The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Section 11
Concerning the greater ſafety and comfort in the Proteſtant faith then in the Romiſh; Spectacles, Chap. 11. a page. 381. uſ que ad 404.
THE Knight though he talke ſo much of proving the ſafety, and comfort of the Proteſtant faith out of Catholike Roman Authors, yet he cannot name that man that ſaith any ſuch thing: for ſuppoſe he finde one or two Authors that ſay ſome thing different from the common opinion, doth he preſently ſay, the Proteſtant faith is ſafe?
Even thoſe points of Proteſtant religion, which of themſelves perhaps might ſeeme indifferent, their diſobedience and ſpirit of contradiction makes damnable.
The Proteſtant religion is not ſafer then the Roman, in regard of the all-ſufficiency of Scripture, on which the Protestants relie, for the Catholikes relie upon the ſame ground of ſafety, acknowledging and reverencing the authority of Scripture, as much, nay much more then Proteſtants.
It is not ſafer to adore Chriſt (as Proteſtants doe) ſitting at the right hand of his Father in Heaven, then to adore the Sacrament: for Chriſt is as ſurely in the Sacrament as in heaven, the ſame Catholique faith teaching both verities; and to make you ſtudy a little, ſaith hee, I may ſay in ſome ſort, more ſure; for a man that would be contentious, may deny Chriſt to ſit at the right hand of his Father, becauſe his Father hath neither right hand, nor left.
There is no more fafety in the Proteſtant doctrine of Iuſtification, than the Romane. For Catholikes truſt wholy in God, attributing no more to their owne good workes, than that they cooperate to Iustification, meriting grace and glorie: and on the contrarie, Proteſtants teach vaine confidence in moſt of theſe points, as that a man muſt aſſure himſelfe that his ſinnes are forgiven, that hee muſt aſſure himſelfe of his ſalvation, and that he cannot fall from grace, and the like: which ground ſuppoſed, how can hee worke out his ſalvation with feare and trembling?
Though ſome Catholikes ſay, that there is more perfection of the Sacrament, which conſisteth in the repreſentation in both kinds, than in one; yet there is the ſame ſafety and fruit in one, and in both kinds.
Though the ſacrifice of the Maſſe is more profitable, when the people comnunicate with the Prieſt, as the Knight proveth out of the Councell of Trent, Harding and Bellarmine: yet hee proveth not, that there is any danger in private Maſſes, or that it is unlawfull for the Prieſt to ſay Maſſe without hee have ſome to communicate with him, which is the Controverſie between Catholikes and Proteſtants.
Aeneas Sylvius, Caſſander, and Panormitan are of opinion indeed, that Prieſts ſhould have libertie to marry: yet they would not have them marry againſt the law ſtanding in force, but they would have the law taken away: which is a farre different Doctrine from that of Proteſtants. Howſoever, it is ſafer to follow the judgement of all other Doctours of the Catholike Church, all other Fathers and Councels teaching the contrarie; of all which, there is abundant proofe in Bellarmine, and which was never contradicted by any, but knowne wicked men.
Though publike Prayers in Latine may not be ſo profitable to the people, yet they are lawfull and ſafe, and the fruit of refection of the underſtanding by Prayer in a knowne tengue, whereof Aquinas ſpeaketh, will not countervaile the tenth part of the inconvenience which may happen by having publike Prayers in a knowne tongue. The inconveniences are vanitie, curioſitie, contempt of Superiours, diſputes, ſchiſmes, prophanation, and divulgation of ſecret Mysteries: beſides, the very ignorance of the Latine tongue, and conſequently, of all learning which would follow thereof onelyonly in Clergie men, is ten hundred times more harme, than that fruit in the Laitie is good. Cajetan was greatly miſtaken, when hee expoundeth the fourteenth chapter of the first Epiſtle of Saint Paul to the Corynthians, of publike Prayers in the Church: and hee is alſo miſtaken in the very end of Prayer, which is not edification, or inſtruction of the people, but the honour of God immediately. Gabriel Biel ſpeaketh not of Prayer in a knowne tongue, nor of publike Prayers, but onelyonly of mentall Prayer, and vocall; and giveth thoſe ſeven reaſons which the Knight alleageth, to ſhew, that beſides mentall Prayer, it is convenient to uſe vocall.
There is no danger in worſhipping Images, or praying to Saints: and Eraſmus, Caſſander, and Chemnitius, who teach the contrary, are of none authoritie.
Neither Bernard, nor Waldenſis, nor Bellarmine, contradict the Doctrine of the Romiſh Church in the point of Merit. For Catholikes acknowledge with Bernard, that there is no ſafe reſt or ſecuritie for a weake ſoule, but in the wounds of our Saviour; which doth not hinder but a man may ſay, God rewardeth the good workes of his ſervants, out of his justice and fidelitie, which out of his merciemercy he gave them grace to doe: and though Waldenſis and ſome other Divines, approve not of the word of Merit, eſpecially De condigno; yet in the thing it ſelfe, they all agree, to wit, that eternall life is given to men, as the reward of their good workes: which is all that others meane by condigne Merit. The Doctrine of Bellarmine, to wit, that it is moſt ſafe to truſt wholly in the Merits of Chriſt, is as well the Catholike Doctrine, as the Proteſtants: who condemne not Proteſtants for not truſting in their workes, or truſting wholly in Chriſt; if ſo be they deny not the neceſsitie and efficacie of good workes, for purchaſing grace and glorie.
The Hammer.
AS Aſia Minor is called by ſome Geographers Aſia Aſiae, and the field of Agrigentum, Sicilia Siciliae, and Attica, Graecia Graeciae, and the Ball or Apple in the eye, the eye of the eye: ſo this Chapter of the Knight may be not unfitly termed via viae, the ſafeſt path in his ſafe way, other Chapters tend to the proofe of his title Via Tuta: but this is full upon it. For here he proves by many remarkable inſtances, that our rocke is much more ſure then theirs, our very adverſaries being judges; his inſtances are prayers in a knowne tongue, communicating in both kindes, partaking of the Sacrament with the Prieſt, immediate addreſſe to God by Chriſt, adoring the Creator onelyonly, reſolution of our faith upon Gods word, relying wholly upon his Grace and mercy, and renouncing mans merit. And whoſe underſtanding apprehendeth not, that it is ſafeſt to pray to God with underſtanding; whoſe ſpirituall ſenſes tell him not that it is more comfortable and profitable to communicate with a Prieſt then to looke on, and to receive the Sacrament in both kindes, then in one onelyonly; whoſe reaſon perſwadeth him not that it is ſafer to worſhip God in ſpirit, then by an Image; to adore Chriſt in Heaven, then in a pe…ece of bread; to expect ayde from God, then Saints; to truſt in Gods word, then in mans; in his Grace, then our will; and in Chriſts merits, then our owne? yet as reſtie jades ſtumble in faire way: ſo the Ieſuit in this faireſt rode of the ſafe way ſtumbleth often, and tumbleth alſo, as the Reader may obſerve in the ſeverall annotations at his particular ſlips, or rather downefalls in this Chapter.
To the firſt. The Knight doth not conclude out of any one particular, but maketh an induction out of many particulars in this manner. The Proteſtant faith by the beſt learned among Papiſts in the point of Communion in both kindes, of Prayer in a knowne tongue, juſtification by Faith alone, et ſic de ceteris, is ſafer then the Roman: ergo, ſimply and generally it is ſafer. Though Silurus his Son could breake every Arrow by it ſelfe, which his Father gave him, yet he could not in like manner the bundle or ſheafe of Arrowes which he put in his hand, and bid him aſſay to breake them if he could, —nam vis unita fortior. Et quae non proſunt ſingula multa juvant; but the Ieſuit hath not beene able to breake any one of the ſingle Arrowes ſhot by the Knight in the former Sections, how then will he be able to breake the ſheafe in this?
To the ſecond. By the uncharitable cenſure of the Ieſuit, he ſheweth of what ſpirit he is. The ſearcher of all hearts knoweth that we contradict Romiſh doctrines, not out of diſobedience to man, but out of obedience to him who commandeth us to contend for the true faith: and to reprove and convince all gaineſayers. What Papiſts intentions are, we take not upon us to judge: their doctrines we put to the teſt of Gods word, and finde them falſe and adulterine, and all be it ſome points of their beliefe, conſidered in themſelves, might ſeeme indifferent: yet as they hold them they are not, becauſe they are not of faith,Rom. 14.23. and what ſoever is not of faith is ſinne. Now no point of the Romiſh Creed as they hold it, is of that faith the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of, that is, divine faith; becauſe they ground and finally reſolve all their articles not upon Gods word, but upon the authority of the Pope,Reſp ad Archiepiſ. Spalaten. c. 47. Firmitas fundamenti … firma licet implicita in aureo hoc fundamento veritatis adhaeſio valebit, ut in Cypriano ſic in nobis ad ſalutem: faenum & ſtipula imbecilitas & caries in tecto & contignatione, & explicitae erroris opinio non valebit, nec in Cypriano, nec in nobis ad per…tiem. or Church of Rome, which is but the authority of man; whereas on the contrary as Doctor Crakent horpe demonſtrateth, If any Proteſtant build hay or ſtubble upon the true foundation, he may he ſaved; becauſe be holdeth the true foundation, which is, that every doctrine of faith ought to be built upon Scripture. If the Ieſuit wonder at this concluſion, let him weigh the Authors reaſons, and he will be forced to confeſſe, that the errors, if there be any in Proteſtants, in regard they ſticke cloſe to the true foundation, and implicitly deny them, cannot in them be damnable, whereas the very true doctrines of faith in Papiſts, becauſe they hold them upon a wrong ground and foundation, very much derogatory to God and his truth, are not ſo ſafe.
To the third. With what face can the Ieſuit avow this? conſidering that Prieras before alleaged, and other writers approved by the Church of Rome, mainetaine this blaſphemous aſſertion, that the authority of the Church is greater then the anthority of Scripture, and all Papiſts of note at this day, hold that the Scripture is but an imperfect and partiall rule of faith; all Proteſtants on the contrary teach, that it is an entire and perfect rule of faith; Papiſts believe the Scripture for the Churches ſake, Proteſtants the Church for the Scripture ſake; Papiſts reſolve all points of faith generally into the Popes infalibility, or Churches authority, Proteſtants into the written word of God, which as Bellarmine himſelfe confeſſeth,De verbo Dei non ſcript. l. 4. c. 11. containeth all things neceſſary for all men to beleeve, and is a moſt certaine and ſafe rule of beleeveing. Yea but ſaith the Ieſuit out of Vincentius Lerinenſis, De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 2.he that will avoid the deceits and ſnares of Haeretikes, and remaine ſoundin the faith, muſt ſtrengthen his faith two wayes, to wit, by the authority of the divine law, and the tradition of the Catholike Church. This adviſe of Vincentius is ſound, and good if it be rightly underſtood, and not in the Ieſuits ſenſe. Vincentius there by tradition of the Catholike Church underſtandeth not unwritten verities, but the Catholike expoſitions of holy Scriptures, extant in the writings of the Doctors of the Church in all ages, and we grant that this Catholike expoſition of the Doctors where it can be had, is of great force to confirme faith, and confound Heretikes. Vt Scripturae eccleſiaſtice intelligentiae jungatur authoritas.For the ſtopping of whoſe mouth that Father ſaith, and we deny it not, that there is great neede to add to the Scripture the Churches ſenſe or interpretation, albeit as he there addeth, which cutteth the throat of the Ieſuits cauſe, The Canon of Scripture is perfect, and ſufficient of it ſelfe for all things: nay rather, as hee correcteth himſelfe, Over and above ſufficient; cum ſit perfectus ſcripturae canon ſibi que adomnia ſatis ſuper que ſufficiat.
To the fourth. Here the Ieſuit would make his Reader ſtudy a little, and his Adverſarie to muſe; Vero nihil verius, certo nihil certius.but it is indeed, whether hee be in his right wits, or no. For firſt, as Seneca well reſolveth, one thing cannot be ſaid truer than another; one truth in Divinitie may be more evident to us than another, but in it ſelfe it cannot be truer or ſurer. Secondly, admitting there could be degrees of certainty, at leaſt quoad nos, there can be yet no compariſon, in regard of ſuch certaintie betweene an Article of the Creed aſſented unto by all Chriſtians, and a controverted concluſion, maintained onelyonly by a late faction in the Weſterne Church. But the ſitting of Chriſt at the right hand of his Father, is an Article of the Creed, ſet downe in expreſſe words in holy Scripture,Mark 16.19. Luke 24. conſented unto by all Chriſtians in the world; whereas the carnall preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament by Tranfubſtantiation, is no Article extant in any Creed, ſave onelyonly that of Pope Pius his coyning, in the yeare of our Lord, 1564. It is neither in words ſet downe in Scripture, as the other Articles are; neither can it be necſſarily inforced or deduced by conſequence, as foure great Cardinals of the Roman Church confeſſe, Cameracenſis, Cajetan, Roffenſis, and Bellarmine. Neither was this Doctrine of the Romane Church ever aſſented unto by the Greeke Church, nor by the Latine anciently, or generally, as I ſhewed before. Thirdly, the Ieſuit contradicteth himſelfe within eight lines: for having ſaid in the eighteenth line,Pag. 384. that Chriſt his corporall preſence in the Sacrament was more ſure, than his preſence in heaven at the right hand of his Father; about ſeven lines after, forgetting himſelfe, hee ſaith, that Wee ſhall find as much to doe (marke as much, not more) in expounding that Article of the Creed, as they doe in expounding the words, This is my Body. Wherein it is well hee confeſſeth, that Papiſts make much to doe in expounding the words, This is my Body, which is moſt true; for by the demonſtrative Hoc, they underſtand they know not what. Neither this Body, nor this Bread, but an Individum vagum, ſomething contained under the accidents of Bread, which when the Prieſts ſaith Hoc, it is Bread; but when hee hath muttered out an Vm, it is Chriſts Body. Likewiſe by the Copula eſt (is) they underſtand they know not what; either ſhall be, as ſoone as the words are ſpoken, or is converted unto, or is by Tranſubſtantiation. Laſtly, by Body, they underſtand ſuch a body as indeed is no body, without the extenſion of place, without diſtinction of Organs, without facultie of ſenſe, or motion: and will hee make this figment ſo incredible, ſo impoſſible, as ſure, nay more ſure than the Article of Chriſts aſcenſion into heaven, and his ſitting at the right hand of his Father there? Yea, but the Ieſuit demandeth, Wherein are you more ſafe than wee? if hee be not there, wee are in danger of adoring him where hee is not; if hee be there, then are you, ſaith hee, in danger, by not adoring him where hee is. I anſwer, wee are every way ſafe, and they both wayes in danger: wee are ſafe, becauſe if hee be there, wee who worſhip him there in ſpirit and truth, not under any corporall ſhape, are in no danger at all; becauſe wee worſhip him at his Table, as hee requireth: if hee bee not there, wee can be in no danger, for not worſhipping him there where hee is not. They are in danger both wayes, of Will-worſhip if he be there; of Idolatrie, if hee be not there. Of Will-worſhip, I ſay, if hee be under the accidents of Bread and Wine, becauſe they are no where commanded to worſhip him under ſuch formes: if hee bee not there, then are they apparantly guiltie of groſſer Idolatrie, by exhibiting Culium latriae, divine worſhip to a piece of Bread.
To the fift. Here the Ieſuit, like an Adder, thruſteth out his forked ſting, pricking with one of his forkes, the Knight, for calumniating their Doctrine: with the other, the Doctrine of the Reformed Church, touching aſſured hope of ſalvation, as matter of vaine confidence, and a dangerous precipice of the ſoule. The firſt is eaſily plucked out; for the Knight chargeth them with nothing, but what the Ieſuit himſelfe confeſſeth. For if men cooperating to their juſtification, merit both grace and glorie, they doe not aſcribe the whole glorie of it to God; but as the Romans, for the victorie they gained over the Cimbri, ſacrificed Deo & Mario: ſo doe the Papiſts at this day, for the conqueſt of their ghoſtly enemies, and their purchaſe of heaven, burne incenſe Deo & Mariae, to Chriſt and Mary, and attribute their juſtification and ſalvation, partly to Chriſts merits, partly to their owne; together with the ſuperabundant ſatisfaction of the bleſſed Virgin Mary, and other Saints. The other forke reacheth not home to invenome our moſt wholſome doctrine, concerning aſſured hope of ſalvation: for though wee teach, that a man ought to be aſſured that his ſinnes are forgiven him: yet withall wee teach, that this aſſurance is upon condition of Repentance and Faith. And withall wee affirme, becauſe hee ſtandeth not by his owne ſtrength, but by Gods power, Who worketh in him both the will and the doed; hee ought not to be high minded, but to feaxe, and in this feare to worke out his ſalvation. Phil. 2.13.I meane, in feare: as feare is oppoſed to carnall ſecurity and preſumption, not as it is oppoſed to religious confidence: and as hee muſt worke out his ſalvation with this feare, ſo alſo with trembling; as trembling is taken for an awfull and filiall reverence, not for a ſervile affrighting. For the trembling here meant, is not onelyonly joyned with aſſured hope, that God will worke both the will and the deede, but alſo with joy, rejoyce unto him with trembling.Pſal. 11.
To the ſixt. Though the Ieſuit tug hard, yet the Knight holdeth him faſt in Hales, Vaſquez, and Valentia his net. For if it be true that the Sacraments effect what they repreſent, it will follow upon the Ieſuits owne confeſſion, that in regard the Sacrament is perfecter in both kindes then in one, in regard of repreſentation, it muſt needs be more perfect alſo in the fruit and operation: and if ſo, then more ſafety and comfort in our entire, then in their halfe communion.
To the ſeventh.Bell. de Miſſa, l. 2. c. 10. Negari non poteſt quin ſit magis perfecta et legitima, miſſa ubi cōmunicantes adſunt quā ubi non adſunt. Harding, art. 1. of privat Maſse, Where the people cō nunicate, it is more cō nendable, & more godly. Concil Trent, ſeſ. 22. cap. 6. more fruitfull, and more profitable. The Ieſuit would faine contradict the Knight, but indeede he contradicteth himſelfe. For in granting that which Bellarmine, Harding, and the Councell of Trent extorteth from him, that it is more profitable for the people to communicate with a Prieſt at the Maſſe, then to loake on; he ſayes by conſequent that there is more ſafety in it: which is the proper point in controverſie in this Chapter. For as that which is unprofitable for the ſoule, cannot but be dangerous: ſo that, which is profitable to the ſoule cannot but be ſafe, nothing is profitable to the ſoule but that which ſome way tendeth too, and furthereth the ſalvation thereof: and is not that ſafer which more tendeth to ſalvation?
To the eight. Aeneas Silvius maketh no mention at all of any Law of ſingle life,De geſtis concil. Bafil. l. 2. Coſſ. de caelib. Sacerd. art. 23. Panor. de cler. conjug. c. Quum olim. Credo pro bono et ſalute animarum ſtatutum nunc iri ut non valentes continere poſsint contrahere. but ſimply ſaith, that It were ſafer for Prieſts to marry; for that meanes many Prieſts might be ſaved in married Prieſthood, Caſſ. de caelib. Sacerd. art. 23. Panor. de cler. conjug. c. Quum olim. Credo pro bono et ſalute animarum ſtatutum nunc iri ut non valentes continere poſsint contrahere.which now in barren Prieſthood are damned. Caſſander and Panormitan make mention of the law, which tieth Prieſts to ſingle life, and both thinke that the abrogation of it would be good and behoovefull to the foules of many Prieſts that thoſe who cannot attaine to the firſt degree of chaſtity in a ſingle life, may be permitted to live in the ſecond degree of chaſte marriage. And what is it elſe that we contend for, but that it may be left free to the Miniſters of the Goſpell to marry if they thinke good? which liberty implieth two things; Firſt, that where there is a law reſtraining them from marriage, that law may be abrogated: Secondly, for the future, that no law prohibiting marriage in the Clergie may be enacted. Yea but ſaith the Ieſuit, all the Doctors, all the Fathers, all the Councells, and the continuall practice of the Church from the very beginning is againſt Prieſts marriage, of all which you have abundant proofe in Bellarmine. I anſwer, of all this, nay, none of all this, as you may ſee in Chemnitius Hiſtory de celibatu ſacerdotum, Iunius, and Chaumerus their reply to Bellarmine, and moſt largely and plentifully in Dr. Hall now Biſhop of Exon. his three bookes againſt Coffin; intituled, The honour of the married Clergy. Pag. 392.Yea but ſaith the Ieſuit in the laſt place, the law reſtraining Prieſts marriage was never contradicted by any but knowne wicked men. What a lowd and Stentorian untruth is here uttered by a foule mouthed Ieſuit? Was Paphnutius the confeſſor, Spiridion the Saint, were all the Fathers of the firſt generall Councell of Nice, together with Pope Pius the ſecond, and the Fathers at the Synod at Baſill, beſides infinite others, produced by the Authors above named, all knowne wicked men? The Lord rebuke thee thou falſe tongue.
To the ninth. The Ieſuit here onelyonly troubleth the water, that the truth may not be clearely ſeene in the bottome; let the water but ſettle a little, and we ſhall preſently diſcerne it: for though the tearmes be different, profitable, and lawfull, as likewiſe unprofitable and unlawfull: yet the queſtion, whether prayers in an unknown tongue be profitable and ſafe for the ſoule, and whether they be lawfull or coincident. For whatſoever is unlawfull, is conſequently unprofitable, and whatſoever is unprofitable in divine ſervice is unlawfull, becauſe againſt the rule of the Apoſtle, let all things be done to edification; now in a prayer which a man underſtandeth not, how is the underſtanding bettered? or as Aquinas ſpeaketh, fed by the fruit of refection. As for the inconveniences that are pretended to come by prayers in the vulgar tongue, neither the Hebrew nor the Greeke Churches, nor all the reformed in the Chriſtian world finde any ſuch: and if there ſhould fall any ſuch, they are not to be imputed to Gods Holy Ordinances, but to mens abuſes. Yea, but ſaith the Ieſuit, the very ignorance of the Latine tongue, and conſequently of all learning that would follow thereon onelyonly in Clergie men, is a thouſand times more harme, than the fruit in the Laitie is good. Here the Ieſuit ſtraineth very high, but without all ſhew of reaſon, or ſhadow of Truth, and againſt daily experience: for who knoweth not, that the Clergie in the reformed Churches, where Divine Service is in the vulgar tongue, are as ready and expert (to ſay no more) in the Latine tongue, as your ordinary Maſſe-prieſts. Againe, you are exceedingly overlaviſh, in ſaying, that ignorance in Latine in Clergiy-men, is a thouſand times more harme than that fruit is good which the Laitie might reape by the publike ſervice in a knowne tongue. For the Clergie are but exceeding few, in compariſon of the Laitie, ſcarſe one for a hundred, I may ſay a thouſand; and the ſaving knowledge which the Laitie might, and doe reape by the Divine Service, and Sacred Scripture read in a knowne tongue, is a thouſand times more worth, than the knowledge of the Latine tongue in the Clergie. Laſtly, his conſequence, that the ignorance of the Latine tongue would bring with it the ignorance of all Sacred learning, is moſt ignorantly abſurd. For who knoweth not, that the Scriptures themſelves (the treaſurie of all Sacred learning) were written in Hebrew and Greeke. To ſay nothing of the firſt generall Councels, and the prime and flower of all the Greeke Fathers, to the knowledge of whom a man may attaine without any Latine at all. But becauſe Latine is your beſt mettall, you undervalue Gold and Silver. For Cardinall Cajetan, hee may for the Ieſuit goe with Craſſus, and gather cockles and pibles at the ſhore of Cajeta; for he maketh no more account of Allegations out of this Cardinall, than of Tricae apinaeque aut ſi quid vilius iſtis;Me thinkes the Scarlet robes of the learnedſt of all the Romane Cardinals, and Schoolemen of his time, ſhould produce a like colour in the cheekes of this Ieſuit, if hee have not loſt all tincture of modeſty. Doth Cajetan ſometime nodd? Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus?And doth the noddie Flood never? Cardinall Cajetan affirmeth, that Saint Paul in the fourteenth chapter of the firſt Epiſtle to the Corynthians, ſpeaketh of publike Prayer; the Jeſuit Flood denieth it, utri credemus? Whethers authoritie will beare downe the ſcales? Cardinall Cajetan ſaith, that edification is the end of publike Prayer; and hee hath Saint Paul of his ſide, preſcribing in this chapter,1 Cor. 14. that All things be done to edification: but Sus docet Minervam, the Jeſuit Flood inſtructeth the Cardinall better, that the end of Prayer is the honour of God, as if Subordinata pugnarent, things that are ſubordinate were contrarie; or as if the edification of the people tended not to the honour of God, or there might not be ſeverall ends of Prayer: the firſt and chiefe, the immediate worſhip of God; the ſecondary and leſſe Principle, yet neceſſary alſo, the inſtruction and edification of the people. For Biels ſeven reaſons,Can. miſſae lect. 62. inſiſted upon by the Knight, though they were not alleaged profeſſedly to preferre Prayer in a knowne tongue, before Prayer in an unknowne; yet the reaſons there ſet downe, as ſtrongly inferre the Knights concluſion, as that which there Biel intendeth. The evidence whereof is ſo cleere, that the Ieſuit himſelfe is conſtrained to confeſſe,Pag. 401. l. 11. that Some of his reaſons indeed, have no place where the words are not underſtood. Thoſe reaſons therefore fight for us, and the reſt with a little helpe, will be brought to doe good ſervice againſt Romiſh and unintelligible Prayers; for how can a Prayer whereof never a ſyllable is underſtood, Stir up the mind to inward devotion? which is Biels firſt reaſon: Or enlighten the underſtanding? which is his ſecond: Or cauſe the remembrance of things ſpoken in the time of Prayer? which is his third: Or keepe the thoughts from wandering? which is his fourth reaſon: Or cauſe a more full performance of dutie, both in body and ſoule? which is the fift: Or a better redoundance from the ſoule to the body, by a vehement affection? which is the ſixt: Or ſerve for the inſtruction of our Brethren? which is the laſt.
To the tenth. The Knight needed not here to alleage any more authorities againſt the perill of Idolatrie and Invocation of Saints, becauſe before in the ſeventh Section, hee had cloyed his Reader with teſtimonies in this kind; for the worth of Eraſmus and Caſſander, Quos rumor albâ gemmeus vehit pennâ;their Epitaphs, and printed Eulogies before their workes, which have kept their fame alive this hundred yeares, make good proofe to the world, that they are like to flouriſh in perpetuall memorie, after the leaves of a thouſand ſuch ſcribblers as the Ieſuit is, ſhall be withered. In Chemnitius the Ieſuits eyes failed him; for the Knight in this place, alleageth not his words, but the words of S. Auſtine; and them, not to prove that we cannot pray to any Saint living or dead: but according to the title of his whole booke, and ſpeciall Argument of this chapter, that it is the ſafeſt and ſweeteſt way to have immediate addreſſe to our Saviour: Tutiùs, ſaith he, & jucundiùs loquor ad meum Ieſum; I ſpeake with more ſafety and delight to my JESVS.
To the eleventh. Here the Knight may well ſay, Dicite Ió Pean & Iö bis dicite Pean:For here twice hee hath brought his Adverſaries to ſubſcribe unto Iustification by Faith alone; and to confirme with his owne hand, the title of the Knights booke with advantage. The title is but Via tuta, but the Ieſuit confeſſeth over and above, that the Proteſtants way, who relye upon Chriſts merits onelyonly for ſalvation, is Via tutiſsima, The ſafeſt way. And if Vaſquez and Bellarmine, and other pleaders for merit by condignitie, meane no otherwiſe than the Ieſuit interpreteth them, we ſhall all ſoone ſhake hands; for who ever denied, that God rewarded our good workes? but here, either wittingly or ignorantly, the Ieſuit concealeth the conditions required, to every meritorious Act, ex condigno. Firſt, that the worke be properly ours, and not his, of whom wee pretend to merit. Secondly, that it be opus indebitum, a worke to which otherwiſe wee are not bound. Thirdly, that it be ſome way profitable and beneficiall to him from whom wee expect our reward. Fourthly, that it have condignity to the reward expected; or as Vaſquez ſpeaketh, Be worthy of the reward, and have an equall value of worth to the obtaining thereof. VponUpon all theſe conditions wee conteſt with Papiſts, and conſequently deny any merits of condignitie; yet freely acknowledge a reward of good workes, and this reward to be due unto us, (but a reward of grace and free bounty) and due to us by his promiſe, no way by our deſerts.