first prime principles of euery faculty or hability of knowledge as all know But Scriptures are not as hath been shewed the prime principles of fayth but are secondary principles which being known we by the light of them may know many other things The second argument (b) This argument is vrged by the Minister pag. 16. and often elswhere The Scripture is light for the word of God is light and Scripture is the word of God But euery light is euident in it selfe and knowne by the euidence it hath in it selfe Therefore the Scriptures must of themselues appearâ— and shew that they are diuine truth I Answere the Minor of this Argument is false the whole argument grounded vpon ignorance in not discerning a difference betwixt corporall spirituall light True it is that euery corporal light that doth enlighten the eye of body must be euident in it selfe primely originally cleere but not so euery truth that illustrates mans vnderstaÌ„ding The reason is because the eye of body cannot by thinges seene inferre conclude things that are hidden but only can appreheÌ„d what doth directly and immediatly shew it selfe But mans Vnderstanding not only apprehends what sheweth it selfe but by things knowne inferreth breedeth in it selfe knowledge of thinges hidden Hence vnto Vnderstanding though things shewing themselues directly and by their owne light be her prime principles and meanes to know other thinges yet also things hidden in themselues being formerly knowne by the light of authority may thereby become lights that is meanes to know yet further of things hidden So that speaking of spirituall and intellectuall lights it is false that all lights enlightening mans Vnderstanding to know other thinges are euident in themselues yea some secondary Principles and Lights there are which must be shewed by superior light before they become lights In which kind is the Scripture being a Light vnto the faythfull
because knowne by the Churches perpetuall Tradition to be from the Apostles by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God by Gods supreme Verity who cannot deceaue nor be deceaued to be the truth THE SECOND PART About the Catholike Resolution of Fayth NO doubt but that to the end a man may belieue diuine inward illuminatiō annointing his hart is necessary The question is what is the externall infallible ground vnto which Diuine inspiration moueth men to adhere that they may be setled in the true sauing fayth The answere in few words is this The Resolution of true Religion is firmely assured about foure Principles agaynst foure Enemyes by foure Perfections belonging vnto God as he is Prima veritas Prime and Infinite Verity that cannot deceaue nor be deceaued This I declare and proue The first Principle prooued §. 1. THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan (a) Dicunt pagani Ben◠viuimus or Prophane (b) Fuerunt Philosophi de virtutibus vitijs sublimia multa tractantes Aug. Tract 45. in Ioan. Philosopher who is persuaded he may attayne vnto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole naturall truth Against this enemy is the first principle of true Christian Religion The Doctrine of Saluation is that only which was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets About this Principle true belieuers are resolued by a perfection which in the first place belonges vnto God as he is Prime Infinite verity to wit that he cannot lye nor reueale any vntruth when he speaks immediatly himselfe by secret inspiration Hēce we thus resolue God the Prime verity cannot reueale vntruth specially about the State-matters of saluation when he speakes by secret inspiration immediatly himselfe But he reuealed in this manner by inspiration vnto his Prophets that men cannot serue him truly nor be saued without knowing supernatural truthes beyond the (c) As mans felicity the blissfull visiō of God is aboue the forces of Nature so it was conueniēt God shold bring him vnto it by belieuing truth aboue the reach of his reason reach of Reason which truthes in particular he reuealed vnto them Therfore the doctrine of saluation is supernaturall truth such as was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets and others whome he did vouchsafe to teach immediatly by himselfe and send them to be the teachers of the world This the prime and highest principle of Christian resolution Protestants not in expresse words but in deeds and by consequence reiect from being the stay of their fayth For as they that belieue the doctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and euidence therof because it sheweth it selfe to be conformable to reason do not build vpon the authority of Aristotle nor vpon his bare world euen so they that belieue the doctrine of Scripture by the light resplendent verity thereof because it shewes it selfe to be diuine and heauenly truth as Protestants pretend to doe do not build vpon the authority of God the authour and doctour of Scripture nor his bare meere pure word This is most euident for who doth not see that it is one thing to belieue the word of some Doctour by the light of the doctrine and another to belieue his word through reuerence vnto his authority as knowing him to be infallible in his word Hence the Protestant fayth is so independent of the authority of God as though God were not prime verity but fallible in his words yet their fayth might subsist as now it doth This is cleere because let one be neuer so fallible and false yet when his sayings shew themselues to be true we may yea we cannot but belieue his word in respect of the resplendent verity therof But Protestants pretend that the sayings of Scripture shew themselues to be true by the light lustre of the Doctrine belieued therin vpon this resplendēt verity they build lastly their fayth Therfore though God were fallible might be false yet their fayth that his Scripture is truth which sheweth it selfe to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine might subsist Is this the true Christian fayth which depends not vpon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity which giues no more credit vnto God then men wil giue vnto a lyar to wit to belieue him so farre as they see him To credit the word of his teaching so farre as it sheweth it selfe to be truth by the light of the doctrine Verily this forme of Fayths resolution is grosse and vnchristian which I am persuaded Protestants would not mantayne did they well vnderstand what they say or could they find some other way of Resolution wherby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles and therfore Gods without being bound to relye vpon the Tradition of the Church The second Principle demonstrated §. 2. SOME will say God is prime Verity by whose word we cannot be deceaued But how prou◠you these pretended diuine reuelations to be truly such Here cōmeth in the second enemy of true Religion who following his blind passion labours to depriue the world of the proofes of diuine reuelations that are more euident then the Sunne This Enemy is the Iew who graūting the doctrine of saluation to be supernaturall truth reuealed of God denies the reuealed doctrine of God to be Apostolicall that is the doctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of saluation Agaynst this Enemy is the second Principle of true Religion The Doctrine of saluation reuealed of God is no other but Apostolicall that is which the Apostles published to the world About this principle true belieuers are resolued by a second perfection of the prime Verity which is That he cannot with his seale that is with miracles and workes proper to himselfe warrant or subsigne falshood deuised or vēted by any man Hence we make this resolution God being Infinite verity cannot by signe and miracle testify falshood deuised and vented by men God hath by manifest miracles testifyed the doctrine of the Apostles to be his word and message Ergo the same is not a false religion inuented of men but the doctrin of Saluation reuealed of God The miracles by which the Prime verity hath giuen testimony vnto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced vnto foure heades First the miraculous predictions of the Prophets most cleerly punctually fullfilled in Christ Iesus his B. Mother his Apostles his Church Secondly the miraculous workes in all kindes which Christ Iesus and his disciples haue wrought which are so many so manifest so wonderfull aboue nature as we cannot desire greater euidences Thirdly the miraculous conuersion of the world by twelue poore vnlearned Fisher-men the world I say which thē was in the flowre of human pride glory in the height of human erudition and learning bringing them to belieue a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason to follow a course of discipline truly repugnant vnto sensuality to imbrace a way of saluation
â—f his spirit inwardly mouing the heart of man to â—dhere vnto an infallible externall ground of assurance proposed vnto him God by the helpe of his grace making him apprehend diuinely of the authority thereof This second manner of inward assurance is ordinarily giuen vnto euery ChristiaÌ„ without (r) Triden sess 6. Can. 3. Arausican 2. Can. 6. which no man is able to belieue supernaturally and as he ought vnto Saluation The first manner of assurance is extraordinary and immediate reuelation such as the Prophets had Wherfore Protestants if they callenge this first manner of inward teaching assurance they approue Enthusiasme immediat reuelatioÌ„ which in the Swenkfeldians they seeme to condemne If they challenge only the second manner of inward teaching and assurance then besides inward light they must assigne an externall sufficieÌ„t ground why they belieue these Scriptures to be the Apostles then I aske what ground this is besides Tradition Secondly they wil obiect that though they haue no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spirit yet they are not taught immediatly in Propheticall maÌ„ner because they are also taught by an external probable motiue to wit the Churches tradition I Answere that except they assigne an externall infallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching they cannot auoyde but they challenge immediate reuelation For whosoeuer knoweth thinges assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit without an external infallible motiue vnto which he doth adhere is assured prophetically though he haue some externall probable motiues so to thinke S. Peter had some coniecturall signes of Simon Magus his peruersity incorrigible malice yet seing (s) Act. 8.32 In felle amaritudinis obligatione peccati video te esse he knew it assuredly we belieue he knew it by the light of prophesy because besides inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground If one see a man giue publickly almes though he perceaue probable tokeÌ„s signes that he doth it out of a Vayne-glorious intention yet cannot he be sure therof but by the light of immediat reuelation because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure For if a man be sure haue no ground of this assurance in any thinge out of his owne hart it is cleere that he is assured immediatly only by Gods inward speaking Wherfore ProtestaÌ„ts if they will disclayme in truth and not in wordes only from immediate reuelation and teaching they must eyther grant tradition to be infallible or else assigne some externall infallible ground besides Tradition whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles deliuered Thirdly they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles by an externall infallible ground besides Tradition to wit by certayne lights lustres euidences of truth which they see to blaze emane from the thinges reuealed in Scripture by which they are sure that the doctrin thereof is heauenly I Answere If they did see such lustres and lights that cleerly not only probably conuince the doctrine of Scripture to be heauenly truth they be not indeed assured by immediate darke reuelation but by an higher degree of heauenly knowledge to wit by the supernaturall light and euidence of the thinge belieued which is a paradox and pretence farre more false and sensibly absurd then is the challenge of immediate reuelation or Enthusiasme as hath beene shewed Wherefore seing that God hath chosen no externall meanes besides Catholicke Tradition to make men know perpetually vntill the consummation of the world what doctrins Scriptures the Apostles published it is cleere vnto euery Christian that this is the meanes by him chosen which he doth assist that it cannot be obnoxious vnto errour so that precedently and independently of Scripture the Catholicke tradition of Christian pastors fathers is proued to be infallible through Diuine speciall assistance and therefore a sufficient ground for Fayths infallible assurance The Fourth Principle proued §. 6. IF we be resolued that sauing truth is that which God reuealed that he reuealed that which the Apostles published the doctrine published by then the Catholicke Christian Tradition our search is ended when we haue found the Christian Catholicke Church Heere the fourth Enemy of true Christian Religion offers himselfe to wit the Willfull Ignorant These kind of men not only hold agaynst Pagans the doctrine of saluation to be that only which was reuealed of God agaynst Iewes the reuealed of God to be only the Apostles but also in wordes they condemne the Heretikes professe that no doctrine is truly Apostolicall but the Catholick yet in resoluing what doctrin is the Catholicke they follow the partiality of their affections These are tearmed by (t) De vtil cred c. 1. S. Augustine Credentes haereticorum Belieuers of Heretikes building vpon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men being therein so willfull as to venture their soules that such doctrine is Catholike not caring nor knowing what they say nor what the word Catholicke put into the Creed by the Apostles doth import Some be so ignorant as to thinke that the word Catholicke doth signify the same as conforme vnto Scripture And so what doctrine is Catholicke they resolue by the light and lustre of the doctrine or by the in ward teaching of the spirit whereby they fall vpon the principle of Heresy and become not so much belieuers of Heretikes as Heretikes Some vnderstand by the word Catholicke Doctrine truly Catholicke that is deliuered froÌ„ the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers vnto Christian worlds of children yet are so blind as to giue this Title vnto Sects lately sprung vp which through pretended singular Illuminations gotten by perusing the Scripture haue chosen formes of fayth opposite one agaynst another reformed agaynst the forme to them deliuered by their Ancestors These Sects I say they tearme Catholicke which not to be Catholicke in this sense is as euident as that night is not day Some through willfull ignorance no lesse grossely deuide the name of Catholicke according to the diuision of Countryes naming the Catholicke doctrin of the Church of France of the Church of England c. Which speach hath no more sense then this A fashion euer since Christ vniuersally ouer the world newly begun and proper vnto England Agaynst this Enemy true Religion is resolued in this fourth principle The Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman By Roman we vnderstand not only the Religion professed within the Citty Diocesse of Rome but ouer the whole world by them that any where acknowledg the primacy of Peter and his successours which now is the Roman Bishop About this principle fayth is assured by a fourth perfection belonging vnto God as he is prime Verity reuealing truth which is that he cannot permit that the knowing of sauing doctrine be impossible Hence I argue God being Prime Verity reuealing cannot permit the meanes of knowing his sauing truth to be hidden nor a false meanes to
be so adorned with the markes of the true as the true become indiscernable from it But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition the true Catholicke Church and Tradition is hidden yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it that is to haue doctrin deliuered from the Apostles by whole worlds of Christian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Children Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth or else the meanes is immediat reuelatiō that is inward teaching of the spirit without any externall infallible meanes or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God and truly sensed by the light lustre and euidēce of the things which wayes of teaching it is certayne God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light lustre and shining of the thing or doctrin is proper vnto the Church triumphant Inward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth is proper vnto the Prophets and the first publishers of Christian Religion Hence I conclude that if God be the Prime Verity teaching Christian Religion darkely without making men see the light and lustre of thinges belieued and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes vpon which inward assurance must rely then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradition and Church visible and conspicuous that the same may without immediat reuelation and otherwise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned to wit by sensible markes If any obiect that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibility of their organs and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible I Answere that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man is naturally and physically infallible but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke that is when a whole world of men concurre with him then his euidence is altogether infallible Besides seing God hath resolued not to teach men immediatly but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge he is bound by the perfection of his Veracity to assist mens senses with his prouidence that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such diligence as men ordinarily vse that they be not deceaued by their senses Now what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke that is Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors spread ouer the world vnanimous amongst themselues in all matters they belieue as Fayth what greater assurance I say can one haue that herein he seeth aright then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth Some may agayne obiect I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene I Answere An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed The third article He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucifyed dead and buried according to the substance of the thinge was euident vnto sense and seen euen of the Iewes and is now belieued of their posterity But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed to wit that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man in this manner I say that visible Article is inuisible and belieued in the Creed In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church and that the Roman is the Catholicke Church Pagans Iewes Heretikes if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light do cleerly behold But that herein the word of God about the perpetuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished that this is an effect of Gods Veracity to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden this is a thing inuisible according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed Secondly propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible according to the Predicate or thinge belieued but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world the Son of God were thinges inuisible but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue was to them visible seen yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell certayne tokens whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other that might pretend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth had been to no purpose In this sort the Predicate or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church to wit Holy is inuisible but the Subiect to wit the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her doctrine is visible and conspicuous vnto all Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke For were not this subiect the Catholicke Church we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world hidden we know not where as a needle in a bottle of hay The End of the Resolution of Fayth THESE thinges supposed the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Ministers exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition and how solide the Iesuits discourse was which here ensueth THE FIRST GROVND That a Christian resolution of Fayth is builded vpon perpetuall Tradition deriued by succession from the Apostles §. 1. BEFORE I come to the proofe of this principle some things are to be presupposed which I thinke Protestants will not deny First that no man can be saued or attayne to the blissefull vision of God without firme and assured apprehension of diuine supernaturall truth concerning his last end and the meanes to arriue thereunto Secondly that this assured apprehension is not had by a (e) The Minister heere graunteth that Fayth is not had by cleere euident sight but afterward he sayth the same is resolued by the resplendent verity of the doctrine cleare and euident sight nor gotten by demonstration or humane discourse by the principles of reason nor can be sufficiently had by credit giuen to meerly humane authority but only by Fayth grounded on the word of God reuealing vnto men things that otherwise are knowne only to his Infinite wisdome Thirdly that God
reuealed all these verityes to Christs Iesus and he (f) Omnia quae audiui à Patre nota feci vobis Ioan. 15. v. 15. agayne to his Apostles partly by word of mouth but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy spirit to the end that they should deliuer (g) Docete omnes gentes Math. 28.20 them vnto mankind to be receiued and belieued euery where ouer the world euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly that the (h) Illi profecti praedicauerunt vbique Marc. vlt. 20. Apostles did accordingly preach to all nations deliuer vnto them partly by wryting partly by word of mouth the (i) O Timothee depositum custodi 1. Tim. 6.20 whole entyre doctrine of saluation planting an vniuersall Christian company charging them to keep inuiolably and to deliuer (k) Haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui possunt alios instruere 2. Tim. 1.2 vnto their posterityes what they had of them the first messengers of the Ghospell Fiftly though the Apostles be departed their primitiue Hearers deceased yet there still remaynes a meanes in the world by which all men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached and the primitiue Church receyued of them seing the Church euen to the worlds end must be (l) Ephes. 2.20 c. 4.5.11 founded on the Apostles and belieue nothing as matter of Fayth besides that which was deliuered of them These things being supposed the question is What this meanes is and how men may now adayes so many ages after their death know certainly what the Apostles taught originally preached To which question I answere that the last and finall resolution (m) Note that the Minister many tymes doth falsify the Iesuits Tenet specially pag. 34. saying That the last and finall resolution is into vnwritten Tradition not into Scripture This he doth not say but that the persuasion that our Fayth is true is finally resolued into the authority of God reuealing and that it is Diuine into the Apostles miraculous preaching But what doctrine was taught by the Apostles we know only by Tradition therof is not into Scripture but into the perpetuall tradition of the Church succeeding (n) All from this place vnto the first argument the Minister leaueth out being the substance of the whole discourse yet he sayth he hath set down the booke verbatim See his Preface the Apostles according to the principle set downe by Tertullian in the beginning of his golden by Protestants commended Booke (o) Tertull. de praescript 1.61.21 Quid Apostoli pâ—â—dicauerint praescribam non aliter probari debere quà m per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi condiderunt that is I set down this principle what the Apostles taught is to be proued NO OTHERVVISE then by the TRADITION of the Churches which they planted By which Prescription ioyned with the other fiue suppositions is raysed the Ladder for true Catholike resolution about Faith set down by the sayd Tertullian on which a Christian by degrees mounts vnto God or as S. Augustine (p) August de vtilitate credendi cap. 10. sayth ducitur pedetentim quibusdam gradibus ad summâ penetralia veritatis the Ladder is this the ascending by it in this sort What (q) Tertull. de praescrip c. 21. 37. Nos ab Ecclesijs Ecclesiae ab Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo I belieue I receaued from the present Church the present from the primitiue Church the primitiue Church from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God God the prime verity from no other fountayne different from his owne infallible knowledge So that who so cleaueth not to the present Church firmely belieuing the tradition thereof as being come downe by succession is not so much as on the lowest step of the Ladder that leads vnto God the reuealer of sauing truth successiue tradition vnwritten being the last and finall ground whereon we belieue that the substantiall points of our beliefe (r) Note the Iesuit doth not say Tradition is the last ground on which we belieue our Fayth to be sauing truth or the word of God but only that it came froÌ„ the Apostles so mounting vp by the Church vnto the Apostles by the Apostles vnto God and by him vnto all necessary truth came from the Apostles This I proue by these foure (*) These arguments as they coÌ„uince there is no meanes to know what the Apostles taught but Christian Tradition so they consequently conuince that if the Christian Religion be sauing truth God must assist this perpetual Catholike Tradition therof that no Errors creep into it arguments The first Argument IF the mayne and substantiall points of our fayth be belieued to be Apostolicall because writteÌ„ in the Scripture of the new Testament and the Scriptures of the new Testament are belieued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall tradition vnwritten then our ResolutioÌ„ that our fayth is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But so it is that the Scriptures of the new TestameÌ„t cannot be prooued to haue been deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by the perpetual Tradition vnwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles For what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the (a) The Minister pag. 19. to Titles addeth inscription of some Epistles subscription insertion of names in the body of the bookes but neither is this true of all books nor of all Epistles nor it is inough to satisfy a man For may not a counterfayte write a Gospell for example in the name of Peter repeating the name of Peter the Apostle in the booke twenty tymes So it is childish to meÌ„tion this as the last stay of persuasion For what more childish then to prooue a thinge vnknowne by another as much vnknowne Titles of the bookes which were absurd seing doubt may be made whether those Titles were set on the Books by the Apostles themselues of which doubt only Tradition can resolue vs. Besides the Ghospell of S. Marke S. Luke as also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voyce and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as Sacred Diuine otherwise as also (b) Bilson de perpetua gubernatione Ecclesiae pag. 85. Historiae illae à Marco Luca exaratae Canonicam authoritatem ex Apostolorum suffragiâ—s nactae sunt qui eas lectas approbârunt M. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtayned such eminent authority in the Church neyther should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation But how shall we know that the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Churches but by Tradition Ergo the last and highest ground on which we belieue what doctrine was deliuered by the Apostles is the tradition of the Church suceceding them For we may distinguish three properties of doctrine of faith
Iesuite to say that men not belieuing forehand all necessary points of fayth cannot haue any certaine vnderstanding of Scripture This is a slauÌ„der He onely sayth that such ignorants and wanters of beliefe cannot vnderstand aright Scriptures in all necessary points but they will erre in some chiefe article or other though they may happily vnderstand something aright For there was neuer Heretike that did erre in all necessary points But it is inough to damnation to erre in one substantiall pointe therefore we must not presume to reade interpret Scriptures till we be well grounded in them by the Tradition of the Church caÌ„not with assurance vnderstand them but may euen in maynest poynts mightely mistake for the blessed Apostles wryting to Christians that were beforehand fully taught and setled in substantiall Christian Doctrines and customes doe ordinarily in their writings suppose such things as abuÌ„dantly knowen without declaring them anew onely touching them (t) Thus S. Peter act 9.3 4. repreheÌ„ding Ananias for the breach of his Vow doth by the way teach the holy Ghosts Diuinity Why hath Satan filled thy hart to lye to the holy Ghost Thou hast not lyed vnto men but vnto God For what is spoken directly and of purpose in Scripture is no more infallible truth then what is spokeÌ„ but cursorily by the way Wherfor the former speach of S. Peter doth assure vs that the holy Ghost is God as much as that it is a sinne to breake a vow and yet that is spoken by the way and this of purpose Whence you may see the Ministers great weakenes of IudgemeÌ„t who holding that some points of fayth are coÌ„tained in Scripture only consequently pag. 32. lin 3. raileth at the Iesuite for saying that some thinges are sayd in Scripture cursorily and by the way For to be written cursorily and by the way which the Iesuite giues vnto Scripture is more then to be onely virtually and consequently written cursorily by the way and therfore obscurely so that they who are already taught might well vnderstand their sayings and no other Concerning the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture §. 2. HENCE I may further inferre that Protestants haue not yet throughly pondered the place of the Apostles to Timothy which they so vehemently vrge to proue the all-sufficiency of sole Scripture for euery man as though the Apostles had sayd absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instructe or make any man wise vnto saluation which he sayes not but speaking particularly (u) 2. Tim. 3.14.15.16.17 vnto Timothy sayth They are able to instructe or make Thee wise vnto saluation Thee (x) The Minister here laboureth impertinenly to proue that speaches vnto one single person may be generall vnto many other in Scripture which no man denies And so this speach They are able to make Thee wise is generall vnto all persons that are like to Timothy that is instructed aforehand and setled in the fayth of Tradition For what is sayd vnto one single person is not sayd vnto others further theÌ„ they agree with that party in the cause for which it is truly sayd of him What God sayd vnto Abraham Gen. 15.12 I am thy Protectour is not sayd to all men but only to all meÌ„ that were like Abraham that is deuout worshipers of the true God as he was that hast bene aforehand instructed by word of mouth doest thervpon firmely belieue all substantiall doctrines and knowest all the necessary practises of the Christian discipline Verily the Apostle in that place speaketh onely of the Scriptures of the Old Testament affirming them not sufficient for euery man but for Timothy and not sufficient for him by themselues alone but per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu that is ioyned with the doctrine of the Christian fayth which Tymothy had heard and belieued vpon the liuely voyce of Tradition And the consequent words of the Apostle so much insisted vpon All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. If Protestants could so (y) The Minister heere heapeth many speaches of Fathers that say the Scriptures are sufficient to proue that Profitable signifyes the same that Sufficient This is ridiculous The Iesuit grants the Scripture to be sufficient for them that know Tradition yet he will still deny that profitable signifyes the same as sufficient How Catholicks grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants and the true state of the Question about sufficiency of Scripture and of Tradition THE Minister here enters into a longe impertinent discourse about the clarity sufficiency of Scripture setting titles ouer the heads of his pages Many Scriptures playne the Scriptures sufficient c. as who would say the Answerer had denied this To discouer these his false insinuatioÌ„s and to cleere this controuersy most important we must know 5. things First that there was once a controuersy betwixt Protestants and vs about the sufficieÌ„cy clarity of Scripture For in their beginning they taught all matter of fayth to be EXPRESSED in Scripture and nothing inuolued Omnia expressa nihil inuolutum De tota Scriptura dico nullam eius partem obscuram esse So Luther de â—erâ—to Arbitrio in Tom. 2. Wittenberg Nothing is to be belieued without the word of God though it seeme deduced by good consequence Luther in locis coÌ„mun 1. part c. 24. pag. 69. Secondly now Protestants euen our Minister pag. 32 lin 2. and often in this reply disclaime from expresse and formall Scripture and pretend that all things are written eyther formally or virtually and so confesse that there is herin no difference betwixt the most learned Papists and them So saith Field Church l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. lin 6. Thirdly when some Catholicks as Dominicus Bannes so many tymes cited by the Minister pag 151. Marg lit f. pag 109. lin 40. pag. 189. marg lit b. pag. 580. marg lit a. say that some points be neither expressely nor inuoluedly in Scripture they do not meane that they are not virtually inuolued in thinges contayned in Scripture as effects in their cause so are deduceable from Scripture but only that they are not formally inuolued in thinges of Scripture as parts in their whole in sort as they can be articles of fayth by sole Scripture For thinges formally inuolued in Scripture as parts in the whole a soule and body in man indiuidualls in the whole masse of their kind be articles of fayth by vertue of Scripture Thus when the Scripture â—aith Iob was a man it is said inuoluedly yet formally that he had soule body c. when the Scripture sayth Libanus hath Cedar trees it sayth not formally but virtually it hath imputrible wood Fourthly the question now resting between Protestants and vs is not whether the Scripture be virtually intricate and inuolued about some points of fayth nor whether some rule of interpretatioÌ„ be necessary for that the Scripture is inuolued and needeth an vnfolding rule
of Waldo Wickliffe and Husse Fabulae sunt they are Fables you turne as by him spoken of perpetuall Traditions of the Catholicke and Roman Church The Pharisees did indeed corrupt Scripture But how By Logicall deductions out of the same according to your Protestant and the common Hereticall fashion pretending greater skill then all their Ancestors That they did affirme that their speciall obseruations were Traditions vnwritten from Moyses the Scripture hath not a word yea the thing they most of all obiected agaynst our Sauiour was the written Tradition of Moyses about keeping the Sabboth Day Ioan. 7. From which precept not by Tradition vnwritten but by Logicall inference they concluded that our Lord brake the Sabboth-Day by healing diseased persons thereon So that Pharasaicall Traditions were neuer so much as pretended to be doctrines vnwritten as you imagine but to be doctrines concluded from the text of Scripture by the rules of Reason and Logicke iust according to your Protestant pretence Also what you say that the Fathers Traditions vnwritten be not our doctrines but yours is spoken because you would haue men so thinke though they erre not because you can thinke the same to be so in truth For thus I argue agaynst this your seely Shift The Fathers as appeareth by their wordes vnderstand by Tradition Apostolical vnwritten Dogmata quae peti non possunt è Sacra Scriptura Doctrines of fayth that cannot be gathered froÌ„ the holy Scriptures with such certitude as they may therevpon be belieued as articles of fayth But you pretend and glory that all your Doctrines of Fayth be ex sacris Scripturis petitae so drawne and gathered from holy Scriptures as they are belieued as Fayth only vpon this rule Ergo it is great vanity for you to say that the Fathers by Apostolical Tradition vnwritten vnderstood the Doctrine not of the Roman Church but of your Protestant Separation And if from generality vpon which Ministers whose drift is to deceyue do willingly dwell we descend to particulars we shall find that you reiect those Doctrines customes of the Roman Church as Fabulous dreames and human inuentions which the Fathers expressely and in tearmes affirme to be Apostolicall Traditions To pray for the reliefe of the Soules of the faythfull deceased Protestants esteeme fabulous the (1) (1) Chrys. Homil 69. ad Pop. Fathers affirme it was ab Apostolis sancitum ordayned by the Apostles The binding of the Cleargy-men and those that are in the holy Ministery to single life and from woing wiuing do not Protestants detest as impious (2) (2) Concil Carthag Can. 2. yet the fathers say haec docuâ—runt Apostoli haec seruauit antiquitas this the Apostles taught this was kept by the Ancients That it is damnable Sin for Votaries to marry after their vowes do not Protestants contemne as a fabulous inuention yet (3) (3) Epiphan haeres 61. the Fathers say tradiderunt Sancti Dei Apostoli this is the Tradition of the holy Apostles of God The custome of making the signe of the Crosse on the forhead ProtestaÌ„ts deride as foolish (4) (4) Basil. de Spirit Sanct. c. 27. yet the Fathers affirme hoc tradiderunt Patres nostri in silentio sine literis it was taught by our Fathers the Apostles in silent Tradition without writing The Fast of Lent is it not in neglect and derision with Protestants yet the (5) (5) Hieron Epist. ad Marcell de erroribus Montan. Fathers sayd as we do QuadragesimaÌ„ semel in anno ex Apostolica traditione ieiunamus we fast one Lent a yeare by the tradition of the Apostles Do not Protestants also scorne the feast of Ember-weeke foure tymes in the yeare And yet the (6) (6) Leo de ieiunio sexti mensis Serm. 6. de Pentecost Fathers say ex Apostolica traditione seruantur they are receyued by Apostolical Tradition To fast one fryday or the sixt Day of the weeke in memory of our Sauiours passion Protestants condemne as superstitious yet (7) (7) Epiphan haeres 75. the Fathers say hoc decreuerunt Apostoli the Apostles made this decree and the Church by Tradition from them hath perpetually obserued it The making and blessing of holy water do not ProtestaÌ„ts reiect as magicall Yet the (8) (8) Basil. de spir san c. 27. Fathers say expressely it is a Tradition of the Apostles To mingle water with Wine in the Chalice of the holy Eucharist is thought by Protestants to be fabulous But by the Fathers (9) (9) Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Dominica institutio the institution of our Lord by Tradition vnwritten deriued to vs. Luther dareth to cast off with a iest the commandement not to receiue the holy Eucharist but fasting that so the body of our Lord may enter in at our mouth before other meates (10) (10) Aug. Ep. 118 ad Ianuar c. 6. yet the Fathers say hoc placuit Spiritu sancto hoc Christus per Apostolos disposuit it pleased the holy ghost it should be so and by his inspiration the Apostles did so appoint What shall I say of (11) (11) Aug. lib. 4. in Iulian. Leo primus Ep. 14. Exorcizandi sunt secundum ApostolicaÌ„ regulam Exorcismes ExsufflatioÌ„s vsed in Baptisme the (12) (12) Origen Homil. 5. in Num. A magno Pontifice Christo eius filiis Apostolis traditam forme of interrogations answeres and other ceremonies That (13) (13) Fabian Ep. 2. ad Oriental Christus instituit they that be baptized be afterwards Chrismed with the oyle of balme (14) (14) Tertul. li. 1. ad vx Apostolica praescriptio Epiphan haer 50. Propter eminentiam celebrationis traditam That they who haue beene maried more then once be not promoted vnto Priesthood out of reuerence vnto that dignity (15) (15) Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuit. c. 4. Hoc votum illi potentissimi vouerant That the Apostles made the vow of Religions perfection That (16) (16) Chrys. homil 17. ad Paph Antiochen A Christo introducta Casian Coenobitarum disciplina tempore praedicationis Apostolorum sumpserat exordium Monasticall profession began by their institution (17) (17) Tertul. de Corona Militis Anniuersarios dies colimus the keeping festiuall Dayes in the honour of Saints deceased (18) (18) Concil Antioc Apostol citat in 7. Synod act 1. The placing the Images of Christ and his Saints in the Church (19) (19) Damascen orat 4. de Imagin Synod Nicen 2. act 7. Their Worship (20) (20) Aug. Serm. 17. de verbis Apost Cyril cathec 5. Mystagog To commend our selues vnto the prayers of Saintes deceased in the holy Sacrifice of Masse These things Protestants detest as Superstitions all which yet the Fathers mantayne to be Apostolicall Traditions metamorphize the word Profitable as to make it signify the same with the word Sufficient which is very hard yet were the text much ouer-short to proue their intent that Scripture alone
of the Church disagree about maters which they preach as necessary poynts of Fayth how can their Tradition and Testimony be of credit therin or haue any authority to perswade Who will or can firmely belieue disagreeing witnesses vpon their wordes And this (g) By this Note Protestants are conuinced not to be the true Church for the Protestant Church allowes that dissonant doctrines be preached as her doctrine as the word of God as the truth of saluation she permitteth that her preachers condemne ech other as heretikes without disclayming from the communion of eyther side For she imbraceth in her communion both Lutherans who preach as an article of faith the carnall manducation of Christs true body by the wicked Luther tom 3. Germ. fol. 264. and Caluinists who detest this carnall manducation as blasphemous and impious Caluin admonit 3. ad Westphalum But it is euident that the Church that allowes of dissonant preaching in matters of fayth cannot be the true Church For how can she be the one true Church which allowes that doctrine she knowes to be false be preached as her Religion the truth of faith The Protestant Church knoweth that of contrary doctrines the one side must needs be false Therefore consenting that both sides be preached as her fayth as sauing truth she yields that doctrine knownely false be preached as her doctrine and sauing truth and so is Mistresse of falshood as much as of truth consent must be conspicuous and euident For if in outward apparence and shew preachers dissent one from another in mayne materiall doctrines their authority is crazed and their testimony of no esteeme howsoeuer perchāce their dissentions may be by some distinctions so coloured that one cannot (h) One cānot conuince an obstinate gaynsayer wrester of words but still he wil wrangle yet may he be conuinced that he doth falsify and wronge authors in his interpretations and this euidently in the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader conuince him that would boldly vndertake to defend as (i) D. Field lib. 3. of the Church cap. 42 Doctour Field vndertakes for Protestants that their dissensions be but verball But what is this to the purpose Do the accused dissentioners allow this Doctors reconciliation do they giue ouer contention thereupon No but professe that such reconcilers misse of their meaning that they disagree substantially about the very Prime articles of faith How can these men be witnesses of credit for substantiall articles cōcerning which there is open confessed professed dissention amongst them Fiftly I inferre that this Church is vniuersal spread ouer all nations that she may be sayd to be euery where (k) Morally that is according vnto common humane reputation by which a thing diffused ouer a great part of the world famously knowne is said to be euery where In this māner the Apostle said that the fayth of the Romās was renowned in the whole world Rom. 1.12 In this sort the Church is still vniuersall and euery where By this is answered all the Minister brings vpō mistaking of morally morally speaking being so diffused that the whole knowne world may take notice of her as of a worthy and credible witnes of Christian Tradition howsoeuer her outward glory and splendour peace and tranquillity be sometymes obscured in some places more or lesse and not euer in all places at once A truth so cleere that it may be euidently proued out of (l) The text Apocalyps 20.8 sayth They the Purseuāts of Antichrist went vpon the breadth of the earth and compassed about the campe of Saints beloued Citty which place proues cleerly that the Church and campe of God shall be spread ouer the whole bredth of the earth in the dayes of Antichrist This verse the Minister mistaketh of purpose and in lieu thereof citeth the seauenth and very absurdly sayth that Antichrist shall persecute Christians that is put them in prison kill them where they were not And Protestants themselues affirme that euen all the dayes of Antichrist the Church shall be right famous continew dispersed ouer the world Bullinger in Apocal. 20. Fulke against the Rhem. in Thess. 2. sect 5. Whitaker answer to M. Reynols preface p 34.37 Scripture Apoc. 20. v. 8. that euen in Antichrists dayes the Church shall be visibly vniuersall For she shall thē be euery where persecuted which could not be except she were euery where visible conspicuous euen to the wicked The reason of this perpetuall visible Vniuersality is because the Tradition of the Church is as I haue proued the sole ordinary meanes on which we ground fayth for substantiall points Wherfore this Tradition must be so deliuered as it may be knowne to all men seeing God (m) The Minister sayth p. 78. l. 22. That God will haue all men saued according to his antecedent will citing Schoolmē that say that Gods antecedent will is only a velleity a wish a complacence thence cōcluding that though God haue antecedent wil that all be saued yet this doth not inferre that he alwais prouides sufficient meanes for the saluation of all I answer That God by his antecedent will of mans saluation wisheth two things First the saluation of all men Secondly the meanes of their saluation In respect of the meanes the will of God is absolute that all men in some sort or other haue sufficient meanes of saluation In respect of the end to wit the saluation of all men the will of God is not absolute but as Schoolmen say virtually conditional that is God hath a will that al men be saued as much as lyeth in him if the course of his prouidence be not stopped and men will cooperate with his grace Whence I thus argue If God did not prouide sufficient meanes for all men it could not be sayd that on his part he wisheth the saluation of all But euen our Minister pag. 78. lin 38. grants that God wisheth the saluation of all men and of euery indiuiduall person Therefore God still makes his Church visibly vniuersal vt neminem lateat as saith S. Augustine that no man perish through the hiddennes and inuisibility thereof will haue all men without exception of any nation to be saued come to the knowledge of the truth 1. Tim. 2.4 But if the Church were not still so diffused in the world that all knowne (n) The Answerer wryting to his Maiesty knowing the Prouerbe sapienti verbū did intēd by this word to insinuate how God prouided means of saluation for the world wherof one part was many ages vnknowne The solution of this difficulty much vrged by the Minister pag. 78 consisteth in these points first God our Sauiour being borne and dying in this knowne world prouided that his Church should be still visibly spread ouer the same famously known Secondly Nations be not so vnknown but by nauigation and other such naturall meanes they may be discoueuered vnto this world where our
ad com Philip. in 1. ad Corinth This may conuince our Minister that his allegations be of no credit and that Iudgement of the Sanctity of a Church is not to be made by the report of zealous complaint but by the euidence of sight ruled by vnpartiall search By which rule one may find in the Catholike Cleargy thousands and thousands that shew admirable charity specially in conuerting Infidells yea that winne the glorious crowne of Angelicall Chastity for which they would neuer haue striuen had not the Church bound them thereunto So that if human infirmity by occasiō of this law make some men impure that otherwise perchance in marriage would haue beene chast so the Grace of God by the same occasiō worketh in innumerable Angelical Saints who had neuer beene such but for the Churches exaction And this haruest makes full recompence for that losse specially seing also many of such delinquents be not lost but saued by Pennance yea become more excellent Saints then they had beene had they neuer fallen Chastity Obedience Charity in vndergoing labours for the help of soules Fortitude in suffering of heroycall Martyrdomes Zeale and Patience in the rough and rigorous treaty of their bodyes by miraculous fasting another austerityes This sanctity shineth not in all children of the Church but in her more eminent preachers professours Which kind of sanctity togeather with miracles if the Church did want she could not be a sufficiēt witnes of the truth vnto Infidells who commonly neuer begin to affect admire Christianity but vpon the sight of such wōders of Sanctity other extraordinary works Holy for doctrine in regard her Traditions be diuine and holy without any mixture of errour For if the Church could deliuer by consent of Ancestours togeather with truth some Errours her Traditions euen about truth were questionable could not be belieued vpon the warrāt of her traditions for who can without danger and securely feed on that dish that may aswell containe poyson as wholsome sustenance And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but only in thinges of lesse moment the truth is that in perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receyued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment For like as if we admit in the Scripture errours in small matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in substātial matters So likewise if we graunt Traditions perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solide ground to defend her Traditions as assured in others of moment Wherfore as he that should say Gods written word is false in some lesse matters as when it sayes S. Paul left his Cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giues occasion to doubt of euery thing in Scripture euen so he that graunteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may be false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime and originalll ground of Faith more (q) The Minister heere rayleth largely lustily tearming this assertion impudent Antichristian prophane bastardly c. yet the assertion is euident truth his reasons agaynst it are of no force For they goe not agaynst the assertion but proue another thing to wit the excellency of Scripture which none denyes For Tradition Scripture according to different cōparisons are equall superiour the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equal as the Councell of Trent defineth sess 4. both being the word of God the one Written the other Vnwritten and so both infinitly certayne Compare them in respect of depth sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is farre superiour vnto Tradition Tradition being playne and easy doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall articles of Christianity wheras the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnisht with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of erudition Aug. Epist. 3. Compare them in respect of priority and euidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is posteriour vnto Tradition in tyme and knowledge and cannot be proued directly to be the Apostles therfore Gods but by Tradition as sometime not only Fathers but euen Protestants afffirme As Philosophy is more perfect then Logicke and Rhetoricke then Grammer in respect of high excellēt knowledge yet Logike is more prime originall fundamentall then Philosophy Grammer then Rhetoricke without the rules and principles wherof they cannot be learned Euen so Tradition is more prime and originall then Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition fundamentall then the very Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition wheras a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident thē that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein The Propertyes of the Church proued by Matth. 28.20 §. 4. ALL this may be cleerly prooued to omit other pregnant testimonyes by the words of our Sauiour in the last of S. Matthew Going into the world teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you and behold I am with you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A (r) The Minister pag. 195. lin 4. sayth that this promise is conditionall in repect of Pastours succeeding the Apostles to wit that Christ will assist them conditionally whē they teach and baptize as he hath commanded but that they shall so still teach he doth not promise p. 24. lin 28. This exposition is false first because our Sauiour here promiseth his Presence vnto the Apostles and their successours to baptize and teach vntill the worlds end by one and the same forme of speach and indiuiduall breath so that the promise cannot be conditionall in respect of the successors except it be also conditionall in respect of the Apostles But in respect of the Apostles the promise is absolute as the Minister grants pag. 94. lin 23. Therefore it is also absolute in respect of their successors Not that this or that Pastour may not be deceaued but that they shall neuer deliuer by ioynt consent any falshood as the Apostles doctrine Secondly if the promise be conditionall then the sense is this I will alwayes assist you to teach Christen aright when you teach christen according to my commandement as the Minister expounds pag. 94. lin 22. But this sense is idle and iust nothing as if Christ had sayd Behold I will assist you to teach aright when you teach aright for what is to teach Christian Religion aright but to
teach it as Christ commanded deliuered the same Thirdly if this Promise were conditionall not absolute then by this place the Church could not be proued to last absolutly for euer but only so long as she Christeneth aright teacheth the truth wherin according to this ProtestaÌ„t exposition she may fayle But the Fathers from this text gather agaynst the Donatists that the Church shal neuer fayle to be in all Nations of the world vntill the end therof as S. Aug. in Psalm 101. conc 2. Leo Epist. 3. ad Pulcheriam and others hence proue Therfore the sense is absolute his Church shal be still in the world he still assisting his Church by his spirit to teach and baptize aright promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition for in this sentence appeares the six thinges I before set downe First that there is still A ChristiaÌ„ Church all dayes not wanting in the world so much as one day till the consummation of the world SecoÌ„dly this Church is euer visible and conspicuous For the Church that alwayes teacheth Christeneth all Nations must needs be visible But this Church alwaies teacheth and Christeneth all Nations I am alwayes with you not with you sitting in Corners or hidden vnder ground but with you exercising the office enioyned you in the words precedent Docete omnes gentes baptizantes Thirdly this Church is euer Apostolicall for to his Apostles Christ said I am alwaies with you to the coÌ„summation of the world not with you in your owne persons but with you in your successours in whome you shal continue vntill the worlds end Ergo a lawfull company of Bishops Pastours Doctors succeeding the Apostles must be perpetually in the world Forthly this Church is Vniuersal Ite in muÌ„dum vniuersum where I will be alwayes with you Fifthly this Church is One not diuided into parts because it teacheth and belieueth vniformely all that Christ deliuered and commanded without Factions Sects or Parts about matters of fayth Sixtly this Church is alwayes holy for doctrine neuer deliuering or teaching any falshood I who am the Truth am alwayes with you teaching all nations Holy also for life Christ the holy of holyes assisting and making her able to conuert Infidels which she could not well doe (s) The Minister p. 85. 86.102 alleadgeth diuers Fathers scholmeÌ„ to proue that now miracles are ceased not necessary Answere The Minister shold distinguish as the fathers doe who make two manner of beings of Miracles to wit ordinary extraordinary and affirme three things First that in the primitiue Church miracles were absolutly necessary for the plaÌ„ting of the Ghospell in the world Ioan. 5.24 Act. 4.29.30 and then the gift of miracles was ordinarily annexed vnto the Ministery of Preaching yea so that euery Christian coÌ„monly had that gift in some kind or other 1. Cor. 12.28 Act. 8.17 10. 4.6 Secondly that since the planting of the Gospell by twelue Fishermen this being the miracle of miracles no further miracle is absolutly necessary for meÌ„ vnto whoÌ„ this is known and therfore the gift of miracles is ceased to be ordinarily annexed to the office of preaching or common to al Christians as before it was Aug. de Ciuit. l. 22. c. 8. Gregor 27. moral c. 1. Thirdly notwithstaÌ„ding in all ages there were are and shal euer be some speciall places and persons extraordinarily indued with the gift of miracles for the comfort of Christians Conuersion of some remote Nations that know not the first miraculous planting of our Religion by certayne celebrious fame of miracles in this kind the writings of the Fathers all ChristiaÌ„ histories are full See S. Aug. l. 22. de Ciuit. c. 8. Gregory in his Dialogues THE PROTESTANT CHVRCH not before Luther without miracles and tokens of wonderfull sanctity at the least in her more eminent Preachers That the Romane is the One Holy Catholike Apostolical Church from by which we are to receyue the Tradition of Christian Doctrine §. 5. THIS Ground being laid it is apparent that the Romane Church that is the multitude of Christians spread ouer the world cleauing to the doctrine and Tradition of the Church of Rome is the only holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The first Argument THERE must alwayes be in the world one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church That is a Church deliuering doctrines vniformely thereby making them credible vniuersally thereby making them famously knowne to mankind holyly so making them certayne such as on them we may securely rely Apostolically so making theÌ„ perpetually flow without change vnto the present Christianity in the channell of a neuer-interrupted Succession of Bishopps from the Apostles And this Church (t) Vnto this Argument the Minister pag. 104. makes answere that his Protestant Church was before Luther in essence kind though it began in Luther touching the Name and some things accidental In proofe whereof he thus wryteth In all ages before Luther some persons held the substantiall articles of our Religion both in the Roman Grecian Church And by name the Grecians maintained with vs that the Roman Church hath no primacy of Iurisdiction aboue or ouer all other Churches neyther is the same infallible in fayth They deny Purgatory Priuate Masses Sacrifice for the dead and they propugne the Marriage of Priests In this Westerne part of the world the Waldenses Thaborites of Bohemia Wickliffiâ—ts maÌ„tayned the same doctrine in substance as appeareth by their confession of fayth and by the testimony of some learned Pontificians This being the substance of all the Minister hath sayd or can say for his Church before Luther the same is insufficient false more for Anabaptists then Protestants This I proue In generall this pedegree is insufficient for two reasons First because it is not for all ages The Grecians were vnited with the Romane Church vntill the yeare 1060. the Waldensians began about the yeare 1160. Now there remaynes six or seauen ages since the pretended Apostacy of the Roman Church for which the Minister doth not name any professours that were Protestants for essence and kind Secondly because Protestants teach that the most substantiall article of their Religion is Iustification by speciall fayth only and not by workes and merits of grace as all know But these pretended professours namely the Waldenses Wickliffists held rigorously the merit of works In so much as Wickliffe sayd Let euery man confide in his merits for which saying he is refuted by the Catholike authour Thomas Waldensis Tom. 3. c. 7.8.9 Graecians no Protestants in Essence In particular the Pedigree is notoriously false in respect of the Graecians who cannot without impudency be named as Protestants according to essence and kind First they hold damnable heresyes and substantiall errours in the Iudgement of Protestants so wit Inuocation of Saints Adoration of Images as they professe in their Censure
impudency is it for Protestants to affirme that Rome was pure Protestant for the first fiue or six hundred yeares and that afterward the Pope changed ProtestaÌ„cy into Papacy brought in Images InuocatioÌ„ of Saints Auricular Confession Adoration of the Sacrament and the like horrible noueltyes and changes of the whole world which could not but haue been noted if they had beene nouelties wheras all histories be silent herein yea they mention the contrary to wit how Popes euer resisted them that would haue innouated about these points monumeÌ„ts of history and antiquity who were (y) What the Minister here sayth pag. 116. that the Pharisees did say as we doe that they had their Traditions by succession from Moyses vrging our Sauiour that he could not proue by history that they had changed their fayth and our Sauiour leauing History refuted them by Scripture this is a figment of his owne head out of meere desire to make the Pharisees seeme like to vs and himselfe to our Sauiour for where doth he read that Pharisees so pleaded agaynst our Sauiour and what blasphemy to thinke that our Sauiour could not haue refuted them by History had they so pleaded shewing where when and by whome they beganne The truth is the Pharisees pretended not their obseruations as successions hand to hand from Moyses but as Traditions of their owne Some they vrged as deductions froÌ„ the Scripture which they Protestant-like did pretend to vnderstand better more rigorously then any before them such was their doctrine agaynst healing diseased persons doing small labors as gathering eares of corne on the Sabboth day much like our Protestant Sabbaâ—arians other they taught as singular inuentions of Piety and Religion found out by themselues for the more exact obseruance of the Law some of which Inuentions were impious some friuolous some pious and therfore allowed by our Sauiour as that of paying tythes vnto God out of euery little hearbe a tradition of their owne not commanded in the Law and yet approued by our Sauiour as binding This you ought to haue done and not to haue omitted that other Luc. 11.42 they are rebuked for obseruing their otherwise pious inuentions for vayne glory couetousnes for preferring small matters because they were their owne aboue the precepts of Gods Law All this is euident vnto them that are conuersant in the Ghospell neuer noted as deliuering contrary doctrines the one to the other Apparantly Vniuersall (z) The Christians called the Chaldaean AssyriaÌ„s the Iacobites or Cophti the Georgians the AEthiopians or Abissines the Thomaeans in India the ArmeniaÌ„s specially those tearmed Franc-Armenians Maronits are vnited with the RomaÌ„ Church haue often lately made their obedience vnto the Pope professing to hold in all points the Catholike Roman faith as you may see in Notitia Episcopatuum 〈◊〉 Miraei lib. 1. c. 16.17.18 spread ouer the world with credit and authority that whole mankind may take notice of her doctrine for the imbracing thereof Conspicuously (a) The Minister pag. 107. saith that it is not inough to proue we haue vnity but we must proue we haue vnity in verity for the Turkes haue vnity and yet haue not verity I answere That the vnity and consent of a grand diffused multitude spread ouer the world in the Tradition of Ancestors about Religion doth euidently reduce Religion to the first external authour publisher the credit of his word The vnity consent of Mahometans in their Tradition from Mahomet proues their Religion to be Mahomets and consequently in the Iudgement of Christians the Religion of a false Prophet Our vnity and consent in the Christian Tradition of our Auncestours from Christ proues euidently our Religion to be of Christ and consequently diuine and true as certainly as it is certaine that Christ Iesus was the Messenger of God and God the Author of truth So that the vnity of the Romane Church proues directly her Religion to be Christs and then by consequence to be diuine verity One the Professours therof agreing in all points of fayth howsoeuer they differ about small vndefined questions Most manifestly Holy in all kind of high and admirable sanctity giuing notorious signes and tokens thereof striking (b) What the Minister here brings out of some zealously complaining agaynst vice is already by vs answered was long agoe by S. Aug. de vtilit cred c. 5. where he nameth these sanctityes as signes of the Church CoÌ„tineÌ„tia vsque ad tenuissimum victum panis aquae non solùm quotidiana sed per contextos plures dies coÌ„tinuata ieiunia Castitas vsque ad coniugij prolisue contemptum Patientia vsque ad cruces flammasue neglectas Liberalitas vsque ad patrimonia distributa pauperibus Thus S. Augustine adding Few I graunt in the Church doe these thinges in respect of the other multitude and fewer do them well prudently yet the people approue applaud loue admire them and accuse themselues they cannot do the like so rising vp towardes God by these examples admiration into carnall men that are not altogeather prophane and diffusing abroad the sweet odour of Christ and the Christian Name In which proofe that these propertyes agree to the Romane and be wanting in the ProtestaÌ„t Church I will not inlarge my selfe as I otherwise might aswell not to weary your Maiesty as also not to seeme to diffide the matter being most cleere of your Maiesties Iudgment Wherfore it is more then cleere that the Roman is the One Holy Catholike Apostolicall Church by whose Tradition Christian Religion hath beene is and shall be euer continued from the Apostles to the worlds end The third Argument PROTESTANTS haue the Holy Scriptures deliuered vnto them by and from the one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church But they receiued them from no other Church then the Roman Ergo the Roman is the one holy Catholike and Apostolicall Church The Maior I proue If Protestants haue not the Text of Scripture by and from the one holy Catholike Apostolical Church they cannot be certaine they haue the true incorrupt text the Apostles deliuered and recommended as diuine to the first Christians seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible (c) The Minister pag. 119. obiecteth agaynst this that if we cannot be sure of the Scripture except the immediat deliuerer therof be infallible then we cannot be sure except we haue the Scripture immediately from the hand of the Pope or generall CouÌ„cell who only are infallible Answere We must as Theology teacheth distinguish immediationem suppositi immediationeÌ„ virtutis that is the immediate person which deliuers Scripture and the immediate authority vpon the credit wherof Scripture is deliuered The person immediatly deliuering may be a single Minister fallible taken solely by himselfe but the immediate authority that deliuers Scripture is euer and must still be infallible to wit the authority of the Churches Tradition For we neither must nor can belieue
Catalogue of Doctours in his Epistle to the Reader sayth In the yeare 605. more then a thousand yeares agoe falshood preuayled and then was the whole world ouerwhelmed in the dreggs of Antichristian filthines abominable Traditions and superstitions of the Pope M. Perkins in his exposition of the Creed pag. 307. 400. sayth During the space of Nine hundred yeares the Popish Heresy hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world and for many hundred yeares an vniuersall Apostacy ouerspread the whole face of the earth so that our Protestant Church was not then visible to the world M. Fulke treatise agaynst Stapleton and Martiall pag. 25. The Pope hath blinded the world these many hundred yeares some say 900. some 1000. some 1200. Mayster Napier Reuelat. pag. 64. 101. The Antichristian and Papisticall raygne beganne about the yeare 316. after Christ raigning vniuersally without debatable contradiction Gods true Church abiding certainly bidden and latent confessed by the Proteâ—tants whose testimonies plentifull in this behalfe if need require shall be brought First that the doctrines of the Roman Church which Protestants refuse haue byn vniuersally receyued for many ages a thousand yeares at least euer since Boniface the third Secondly that Protestants cannot tell the tyme when the Church of Rome began to change and deuiate from the Apostolicall doctrine deliuered by succession Ergo the Roman Church neuer changed her fayth so that her doctrines are to be receaued as Apostolicall if the Maior of the first argument be true to wit that (n) The Minister pag. 15. sayth The Iesuite conueyeth into S. Augustins proposition certayne wordes to wit doctrines vniuersally receiued c. which are not found in S. Augustine for this Father did neuer allow that the vniuersall Church belieue any doctrin of faith not coÌ„maÌ„ded in Scripture I answere The wordes of S. Augustine will discouer the Minister what he is for these they are formally in the place cited by the Iesuite l. 5. de baptis c. 23. Many things are Held by the Vniuersall Church therefore are TRVLY belieued to haue beene COMMANDED by the Apostles though they be NOT WRITTEN Thus he And though there be no doctrine which may not be in some sort proued by Scripture and deriued from thence by coÌ„sequence yet this Logicall Deduction doth not suffice to make doctrines to be vniuersally matters of fayth except they be also deliuered expresly by Tradition or the word of God vnwritten as hath been often shewed in this Reioynder doctrines vniuersally receyued whose beginning are not knowne are to be belieued as Apostolicall And what more true this being a principle set downe by S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism cont Donat. c. 6. lib. 5. cap. 23. allowed by Doctour Whitguift late Archbishop of Canterbury Defence pag. 351. 352. who in his booke written by publike authority agaynst Puritans citing diuers Protestants as concurring in opinion with him sayth Whatsoeuer opinions are not known to haue begunne since the Apostles tyme the same are not new or secundary but receyued their originall from the Apostles But because this principle of Christian Diuinity brings in as M. Cartwright there alleadged speaketh all Popery in the Iudgment of all men I will further demonstrate the same though of it selfe cleere inough The spirit of Christ or Christ by his spirit being still with the Church cannot permit errours in fayth so to creepe into the church as they grow irreformable eueÌ„ by the principles of christianity but if errours could so creepe into the church as their beginning could not be known since the Apostles and neuer be espyed till they be vniuersally receaued then errour could so creepe into the Church preuayle that by the principles of christianity they are irreformable This I prooue because errors 〈◊〉 (o) The Minister sayth that the errours of the Pharisees were vniuersally receaued in the Iewish Church and yet reformed by our Sauiour I answere First his desire to make our ReligioÌ„ like the Pharisees makes him fashion vnto the Pharisees a Religion of his owne head as if he had neuer read the Ghospell For the Traditions of the Pharisies were certaine practises of piety inuented by themselues deducted by their skill from Scripture wherby they would seeme singularly religious non sicut caeteri hominum Secondly Christ Iesus prouing himselfe to be true God might reforme errours vniuersally receaued the Church of the Iewes falling erect a new Church of Christians as he did But this is lawfull for no man eyther before or since For Christian Religion must continue vntill the worlds end by vertue of the first Tradition therof neuer interrupted without extraordinary and Propheticall beginning by immediate reuelation miracles and so if errours be deliuered by the full consent of Christian Tradition they are irreformable irreformable by the Principles of â—hristianity when whosoeuer vndertakes 〈◊〉 reforme them is by the Principles of â—hristianity to be condemned as an Hereâ—â—ke But he that will vndertake to reâ—orme doctrines vniuersally receaued by â—he church opposeth agaynst the whole Church and therfore is by the most receaâ—ed and knowne principle of Christianity and Christs owne direct precept to be accounted as an (p) The Minister sayth that one man may oppose the whole Church and oppugne her errours by Scripture and not be as an Heathen or Heretike For not euery one that opposeth the Church is to be accounted an Heathen but only such as in ordinatly and without iust cause oppugne it Thus he pag. 136. I answere By this doctrine euery particular man is made examiner of the whole Church and her iudge and Hellish Confusion brought into Christendome If agaynst the sentence of perpetuall vniuersall Tradition a priuate maÌ„ may without Heresy pretende Scripture stand stifly therin and though the Church giue seeming appearing answeres vnto his Scriptures yet coÌ„demne her saying these answeres are sophisticall as our Minister doth p. 581. what can be more disorderly or what is hereticall obstinacy if this be not Wherfore S. August epist. 48. sayth absolutly it is impossible men should haue iust cause to depart and impugne the whole ChristiaÌ„ Church adding nos cerâ—ò scimus herof we Christians are sure And why but because it is a ruled Christian case He that heareth not the Church is an Heretike Heathen and Publican Matth. 18. vers 17. And as S. Augustine â—ayth Epist. 118. to dispute agaynst the whole Church is most insolent madnes specially wheÌ„ the doctrin is ancient without any known beginning as are the supposed erroneous customes doctrins of the RomaÌ„ Church For then the vndertaking Reformer must striue agaynst not only the whole present Church but also the whole streame of the visible Church tyme out of mind since the Apostles Et quis ad haec idoneus who is able to beginne a new course of Christianity and to ouerthrow that doctrine which is vniuersally receyued cannot be prooued by any Traditions of Ancestours
it is to be held as a knowne perpetuall Christian Tradition deliuered by full practise independently of the definition of any Councell neuer permitting the same to examination as one of those articles wherof Luther sayth comment in Psalm 82. fol. 546. Generales articuli recepti in tota Ecclesia satis auditi excussi approbati sunt c. ferendus non est qui vâ—lit eos in dubium reuocare sed velut blasphemus indicta causa inaudita damnandus Generall Councels therby casting downe the foundation of vnity in the Church Fourthly their denying the foundation of true (b) This is the most essentiall point of Protestancy which they tearme the foundation of foundations the pith marrow of the Gospell See the booke de Essentia Protestantism lib. 1. c. 6 This their doctrin coÌ„sists in foure points First that euery man is iustifyed by the iustice of Christ by being as it were vested therewith Secondly this Iustice of Christ is formally imputed vnto euery man not throgh repentance and mortification but through Fayth only Thirdly that this fayth is not the dogmaticall or historicall fayth whereby we belieue in generall the wordes of Christ and reuealed misteryes of the Scripture but a speciall fayth wherby a man doth firmely and infallibly perswade himselfe that to him in particular the Iustice of Christ is imputed for the full remission of his sinnes Fourthly that he that hath not firme fayth that his sinnes are remitted vnto him by the imputation of Christs merits hath not Iustifying fayth nor is iust in the sight of God but as good as an Infidell though he haue historicall fayth that all the doctrins of Christian Religion are true Hence you may perceyue that our Minister is a man of no fayth who not only denyes this article of Protestancy not only sayes that they neyther now hold or euer held it but also reuileth the Iesuite charging him with Lying with Calumniation with Deprauing and falsifying their Protestant doctrine and that he wanted matter to fraught his papers when he charged their Church with teaching Iustification by this speciall Fayth pag. 163. yea on the contrary side he sayth that Protestants hold these foure points First that a Christian of a contrite spirit belieuing that his sinnes are remissible receaueth forgiuenes though he want fayth and perswasion in himselfe that his sinnes are remitted to him in particular by the imputation of Christs merit pag. 166. lin 6. seq Secondly that Protestants hold no man is iustifyed by only fayth or by only belieuing himselfe to be iust and his sinnes forgiuen by the imputation of the Iustice of Christ but he must be iust before he can or ought to belieue himselfe to be so pag. 62. lin 8. Thirdly that the promise of remission of sinnes is conditionall requiring of sinners not fayth only but also the forsaking of sinne and doing good works Esa. 1.16.17.18 and that this promise becomes not absolute till the conditions be fulfilled pag. 166. lin 12. Fourthly that Iustifying fayth is the Christian Catholike Dogmaticall fayth wherby we belieue the hystories of Scripture and mysteries of our Religion ibid. pag. 161. lin 5. Wherfore he sayth that the difference betwixt Protestants and vs Catholikes is only in two points First that they require not only dogmaticall fayth but also that this be a Fiduciall assent that is ioyned with Hope pag. 163. lin 1. But we forsooth hold Iustification by dogmaticall fayth only and by such fayth as is in Diuells and do not require that the dogmatical or intellectual assent be also fiducial that is ioined with Hope pag. 168. lin 2. Secondly that we hold that a man cannot be certayne by fayth that he is iust but Protestants hold the contrary yet he sayth pag. 167. lin 20. that there is very small difference if any at all betwixt them vs herein because they do not hold this their assurance that they are iust to be equall in the firmity of assent to the assurance of Dogmaticall fayth which they haue about the common obiect of fayth Thus the Minister whome I leaue to the censure of Protestants with no little wonder they can indure him to write in this sort and thus openly to disclaime shew himselfe ashamed of the very Essence of their ReligioÌ„ What is certayne amongst Protestants if this may be denyed Howsoeuer I conclude this point with this syllogisme against them Protestants euen by the tacite concession of this their Aduocate hold fundamentall and damnable heresy as certainly as it is certaine that they hold Iustification not by common Dogmaticall fayth but by speciall fayth only whereby one apprehends the Iustice of Christ and vesteth himselfe therewith belieuing in particular his sinnes to be forgiuen and himselfe to be iust in Gods sight by the imputation thereof vnto him through this his fayth But that Protestants hold this as a most fundamentall article of their Religion is as certaine as it is certayne that there is or euer was Protestant in the world Wherin I appeale to the Iudgement of all learned Protestants and to these their bookes Luther Epist. ad Galat. Caluin lib. 3. Institut lib. 11. Melancthon in coll comm Kemnit Exam. Trid. 1. p. Iohn White our Ministers Brother Desence pa. 188.189 seq and to the conscience of euery Protestant yea this is the eleauenth article of the English Church That a man is accounted righteous before God only for the merit of Christ Iesus by faith And it is wholsome doctrine say they that we are iustifyed by this fayth Iustification which is the one Catholike Christian fayth about reuealed misteryes bringing in a phantastical fayth pretending that euery man is Iustifyed by belieuing himselfe in particular to be iust or one of Gods elect Fiftly their extenuating the value of the price of our Redemption not making it sufficient to giue (c) The Minister being ashamed of his Religion doth here also contest that ProtestaÌ„ts teach the merit of workes He sayth indeed in words they teach only the merit of Congruity but in sense he makes them to teach merit of condignity as much as any Catholike doth as is after proued in the 8. point inward sanctity purity to mens soules nor to rayse the workes of Gods children to a due perfection with their reward Sixtly their Errours agaynst Baptisme the gate and entrance into Christian life whereof they deny the vertue to sanctify men the (d) To discouer the vanity of the Minister who sayth that the Protestant doctrine about Baptisme is held by our Schoolemen Note that concerning the necessity of Baptisme there be three errours the one greater then the other The first that though Baptisme be the only ordinary meanes of saluation yet some children dying without Baptisme are saued by extraordinary fauour as S. Iohn was sanctifyed in the wombe Luc. 1.2.53 This is held by some Catholikes but no fundamentall errour because it affirmes not any extraordinary fauour but such
as by the word of God we know may be graunted only it doth rashly apply Gods extraordinary fauours to persons without sufficient warrant The second errour is that though Baptisme be the ordinary meanes of saluation for Infants yet in defect therof there is also another ordinary meanes for their saluation to wit the fayth of their Parents This errour is grosse because it presumes without the word of God written or vnwritten to appoint an ordinary meanes of saluation for Infants This doctrine is taught by Protestants but no Catholike holds it Caietan once held it with submission vnto the Church which hath razed it out of his bookes The third errour is that the children of faythfull Parents are iustifyed by the promise made to their seed and are Gods adopted children before they be borne so that Baptisme doth not truly regenerate them make them Gods children but is sayd to regenerate and adopt because it is a seale and signe of this grace of adoption which children had before Baptisme yea brought with them into the world This errour is fundamentall and damnable which Protestants hold and will hold in despite of their Church and yet dares she not say they are not her children Caluin de vera Eccles. reform inter eius opuscula fol. 759. writeth The Issue of the faythfull is borne into the world holy and sanctifyed because their children being yet in the wōbe before they draw breath be adopted into the couenant of eternall life For it is necessary that the grace of adoption go before baptisme which grace is not the cause of halfe-saluation but bringeth perfect and full saluation which is afterward signed by Baptisme Thus Caluin What the Minister brings out of the sayd Caluin to proue he held that Baptisme doth truly sanctify to wit that children are regenerated by Baptisme is idle For vnto it Caluin himselfe hath made answere l. 4. Institut c. 15. §. 2. When sayth he Baptisme is sayd to regenerate to renew to sanctify to saue men the meaning is not that our purgation saluation is made by water or that water hath vertue to purify to regenerate to renew but only because by that signe we conceyue knowledge and certitude of such gifts for what is giuen by the message of the Ghospell is signed and sealed by Baptisme Heere also I conclude that eyther the Minister and his Church erres fundamentally or at least they must grant foure thinges First that Caluin and his part erre fundamentally Secondly that Culuinists cannot be saued except they repent themselues of their Religion Thirdly that amongst Protestants there is dissention about fundamentall matters Fourthly that the Protestants do not exclude from their communion such as hold substantiall Heresy necessity thereof for Infants to whom they grant saluation without Baptisme Seauenthly their Errour agaynst the (*) The Minister sayth that Protestants only deny the manner of the Reall Presence to wit Trāsubstantiation not the substance thereof because they hold that the body of Christ is truly really and effectually present to the worthy Receauer but present by the apprehension of the soule and by operatiue fayth pag. 178.179 seq pag. 390. 395. I answere that as the Answerer sayd this Presence by fayth is not Reall nor true but only pious Imagination at the most as is proued in the sixt Poynt Reall presence which they deny or else the mayne article of the Creed that Christ is still in heauen at the right hand of his Father For they will not allow a body in two places at once Eightly their denying the Sacrament of (e) The Minister pag. 189. sayth that Protestants allow auricular Confession and Priestly Absolution but deny it to be a Sacrament or of necessity in proofe whereof he citeth the Augustane Confession Answer If the Minister approue the Augustan confession he must approue priestly absolution to be truly a Sacrament and of necessity being commanded of God euen as Baptisme is For thus they write Cap. de numero vsu Sacramentorum The true Sacraments are Baptisme the supper of the Lord Absolution which is the Sacrament of Pennance For these rytes haue the same commandement of God and promise of grace proper to the new Testament Thus they so euen by the Iudgement of this Confession which they esteeme as containing the fundamētall doctrine of their Religion our Minister and his Church erre fundamentally Pennance and Priestly Absolution the necessary meanes for remission of sin committed after (f) Agaynst this Sacrament the Minister disputeth largely but his arguments are triuiall which he takes out of Bellarmine concealing the Solutions which who will may there read in his first booke of the Sacrament of Pennance What he brings out of some Catholike Authors affirming that it is hard to prooue cleerly this Sacrament the Answer is That to proue the Sacrament of Pennance and the necessity thereof for sinnes after Baptisme by the perpetuall Tradition and practise of the Church is not hard but easy which you may see fully performed by Bellarmine but to prooue the same by some text of Scripture so cleerly as some cauill may not be taken at the argument this is difficill And no wonder seing our Minister pag. 541. lin 9. doth graunt that euen the Principall articles of Religion cannot be so prooued by Scripture but seeming Solutions may be giuen Baptisme Ninthly their denying the Catholike Church expresly set downe in the Creed which of all other Articles is with (g) Other articles are more necessary thē this as sole obiects of necessary diuine affection in this respect are more dangerously denyed But as the meanes of knowing necessary obiects nothing more necessary then this true Church nor any thing more euident therefore the deniall thereof is most dangerous in respect of heresy yea the Article without resistance whereof no man can be Heretike greatest danger denyed For the standing out agaynst this makes men heretikes without erring agaynst this no man is guilty of heresy whatsoeuer Doctour Field to the contrary sayth that an Errant agaynst a fundamentall point is an Heretike though he erre without (h) What the Minister sayth that a man may be pertinacious obstinate against Scripture not against the Church is impossible For eyther he seeth his doctrine to be agaynst Scripture or not if he see his doctrine to be contrary to the Scripture yet holds it he doth Iudge the Scripture not to be Christs nor of God consequently he is pertinacious agaynst the Churches Tradition which as hath been sayd is the stay of our Fayth in this point If he see not his exposition to be agaynst Scripture but is deceyued by conference of places he is not Heretike vntil knowing his exposition to be condemned by the Church he persist therein For what is pertinacious wilfulnes but to resist lawfull authority which we know to be agaynst vs pertinacity wherof he brings not any sillable of proofe
yet his doctrine is agaynst the whole Consent of Deuines expresly agaynst S. Augustine who sayth that a man holding with Photinus whose Errors were fundamentall agaynst the Trinity God head of Christ thinking he holdes Catholike doctrine is not yet an (*) The Minister sayth pa. 196. that the IESVITE cites not Augustine truly for he ōly saith I would not affirme of such a person that he is an Heretique Answere This is vntruth S. Austine saith Istum nondum haereticū dico I do affirme this mā not to be yet an Heretique though he hold fundamentall errour till he knowe he dothe it agaynst the Catholike CHVRCH What he addeth that S. Austine meanes that ignorance is not heresy in foro Ecclesiae but is heresy in foro caeli is ridiculous for the contrary is true because whosoeuer denyes though ignorātly the knowne articles of the Creed is an heretike in foro Ecclesiae because he is presumed to erre out of contempt not out of ignorance But if he be truly ignorant he is no heretike in foro caeli because verily he is not willfull Heretike till warned that he holds agaynst the Catholike Church he chooseth to perseuer in his errour Hence I inferre that Protestants erre fundamentally according to the second kind of erring to wit in the manner in all points they hold agaynst the Roman Church which I haued proued to be the true Catholike Church For he that holds any priuate opinions so stifly as rather thē forsake it he denies abandons the Catholike Church a mayne article of his Creed erreth fundamētally as is cleere But Protestants hold their priuate opinions so stiffely as therupon they haue denyed and abandoned the Catholike Church to wit the Roman Neyther doth it import that they retayne the word hauing reiected the sense seeing not the letter of the Creed pronounced but the matter belieued makes men Christians Neyther is it inough to say that they belieue the Church of the Elect seeing the Church of the Creed is not the Church of the only Elect a meere Fancy but the visible and conspicuous Church continuing from the Apostles by succession of Bishops which thus I prooue The Church whereof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is the Church of the Creed or the Church which to forsake is damnable For the Church wherewith Christ still abideth not according to corporall visible presence but by his spirit is the body of Christ whereof he is head into which he infuseth the life of grace consequently he that forsaketh this Church forsaketh the body of Christ and the head thereof and cannot liue by his spirit but is in a dead and damnable state as a member cut off and separated from a liuing body as S. Augustine epist. 50. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. long agoe noted The Catholike Church is the body of Christ whereof he is head out of this body the Holy Ghost quickeneth no man Now the Church wherof Christ sayd I am alwayes with you to the consummation of the world is not the Church inuisible of only the Elect but a visible Church deriued by succession from the Apostles Therfore he that forsakes the Church deriued by succession from the Apostles forsakes the Church of the Creed the Catholike Church the body of Christ puts himselfe into a dead damnable state may haue all things besides saluation and eternall life as Fathers affirme whose testimonies in this behalf are notable and famously knowne whereunto D. Field yieldeth acknowleging one holy Catholike Church in which only the light of heauenly Truth is to be sought where only grace mercy remission of sinnes and hope of eternall happynes are found AN ANSVVERE TO THE Nyne Points proposed by your most Excellent Maiesty I Haue bene large in my former proofes that the Roman is the one holy true catholike church whose Traditions comming downe by perpetuall succession from Christ and his holy Apostles are so constantly and strongly to be belieued that no proofes out of Scripture by priuate interpretatiō vnderstood though seeming most euident may stand to contest (a) The Minister here spends a whole leafe of Paper in bitternes gall against vs as if we did professe to preferre Old Custome before knowne Verity It is not so but thus the case standeth between Protestants and vs. First as for Verity neither they nor we know our Religion to be verity by manifest sight nor by the light lustre euidence of the thinge or doctrine as both of vs must acknowledge if we be sober Secondly there be records which by Tradition we know to haue bene giuen by the Apostles which vpon good warrant are belieued to deliuer nothing but Gods holy word Thirdly when Controuersies arise about this word of the Apostles and there be different opinions about the sense therof seeming arguments be brought on both sides we thinke that side ought to preuaile as the truly Christian for which perpetuall Christian Tradition Custome stand Fourtly we Iudge that that side ought to be reiected as not truly Christian where Christian Tradition is so notoriosly defectiue as they cānot ascend from this age vpward towards Christ by naming professours of their Religion higher then one hundred yeares or if they presume to passe further they are presently conuinced to feigne as it happeneth vnto Protestants This is the summe of all that hath been hitherto sayd and the forme of the Catholicke proceeding about their resolution of fayth against thē And this I haue not done without purpose assuring my selfe that if your Maiestie were throughly perswaded in this point you would without any mans help most easily and fully satisfy your selfe in particular controuersyes out of your owne wisdome and learning For as some that haue bene present at your Maiesties discourses casually incident about Religion report few of our Deuines though trained vp continually in Academies and Exercises of Theology are able to say more thē your Maiesty in defence of the catholicke cause for particular controuersyes when you please to vndertake the patronage thereof which I can easily belieue out of my owne Experience who could not but admire seing your Maiesty so well acquainted with our doctrines and so ready and prompt in Scholasticall subtilities Wherfore most humbly I beseech your most Excellent Maiesty to honour these my poore labours with a gratious perusall of them accepting of mine Answers whē they may seeme reasonable being in defence of doctrines receiued from Auncestors which deserue approbation when there is no euidency against them and of your abundant clemency pardon my prolixity seeing the questions by your Maiesty proposed were so difficill and obscure as I could hardly haue made any shorter full explication of them THE FIRST POINT The (b) The Minister in this question knowes not well what to stand vnto He graunts the question and then he denyes it agayne contradicting himselfe yea censuring his owne whole
Christians behaued thēselues towards it sayth Flecte genu lignumque Crucis venerabile adora Bow knee adore the Crosses sacred wood Origen Homil. 6. in Epist. ad Rom. So great is the power of the Crosse that if it be placed before the eyes and faythfully retayned in mind fixed vpon the death of Christ the army of sinne flesh is conquered S. Gregory called Illuminator who conuerted Armenia did as Euthim. panop part 3. tit 20. relates place wooden Images of the Crosse vpon the shrines of Martyrs bidding the multitude of people that thither resorted to giue worship vnto God by the Adoration of the Crosse. S. Procopius Martyr as doth witnes Nicephorus l. 7. c. 15. did adore a golden image of the Crosse of Christ crucifyed by it got great victoryes In the second age in the beginning wherof some of the Apostles liued Tertull. in Apol. c. 44. writing against Heathens that obiected that Christians were worshippers of the woodden image of the Crosse graunts the thing to be true defendeth the same Yea the Protestant Magdeburgians Centur. 5. c. 6. acknowledge that such Crosses of wood were then amongst Christians frequently vsed set vp in Churches S. Ignatius epist. ad Philip. doth acknowledge diuine power vertue in the image of the Crosse. It is sayth he the victorious trophey or the monument of Christs victory against the Diuell quod vbi viderit horret S. Martial Epist. ad Burdeg l. 8. exhorts Christians still to haue the Crosse before them in mente in ore in signo in mind in mouth in the image thereof this being the inuincible armour of a Christian agaynst Satan The Canons of the Apostles haue beene euer famous in the Christian Church wherof one is cited in 2. Nicen Synode which sayth Let not the faythfull be deceyued by Idolls but paint the diuine humane vnmingled image of the true God our Sauiour Iesus Christ of his seruants agaynst Pagans Iewes that so they neyther goe astray vnto Idolls nor be like the Iewes Finally that these images of Christ crucified were vsed in the Apostles time by their allowance the Iesuite proueth by the text of S. Paul to the Galathians 3.1 so cleerly as you are forced to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signify to depaint agaynst all Lexicons agaynst the principall Protestants that so translate yea agaynst your selfe and yet you wonder at your aduersaries wondrous weakenes THE SECOND AND THIRD POINT 2. Prayings offering Oblations to the B. Virgin Mary 3. VVorshipping Inuocation of Saints and Angells I Haue ioyned these two Controuersyes togeather hoping I might doe it with your Maiesties good liking the maine difficulty of thē both being the same to wit worship and Inuocation of Angells and Saints For I am fully perswaded that if your Maiesty did allow of Inuocation of any Saint you would neuer deny that deuotion vnto the B. Virgin mother of God Opera Regia Respons ad ep Card. Peron p. 402. whome you honour and reuerence aboue the rest though perchance you may dislike some particular formes of our prayers that seeme to giue her Tytles aboue that which is due to a creature about which I shall in the end of this discourse endeauour to giue your Maiesty satisfaction In which question I will suppose without large and particular proofe being able to prooue it by testimonyes vndeniable if need be that Worship Inuocation of Saints hath byn generally receaued in the whole Christian Church at least euer since the dayes of Constantine HEERE the Minister either out of ignorāce or rather out of desire to out-face the truth writes in this sort pag. 290. You presuppose that which notwithstanding your outfacing you will neuer be able to proue that Inuocatiō of Saints was vniuersally receaued as an article of faith This Discourse following is an addition wherin is declared that the Ancient Fathers held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth euer since the dayes of Cōstantine Thus he Wherfore aswell because the matter is important as also to take away this tergiuersation I will heere make good the Answerers word and demonstrate that al the Fathers some one way some another haue testifyed to the world that they held Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Christian fayth and Religion An eleauen Demonstrations that the Ancient Christian Church did euer hold Inuocation of Saints as a matter of Fayth and Religion § 1. TO accomplish this more cleerly and with lesse tediousnesse vnto the Reader I shal reduce the Fathers saying vnto an eleauen heads which may serue as an eleauen different arguments demonstrations of this truth The first Demonstration If the Fathers held the doctrine that Saints are to be inuocated that men are aided by their merits as certain infallible then they held it as a point of faith or a reuealed truth for on what other ground but the word of God could they pretend to hold it as certaine the same not being euident in the light of nature But the Fathers teach this doctrine as a matter certayne and infallible not to be doubted of by Christians as their words declare S Augustine (a) Augustine de cur◠pro mortuis cap. 16. Illa quaestio vires superat intelligentiae meae quemadmodum Martyres opitulentur ijs quos per eos CERTVM est adiuuari This question is beyond the reach of my knowledge how martyrs help them whome it is CERTAINE that they help And againe (*) Idem serm 244. Tunc pro nobis absque vlla dubitatione Sancti Martyres intercedunt Then WITHOVT ANY DOVBT the holy Martyrs intercede for vs when they find in vs some part of their vertues S. Ambrose (b) Ambros. ser. 91. Quid non credunt vtrum quòd à martyribus possunt aliqui visitari hoc est Christo nou credere ipse enim dixit Et maiora his facietis Not to belieue that Martyrs may visit and relieue men liuing in this world is Not to belieue in Christ seing he sayd you shall do yet greater thinges Nectarius speaking vnto Saint Theodore Martyr (c) Nectar orat in primū Sabb. sanctorum Ieiuniorum in S. Theodorum Te post mortem viuere CREDIMVS vt ergo in Christo viuis stas prope eum precibus tuis propitium eum redde famulis tuis We belieue that thou doest liue in God a life without decay or end Therefore as thou doest liue in Christ stands by him so make him by thy prayers propitious mercyfull vnto vs thy seruants What is this but to say that as certainly as Saints see God so certaine it is that they pray for vs and heare our prayers S. Gregory Nazianzen (d) Gregory Nazianzen orat 26. in patrem suum Apostolium ferè ab initio NEC DVBITO quin hoc nunc quoque magis faciat postulatione sua quā priùs doctrinâ I do NOT DOVBT but this blessed Saint in
heauen doth now more help vs with his prayers then euer he did on earth by teaching And agayne (e) Idem orat in appulsu Episcop AEgypt post paginam ferè à principio Res nostras vt persuasissimū habeo caelitùs inspicit virtutis causa laborantibus manum porrigit Holy Athanasius now after victory in so many conflicts doth from heauen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know it wel or certainly looke downe vpon our affayres and reacheth out his hand to them that labour c. S. Sabinus (f) Sabin Epistol ad Polib Scio Credo c. Bishop sayth of the holy Father Epiphanius I KNOW and BELIEVE that as thou didest obtayne of God fauours yet liuing in this world so likewise that now thou canst do the same and much more Theodoret (g) Theodoret. in Theophil cap. 5. Planè scio quòd si Sanctorum memoriam fecero in hominibus c. I KNOW CERTAINLY that if I make commemoration of Saints vpon earth they will be mindfull of me vnto God The second Demonstration If the Fathers commend Inuocation of Saints and confidence in their merits as an act of Christian Religion promising assured comfort to them that do it with fayth they held the same as a matter of Fayth as groūded on the word of God For what but Gods word can be the ground of assured confidence about diuine supernaturall graces But the Fathers teach this Inuocation as a matter to be done in the assurance of faith and Christian piety wherin their wordes are most cleere S. Gregory Nazianzen (h) Nazianzen orat in S. Cyprian non longe à fine Omnia potest Cyprianus puluis eius cum fide exhorting people to aske al things of S. Cyprian sayth Cyprian and his dust or sacred Reliks ioyned WITH FAITH can do all thinges S. Prudentius sayth (i) Prudent Hym. in S. Agnetē Protegit puro fideli pectore supplices that S. Agnes protects and deliuers all that with pure and FAYTHFVLL harts are SVPPLIANTS vnto her S. Chrysostome (k) Chrysostom homil in Sanct. Iuuentium Maximum Mart. Magna Fide reliquias eorum contingamus vt inde benedictionem aliquam consequamur c. quaecunque voluerint apud Regem caelorum impetrare possunt Let vs often visit the Martyrs let vs adorne their shrines let vs WITH GREAT FAYTH touch their Reliques that thence we may receyue some benediction for they impetrate of the heauenly King by shewing their wounds and in their hands their heads cut off whatsoeuer they will Therefore let vs with Great Fayth and alacrity resort vnto them And in another place he thus exhorts (l) Idem homil post reditum ab exilio Credimus nos iuuari illorum meritis Let vs go to Timothy a new Paul vnto Andrew another Peter WE BELIEVE that we are holpen by their prayers Let vs go to their holy bodyes which carryed our Sauiours markes S. Basill (m) Basil. Homil. in 40. Martyres Vbiquadraginta quis dubitet Deum esse praesentem Qui aliqua premitur angustia ad Hos confugiat Who can doubt but God is present with these forty Martyrs who promiseth to be where two or three are gathered in his name whosoeuer is in any distresse let him FLIE vnto them and whosoeuer is in comfort let him PRAY VNTO THEM the one that he may be freed from misery the other that he may be preserued in prosperity S. Gaudentius (n) Gaudent homil de Apost Mart. Tot Sanctorum patrocinijs adiuuandi tota Fide omni desiderio supplices c. vt ipsis intercedētibus VNIVERSA quae poscimus adipisci mereamur We shall be holpen by the Patronage of so many Saints let vs then with FVLL FAYTH and all deuotion be supplyants vnto them and runne after their steps That by their intercessions we may obtayne ALL we request S. Maximus (o) Maximus serm de SS Nazario Celso Si martyribus regionis externae pia votorū debita redderemus c. Fides eos Nostros faceret If vnto Saints whose bodyes be remote from vs we offer the PIOVS DVTY of VOWES FAYTH will make them ours and how distant soeuer their bodyes be from vs they will affoard vs their Patronage we hope for And agayne (p) Ibidem Inuocastivbique Martyrem vbique te exaudit ill◠qui honoratur in Martyre Moderante vtique eo qui pensat vota tua dispensat munera sua in tantùm vicina praesentia efficacis praebitur aduocati in quantùm fuerit Fides Deuota succepti Doest thou inuocate the Martyr EVERY WHERE He that is honoured in the Martyr doth heare and will graunt thy prayers euery where c. And by how much the FAITH of the Clyent shall be more DEVOVT by so much the assistance of the PATRON will be more efficacious present Theodoret (q) Theodor. lib. 8. de curand Graec. affection Gratia enim quae fectis eorum corporibus pollens vigensue persistit petentibus dona distribuit Fidei supplicantiū liberalitatem suam cōmensa The bodyes of the Martyrs being deuided into parts dispersed ouer many Townes and Cittyes yet the grace and power remaynes entyre and vigēt in euery particle and they distribute gifts vnto petitioners measuring their liberalities according to the FAYTH of the SVPPLIANTS And agayne (r) Ibid. PIE FIDELITER precatos They who pray vnto the Martyrs piously with FAITH obtayne the things they most desire as do testify the giftes they being bound by vow offer at their Tombes manifest tokens of health obtained S. Gregory the Great (t) Gregor Dialog l. 2. c. vlt. Vbi sancti Martyres in suis corporibus dubium nō est quod multa valeant signa demōstrare sicut faciunt innumera miracula pura mente quaerentibus ostendunt No doubt but Martyrs at their tōbes shew innumerable miracles to them that seeke with pure hart but because weake Fayth may doubt whether they be present so that they can heare where their bodyes are not therefore oftentymes greater myracles are done where their bodyes are not but (u) Mens in Deo fixa tantò maius habet fidei meritum quantò illic eos nouit non iacere tamē credit non deesse ab exauditione they whose mind is fixed on God haue the greater MERIT OF FAITH in that they belieue the Saints to be there present to heare mens prayers where they know they are not present in their bodyes Behold how fully expresly constantly the Fathers affirme Inuocatiō of Saints with confidence in their merits and that they heare our prayers to be MATTER of Piety DIVINE FAITH The third Demonstration That deuotiō which the Fathers prayse honour admire as diuine and supernaturall as a testimony that Christ is God that could plant the same in the world this they hold as a point of Christian Religion and as an excellent
part thereof But the Fathers so esteeme of Inuocation worship of Saints as their words do witnesse S. Gregory of Nisse (x) Nissen orat in S. Theodor Martyrem Aliorum enim reliquiae vulgò detestabiles sunt nullusue volens ad eorum tumulum accedit c. His operibus oculos oblectantes cupiunt loculo reliquas corporis partes admouere Etenim ipso contactu sanctimoniam credunt charitatem excitari c. Ipsum corpus perinde ac si viuum florensue esset amplectuÌ„tur deosculantur oculis ore auribus omnibus denique sensibus adhaerent lachrimasque pietatis affectionis indices effundunt c. proues this worship to be supernaturall and diuine as being beyond the custome of men instinct of nature The Reliques saith he of other dead meÌ„ be detestable men feele horrour at their sight whereas men desire nothing more then to touch the shrine of Martyrs with some part of their bodyes BELIEVING that by the very touch sanctimony and charity is engendred They (*) Martyri supplicant qui quando vult inuocatus munera impetrat Corpora aliorum c. proiecta iacent quae verò Martyrij gloriam obtinuerunt amabilia iucunda omnium studiis certatim complectenda CAL ON the Martyr as on Gods Ministe who being INVOCATED by men is able to impetrate for them what fauours he pleaseth Hence pious people learne how pretious in the sight of God is the death of his Saints that wheras the bodyes of other men are horrible the bodyes of them that were adorned with Martyrdome be deare and amiable and imbraced and worshipped of all Saint Chrysostome proues Christ to be God in that he was able to plant Inuocation of Saints in men specially in the Kings and Emperours of the world (y) Chrisostom homil 66. ad populum Antioch Stat sanctis supplicaturus vt pro se intercedant apud Deum Audebis igitur quaeso horum DominuÌ„ mortuum appellare cuius serui vel mortui terrarum orbis Regum sunt protectores Vide eundem orat in S. Babilam Euen he that is cloathed with the Imperiall purple comes to worship and imbrace these shrines and laying aside pride pompe becomes supplyant vnto Saints that they will intercede for him vnto God So he that weareth the diademe of the Empire prayeth the Tent-maker the Fisherman to be his protectours And darest thou tearme that Lord a dead man whose seruants though dead are the protectours of the Kings of the whole earth S. Augustine in like manner prooueth the Diuinity of Christian Religion by the Christian practise of worship and inuocatioÌ„ of Saints (z) Augustin epist. 42. Huius saeculi potestates non à repugnantibê° sed à morieÌ„tibê° Christianis victae contra simulachra impetus suos legesue verterunt imperii nobilissimi eminentissimum culmen ad sepulchruÌ„ piscatoris submisso Diademate supplicat EueÌ„ the most emineÌ„t head of the noblest Empire that euer was bowing downe his Imperiall diademe is suppliant at the shrine of the Fisherman Peter The same dignity of Christian Religion is noted by Saint Ambrose (1) Ambros. l. 10. in Lucam c. 21. Regibus martyres caelestis gratiae honore succedunt illi fiunt Supplices hi Patroni The Martyrs by the honour of heauenly grace are insteed of Kings yea Kings be suppliants vnto Martyrs as vnto their Patrons Theodoret spends one whole booke of his eight agaynst Graecians or Heathens in this argument shewing the glory of Martyrs in that people of all nations in all occasions inuocate them and they bestow fauors on their suppliants coÌ„cluding (2) Theodoret. lib. 8. aduersus Graecos Haec quae sit Sanctorum Martyrum virtus ostendunt Martyrum verò virtus quem coluerunt verum Deum esse declarat thus These things shew how great is the power of Martyrs the power of Martyrs proues Christ whome they worshipped to be God The fourth Demonstration That piety deuotion which the most holy Fathers taught as an assured meanes of Remission of sinnes of appeasing Gods anger of saluation was by them held as a matter belonging to Christian Religion and fayth The holy Fathers taught worship and Inuocation of Saints with confidence in their merits as a meanes of appeasing Gods Anger of Remission of sin and of saluation This appeareth by their words Origen sayth (a) Origen homil 27. in Matth. Intercedunt prouocant Christum ne deserat genus humanum propter peccata eorum the Saints before the throne of Christ intercede stirre him vp not to forsake mankind for their sinnes S. Cornelius Pope (b) Cornel. Epist. 1. Intercedentibus Sanctis Apostolis purget maculas peccatorum Pray vnto our Lord Iesus that the holy Apostles interceding he will PVRGE the STAINES of our sinnes S. Cyprian (c) Cyprian de stella magis Veniam obtinentes immeritis they being Iudges Senatours of the heaueÌ„ly Court obtayne Pardon for many that are vnworthy S. Gregory Nissen (d) Nissen orat in S. Theodor Preces Iustorum crimina diluunt The prayers of many martyrs wash out the CRIMES of Nations and countryes S. Ambrose (e) Ambros. lib. 5. de vid. Pro peccatis intercedere possunt They can intercede for our SINNES who wash awayt their own with their bloud Prudentius (f) Prudent Hymn de S. Laurent Indignus quem Christus audiat sed per patronos Martyres potest salutem consequi he that is vnworthy may hauing Martyrs to be his Advocats and Patrons obtayne saluation Nectarius (g) Nectar orat in S. Theodor. Placatum famulis tuis Oh thou that stands by the throne of Christ appease his Anger and make him mild and gentle vnto his seruants S Hierome (h) Hierom. epist. 25. de obitu Blesill Veniam impetrat peccatorum holy Blesilla prayeth for me and as I am sure obtayneth for me remission of my sinnes S. (i) Seuer Sulpit. Epist. ad Aurel. Peccati moles negat ad astra conscensum saeua miserabilem ducit ad tartara spes tamen superest illa sola illa postrema vt quod per nos c. orante Martino mereamur Seuerus Sulpit. An heauy loade of sinne weigheth me downeward euen to the very pit of hell yet this hope remayneth this my only last hope that what we are not able to obtayne by our selues we may merit to obtaine by the prayers of holy Martin S. Paulinus (k) Paulin. de S. Faelic Nat. 8. Exorare Deum pro peccatoribus aegris vique boni meriti meritum superare sinistrum It is the custome of Saints to pray for distressed sinners by the force of their good merit ouercoming the strength of euill merit S. Chrysostome (l) Chrysostom homil 41. in Gen. Author salutis his qui suà se perdiderunt desidiâ God often for the merits of Saints deceased hath mercy of the liuing that otherwise are vnworthy Dauid
to euade First by denying that blessed Saints haue the knowledge of prophesy in a more excellent and permanent manner then haue the Prophets in this life This is plaine against the words of the Apostle cited by the Answerer For the Apostle affirmâ— that the gift of Prophesy in this life is but ex parte imperfect in respect of thâ— Prophesy and knowledge of the next which the blessed enioy Ex parte propheâ—â—mus tunc cognoscam sicut cognitus sum Secondly he sayth though the blesed haue the gift of Prophesy eminently it doth not follow that theâ— haue the exercise thereof according to euery materiall obiect it had in thâ—â— life I Answere that the Saynts of God hauing the gift of Prophesy peâ—manently eminently as knowledge pertinent vnto their Blisseful state must thereby know any secret they desire to know which beloÌ„geth to their state such are the prayers of the liuing made vnto them The Prophet Elizaeus 4. Reg. 5.16 saw in absence what passed betwixt his seruant Giezi About the 2. Argument and Naman to whome he sayd My hart was there present with thee With farre greate reason sayth Saint (*) Videbunt sancti omnia clausis oculis etiaÌ„ vnde sunt corpore absenâ—â—â— Augustine l. 22. de ciuit c. 29. The Saints of God euen with eies of body closed vp shall see all things not onely present but also from which they are corporally absent for then shall be that perfection where the Apostle saith we now prophesy but in paâ—â— â—ut then the imperfect shall be euacuated (a) To Answere the Ministers Cauill that the place of S. Augustine is vnderstood onely of Saints after their resurrection Note that although the Father name the Saints in their glorified bodyes yet his reason conuinceth the same of soules that be blessed before the resurrection For his reason why the Saints after the resurrection shal see the secrets of harts and things froÌ„ which they are substaÌ„tially distant is because theÌ„ they shall Prophesy not in parte but fully euacuabitur quod ex parte est all imperfection of knowledge shall be euacuated but the deceased soules of Saints now before the resurrection do Prophesy not in part but know as they are kowne all imperfection of knowledge being euacuated from them Ergo they see things absent and secrets of harts now no lesse then they shall do then This is that which S. Hierome doth defend To earnestly against Vigilantius that the soules of the Martyrs are present where their shrines and reliques are neuer absent but still ready to heare the prayers of their suppliaÌ„ts not thinking that they are present in so many places substantially according to their soules but that they are preseÌ„t as Elizaeus was present vnto Giezi in Spirit beholding what passed as cleerly as if they were corporally present Thirdly it is cleerely to be proued by Scripture that holy Angels see the prayers and actions and affections of men In the Apocalip c. 8.4 An Angell offered vnto God the prayers of men which he could not haue done had he not knowne them (b) The Minister pag. 314. lin 12. saith this place is vnderstood not of an Angell by nature but of an Angell by type Answer We must vnderstand the word of God in the literall sense except we can cleerly demonstrate by Scripture the literal sense to be absurd And this obligation doth more specially lye vpon Protestants who from perpetuall Tradition appeale vnto Scripture vnderstood by exact conference of places as vnto the last and supreme Iudge But you bring not one word of Scripture to proue that in this place an Angell by nature cannot be vnderstood therfore you runne to types and tropicall senses without warrant of Scripture by which yet you pretend you will be finally tryed Are you not then a ridiculous and vaine Appellant Our Sauiour witnesseth Luc. 15.10 That the Angells reioyce at the conuersion of a sinner So they must needs know it nor can they know it without knowing the sinners harte (c) The Minister pag. 315. lin 15. obiects against this argument that holy men on earth reioyce at the conuersion of sinners yet they know not secrets of harts therfore this argumeÌ„t is not good Angells reioice in the conuersion of sinners Ergo they know the secret pious affections of meÌ„s harts Answer The ioy of iust men in this life is imperfect and mingled with feare nor do they reioyce in re in the thing but in spe in the hope that mens coÌ„uersions are sincere and in the outward signes therof But the blessed Angells ioy is perfect deuoid of feare they reioyce not in the hope but in the thing conuersion it selfe Therfore they must know the inward piety and deuotion of the soule Conuersion not being true noâ— worthy of ioy except it proceed from the hart (d) Although the places speake directly of the Blessed that they shal be like vnto Angells in incorruption of body yet it proueth the same of beatitude of soules For seeing the glory of body floweth from the glory of the soule Blessed Saints should not be like to the Angells in glory of body were they not like and their equalls in the blessed sight and vision their soules haue of God and of things contained in him S. Paul sayth we are made a spectacle vnto God and Angells he adiureth Timothy by God and his Angells which sheweth that we liue in the sight of Angels that they behold what we doe and heare what we say euen in our harts But as the same Scripture Luc. 20.36 Math. 22.30 auerreth the Saints are like vnto the Angells and equall vnto the Angells And in heaueÌ„ the same is the measure of a man of an Angell Apocal. 21.17 Aug. ep 112. Ergo knowledge of our prayers is not to be denyed to glorious Saints the fellowes of Angells Neither could Saints without knowledge of humane affaires be perfectly blessed Blessednes being a state wherin all iust and reasonable desires of nature are satisfyed with vttermost content according to that of the Psalme 16.15 Satiabor cùm apparuerit gloria tua And who can thinke that Saints full of glory and charity do not earnestly desire (e) The Minister against this replyes pag. 319. saying That the Saints desire to know no more then it is Gods will they should know But it cannot be proued by Scripture that it is Gods will they should know the things done on earth Answere We must still suppose that the courses and wills of God be sutable to the nature of things except the contrary be cleerly proued The nature of charity is to desire to know the state of our freinds and their proceedings and affections towards vs. Ergo the Saints beâ—ng full of charity are to be supposed to desire to know the state of their â—reinds they left behind them vpon earth and for whose saluation they â—e sollicitous except our Minister
can cleerly demonstrate the conâ—â—ary And if they desire to know then they know the particulars â—or what our Minister sayth pag. 319. lin 20. That a father in Lonâ—â—n may be solicitous about his sonnes safety that is at Constantinople and yet not â—â—ow the particulars is friuolous for this London Father is not blessed 〈◊〉 he may be desirous to know particulars and not know them and so be â—erplexed for want of his knowledge The Saints in heauen are blessed â—nd so desire not to know any thing but they know it Therfore seing â—ccording to the instinct and inclination of solicitous Charity they cannot â—ut desire the knowledge of their friends affaires they must if they are â—erfectly blessed be satisfied in this their charitable desire to know such things as may concerne their honour done vpon earth the state of their freinds â—ouers liuing in danger to succour them by their intercessions of whose saluation they be still sollicitous though secure of their own as S. Cyprian writes Wherefore our doctrine that Saints see our prayers being deliuered so constantly by the Ancient Fathers so conformable vnto the principles of Christian beliefe about the blessednes of Saints so consonaÌ„t vnto expresse passages of Scripture we may iustly expect that vnto Protestants it would not be displeasing did they looke on it with vnpartiall eyes Specially they hauing no Text of Scripture that may make so much as a shew of direct opposition agaynst it The place continually obiected out of the Prophet Esay 63.16 Abraham knew vs not (f) This place is impertinent also in regard that Abraham and Iacob were not theÌ„ Blessed nor saw God from which Blessed vision the knowlege of things done in this world floweth as a sequell in the triumphant Saints It is vnderstood by S. Hierome in c. 63. Isa. de scientia approbationis that Abraham Iacob did not know that is esteeme and approoue the proceeding of their children the Iewes Israel was ignorant of vs thou O Lord art our Father thou our Redeemer hath this sense Abraham and Iacob when they liued vpon earth and carnally begot children did not know particularly their posterities and so could not beare them such particular affection whereas God can doth distinctly see and know their necessityes aforehand yea before men are borne and prouides agaynst them deliuering his children out of theÌ„ And therfore he is the only Father the only Redeemer Abraham and Iacob not deseruing the name of Father in comparison with God Makes this against the Saints hearing our prayers (g) I desire the Reader to note on the one side how Protestants boast of Scriptures on the other how vnable they are to bring one probable text agaynst Inuocation of Saints Whereas contrarywise the places for the Catholicke doctrine that Saints 〈◊〉 our prayers are so cleere as ProtestaÌ„ts fly to their types and tropes leauing the literall sense without warrant from the sayd Scripture and so by casting a figure euade froÌ„ Gods cleere word Wherfore the cause they appeale vnto Scriptur is not because they thinke the Scripture is cleere for them not much cleerer for vs But because by Scripture they cannot be so cleerly confounded as by Tradition For about Scripture Heretiks euer wrangle pretending that by deductions and inferences they prooue their doctrine being destitute of formall Scripture wherof ignoraÌ„t people caÌ„not iudge For what know they when deductions are good But when they were vrged by Tradition to shew the Pedegree of their Professours they were as dumbe as ours now are that the Fathers said vnto them Confingant tale aliquod let theÌ„ if they can feigne and deuise a pedegree of professours agreeing in the same forme of Faith wherof the first was an Apostle and the last a Protestant The worship in Spirit and Truth with outward prostration of the body due vnto Saints §. 3. THE third cause of their dislike is that we giue the honour of the Creatour vnto the Creature honoring Saints with Religious worship in spirit truth euen to the prostrating of our bodyes before them whereby we giue them honour due to God only and bring in many Gods as the Heathens did To this Obiection made long agoe by Faustus the Manichee S. Augustine lib. 20. cont Faust. c. 22. answereth in these words The Christian people doth celebrate with Religious solemnity the memoryes of Martyrs to the end to stirre vp themselues to their imitatioÌ„ that they may be assisted with their prayers and associated vnto their merits c. But with the worship tearmed in Greeke Latria and which the Latine language cannot expresse in one word being a certayne subiection seruitude due properly to the Deity only we do not honour any but only God nor thinke that this honour ought to be giuen but only to him These words of S. Augustine shew that worship of Saints to be on the one side more then Ciuil and on the other side lesse then diuine more then ciuill as proceeding out of acknowledgement of the excellency Saints haue superiour vnto all naturall by which they be partakers of diuine perfection in that high degree as no substance can by nature participate thereof and therefore S. Augustine with good reason tearmes it religious (h) The Minister pag. 312. contrary to his custome proposeth this argument truly To euery kind of excelleÌ„cy there is a worship due proportionall to that excellency but the blessed Saints and Angells haue a speciall kind of excellency which is supernatural superhumane more then ciuill Therefore speciall honour proportionall to the excellency and superior vnto humane and ciuill is due vnto them To this argument he answereth That in Saints there is dignity of grace and glory and honour is due in respect of the same but not religious worship Thus he what is this but to trifle talke in the ayre who doubts M. White but there is the dignity of grace and glory in Saints and honour due vnto it Speake plainly and mutter not betwixt the teeth Is the honour due to Saints proportionall to their excellency that is more then ciuill Is it superhumane supernaturall as their excellency is Is it superiour vnto that kind of honour which is due vnto ciuill magistrates and other human honourable personages in regard of meere naturall perfectioÌ„ If you grant that worship superhumane and more then ciuill is due vnto Saints you grant as much as we desire to proue The tearme of Religious worship is ambiguous Sometimes religious worship is taken for that which is an elicitiue formall act of Religion of diuine worship due vnto the increated excellency of the Creatour In this sense the worship of Saints is not religious At other tymes it is taken for worship which is an imperatiue act of Religion that is worship done to Saints out of inward Religion and deuotion towards God whose seruants and friends they are In this sense the worship of Saints is Religious
because it doth still proceed and must needes flow froÌ„ inward reuerence towards God For how can one worship Saints purely and only as they are the friends seruants and temples of God but out of the instinct of Religion vnto God Hence S. Augustine tearmes the honor of Saints Religious solemnity And S. Chrysostome sayth Serm. de Martyr 69. That we admire their merits with Religious charity Lesse then diuine as proceeding from persuasion of excellency though super-human yet infinitly inferiour vnto the increate immense excellency of God yea depending essentially therof So that honour that is giuen to theÌ„ dependeth of God as being superexcellent participants of his perfection his singular friends Now that men may worship Angells and Saints in this sort with true affection of spirit euen to the prostration of their bodyes may be proued out of holy Scriptures supposing what is already shewed that they see our actions For if Saints see our actions we may as lawfully and as profitably bow kneele and prostrate our bodyes vnto them as vnto Saints liuing on earth But it is lawfull to honour liuing Saints with bowing kneeling and prostration of body as may be proued by many examples 3. Reg. 18. Abdias an holy man (i) Timebat Dominum valde adored Elias (k) Cecidit super faciem suam prostrate on the ground not for any humane excellency or respect but because he was a Prophet a singular Saint of God The Children of the Prophets (l) 4. Reg 2.15 Adorauerunt proni in terraÌ„ seeing signes of supernaturall and diuine power in Elizaeus coÌ„ming vnto him adored him prostrate on the ground The Sunamite woman her Sonne being dead went presently vnto Elizaeus fell downe at his feete suing not so much with words as with teares and mournefull complaints for the resuscitatioÌ„ of her dead sonne (m) 4. Reg. 4. Corâ—uit ad pedes eius adorauit super terram We read also that holy men haue adored with kneeling and prostration of their bodyes holy Angels appearing vnto them as Abraham (n) Gen. 18.3 Adorauit in terram Loth (o) Gen. 19.19 4. Adorauit pronus in terram Balaam (p) Num. 22. Iosue (q) Iosue 5.15 Cecidit pronus in terram adorans so that this Adoration of Saints and Angells (r) The Minister saith pag. 325. That Elias Elizaeus and the Angels were present visibly and sensibly but the Saints are not sensibly present so we must not bow vnto Saints deceased as Children kneele not to their parents when they are absent Answer We haue proued by the word of God that to be true which the Fathers teach with full consent namely S. Basill de Virgin c. 16. Euery Angell holy Spirit of Saints see what is done euery where And if this be true that they are present vnto vs and we a spectacle vnto them why should we not worship theÌ„ as much as if they were sensibly present Not sense but faith is the ground of our deuotion towards Saints May we worship Saints that are present to vs according to the iudgemeÌ„t of flesh and not worship them that are present according to the Iudgement of fayth and the truth of Gods word with more then human naturall respect and with acknowledgement of more then humane and naturall perfections in them is cleerly deduceable from holy Scripture Neither haue Protestants reason to stand agaynst so many pregnant examples of Scriptures vpon the one example in the Apocalyps of the Angell refusing to be adored of S. Iohn saying See thou do it not I am one of thy fellow seruants adore God specially this place being explicated long agoe by the Fathers as not against the custome of ChristiaÌ„ Saint-worship for eyther the Angell so appeared as Saint Iohn tooke him to be God would haue adored him as God whereof the adorer was to be warned as S. Augustine (s) S. August q. 61. in Genes Corrigendus erat adorator expoundeth or rather the Angell for bad that worship not as iniurious vnto God but only as coumbersome to himselfe being loath as S. Gregory noteth after the incarnation of the Sonne of God to see a man lye prostrate vnto him specially so holy a man and so speciall a friend of Iesus And the words Do it not adore God import no more which I declare Suppose that one prayse a Preacher to his face for an excellent sermon he hath made the Preacher out of modesty say Prayse not me I am an vnworthy instrument of diuine wisdome prayse the authour of all This his speach doth not import that he thinkes to commend a Preachers sermon to be Idolatry giuing away the glory of God to a creature but only that modesty makes him wish that men would not prayse him but rather turne all the prayse glory of that sermon vpon God In this sort the Angell seing the great and glorious friend of Iesus prostrated at his feeâ—e requested him to rise vp not condemning that adoration as Idolatrous but refusing it as an actioÌ„ though in regard of the offerer pious godly yet to him the receauer cuÌ„bersome which he could not without some vnwillingnes behold in regard of the dignity of the person he saw prostrated before him (t) The Minister in this place is large in bitternes against vs because he knowes not what to say or how to frame an argument against vs out of this text of the Apocalips For if S. Iohn did giue diuine and religious worship to the Angel due to God onely the example is not to the purpose For we say Saints are not to be honoured as Gods If he did onely offer honour more then ciuill vnto the Angell in respect of his supernaturall dignity with prostration of body then the same was not vnlawfull For the Minister pag. 336. lin 30. forced by the Iesuits arguments doth acknowledge such obeâ—sances and reuerent comportments may and must be done to Saints and Angels when they are corporally visibly present as his Angell was visibly and corporally present to S. Iohn Now that this great Apostle of Christ was more ignorant then any Triuiall Minister that he knew not what was due vnto Angels better then they who will belieue It is euident that he offered no more then he might without iniury vnto God else being warned he would not haue offered it the second tyme. Therfore it was honour that might piously be giuen vnto an Angell though that Angel did in modesty forbid him to shew the respect he bare to that great Apostle and friend of Iesus as the Iesuit argueth to which the Minister replyes not a word but only rayleth This is euidently gathered out of the sacred text seing S. Iohn after this prohibition did the second tyme offer the like honour to the same Angell which he would neuer haue done had he not knowne adoration of Angells by mortall men to be pious religious on their
so many Fathers affirme is impudent so his arguing is friuolous as euery man may see For Catholicks praise God in all languages and meet to pray with Preists as much as Protestants yet our publike seruice is not said in all vulgar tongues More impertinent are his allegatiōs of Fathers speaking against distraction of mind mēs not hearing thēselues in prayer As though men could not be recollected in prayer by attentiō vnto God vnto their owne needes and the substance of their prayers though they do not vnderstād thē distinctly word by word vulgar multitude only knew their owne mother tongue as may be cleerly gathered out of the same Saint Augustin who writes that he pleading in Latine agaynst Crispinus a Bishop of the Donatists for possession of a village in Africa wherunto the consent of the Villagers was required they did not vnderstand his speach till the same was interpreted vnto them in their vulgar African lāguage So that the Christian Church did neuer iudge it requisite that the publike Liturgy should be commonly turned into the mother language of euery nation nor necessary that the same should presently be vnderstood word by word by euery one of the vulgar assistants neyther doth the end of the publike Seruice require it As for the cōfort that some few want in that they do not so perfectly vnderstād the particulars of diuine Seruice it may by other means aboūdātly be supplied without turning the publik Liturgyes into innumerable vulgar lāguages which would bring a great cōfusion into the Christiā Church First The Church should not be able to iudge of the Liturgy of euery country whē differences arise about the Trāslation therof So diuers errors heresies might creep into particular countreyes and the whole Church neuer able to take notice of them Secondly particular countreyes could not be certayne that they haue the Scripture truly translated for therof they can haue no other assured proofe but only the Churches approbation nor can she approoue what she doth not vnderstand Thirdly were vulgar Translations so many as there be lāguages in the world it could not be otherwayes but some would be in many places ridiculous incōgruous full of mistaking to the great preiudice of soules specially in languages that haue no great extents nor many learned men that naturally speake them Fourthly the liturgy would be often changed togeather with the language which doth much alter in euery age Fiftly in the same Countrey by reason of different dialects some Prouinces vnderstand not one another And in the Island of Iaponia as some write there is one language for Noble men another for Rustikes another for men another for women Into what language shold then the Iaponian Liturgy be turned Finally by this vulgar vse of the Liturgy the study of the learned languages would be giuen ouer in short tyme come to be extinct as we see that no ancient language now remaynes in humane knowledge but such as haue been as it were incorporated in the Liturgyes of the Church the common vse of learned tongues being extinct there would follow want of meanes for Christians to meete in Generall Councells to communicate one with another in matters of fayth In a word extreme Barbarisme would be brought vpō the world Priuate prayers (n) The Minister hauing nothing to say rayleth boasteth that the opposition of Protestants forsooth hath brought vs to allow priuate vulgar prayers by force as we translate Scripture that were our kingdome as absolute as euer we would returne to our Center Thus he Prophesieth but so as he may easily be proued a false Prophet For to omit that diuers Councels many ages before Luther was borne command the knowing of the Pater Aue and Creed in the vulgar tongue where is the Popes kingdome more absolute or Protestācy lesse knowne then in Italy and in Spaine And yet no where are prayers in the vulgar tongue more vsed then in Italy and Spaine You shall hardly there find one woman one Layman which sayeth not their priuate deuotiōs in the vulgar Wheras thousands in Germany Low countryes Polony England both men and womē loue to say their prayers rather in Latine to shew their oppositiō against Protestants that fondly cōdemne such prayers be so void of iudgemēt as to thinke that pious thoughts and affections vpon the Pater noster please not God except we vnderstād the wordes and measure our pious thoughs and affections Geometrically vnto the same so that a woman saying with much deuotion Pater noster if perchāce she thinke that Pater signifyes our and Noster Father her prayer is marred Wherfore your Protestant imprudent opposition is the cause that many pray in Latin which otherwise perchance would not for ignorant people in their vulgar languages we practise we allow yea the Pater Noster and the Creed are to be knowne of all in their Mother tongues which two formes contayne the whole substance of prayer For the end of Prayer being threefold To prayse God for his infinite perfectiōs To giue him thanks for his benefits bestowed vpon vs To demand of him such necessaryes as we want aswell for the maintayning of this present as for the attayning vnto eternall life the Creed being a Summe of the perfections of God his benefits towardes man affoards sufficient knowledge to comply with the two former ends of prayer The Pater Noster being an abridgemēt of al those things which we need cōteines a full instruction for the third Other prayers doe but more plainly expresse thinges contayned in the Pater Noster the Creed and our many bookes do shew that these kind of prayers in vulgar languages are by vs writtē esteemed practised We add that ordinarily speaking common people doe more profit by saying prayers in their mother tongue then in the Latine because not only their affections are mooued to piety but also their vnderstanding edifyed with knowledge Notwithstanding some prayers though translated into English be so difficill to be vnderstood as they will rather distract ignorant especially curious people then instruct them of which kind are many Psalmes of Dauid these prayers as we thinke may more profitably be sayd in Latine So that I see no great difference eyther in practise or in doctrine betweene Protestants the Roman Church concering priuate Prayers in a language vnknowne THE FIFTH POINT Repetitions of Pater Nosters Aues and Creeds especially affixing a kind of merit to the number of them I AM perswaded that your Maiesty doth not intend to dislike Repetition of Prayers so the same be done with reuerent Deuotion and Affection For this repetition is iustifyed not only by the example of the blind man who still cryed vpon our Sauiour with repetition of the same prayer (p) Math. 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. Iesu Fili Dauid miserere mei by which repetition he obtayned his sight nor only of the princely Prophet who in his 135. Psalme repeates 27.
Sauiour vnder the Sacramentall signes and that the words of our Sauiour This is my body be true in their proper and litteral sense This was the reason that the Answerer omitted to proue largely this Catholicke Doctrine Now the Minister finding himselfe vnable vpon this supposition of his Maiesty to answere the Iesuits argumēts for Transubstantiation yea Pag. 397. affirmeth that vnlesse Transubstantiation be granted the wordes of our Sauiour cannot be true in their proper and litterall sense Hence he denyes the presence of the body of Christ Substantially within the sacred signe laboureth to proue that the words of the Supper are figuratiuely and not properly to be vnderstood He grants a Reall and True Presence of Christs body in words but so obscurely as no man is able to vnderstand his meaning Wherfore to cleere this matter wherein Ministers desire to be darke that men may not see the grosse infidelity of their hart agaynst Gods expresse word I shall shew 3. things First what Zuinglians and Caluinists hold in this point Secondly how the Doctrine both of Zuinglius Caluin is against Gods word Thirdly that their reasons not to admit of the literall truth of Christs word be vaine and idle The Zuinglian and Caluinian Religion about the Sacrament §. 1. A Three-fold presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is confessed on all sides The first Figuratiue or in a Sacramentall signe bread signifying his body and wine his bloud The second Imaginatiue or by the pious apprehension of the faithfull receauer who for more deuotions sake doth or may imagine as if he saw the body of our Lord in the Eucharist truly really and bleedingly present vnder the signes of bread and wine The third Effectuall or according to the Spirituall effects of grace purchased by the Body and Bloud of our Sauiour and giuen by vertue of this Sacrament vnto the soule to nourish the ghostly life therof As all proceed thus farre so Zuinglians will proceed no further They grant the body and bloud of Christ to be present in the Sacrament figuratiuely in a signe imaginatiuely by fayth effectually by grace but deny them to be present according to their corporall substance or further then in the outward signe to the mouth and in the inward effect to the soule So that they grant the Sacramentall signe to be bare and empty in respect of contayning the body of Christ though full and effectuall in respect of affoarding soule-nourishing grace Caluinists seeme in their words to maintaine a more reall presence For though they maintayne the substance of the body of Christ in respect of place to be in heauen only and not in the Sacrament yet they teach that the same body without being present vpon earth is giuen vs on earth not only by the apprehension of fayth Non solùm dum fide amplectimur Iesum Christum pro nobis crucifixum à mortuis excitatum Not only in the inward spirituall effects of soule-nourishing grace purchased by the death of his body Non solùm dum bonis eius omnibus quae nobis acquisiuit corpore suo efficaciter communicamus but realiter really truly Dum habitat in nobis dum vnum fit nobiscum dum eius membra sumus de carne eius dum in vnam vt ita loquar cum ipso substantiam coalescimus Caluin in cap. 11.1 ad Cor. Hence we may discouer the Caluinian iugling and playing fast loose about this Mystery when they so often say that the body of Christ is really present but Spiritually for the word Spirituall may be vsed in this Mystery for two ends First to expresse the substance of the thing present to signify the reall Presence not of the corporall substance of our Lords body but only of the spiritual effect therof to wit of soule-feeding grace This sense is false as shall be proued and the very same which Caluin doth condemne in the Zwinglians as execrable blasphemy opusculo de Coena Domini Secondly to expresse the manner of the Presence and to signify that the corporall substance of our Lord is present truly yet in a spirituall that is secret inuisible indiuisible manner this doctrine is true and herein not differing from the Catholike In like manner their Phrase of Presence by Fayth is equiuocall and may haue a threefold sense First Presence by Fayth may signify Presence by pious imagination of Fayth the Receauer conceauing the body of our Lord as if he saw the same corporally and bleedingly present If by Presence by fayth Caluinists meane no more then this then they doe not differ from the Zwinglians nor do they put any more reall presence then imaginatiue that is presence of things according to pious representation and apprehension though not really in truth Secondly Presence by Fayth may signify that Fayth doth dispose and prepare the soule and that then vnto the soule prepared by Fayth our Sauiour is vnited really and truly not according to the corporall substance of his body but only according to the spirituall effect of his grace This sense is also Zuinglian and condemned by Caluin as hath been shewed Thirdly Presence by Fayth may signify presence according to the iudgment of Fayth or a presence which only Fayth can find out feele behold This sense is true and Catholike and doth suppose the body of Christ to be present absolutely and independently of Fayth For were not the body of Christ afore hand present Fayth should not be true that iudgeth his body to be present Whether our Minister be Zuinglian or Caluinist in this point God only knowes he speakes obscurely of purpose He neuer sayth as Caluin doth li. 4. Institut c. 17. n. 7. That by substantiall communication the body and blood of Christ are vnder the signes of the supper deliuered vnto the fayth full yet he sayth and often repeates that the body of Christ is truly really effectually communicated These words sauour more of the Caluinian then of the Zuinglian phrase Notwithstanding his adding effectually after truly and really may draw the speach to be Zuinglian in sense to wit that the body of Christ is giuen truly really effectually that is really accordinge to the truth and reality of the Spirituall effect not really according to the truth and reality of the corporall substance The Zuinglian and Caluinian Presence confuted §. 2. THE Zuinglian doctrine that the body of Christ is present only in an effectuall signe of grace not in substance is against the plaine expresse words of our Sauiour For he did not say this is the signe or figure of my body nor this is the benefit or effect of my body but this is my body and consequently it is his body in substance and essence if the substantiall Verbe Est do signify substance and essence Hence Luther Epist. ad Argent sayth that the words are nimis clara toto cleer and much more cleere then he could haue wished Caluin also in cap.
last of the seauen so that his arguments are Nine in all These being the summe and substance of all his disputation I will heere set them downe answere them one by one that the Reader may see vpon what friuolous reasons these men are mooued to reiect the literall sense of Gods word concerning the highest mysteryes of Fayth His first Argument pag. 397. If the substance of bread and wine do remayne Christs speach This is my body This is my bloud cannot be properly true because one indiuiduall substance cannot be predicated of another properly But it shall be afterward by Fathers and Scriptures proued that the substance of bread and wine remaynes ANSWERE You will prooue the substance of bread to remayne in the holy Eucharist ad Kalendas Graecas the meane while out of what you heere confesse I argue agaynst you You grant that except Transubstantiation be maintayned the words of Christ This is my body cannot be true in the literall sense But they must be vnderstood in the literall sense for on these words the Church of God doth ground a chiefe mystery or Sacrament of Fayth But as hath beene prooued no figuratiue text can be the ground of our beliefe concerning any Sacrament or mystery of Fayth The second Argument pag. 397. The words wherby the wine is consecrated Luc. 22.20 are Tropicall by the confession of our Aduersaryes ANSWERE First it is not absurd that our Sauiour deliuering some precept article or Sacrament should vse words that are figuratiue and exorbitant according to the rules of Grammer if they be not figuratiue nor vnusuall but ordinary playne manyfest perspicuous according to the common phrase and vulgar manner of speach This speach This is the cuppe of my bloud which is shed for you if it be figuratiue according to Grammer yet is it playne easy cleere according to common speach for no man hearing these words This is the cup of my bloud shed for you can thinke that the cuppe and not the bloud contayned therein was shed for vs. Secondly I deny that any word of this speach This is the cuppe of the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you is figuratiue This is the cup of my bloud is not figuratiue seing Christ had in his hand a true cup not the figure of a cup and the thing contayned therein was truly and properly bloud The bloud of Christ is also truly and properly sayd to be the new Testament for it is the thing required by the new Testament Couenant for the remission of sinnes but commonly and vulgarly men say of the thing required by Couenant this is our Couenant Finally the cup in his bloud is properly sayd to be shed seing the bloud was truly and properly shed so the cup properly shed in that respect as to say of a cup of wine this cup is spilt in the wine therof is not figuratiue but rather a speach vnnecessarily playne The third Argument pag. 397. If the words be taken properly then the body and bloud of Christ is deliuered and receaued without the soule and Deity of Christ for in propriety of speach the Body is a distinct and diuerse thing from the soule and likewise from Bloud ANSWERE Thousand instances might be brought that shew your grosse Ignorance in Theology who thus argue For example the Ghospell Iohn 1.10 sayth the Word was made flesh Is this Argument good Flesh in the propriety of speach is a distinct and diuerse thing from bloud and from soule Ergo eyther these words be figuratiue and do not prooue that the word tooke substantially Flesh or els we must say that he tooke dead flesh without bloud soule S. Peter sayth that Christ did beare our sinnes in his body vpon the wood were he not simple that would argue as you do Body in propriety of speach is a thing distinct from the soule and from the God-head Therefore eyther the wordes are figuratiue and do not proue that Christ did truly suffer in body or els we must say that his body without soule and without his Deity suffered on the Crosse. Not so For though the body be a thing distinct and diuerse from the soule yet it is a thing vnited and ioyned with the soule when the person liueth and so the body of a liuing person cānot be giuen except the soule be giuen consequently or by concomitancy therewith Ordinary Philosophy might haue taught you this where it is cōmonly sayd that though the Body be distinct from the Soule yet cānot the body be mooued or remooued deliuered and receaued without the soule the same going from place to place per accidens cum corpore by concomitancy togeather with the body The fourth Argument pag. 397. Seing Christ as Saint Hierome Saint Chrysostome and Euthimius affirme did himselfe Sacramentally eate and drinke what he gaue to his disciples if the words be literally vnderstood then he did eate his owne body and drinke his owne bloud ANSWERE You would haue vs belieue that it is ridiculous and foolish to say that Christ did eate his owne body which yet you durst not vtter in playne words For if Christ as you affirme did eate what he gaue to his disciples eyther he did eate his owne body or else his word in rigour is false wherby he sayd of what he gaue to his disciples Take eate This is my body Hence the Fathers who affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue affirme that Christ did eate what he gaue his Apostles consequently inforced by the euidence of Gods word expressely auerre that he did eate his owne body as Saint Hierome ad Hedib q. 2. Christ in his supper was the eater the meate that was eaten Saint Chrysostome homil 83. in Matth. That the Apostles might not feare to do the same Christ himselfe first dranke his own bloud Yea S. Augustine Concion 1. in Psalm 33. sayth that Christ in his last supper carryed himselfe in his owne hands secundum literam according to the letter which Dauid neyther did nor possibly could doe The fifth Argument pag. 398. If the wordes be vnderstood literally then Christ gaue his Disciples his passible and mortall body But I trow no Iesuit will maintayne that a body mortall and passible can be in many hoasts or mouths at once nor can the same be corporally eaten without sensible touching ANSWERE You might truly haue sayd I trow no Caluinist will belieue that a mortall and passible body can be in two hoasts or mouths at once let the word of God say it neuer so expressely and euen as expressely as these words import Take eate this is my Body which shall be deliuered for many vnto death which shall be broken for you on the Crosse. If Christ gaue his body that was to suffer and dye he gaue his body that was then passible mortal in many hoasts at once vnto the mouths of the twelue Now this being the playne expresse and litterall truth of the word of
though the substance of bread remayne I answer that when substances are apt of their nature and ordayned by vse to contayne other substances then shewing the substance which containes we may signify the substance contained as in the former examples The reason is because their naturall aptitude to contayne other things being vulgarly knowne mans vnderstanding straight passeth from the consideration of the substances contayning to thinke of the thing contayned therein But when substances are not by nature and custome ordayned to contayne others we cannot by shewing them demonstrate another because their outward forme signifyes immediatly the substance contained in them For exāple one puts a piece of Gold in an apple shewing it cryes this is Gold in rigour of speach he sayth not true because the sense of his words is that the thing demonstrated immediatly by the formes and accidēts of that apple is Gold yea put case that one should say this is gold shewing a peece of paper vnfolded in a manner not apt to contayne any thing in it he should not say true though by some deuise he had put secretly into it a peece of gold Because when the paper is shewed displayed and not as contayning something in it and yet is tearmed Gold the proper sense of that speach is that the substance immediatly contayned vnder the accidents of paper is gold although it be couered with other accidents then those that vsually accompany the nature of gold Wherefore the proposition of Christ This is my body being spoken of a thing that naturally is not apt nor by custome ordained to contayne an humane body it cannot be vnderstood literally but of the subiect immediatly contayned vnder and demonstrated by the accidents and outward semblance of bread Now the thing that lyes hidden immediatly vnder the accidents of bread which was once substantially bread cannot become substantially the body of Christ except it be substātially cōuerted into his body or personally assumed by the same body And seeing this second manner of vnion between bread Christs body is impossible and reiected by Protestants aswell as by Catholiks we may conclude that the mystery of Christs Real presence cannot be belieued in truth by them that deny Transubstantiation Specially seing our Sauiour did not say Heere is my body which speach may be verifyed by the Presence of his body locally within the bread but This is my body which imports that not only his body is truly and substantially present but also that it is the substance contayned immediatly vnder the accidents of bread If any man say that by this argument it appeares that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in Scripture but from the wordes of the Institution subtilly deduced and so may perchance be numbred inter scita Scholae not inter dogmata Fidei I answere that the cōsequēce of this argument is not good as is euident in the example of the Incarnation The doctrine that the vnion of natures in Christ is proper not metaphoricall substantiall not accidentall personall not essentiall is no where expressely set downe in the Scripture but by subtill deduction inferred from the mystery which Scripture and Tradition deliuer Notwithstanding because these subtill deductions are proposed by the Church as pertinent vnto the substance of the aforesayd mystery they cannot be denyed without preiudice of fayth In this sort the doctrine of Transubstantiation though not in tearmes deliuered by the Scripture but deduced by subtile and speculatiue inference may not be denyed by them that wil be perfect Belieuers because the Church hath declared the same to pertayne to the proper sense of Christ his wordes and substance of the mystery Concil Romanum sub Nicolao 1. Lateranense sub Innocentio 3. Transubstantiation was taught by the Fathers §. 3. IT is certayne the Fathers acknowledge a transmutation of bread into the body of Christ that they meant Transubstantiation that is not only a mysticall significatiue but also a Reall and substantiall change appeares by these 5. circumstances of their doctrine in this point First [I.] ¶ The Marginall Annotations corresponding to these ensuing Numbers follow afterwards togeather by the expressenesse of their words for there can be no words more significant and expressiue of a substantiall change betweene bread our Sauiours body then those the Fathers vse Saint (s) Orat. Cathechis c. 34. Nissen That the word made flesh is inserted within euery faythful mā by his flesh taking his consistance of bread and wine Consecration II. transelementing the nature of things appearing into the same flesh S. Cyrill (t) Cyrill Ep. ad Calosyrium Influit oblatis vim vitae conuertens ea in veritatem propriae carnis sayth That we might not feele horrour seing flesh and bloud on the sacred Altars the Sonne of God condescending to our infirmityes doth penetrate with the power of life into the things offered to wit bread and wine III. Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh that the body of life as it were a certaine seede of viuification might be found in vs. Saint (u) Chrysost. hom de Euchar in Encoen Nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit Chrysostome When wax is put into the fire nothing of the substance therof is left nothing remaynes vnconsumed IIII. so likewise do thou thinke that the mysteryes are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ (x) Ambros. de initian myster c. 9. Non hoc quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio cōsecrauit Benedictione enim ipsa natura mutatur S. Ambrose What arguments shall we bring to prooue that in the Sacrament is not the thing which nature hath framed but that thing which benediction hath consecrated and that greater is the force of benediction then of nature seing by the benediction euen Nature is changed V. Secondly they require that the Authour that changeth bread into Christ his body be VI. Omnipotent consequently the change not meerely significatiue but substantiall VII Saint Cyprian (z) Cyprian de coena Domini Panis non effigie non natura mutatus omnipotentia verbi factus est caro This bread changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh S. Cyrill (f) Cyrill orat 4. mystagog He that in the marriage of Cana changed water into wine by his only will is not he worthy that we belieue him that he hath changed wine into his bloud S. (g) Gaudent tract 2. in Exod. Gaudent The Lord Creatour of natures that of earth made bread agayne because he can do it and hath promised to do it makes of bread his owne body and he that of water made wine now of wine hath made his bloud Thirdly the instrument by which God workes this Transubstantiatiō is by them acknowledged the most efficacious that may be to wit the word not of man but of God S. Ambrose (h) Ambros. de ijs qui
thereof is abolished into the body of Christ. Secondly the example you bring about Regenerate persons is by you vsed impertinently and truly pondered applyed serueth our purpose For in Regeneration the substance of man is not abolished because by Regeneration man is changed to be participant of the Diuine Nature not from what he is originally by the constitution of nature but from what he is by the corruption of the Diuell and sinne Hence by vertue of Regeneration a man ceaseth to be not according to the substantiall Origen of his nature but only according to the superinduced peruersion thereof by the Diuell But in the Eucharist Saint Ambrose sayth that bread by consecration passeth into the sacred body of Christ from the thing it was by the framing constitution of nature Ergo bread according to S. Ambrose ceaseth to be according to the thing it is by the framing of nature to wit the essence of bread VI The Minister Replyes That to a mysticall change the omnipotency of God is required as appeareth in Baptisme Therefore although some Fathers require an omnipotent power to eleuate and change the creatures of bread and wine yet it followeth not that they maintayned Transubstantiation Answere The Fathers indeed require the omnipotency of God in Baptisme not to change the nature of water into the nature and verity of Christs bloud but to the end that water remayning water vnchanged in nature be eleuated to produce sanctifying grace in the soules of men Thus Saint Leo by you often cited serm 4. de natiuit sayth Virtus altissimi quae fecit vt virgo pareret Saluatorem eadem facit vt regeneret vnda credentem He doth not say as you would make fooles belieue the Fathers vse to speake that the Diuine omnipotency doth change the water into the nature and verity of his bloud but That the same power of the Highest makes water being water to bring forth regenerate persons which caused a virgin remayning a virgin to bring forth the Sauiour But about the holy Eucharist the Fathers speake in another manner They require the Omnipotency of God not to eleauate bread wine that remayning still in nature bread and wine they may sanctify mens soules but to change them into Christs body and bloud by which change they become in thēselues without further eleuation proportioned meanes to sanctify soules as cōtaining within themselues the fountaine of grace Yea the Fathers speeches about the water of baptisme be so different from their speeches about the bread and wine of the Eucharist as this alone might suffice to conuert the Minister were he not obstinate What Fathers say that Christ at the Mariage of soules with him in Baptisme can doth conuert water into his blood by his omnipotency as he could and did conuert water into Wine at the carnall Mariage of Cana as S. Cyrill S. Gaudentius cited by the Iesuit say of the wine of the Eucharist What Father doth say that water changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made his flesh as is sayd of the Eucharisticall bread by the Authour of the booke De Coena Domini VII Though some question be made whether this Authour was S. Cyprian yet learned men both Catholicks and Protestants agree he was an holy ancient Father The Authour of the booke de Coena Domini sayth M. Fulke agaynst the Rhem. Testam in 1. Cor. 11. fol. 282. was not in tyme much inferiour to Cyprian Erasmus in his Annotatiōs vpon S. Cyprian printed at Basill Anno 1558. fol. 287. sayth The Authour was some learned man of S. Cyprian his age as Pamelius doth demonstrate by many euident reasons so that we haue Transubstātiation as ancient as S. Cyprian For what the Minister sayth that this Authour meaneth only a mysticall and Sacramental change to be made is idle as I thus demonstrate The change this holy Father teacheth is made not in the shape quantity accidēts of bread but only in the inward nature and essence thereof panis non effigie sed natura mutatus But the Ministers mysticall conuersion is made vpon the shape quantity accidents of bread as he sayth pag. 425. it passeth vpon the quantity and accidents of bread as well as vpon the substance Ergo the conuersion of bread into Christs flesh taught by this holy ancient Father is an inward substantiall conuersion and not the Ministers mysticall change VIII What the Minister sayth to this Argument that the Fathers affirme the water of Baptisme to be changed into Christs blood by the vertue of his word is false nor hath he cited any Father that doth so affirme Yea such speaking of the water of Baptisme were ridiculous or rather impious as affirming thinges about the mysteryes of Religiō which may make them seeme senselesse and ridiculous without any ground so to affirme in Gods word For Christ neuer sayth of the water of Baptisme Be washed herewith for this is my blood as he sayth often in Scripture of the wine of the Eucharist drinke yee of this for this is my bloud IX To the fourth argument the Minister replyes that the Fathers exhort People to abnegate their senses in Baptisme wherein they mantayne no Transubstantiation I Answere The Minister still singes the same songe that the fathers speake in the same manner of the conuersiō of water into Christs blood in Baptisme as they speake about the conuersion of wine in the Eucharist which is most false and the Minister hath not cited the wordes any Father so affirming The Fathers about Baptisme exhort men to belieue that God can by water wash and purify the soule and this to be a supernaturall worke aboue the naturall force of water which one may belieue without contradicting the euidence of any of his senses yea without any great difficulty in reason For what great matter is it to belieue that God being omnipotent at the presence of water washing the body can inwardly by grace wash the soule But about the Eucharist they say that we must firmely and indubitately belieue that that which seemeth bread and wine is not bread wine but the body bloud of Christ so that vnder the forme of bread and wine is giuen vs the bloud of our Lord and though sense suggest the contrary that it is wine we must abnegate and not belieue our senses herein Shew one Father I say that doth thus affirme of the water of Baptisme that we must firmely and indubitately belieue the same not to be water in truth though it be water in shew and because our sight feeling and tast suggest that it is water that we must with full Fayth abnegate and deny this iudgment framed by sense X. The Minister heere pag. 429. bringeth three triuiall argumēts to prooue the Fathers held the substance of bread to remayne after consecration which are not worth the answering yet I will say a word to each of them not to omit any thing that
vnderstand the naturall qualityes that flow form the nature and essence of bread and wine (a) By substance also they vnderstand not the inward substance but outward corpulency massines of bread and wine for ordinarily and in common speach the naturall accidents and proprietyes of a thing are tearmed the nature of a thing Thus we say to be heauy and fall downeward is the nature of the stone to be hoat and to burne the nature of the fire which are but naturall qualityes of stone and fire By this or rather by a more strange manner of speach S. Theodoret Bishop of Ancyra (b) Hom. de natiuit Saluatoris in corr Epiph. p. 3. c. 9. to explicate agaynst Nestorius and Eutiches the coniunction of two Natures in one Person by the example of the water that Moyses conuerted into bloud sayth That the water was not changed in nature nor did cease to be water which in rigour of speach taking the nature of water for the inward substance thereof as cōdistinct from the naturall qualityes is not true But because water chāged into bloud remaynes according to some naturall qualityes and propertyes which it hath common with bread as moisture liquidnes the like he the better to fit accomodate the similitude sayth The water remayned according to the nature that is according to some naturall qualityes therof For these Fathers (c) These Fathers vnderstood not the inward Nature of bread and wine to remaine nor the inward substāce because they say that the mysticall signes passe by the working of the holy Ghost into another substane yet remaine in the propriety of their nature So saith Gelasius which cannot be vnderstood otherwise then that according to their outward nature and substance they remaine though in their inward nature and substance they be changed and passed into the substance of Christs body and blood bring those similitudes to declare the mystery of the Incarnatiō against the Heresy of Eutiches who denyed the naturall qualityes propertyes of the two Natures of God and Man to remayne distinct in the person of Christ. This errour they reiected by the example of the Eucharist where the naturall qualityes of bread remaine together with the body of Christ in the same Sacrament which naturall qualityes of bread they tearme the nature of bread as in some sense they may be tearmed to the end that the phrase of two distinct natures remaining might be common to the mysteries of the Incarnation and Eucharist and so the similitude seeme more fit and proper Yet the Fathers know well that the phrase did not agree to both mysteryes equally in the same sense And this obscure vttering of his mind is the lesse to be wōdered at in Theodoret because he doth professe in that place not to speake plainly as fearing that some Infidells or Gatechumens were present to whom the mistery of Transubstantiation was not to be reuealed Non oportet sayth he apertè dicere est enim verisimile adesse aliquos non initiatos Much lesse cause haue they to stand vpon the wordes of Saint Augustine (d) August serm ad Infant apud Bedam in cap. 10. Quod videtur panis est quod etiam oculi renūtiant quod autem fides postulat panis est corpus Christi For the sense is that consecrated bread is bread in outward appearance and the naturall accidences of bread truly remayne as the eye doth witnesse but in wardly and according to the substance it is not bread but the body of Christ as fayth requireth we belieue And it is to be noted that these wordes are not extant in the workes of S. Augustine but alleadged by Venerable Bede a follower of Saint Augustines doctrine and so it is not likely they are to be vnderstood but as Bede vnderstood thē who sets downe his mind in these words (e) Beda de mysterio missae apud Thom. Waldens Tom. 2. c. 8. 2. The forme of bread is seene but the substance of bread is not there nor any other bread but only that bread which came downe from heauen (*) The Minister pag. 435. to make a shew of many Fathers addeth vnto Theodoret and Gelasius the testimony of Bertram S. Chrysostome in epist. ad Caesarium Monachum S. Irenaeus S. Damascen Answere The booke of Bertram is of no credit being set forth with many Protestant additions as themselues confesse and you may see proued in a Treatise tearmed The Plea for the Reall Presence agaynst Syr Hūfrey Lynd his Bertrā The Epistle ad Caesariū Monachum is not S. Chrysostomes S. Irenaeus his testimony hath been already shewed to be impertinently alleadged S. Damascen is by you grossely abused as being brought quite contrary to his mind For when he sayth l. 4. de fide c. 14. As a fiery coale is wood and fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not only bread but bread vnited to the Diuinity he meaneth by the bread of the holy Cōmunion not bread remayning bread but bread changed into Christ his flesh To say that bread remayning bread in substance is vnited personally vnto the Deity is impious S. Damascen in that place doth most cleerly shew that he speaketh of bread changed into flesh For thus he writeth Christ did conioyne his diuinity with bread and wine that so by thinges that are common and to which we are vsed we may attayne to thinges diuine and aboue nature for verily the body borne of the Virgin is a body vnited vnto the Deity not that his body assumpted into heauen doth agayne descend in the Eucharist from heauen but that bread it selfe and wine are conuerted into the flesh and bloud of God And a little after A coale is not only wood but wood ioyned to fire so the bread of the holy Communion is not simple bread but bread vnited vnto the Deity But the body vnited to the Deity is not any single nature but the nature of flesh and the nature of the Deity be conioyned together in it Thus he most cleerly shewing not that the bread of the holy Communion remaining bread in nature is vnited to the Deity to make togither with it a personall compound of two natures it were blasphemy so to thinke but that bread chāged into Christs flesh is vnited to the Deity because the flesh into which it is changed is not meere and only flesh but also flesh vnited with the Deity How intolerably is S. Damascen falsifyed by you Being truly and fully cited how fully doth he teach Transubstantiation But such is your Religion you must make a shew of the Fathers to be on your side though you know in conscience they make agaynst you you must patch togither some of their mangled sentences to make a gay fooles-coate for your seely Credents least they seeme naked The seeming repugnances this mistery hath with sense should incline Christians the sooner to belieue it §. 4. THE former proofe of Transubstantiation might satisfy were
this mystery not accompanyed with many seeming absurdityes repugnances agaynst sense particularly these foure First that a body as big as our Sauiours remayning stil truly corpulent in it selfe should be contayned within the cōpasse of a round Hoast scarce an inch long and broad Secondly that a body so glorious should be combined vnto corruptible elements and so made subiect vnto the indignityes and obscenityes that may befall vnto them Thirdly that the body may be in heauen and on earth in innumerable places at once Fourthly that the substance of bread being cōuerted into Christs body the sole accidēts remaine by themselues performing the whole office of substance no lesse then if it were present euen to the nutrition of mans body These difficultyes so scandalize Protestants that some condemne Trāsubstantiation as impossible yea as (f) Field of the Church lib. 3. absurd ridiculous barbarous Others professe they cannot subdue their vnderstandings to belieue it as a matter of Fayth To giue full satisfaction in this point I set downe this proposition that these seeming absurdityes should not auert but rather incline a true Christian mind to belieue this mystery In proofe whereof I present vnto your Maiesty these three Considerations (g) The Minister here sayth that this longe tract about Gods omnipotency is impertinent because Protestants deny not Gods omnipotency But this Cauill is refuted in the Censure Sect. 3. §. 3. where it is shewed that to deny the litteral sense of Gods word about the mysteryes of our fayth to be possible vnto God is Infidelity Now Protestants grant the holy Eucharist to be a chiefe mystery of fayth Transubstantiation to be the literall sense of Gods word about the same wherefore this tract about the Diuine omnipotēcy is pertinently brought agaynst them The first Consideration The first is grounded vpon the supposall of two thinges most certayne First that the Primitiue Church preaching vnto Pagans Iewes and other Infidells the rest of Christian mysteryes as the Trinity the Incarnation the Resurrection of the body did most carefully keepe as much as might be from their knowledge the mystery of the Eucharist yea Catechumens and Nouices were not before Baptisme fully taught or instructed therein Secondly the reason moouing the primitiue Church to be carefull in this point was least Catechumens Infidells being fully acquainted with the whole mystery the one shold be scandalized the other mocke therat Hence it was accounted such an heynous offence that Christians should discouer vnto Infidels or dispute about the difficultyes thereof in their presence The Councell (g) Concil Alexand. apud Athanas. Apolog. 2. of Alexandria relating the crimes of Arrians number this as one of the greatest They were not ashamed in publike and as it were vpon a scaffold to treate of the mysteryes before Catechumens and which is worse before Pagans And a little after It (h) Epist. Iulij apud Athanas Apol. 2. is not lawfull to publish the mysteryes before them that are not initiated for feare Pagans out of ignorance mocke and Catechumens entring into curiosityes be scandalized And agayne Before Catechumens which is more before Iewes Pagans blaspheming Christianity they handled a question about the body and bloud of our Sauiour And to the same purpose Saint Ambrose (i) Ambros. de myster initian c. 1. saith To declare the Mysteryes vnto them that be Catechumens is no tradition but prodition seing by such declarations danger is incurred least they be diuulged vnto Infidells that will scoffe at them This supposed I inferre that the seeming absurdities of the Catholike reall presence should encourage a true Christian mind to belieue it For a true Christian desires to belieue and firmely cleaue vnto the reall Presence that was belieued by the primitiue Church But this was a reall Presence accompanyed with many seeming grosse absurdities that the Church had no hope to satisfy Infidells therein or to keep them from blaspheming but by concealing the mystery from them and consequently they held the Catholicke not the Protestant doctrine in this point The Protestāts (k) The Minister pag. 442. lin 12. saith that Protestāts hold the elements of bread wine to remaine to be instruments of our coniunction by grace vnto God and that this is a mystery incomprehensible Answere First Protestants do not hold the elements of bread and wine to be proper instrumēts infusing grace into mans soule but that men are iustifyed by their faith onely that this Sacrament is a meere signe and seale therof Secōdly though Sacramental influence of grace into the soule be a thinge supernaturall yet no mystery of extraordinary difficulty to be belieued nor absurd vnto sense For this is no more thē that vpon our eating and drinking of bread and wine in remēbrance of Christs body broken of his blood shed on the Crosse God infuse soule-nourishing grace into the worthy receauer Now what difficulty to belieue this or what seeming absurdity therin This is no greater mystery then that vpon the washing of the body with the element of water God inwardly wash the soule with grace Wherfore seing Protestāts cā find in their Eucharist no mystery more hard seemingly absurd thē in Baptisme doubtlesse it is not the mystery of the Primitiue Church concealed frō Infidells in regard of the seeming absurdity and immanity therof vnto carnall imaginatiō whereas Baptisme was not conceaued to be of that seeming absurdity nor concealed doctrine that makes Christs body present spiritually by fayth vnto the deuout receauer that communicating thinkes sweetly of Christs passion and death contaynes no mystery to be cōcealed in respect of the seeming absurdityes yea the Fathers did not feare to declare to Catechumens this Sacrament so farre as it was commemoratiue of Christ and his passion as appeares by the treatises of Saint Augustine vpon S. Iohn made before Catechumens out of which Treatises Protestants for their meere commemoratiue Presence alleadge many sentēces to little purpose For he there explicates spirituall manducation by fayth and he excludes the grosse imagination of eating Christs body in his proper shape tearing it in pieces with the teeth but denyes not yea rather insinuates another kind of spirituall manducation not only by fayth but by reall sumption though to conceale the mystery from Catechumens he speaks not so cleerly thereof Wherfore as the Palm-tree the heauier the weight is that is layd vpon it the more it riseth vpward as it were ioying in difficultyes So a true Catholike Christian feeling in the doctrine of Transubstātiation many seeming absurdityes that presse carnall imagination to the ground groweth thereby more strong to belieue it imbracing these difficultyes as manyfest signes that this doctrine was belieued by the Primitiue Apostolicall Church On the other side the Protestants finding the Presence of Christs body by faith to be deuoyd of such difficulties may by the very lightnes thereof suspect it is not the doctrine which the Fathers concealed from
being not only as satisfactions but also as merits superfluous in respect of himselfe be communicable vnto other not only as satisfactory for their sinnes but also as meritorious of glory for them In the Saynts liuing vpon earth it is not so For they be not in glory nor can they in this life be so perfect but they may merit still more more glory and as they merit more and more so their reward is greater and greater Hence their workes as meritorious of heauen can neuer be superfluous nor without the effect of a full and condigne reward in their owne persons whereby it cometh also to passe that nothing of their merits superabounds to be communicated vnto others But of their workes as satisfactory for Temporall reserued payne there is not the same reason For some Saints may be preserued by speciall grace from al actual sinne as the Blessed Virgin was or from any greuous sinne as was S. Iohn Baptist Others though they committed some mortall sinnes when they repent the penalty reserued after the remission thereof being finit temporall they may by voluntary assumption or diuine infliction endure more payne then is the reserued Hence Saynts may haue satisfaction which superabouÌ„ds that is which hath not the reward of remission of temporall payne in their owne persons and consequently satisfactions that be communicable vnto others though the merit of their workes be still proper to themselues and incommunicable If the Minister will continue his rayling agaynst this reason he may but I doe not doubt could he deliuer reasons for his Protestant Doctrine so drawne out of the bowells and principles of Christian Theology as this is he would not rayle so much as he doth but yield his Reader some learned discourses in lieu of so many bitter inuectiues Minister pag. 555. Though the superabundant satisfactions want the proper fruite and reward of satisfaction yet this being recompensed by a large increase and surplasage in an other kind can be no dishonour to God As prayer though sometimes the same want the most proper fruite and effect thereof which is to obtayne the thinge requested yet is the same otherwise sufficiently rewarded ANSWERE Your Example makes agaynst your selfe for pious and Godly prayer being both meritorious of heauen and impetratory of what is requested neuer wants eyther of these two fruites For as it doth still merit new increase of glory so doth it still obtayne the thinge requested so farre as it is requested for the thinge is requested by Godly prayer so farre as it is profitable for the soule according to Gods holy will but so farre it is still impetrated And if the particular thinge requested be not for the soules greater good another thing is obtained in lieu therof that is better Hence I thus argue You grant if there be superabondant satisfactions of Saynts the same must be rewarded by the proper fruite of satisfaction as much as prayer hath still the reward of impetration But prayer is still rewarded with the fruite of impetration eyther in the person of him that prayeth or in some other person for which it is offered Ergo the superaboundant satisfactions of Saints must haue the reward of satisfactioÌ„ which seing they cannot haue in their persons they must haue it in some other partyes to whome it is applyed The Minister pag. 556. If one should affirme It is more for Christs glory to purchase to himselfe a people which in this life is perfectly innocent then to purchase a people carrying alwayes about them the remaynder of sinne he should not honour Christ but proue himselfe a lyer 1. Iohn 1.8 so likewise to affirme It is a greater honour to Christs merits to purchase Saynts that can make condigne and superabondant satisfaction for their sinnes carryeth a shew of honouring Christ but is in truth a Sacrilegious errour Answere First the power and strength of the Diuine grace is better seen in infirmityes and in men compassed about with the remaynders and incombrances of sinne as S. Paul sayth 2. Cor. 12.9 and S. Augustine That the grace of Innocency was felicior but the grace of redemption is fortior de Corr. grat c. 11. Secondly â—f Christ did purchase to himselfe some excellent Saynts that did make condigne satisfactions this is an honour to his merits But the Scripture and Fathers affirme that he hath purchased to himselfe Saynts that can and do offer vnto God condigne fruites and works of pennance satisfactions compensations Sacrifices of iustice pennance equall commeasured vnto the quantity of the sinne in respect of the reserued debt of Temporall payne as hath been shewed yea that Saynts by their works obtaine a crowne of glory so as God giueth it them proceeding as a iust iudge 2. Tim. 4.8 Ergo this is an honour to Christ in truth and to say it is a Sacrilegious errour is blasphemy The Minister pag. 357. The Communion of Saynts in respect of the liuing is compartnership in fayth c. Answere The word of the Creed Communion of Saynts is absolute without restraynt not to be limited by the brayne fancy of a Minister Hence it imports that betweene Saynts there is a Communion of all graces and perfections which superabound in the one and are needed of the other But good workes according as they are satisfactioÌ„s superabouÌ„d in some Saynts are needed of some other as hath been shewed Therfore betweene Saynts there is Communion in respect of them The Minister pag. 558. Dauid was a man full of grace according to the hart of God c. and so did not need the superabondant satisfactions of others Wherefore in respect of this Communion he did not reioyce saying Psal. 118. I am O Lord partaker of all that feare thee Answer Suppose Dauid did not need the satisfaction of other Saynts yet he might reioyce in that he was a member of the house of Saints who may participate of the superaboundaÌ„t satisfactions of others if they need them that he did not need them he knew not certaynly after he had committed the two enormous sinns To the place of S. Paul 1. Coloss. 22. I ioy in my sufferings for you and I make full the thinges that want of the sufferings of Christs in my flesh for his Body which is the Church The Minister pag. 559. Christs passions are of two kinds some personall and in his owne flesh some by simpathy and compassion of others The first are satisfactory and S. Paul supplyed not or perfected not them for then Christs sufferings were imperfect The second are Exemplare Purgatiue Probatiue and for the edifying of the Church these S. Paul did accomplish and supply Answere To shew the weakenesse of your Reply I aske whether Christs sufferings on the Crosse as exaÌ„ples were imperfect or not If you say they were imperfect perfectible by Creatures you blaspheme also you may as truly say his satisfaction was imperfect and suppliable by the addition of Saints If you
proue that Iesuits hold singular opinions to enlarge the Popes Power you say pag. 573. That Iesuits more theÌ„ other Romists are obliged by speciall Vow to mantayne Papall dignity And pag. 579. If his Holynes send another wind you which haue Vowed strict Obedience vnto the Pope must turne your sayles your Votes and Prayers must be bound to execute the Popes pleasure in killing the King And agayne pag. 577. What safety and security can Princes inioy by relying vpon such seruants which stand Centinell vpon an houres warning to follow their greater Maister If your Maisters hand cast Crosse insteed of Pile what shall we expect from such Gamesters Quibus Ludus sunt Capita Diademata Regum This is your Cauill vttered with all possible gall which yet is cleered by the words in your margent out of the Bull of ConfirmatioÌ„ of the Institute of the Iesuits by Pope Paul the third You cite them in latin as agaynst Iesuits to delude fooles But you English them not as knowing they tend to the credit of Iesuits the discouery of your slaunder These they be We â—udge iâ— expedieÌ„t for the greater deuotion to the Sea Apostolicke more full abnegation of our owne selfe wills and pleasures that the Professed of this Society besides the Common band of three Vowes be further tyed by speciall Vow so that whatsoeuer the Roman Bishop for the time being shall command PERTINENT VNTO THE SALVATION OF SOVLES and PROPAGATION OF THE FAITH they shall be bound to execute the same presently without tergiuersation and excuse whether THEY SHALL BE SENT VNTO TVRKES or vnto INFIDELS euen vnto those which are commonly called THE INDYES or vnto HERETIKES or SCHISMATIKS These be the words contayning the matter of the Iesuits speciall Vow By which it appeareth that their Vow is not to enlarge Papal power but to propagate the Christian Name to find out not new opinions to put men vnder the Pope but new Nations neuer heard of before to exalt theÌ„ to Heauen by teaching them the sauing Truth Nor are Iesuits bound by this Vow to obey the Pope absolutely in all things but in things that are according to their Institute which is to follow as neere as by diuine grace they may the life of Iesus If the Pope command them they must obey in thinges that pertayne vnto the Saluation of soules not in thinges which belonge vnto the destruction of bodyes If the Pope bid they be bound to go begging in Apostolicall manner not fighting in military sort to carry the Crosse not to brandish the sword to sound the Gospell of peace not the Trumpet of Warre to giue in the defence of truth their owne Bloud not to shed the bloud of others to help men vnto eternall Crownes not to take temporall Crownes from any Hence you may see Iesuits stand indeed Centinell at an houres warning to be sent vnto Iewes Turkes Infidells Indians Caniballs to preach the Gospel and in preaching thereof to expose their liues to dayly dangers of death destitute of all comfort that the world can affoard In execution whereof they haue by their labours brought to the knowledge of blisfull life and to the hope of euerlasting Crownes many Princes Kingdoms in the Indyes whereas your Gospell the meane while did nothing but tumultuate rayse seditions murther and put Kings from their Thrones in Europe In so much as Beza Epist. Theol. 63. sayth What Churches should we now haue had we not erected them by force of armes agaynst the will of Kings Whence it is cleere that the Iesuits Vow to be ready at an houres warning to goe vnto any Country of Infidels to preach the Gospell is not against the safety and security of Kings If some Ministers in England could so eloyne themselues from all affections of this life as to bind themselues by Vow vnto their Lord of Canterbury to be ready at an houres warning to goe when he sends them without tergiuersatioÌ„ or excuse to preach the Gospell whether to Iewes Turkes Infidells Indians or Caniballs as he shall thinke most 〈◊〉 how this Vow would endaÌ„ger the Kings security I do not see 〈…〉 would indeed trouble their Wiues so it is a Perfection not to 〈…〉 for amongst wiuing Gospellers Yea they caÌ„not endure the sight thereof more then Bats the CaÌ„dle which they striue to put out with their impure winges as these men labour to disgrace such glorious Institutes their Wiuing Gospell caÌ„not aspire vnto with the filth of all slaunderous Reports The Title of Gamesters quibus ludus sunt Capita Diademata Regum that play and sport at the decrowning and beheading of Kings which for a farewell you would shake froÌ„ your selues vpon Iesuits will not so easily goe from you it is proprium quarto modo to you the note and ensigne of your Gospell the distinctiue Marke of your Profession and will be so longe as there shall be mention thereof For your gaming feasting and triumphing at the beheading of the Lords Annoynted is set vpoÌ„ Authenticall Record in your owne Chronicles Iohn Stow. pag. 1240. Will you reade it Anno Reg. 29. The 6. of December The Lord Maior of London assisted with Diuers Earles Barons the Aldermen of London in scarlet the principall Officers of the Citty the greatest number of the Gentlemen of the best account in and about the Citty with the number of 80. of the most Grauest and Worshipfullest Cittizens in Coats of Veluet and Chaynes of Gold all on horsebacke IN MOST SOLEMNE stately manner BY THE SOVND OF FOVRE TRVMPETS about ten of the clocke in the fore Noone made open and publicke Proclamation of the SENTENCE GIVEN for the BEHEADING OF THE QVEENE OF SCOTS to the GREAT and WONDERFVL REIOYCING of the people OF ALL SORTES as manifestly appeared by RINGING of Bells making of BONEFIRES and SINGING of Psalmes IN EVERY streete and lane of the Citty Neuer since Christianity began was there Sect or Nation of men vnder the Name of Christian that did iuridically behead a Christian Annoynted King feasting singing and dancing about Bonefyres for ioy in that respect but only your Ghospell So as men hearing the Title of Gamesters quibus ludus sunt Capita Diademata Regum can they vnderstand any other Profession but yours Thus I haue more largely encountred with your slaunders that you might see you gayne nothing by your bitter excursions into odious matters The myst of your Cauills is easily dispersed by the euidence of the Truth your Calumniations agaynst Catholicks as balls cast agaynst a wall of brasse For murus aheneus esto Nil conscire sibi returne with a strong rebound of confusion vpon your owne face THE CONCLVSION HAVING performed your Maiestyes will and pleasure in seeking to giue satisfaction about the Nine principal points that withhold your Roall Assent from ioyning vnto the Roman Church my poore endeauours prostrate at your Maiestyes feete to receiue their doome humbly beseech this fauour that your Charity Desire of
sinne euery way What is hence consequent That except you recall your Censure you must censure the Fathers as Gracelesse Dānable lyars Franticke fooles so great is your passion and so small your iudgment in rayling at the Iesuit Secondly you are to be pittyed in regard your passion is so extreme as you cannot ioyne togeather the parts of your discourse in any sensible manner You say that the Iesuit holding the Blessed Virgin was immaculate and pure from actuall sinne is like to Acesius the Nouatian who thought himselfe pure and innocent and denyed possibility of saluation vnto men that sinned after baptisme so leauing no ladder to Climbe vp to heauen but only that of Innocency What can be more inept then to lay this censure on the Iesuite in that respect If the Iesuite hold the Blessed Virgin to haue been euer free from actuall sinne doth it follow that he must also so esteeme of himselfe as did the Nouatian May he not iudge her to be an Immaculate Virgin and yet himselfe a sinfull man crauing pardon of his sinnes by her prayers And if he should be so fond also as to thinke himselfe vnspotted pure from sinne doth it follow that he must needes with Acesius exclude from saluation all penitent sinners allow no ladder vnto heauen but only that of purity taking away the other of pennance Surely you cannot but see this your Inuectiue to be not only wrongfull but also witlesse The same distemper of passion causeth you not to marke the want of coherence betwixt your Textuall assertions and Marginall proofes In your text you say The Iesuit by saying the Blessed Virgin was pure from sinne hath lost his witts by the feauer of pride In proofe hereof you cite in your margent this sentēce of S. Cyprian Quisquis se inculpatum dixerit aut superbus aut stultus est who so doth say that himselfe is without sinne is eyther proud or a foole Do you not yet perceaue the wonderfull impertinency of this proofe Let the same be put into forme then you will perchance presently feele it Whosoeuer sayth that himselfe is without sin is a proud foole The Iesuit sayth that the mother of God was without sinne Ergo The Iesuit is a proud foole Verily the Iesuit is not so great a foole as he who doth not perceaue the folly of this arguing which is iust as good as this Who so thinketh himselfe the holyest learnedst Deuine of this age is a very foole But Francis White thinketh Iohn Caluin the holyest and learnedst Deuine of this age Ergo Francis White is a very foole Suppose you were thus conceyted of Caluin and some Catholike Deuine should thus come vpon you for the same would not his folly seeme prodigious vnto all learned men Other falsifications I might yet further discouer as pag. 5. lin 8. where to shew that the Church shall not be alwayes visible Aug. de vnit Eccles. c. 16. you bring the Donatists obiection The Scriptures fortell a large reuolt from heauenly truth 2. Thessal 2.2 these words from heauēly truth are added to the Text for the Text only sayth first there shall come the defection or reuolt which most Expositours vnderstand from the Roman Empire And pag. 519. citing 1. Iohn 5.18 He that is begotten of God SINNETH NOT for the Diuine generation keepeth him and the wicked One toucheth him not you omit sinneth not that the Scripture might not seeme to auouch what you so bitterly rayle agaynst that the Saints of God by speciall grace may liue without sinne Likewise to reproue the Iesuites doctrine that Saints though they sinne venially yet doe not sinne agaynst the Diuine Law For this Law doth exact thinges of men no further then they are necessary vnto eternall life but Veniall sinne destroyeth or opposeth nothing that is necessary to eternall life Agaynst this doctrine you argue pag. 522. lin 20. If iust men haue any sinne they performe not all the Diuine law requireth for euery sinne is a transgression of the Diuine law 1. Iohn 3.4 Heere to the Text of your English Bible you adde Diuine the Text being Euery sin is a transgression of the Law or of a Law And this sentence is true for though Veniall sinns be not against the Diuine speciall law because they are not against Charity and Saluation yet they are against the law of reason which bindeth mē as much as may be not to be forgetfull inconsiderate euen in small matters And though some sentences of Scripture recōmend these small thinges vnto vs it is only to put vs in mind of what we are bound vnto by the law of reason not to lay new diuine obligations vpon vs Many such other tricks of your falshood I omit to discouer for breuityes sake Ignorance Fraud and Falshood in alleadging Fathers and all manner of Authours SECT V. IN this subiect I might be large you being copious in your quotations whereof scarce one is to be found which being examined to the originall is not eyther impertinent or wrested agaynst the Authours mind or falsifyed by mis-translation in the very text Which to discouer fully and particulerly were an hugh worke and hardly worth the labour and no wayes necessary For euen as to the end that one may know the Sea to be salt it is not needfull that he drinke vp the whole mayne two or three tasts taken heere and there may sufficiently resolue him of this truth so foure or fiue examples in euery kind may more then abundantly serue to make this your want of conscience knowne vnto your vnwary Credents that they may see whome they trust in a busines that doth so highly import These your falsifications are of two kinds some crafty and subtill some grosse and impudent Crafty falsification is when to draw Authours to your purpose in your translation of their text you eyther adde to it or detract frō it some words or particles thereby changing the sense or else cite their words truly but contrary to their meaning Grosse falsification is when you lay doctrines to the charge of Authours which they reiect euen in the places by you cyted Both these kinds of falshood S. Paul doth signify to be practised by Heretikes Ephes. 4 8. where he sayth That Christ hath left Pastours and Doctours to his Church to the end that we be not carryed away with the blasts of euery doctrine by the wylinesse of men to circumuent weakelings in errour What be the blasts of hereticall doctrine but their violent and audacious falsifyings of Scriptures and Fathers What their wylinesse to circumuent in errour but crafty corruption by stealing away or cogging in words in their producing of the monuments of Chistian Antiquity The Greeke word vsed by S. Paul is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly cogging of the dyce or helping the dyce craftily to cast what chāce they please Euen so Heretikes by helping the yee by cogging wordes in out of the Text make
Christian deuided amongst themselues and notorious changers According to this notion the Church is euer visible sensible to all men euen vnto her very enemies For not only Iewes and Infidels but euen Heretickes know in their conscience and sometimes acknowledge in words that the Church is truly Catholike So long as the Church according to this notion of Catholicke is in the sight of the world the world hath sufficient meanes of saluation They that see with their eyes which Religion is Catholicke may easily find out the truth For it is cleer to common reason that the Catholike Doctrine is the Apostles cleere by common discourse that the Apostles miraculous preaching was of God and that God being the prime verity his doctrine ought to be receaued as the truth of saluation On the other side if the Church according to the notion of Catholike be hidden and the light therof lost there is no ordinary meanes left for men to know what the Apostles taught nor consequently what God by inspiration reuealed vnto them We must begin againe anew from a second fountaine of immediat reuelation from God and build vpon the new planting of Religion with miracles in the world by some recent Prophet And if this be absurd then there must euer be in the world a Church whose Tradition is illustriously Catholicke and consequently shewing it selfe to be the Apostles vnto all men that will not be obstinate visible and conspicuous For the Traditiōs of the Church must euer be famous glorious and most notoriously knowne in the world that a Christian may truly say with S. Augustine de vtilit cred c. 17. I belieue nothing but the consent of Nations and countries and most celebrious fame Now if the Church were hidden secret inuisible in any age then her Traditions could not be Doctrines euer illustriously knowne but rather obscure hidden Apocriphall Ergo the Church the mistresse pillar and foundation of truth must be alwaies visible and conspicuous which if need be may be further proued most euidently Thirdly that this Church is Apostolicall and that apparently descending from the Apostolicall Sea by succession of Bishops (d) The Church that hath a lineall succession of Bishops from the Apostles famous and illustrious whereof not one hath beene opposite in religion to his immediate predecessour proues euidently that this Church hath the doctrin of the Apostles for as in the ranke of 300. stones ranged in order if no two stones be found in that line of different colour then if the first be white the second is white so the rest vnto the last euen so if there be a succession of 300. Bishops all of the same Religion if the first haue the Religion of the Apostles and of Peter the second likewise hath the same and so the rest euen vntill the last vsque ad Confessionem generis humani euen to the acknowledgment of humane kind as S. Augustine l. de vtil Cred. cap. 17. speaketh for how could the Tradition of Christian Doctrine be eminently and notoriously Apostolicall if the Church deliuering the same hath not a (e) The Minister sayth p. 67. circa finem That this note of succession makes nothing against the Church of England because their Pastors and Bishops are able to exhibite a pedigree or deriuation both of their ministery and doctrine from the Apostles This is ridiculous For if they can really exhibite such a pedigree and deriuation of their fayth in all ages from Christ to Luther why do they still keepe vs in suspence and neuer exhibite the same which we so earnestly beg at their hands Let them but name the Church or Pastour that did commit vnto Luther the Ministery of preaching his doctrines against the Roman religion The Roman Church made him priest gaue him cōmission to preach her doctrine but to preach agaynst her Religion who gaue him order That commission to preach seeing he had it not frō any Church as is manifest he had it eyther from himselfe coyning a religion of his owne head out of Scripture vnderstood in his owne manner or from Satan with whome he conferred and vnto whose arguments he yielded as himselfe doth witnes Tom. 7. Wittenberg fol. 228. or els immediatly from God and then he ought to haue made this immediate reuelation knowne by miracles Let not Ministers therfore idly say we can exhibite a pedigree feeding vs with wordes but affoard vs present payment of so long an exacted debt If they know the pedegree of their faith the labour is not great to write the names of their Ancestours in euery age That done they may rest For if we cannot demonstrate that these their pretended Ancestours were eyther Catholike Romans or else opposite one to another in substantiall points and this by as authentike records as they do to prooue they held some points of their Religion the victory shall be theirs Is it possible they should thus delude men by saying we can exhibite and yet neuer do it manifest and conspicuous pedigree or deriuation from the Apostles Which is a conuincing argument vsed by the same S. Augustine Epist. 48. circa medium How can we thinke that we haue receiued manifestly Christ if we haue not also receiued manifestly his Church It is a principle of Philosophy Propter quod vnum quodque tale illud magis but the name of Christ his glory his vertues his miracles are to the world famously knowne frō age to age by reason of the Church her preaching who in her first Pastors saw him with their eies Ergo this Church must needes be more famous more illustrious as able to giue fame euen vnto the being and doctrine and actions of Christ. Fourthly this Church is One that is all the Pastors (f) The Minister pag. 108. lin 14. alleadgeth the differences amongst Schoolemē particularly betwixt Dominicās Iesuits about the manner of explicating the efficacy of Grace as an argument that the Roman Church wants vnity of faith as much as Protestants I answer this is Idle these differences not being in matters of faith If Scholmen should preach different doctrines as matters of fayth condemning ech other as Heretikes and the Church this notwithstanding should alow of both sides as her children then there should be in the Church disunion in fayth But the Roman Church doth not allow such dissonant Preachers only she permitteth them to differ in matters they teach as greater probability and priuate opinion If any preach their priuate probabilityes as Doctrines and as matters of fayth condemning others as heretikes except they recall their censure the Roman Church shutteth them out of her communion not permitting disunion in faith For such permittāce would vtterly discredit the authority of her preaching shew that euen in matters of faith she is a Church to be belieued no further thē seene and Preachers therof deliuer and consequently all her professors and children belieue one the same fayth For if the Preachers and Pastors