the vnlearned know them to be sincere The new translation lately set foorth by the Kings authoritie defended Momus in his humor The subordination of meanes Chap. 29. Touching the obscuritie of the Scripture The necessitie of meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scripture proues not the obscuritie Traditions debarred A Councell is aboue the Pope The Scripture of it selfe easie to all that vse it as they should The certaine sence of the Scripture and the assurance thereof is not by tradition Chap. 30. Touching the all-sufficiencie of Scripture to the matter of faith It shewes it selfe to be Gods word Luthers denying S. Iames epistle How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture What they and what we hold about the authoritie of the Church How expresse Scripture is required Chap. 31. Wherein the place 2. Tim. 3.15 alledged to proue the fulnesse and sufficiencie of the Scripture alone is expounded and vrged against the Iesuites cauils Chap. 32. Touching priuate spirits that expound against the Church Such priuate expositions refused by the Protestants And yet the Papists haue no other All teaching is to be examined euen by priuate men Certaine propositions shewing how the Church teaching may be or may not be examined and refused Chap. 33. How a priuate man is assured he vnderstands and beleeues aright touching the last and highest resolution of faith Luthers reiecting the Fathers Occhams opinion that no man is tied to the Pope or his Councels The Beraeans examined the doctrine that they were taught The faith of the beleeuer rests vpon diuine infused light M. Luther sought reformation with all humilitie Scripture is the grounds of true assurance Who the Pastors were of whom Luther learned his faith His conference with the Diuel By the Church the Papists meane onely the Pope Chap. 34. The Papists pretending the Church haue a further meaning then the vulgar know The Popes will is made the Churches act Base traditions expounded to be diuine truth Chap. 35. The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope How and in what sence they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith And that the Scripture receiues authoritie from him Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not And they may iudge of that they teach The Iesuites dare not answer directly Chap. 36. An entrance into the question touching the visibilitie of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was Chap. 37. Not the Church but the Scripture is the rule The question touching the visiblenesse of the Church proceeds of the Militant Church In what sence we say the Militant Church is sometime inuisible The Papists thinke the Church shall be inuisible in the time of Antichrist Their contradictions touching Antichrist breefly noted Chap. 38. The Papists cannot proue the Church to be alway visible in that sence wherein we denie it The diuerse considerations of the Church distinguished His quarrels made for our doctrine touching the Churches seuerall states answered The faithfull onely are true members of the Church Vpon what occasion the question touching the visiblenesse of the Church first began Chap. 39. The Papists are enforced to yeeld the same that we say touching the inuisiblenesse of the Church Their doctrine touching the time of Antichrists reigne And the state of the Militant Church at some times Arguments for the perpetuall visiblenesse of the Church answered In whom the true Church consisted before Luthers time Chap. 40. Againe touching the visiblenesse of the Church and in what sence we say it was inuisible Many things innouated in the Church of Rome The complaints of Vbertine and Ierome of Ferrara All the Protestants faith was preserued in the middest of the Church of Rome A iest of the Terinthians What religion hath bred desperation Chap. 41. A narration of a popish Doctor and professor of diuinitie in the Church of Rome translated out of Acosta de temp nouissimis lib. 2. cap. 11. and Maiolus dies canicul tom 2. pag. 89. and inserted for answer to that wherewith the Iesuite reproches our Church in the last words of his precedent replie Chap. 42. An obiection against the Repliars Catalogue Diuers articles condemned by the Fathers mentioned in the Catalogue that the Church of Rome now vses What consent there is betweene antiquitie and papistrie Chap. 43. Whatsoeuer the Fathers of the primitiue Church beleeued is expressed in their bookes The Repliar is driuen to say they held much of his religion onely implicitely What implicite faith is according to the Papists The death of Zeuxis The Fathers writ that which cannot stand with papistrie Chap. 44. The whole Christian faith deliuered to the Church hath succeeded in all ages yet many corruptions haue sometime bene added how and in what sence the Church may erre A Catalogue assigned of those in whom the Protestants faith alway remained What is required to the reason of succession Chap. 45. The Fathers are not against the Protestants but with them Touching the Centuries reiecting of the Fathers The cause of some errors in the Fathers Gregories faith and conuerting England The Papists haue bene formall innouators How they excuse the matter Chap. 46. The errors broached by the later Diuines of the Church of Rome Their errors maintained by that Church and their writings to good purpose alledged by Protestants How that which they speake for the Protestants is shifted of One reason why we alledge their sayings That which is said in excuse of their disagreement answered Chap. 47. Councels haue erred and may erre What manner of Councels they be that the Papists say cannot erre It is confessed that both Councels and Pope may erre Chap. 48. Touching the Councels of Neece the second and Frankford How the Nicene decreed images to be adored What kind of Councell it was And what manner of one that of Frankford was Frankford cōdemned the second Nicene Touching the booke of Charles the Great and of what credit it is Chap. 49. The ancient Church held the blessed Virgin to haue bene conceiued in sinne The now Church of Rome holds the contrary Chap. 50. Touching Seruice and praier in an vnknowne language The text 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine The ancient Church vsed praier in a knowe language Chap. 51. The Church of Rome against all antiquitie forbids the laie people the vse of the Scripture in the vulgar language The shifts vsed by the Papists against reading spitefull speeches against it Testimonies of antiquitie for it The Repliars reason against it Chap. 52. The mariage of Priests and Bishops lawfull and allowed by antiquitie Some examples hereof in the ancient Church The restraint hereof is a late corruption Priests were maried euen in these westerne parts a thousand yeares after Christ Chap. 53. Wherein is handled the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the
Scripture Bellarmine g Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. c. 1. The name of tradition is applied by Diuines to signifie onely vnwritten doctrine Alphonsus h Alphons à Castr adu haer lib 1. c. 5. This is to be laid for a most sound foundation that the traditions of the vniuersall Church and the determinations thereof in things concerning faith are of no lesse authority then the sacred Scripture it selfe though there be no Scripture to proue them Hessels of Louan i Hessel expli symb c. 69. p. 38. The Apostles neuer intended by their writing to commit to writing the whole doctrine of faith but as necessity vrged them what in their absence they could not teach that they committed to writing Costerus the Iesuite k Coster enchirid p. 43. It was neuer the mind of Christ either to commit his mysteries to parchment or that his Church should depend on paper writings Lindane l Lind. panopl. pag. 4. We Catholickes teach that Christians are to beleeue many things which are to be acknowledged for Gods word that are not contained in the Scripture and many things finally to be receiued with the same authoritie wherewith those doctrines of faith are receiued which are contained in holy writ Rodericus Delgado m Roderic dosm de autor Script l. vlt. p. 63 Albeit these things are not found written in the Bible yet they must no lesse be obserued by the godly that they may fulfill the precepts and firmely beleeue the mysteries of the heauenly faith Doctor Stapleton n Staplet princip doctr l. 12. cap. 5. There both were among the Iewes and are among vs very many things religiously performed in the worship of God and also necessary to saluation and necessarily to be beleeued which yet are not comprehended in the Scriptures but are approued or commended to vs ONELY by the authority of the Church Gregory of Valentia o Valent. tom 3. p. 258. D. All the controuersie is whether the Apostles by word of mouth WITHOVT WRITING deliuered any such doctrines as now affoord an infallible argument for the determining of the controuersies of faith in the Church These wordes of our aduersaries make it more then plaine that the Church of Rome holds the Scriptures vnsufficient not onely in respect of breeding faith or bringing men to know and beleeue it ordinarily which we grant but also in respect of containing it in themselues which we deny And that my aduersary holds the same thing I will prone directly For ha-laid downe 4. grounds First that true faith is necessary Secondly that this faith is onely one Thirdly that this faith must be certaine Fourthly and entire in all points he addes the fift that it must not be doubted but God hath prouided and left some certaine rule and meanes whereby euery man may in all points and questions be sufficiently and infallibly instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith and then immediately he puts the question what in particular may be assigned to be this rule wherto he answers in his first conclusion The Scripture alone especially as translated into English cannot be this rule Which I denied Therefore his question was touching the sufficiency of the Scripture as the said sufficiency is opposed to vnwrittē traditiō not as it is distinguished against the requisite condition of the meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scripture And this I confirme for my aduersary saies they hold the Scripture to be part of the rule because it is part of the doctrine of the Church immediatly reuealed by God but yet there are many substantiall points of faith not contained in them Yea p Pag. 67. Reply his expresse words are The question is betwixt vs and Protestants whether God did reueale any thing to the Prophets and Apostles necessary to be beleeued which is not now expressed or so contained in the Scripture that by euident and necessary consequence excluding all tradition and Church authority it may be gathered out of some sentence expresly set downe in the Scripture I did not therefore peruert the state of the question but my Aduersary hauing nothing else to say thought good by this shift to rid himselfe from that which he saw could not be answered 4 Neuerthelesse pleasing himselfe with his owne conceite he concludes that conuicted with the euidence of truth I haue yeelded to his conclusion in that sence wherein he meant it That Scripture alone is not the rule of faith And therefore all my discourse is idle and impertinent I answer two things first if his conclusion The Scripture alone is not this rule which almighty God hath prouided whereby euery man may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith meane no more but onely to adde the Ministry of the Church and mens owne industry to the Scripture as the meanes for the ordinary vnderstanding and beleeuing that which is written in it in this sence the Scripture alone is the rule whereby to iudge whatsoeuer matter belongs to faith but Scripture alone is not the ordinary rule and meanes by it selfe to kindle in vs the true knowledge and faith of that which it containes without the Ministrie of the Church and other things be ioyned with it for the learning of it then I grant it and require the Iesuite againe in lieu thereof either to renounce his traditions or else confesse they haue no other vse but onely to helpe to expoūd and teach that which is wholly contained in the Scripture without any power to supply any defect of doctrine that may be supposed to be therein And when he hath done the next treatise of faith he writes to distinguish a little better betweene the Rule and the Meanes of applying it and not say that is no sufficient rule whereby to be instructed WHAT is faith and WHAT not which onely is not a sufficient meanes to bring men to faith without the subordinate condition of such meanes as is required in the application of any rule Secondly I answer that his conclusion meanes more viz. That Scripture alone is vnperfect and defectiue 2. waies The first in that without other meanes it doth not ordinarily breed or draw foorth in vs assent to that it reueales nor so much as make vs see the reuelation to be And therefore there needes the Church by her Pastor to teach and perswade vs and there needes the Spirit of God and industrie in our selues This way no Protestant euer denied The second is in that it alone containes not all Gods word or all such truth as he hath reuealed necessarily to be beleeued but onely one small and obscure part thereof the best part or at least some part being by Tradition onely vnwritten This way we deny with open mouth and the Iesuite holds it and in the place now controuerted hugges it in his armes and therefore I discoursed against him as I did and in no other sense and so consequently it is
Scripture D. Stapleton a Relect. p. 462. sayes The Church is the ground and pillar of truth in a higher kind then the Scripture namely in the kind of the efficient cause And b Pag. 494. in explicat qu. the authority of the Church may be vnderstood to be greater then the authority of the Scripture because it is not simply subiect or bound to it but may by it authority teach decerne something which the Scripture hath neither determined nor taught The things which the Church teaches do as much binde the faithfull as those things which the Scripture teacheth we Catholickes affirme that the Church is to be heard more certainely then the Scriptures because the doctrine thereof is more manifest and euident then the doctrine of the Scriptures or at the least equally with the Scriptures because the authority thereof is no lesse irrefragable and infallible The Scripture is the booke of the Church the testimonie of truth which the Church testifies the law of God which the Church hath publisht the rule of faith which the Church hath deliuered We had wont to maruell at the blasphemies c Illyric clau script p. 541. Hos de express verb. Dei of Cusanus Verratus Hosius That the Church hath authoritie aboue the Scripture The Scripture as it is produced by heretikes is the word of the Diuell A Councell is the highest tribunall and hath the same power to determine any thing that the Councell of the Apostles and Disciples had The things written in the Gospell haue no soundnesse but through the determination of the Church c. But now you see the same renewed in that Church to this day and the Iesuits in the midst of their learned subtilties to be as grosse as the grossest Friars preferring their Church authority farre aboue the Scriptures or any vse that a Candlesticke can haue in shewing the candle Note FOVRTHLY what it is that the Protestants say touching the authority of the Scripture and the Church so much as belongs to the present occasion First that the Scriptures haue in them a light and an authoritie of their owne sufficient to prooue themselues to be the word of God and to giue infallible assurance to all men of the true sense and this light and authority is not added increased or multiplied by the Ministry of the Church or any thing that it doth about the Scripture Secondly this light and authoritie of the Scripture shines in vs and takes effect in vs then onely when the Spirit of God opens our hearts to see it The defect of which heauenly illumination is the reason why some neuer and the elect themselues at all times do not see it but it argues no defect of light in the Scriptures Thirdly the means whereby God opens our eies and hearts to see this light and authoritie in the Scripture is the Ministry of the Church I expound my selfe it is the ordinary and publike meanes wherto he referres men And this Ministry is by preaching and expounding the Scripture out of it selfe and perswading and conuincing the consciences of men yet priuately and extraordinarily when and wheresoeuer this Ministry failes or ceasses the light and sense of the Scripture is obtained by the Scripture alone without this Church Ministry and the Scripture alone in this sort immediately at sundry times by it selfe giues full assurance and workes all other effects in our consciences that it doth when the Church propounds it Fourthly the Scripture is so sufficient of it selfe both to reueale whatsoeuer is needfull to be knowne and to establish and assure our heart in the infallible faith of that it reueales that the Church hath nether authority to adde so much as one article more then is contained therein nor power to giue this assurance from any thing but from the Scripture it selfe So farre forth that THE WHOLE TEACHING AND DOCTRINE AND AVTHORITIE OF THE CHVRCH IS TO BE ADMITTED AND YEELDED TO OR REFVSED ACCORDING AS IT CONSENTS OR DISAGREES WITH THE SCRIPTVRE the fountaine of truth the rule of faith Note FIFTLY what our aduersaries meane by the Church and the meanes whereby the Church executes her authority what the things are which by her authority she may do and what the proper effect is that this authority workes in vs. First by this Church d This is shewed c. 35. nu 1. c. 36. nu 1. they vnderstand the Church of Rome for the present time being and therein the Pope in whom they say the whole power and vertue of the Church abideth Secondly the meanes whereby it executeth her authority is vnwritten Tradition out of the which it supplies all things pretended to be needfull for the exposition of the Scripture or the defining of matters that must be beleeued Thirdly the things that she may do by her authoritie are all things that appertaine to the questions of religion 1 Cus epi. 2. 3. 7. to expound the Scripture after her owne iudgement 2 Conc. Trid. sess 24. can 3. to dispense against the Scripture 3 Stapl. princip l. 9. c. 14. relect pag. 514. to canonize new Scripture that before was none 4 Stapl. ibi relect p. 494. inde to giue authority to the Scripture 5 August de Ancon qu. 59. art 1. 2. to make new articles of faith 6 Gl. de transl episc Quanto §. veri to make that to be the sence of the Scripture that is not Lastly the effect of this power is the same that the Scripture breeds and more 7 Grets defens Bel. tom 1. pag. 1218. c. obedience in all that will be saued so that the world is bound as much to the Popes definitiue sentence as to the Scripture or the voice of God himselfe 8 The speech of all the canonists for Christ and the Pope make but one tribunal 9 Capistran de author Pap. pag 130. He is aboue al like him that came downe from heaueÌ„ 10 Capist ibi For with God and the Pope his will is sufficient reason and that which pleases him hath the vigor of a law 11 Palaeot de consist part 5. q 9. after his sentence pronounced no man must doubt or delay to yeeld 12 Petrisedes in Romano solâ—o collocata libertate plena in suis agendis per omnia poteri debet nec vlli subesse homini Gl. ibid. vbi sup yea all the CouÌ„cels and Doctors and Churches in the world must stoop to his determination 5 These fiue things thus obserued it is easie to se that our aduersaries attribute more to the Church then to be onely a meanes for the communicating of that which is in the Scripture to vs expounding the authority thereof that it exceedes the latitude of a Candlesticke and is turned into the Candle it selfe And so to returne to my aduersaries answer and to conclude I thus reason The Ministery and authority of the Church is required either
Scriptures make the Church perfect by cōmending it to it self for thē the Apostles should speak thus by my aduersaries exposition the Scriptures are profitable to make the Church perfect by commending to it the authority of the Church and yet he defendes it First because it sendes them Pastors Pope Councell and all to the interpretations of Councels and Fathers of the ancient Church But then I demand how did they make perfect the ancient Church it selfe the first Councels and Fathers of whom the Apostle speakes as well as of the latter for they had none to retire to but the Scripture onely Secondly because the Pastors of the Church sustaine two persons one as publike Pastors authorized to teach another as priuate men needing instruction themselues and so the Apostle saies the Scripture sends them as priuate men to themselues considered as publike men inabled as need shall require to define the truth in any point the which is an irkesome answer to any that shall consider it for although a Pastor be considered these 2. waies yet it is false that is assumed that he which as a priuate man erres and is ignorant yet as a publike person is able to direct himselfe and others and define the truth this I say is a trick to mocke an ape with though it be all the shift they haue to defend the Pope from being a formall hereticke and yet admitting it to be true that the Pastors of the Church considered as priuate men are sent to themselues considered as publike men yet it cannot be true that the Scripture makes thē perfect this way by sending and commending them to themselues because the perfection auouched is the effect of that teaching that reprouing that correcting that instructing which is contained in the Scripture it selfe and not in the authoritie of man whither the Scripture is imagined to send vs. For all that the Apostle in this text affirmes is of the Scripture alone as appeares 7 Besides my argument I alleadged some testimonies of Chrysostome and certaine Papists to iustifie my exposition wherein they affirme as much out of the text as I doe whereto he replies that the said testimonies must either be explicated to mean that the Scriptures are able to instruct vs with the meanes of Church authority or else be taken without limitation if they be thus explicated they proue nothing against him if they be taken without limitation they proue as much against vs as against him I answer to the first the testimonies are to be seene and the words thereof are so full that they cannot be thus explicated as for example Chrysostome in his words expounds S. Paul to distinguish the Scripture against his owne ministry Thou hast the Scripture to teach thee in steed of me if thou desire to know anything there thou maiest learne it that which can teach vs in steed of the Church Pastours can teach vs without their authority if God as Antonin says hath spokē but once that in the Scriptures that so fully that he speakes no more how can the meaning be that other authority should be ioyned with them for so God should speake twice once in the Scriptures another time in the Church and in the Scripture so far from fully that he needs speake againe in the Church The like may be said to the other testimonies but I refer the iudgement to the conscience of the Reader To the second if these words be taken without limitation that alone without any means ioyned to thē they are able to instruct vs they proue as much against me as against him that its maruell I should haue so little iudgement I demand and why so I pray because then they will make as much against our Church ministery as against his Church authority which had bene spoken to the point if we by Church ministry had meant either the same or as much as he doth by Church authority but when his Church authority intends a supply of that which is wanting in the Scripture by traditions our Church ministry no more but a simple cōdition of vsing the meanes to make vs see that which is contained in thē which ministry also we do not hold to be alway vnto all persons necessary he may let our iudgements alone and take a new reckoning of his owne that is so simple as to make alike things that are so far vnlike his Church authority and our Church ministry CHAP. XXXII Touching priuate spirits that expound against the Church 1. Such priuate expositions refused by the Protestants 2. And yet the Papists haue no other All teaching is to be examined euen by priuate men 5. Certaine propositions shewing how the Church teaching may be or may not be examined and refused Pag. 196. Wootton p. 110 White pag. 62. A.D. Concerning the ninth Chapter M. Wootton and M. White both seeme to disclaime from immediate teaching of priuate spirits and consequently seeme to grant the substance of the conclusion of this Chapter in such sense as it was principally intended by me yet wheresoeuer they be vrged to tell how they infallibly know that there is any Scripture at all and that these and no other bookes be Canonicall Scripture and that this or that is the true interpretation and sense of this or that text of holy Scripture vpon which questions well resolued the whole frame of their faith doth depend after alledging other reasons drawne from rules of art and knowledge of tongues c. which they know to be infallible they must be forced finally to flie for infallible assurance either to the immediate teaching of their priuate spirit or else to run the round betwixt Scripture and priuate spirit in such sort as I haue shewed in the Introduction Introd q. 6. and hence it seemeth to proceed that they both thought fit to make answer to my reasons which they needed not to haue done if the conclusion of this Chapter had no waies bene contrary to their doctrine White pag. 59. 60. M. White before he begin to answer my reasons distinguisheth a double meaning of the word priuate which I put in my conclusion and saith that if I meant it as it is opposed ô strange opposition to diuine and spirituall I said well but vsing it as we Catholickes do as it is opposed to common he saith that a priuate man may so be assisted with the Holy Ghost that he may interprete Scripture truely and infallibly against a company as big as the Roman Church 1 HIs third conclusion touching the rule of faith was that no priuate man who perswadeth himselfe to be specially instructed by the spirit can be this rule of faith specially so far foorth as he teaches or beleeues contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church the which I granted to be true but admonished the Reader withall that he had a further reach therein then yet he made shew of For his intent was to condemne all particular men and
here mentioned For though there be a Church in any sense that a true Church can be meant ordained to teach vs yet it followes not that it hath any such authority or any authority at all to propound vnwritten traditions and there may be a Church and yet the iudgement thereof not be the authority whereon our faith is grounded and the same Church may be ordained to teach vs yet not allowed to teach these vnwritten verities For God hath propounded all doctrine of faith in the Scriptures and appointed his Church to reueale and expound it to his people the which doctrine thus expounded inlightens the mind begets faith and is the rule of all mens iudgement through the worke of the Holy Ghost that confirmes it in the mind Granting therefore that which the Repliar so much desires that all his meaning is that once or in one age there was a company of men who in one sense or other may be called the Church whom God hath appointed and furnished to teach all men the things of faith yet it helps not his conclusion nor makes it true in that sense wherein he meanes it CHAP. XXXV 1 The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope 2. How and in what sense they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith 3 They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith 4 And that the Scripture receiues authority and credit from him 6Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not 7. And they may iudge of that they teach 8 The Iesuites dare not answer directly Pag. 204. White pag. 67. A. D. This being proued my Aduersaries may see how much they mistake when they thinke me to meane in this Chapter by the name Church onely the Pope or onely the present Pastours of the Church when as rather I meant to include these onely secondarily meaning here by the name Church principally the Apostles themselues who for the time they liued on earth were principall Doctours and Pastours of thâ— Church being by me therfore tearmed the Church which I said is the rule of faith not taking the verbe is so strictly as onely limited to this present time but â—â—ther indefinitely abstracting from all time or per ampliationem as it may extend it selfe to the by-past as well as to the present time This to be my meaning my Aduersaries might haue perceiued by the texts of Scripture which I bring for the proofe of my conclusion For those texts are by me here applied as they were by our Sauiour spoken and meant to wit principally to the Apostles being the primitiue Pastours and principall members of the Church and are onely secondarily or by consequence applied to other Pastours succeeding in their places Now taking my conclusion in this chiefly intended sense it cannot be denied to be true neither can the reason by which I proue it with any reason be denied to be good 1 IT is easie to see that he knownes not in what sense he should take his conclusion that it might be defended For if by the Church he meant no more but the Apostles and primitiue Pastours and by the doctrine of the Church no more but that which is the doctrine indeed contained in the Scripture no man would deny the doctrine and teaching faith and beleefe of the Apostles contained in the written word to be the rule of faith but he meant and still meanes otherwise that this Church which all men ought to follow is the B. of Rome alone for the time being wherein a See Chap. 34. nu 1. I mistooke him not For he meanes that which in all ages for the time being is the supreame iudge and hath subiectiuely in it all the Church authority But such is the Pope alone according to the principles of Papists Therefore he meanes the Pope alone againe he meanes that Church whereof he expounds the texts of Scripture alledged in that Chapter to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule but all those texts he expounds of the Pope alone for the time being Ergo. Thirdly I suppose the Repliar to be a Papist and in this place a maintainer of the Popish doctrine touching the rule of faith but that doctrine meanes the Church as I expound For the order which God hath left in his Church for the iudging and deciding of matters of faith according to the Iesuites doctrine b Staplet Princ. doctrin fid l. 6. praef 1 Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. 2 Staplet Princ. doctr l. 5. c. 1. 3 c. 2. 4 c. 5. 5 l. 6. c. 1. is this 1. That not the Scripture but the Church is this supreme iudgâ— of all controuersies and things of faith 2 Yet this Church as it is taken for the whole body iudges not 3. Nor lay priuate men therein 4. But the power of iudging belongs to the Bishops and Priests alone 5. And among them the B. of Rome alone as the successor of S. Peter is so the head of the whole Church and the primary and highest subiect of this Church iudgement that he hath power alone aboue all others whether Pastors or sheepe to pronounce 6 Grets def Bellar. tom 1 p. 1218. c. and determine touching the matters of faith 6. So that besides the Doctors and Pastors there must be in the Church some other supreme iudge and he is the B. of Rome either alone or with a Councell Here it is plaine that howsoeuer the name of the Church be pretended yet the whole power is limited and restrained to the Pope alone For they hold the gouernment and power of the Church not to be Aristocraticall placed in Councels or Bishops but Monarchicall where all the gouernment power and infalliblenesse is in the Pope alone Councels Bishops Priests and all other parts of the Church are but cyphers the power is eminently and infallibly and authoratiuely in the Pope alone either with them or without them Bellar. c De Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. §. sed nec sayes plainely Neither the Scripture nor secular princes nor priuate men are iudges of controuersies but Ecclesiasticall Prelates and Councels may iudge of the controuersies of religion but that iudgement is not firme or ratified till the Pope haue confirmed it and therefore the last iudgement belongs to him for either there must be no iudge among men at all or else he must be the iudge that is aboue the rest I haue alledged the words of Gregory of Valence diuers times d Tom. 3. in 22. pag. 24. When we say the Proposition of the Church is a condition necessary to the assent of faith by the name of Church we meane the head thereof that is to say the B. of Rome either alone by himselfe or with a Councell Syluester Prierias e In Luth. tom 1. pag. 159. fundam 1. The vniuersall Church essentially is the conuocation of all that beleeue in Christ but
we refuse the church of Rome are nothing else but the corruptions and abuses that came in by the faction of some and were opposed by the sounder part of the Church as they grew and came in CHAP. XLIX 1.2 The ancient Church held the blessed Virgin to haue bene conceiued in sinne 3. The now Church of Rome holds the contrary Pag. 279. A. D. The fourth obiection Fourthly my aduersary M. White obiecteth eight points wherein as he saith the Church holdeth contrary to that which it hath formerly held to wit the conception of the virgin Marie Latin Seruice reading Scriptures Priests marriages Images Supremacie Communion in one kinde Transubstantiation To this I answer here onely briefly and in generall referring the Reader for more particulars to other Catholicke authors who ex professo write of these points First concerning the conception of the blessed virgin Marie it neuer was vniuersally held by the ancient Church as a point of faith that she was conceiued in sinne For if it had bene so held Saint Augustine would neuer haue pronounced so absolutely as he doth that when question is concerning sinne he would haue no mention of the blessed Virgin Neither is it now held by vs as a point of faith that she was not conceiued in sinne this being one of those points in which according to Saint Augustine an erring disputer is to be borne withall in regard the question is not diligently digested nor confirmed by full authoritie of the Church 1 THe Replier in his Treatise that I answered to proue his Romane church Catholicke a In THE WAY §. 46. 47. vsed this reason because it had still professed without change the same faith which hath bene continually since the Apostles without denying any point of doctrine which in former times was vniuersally receiued and bad vs prooue the contrary if we could To this I answered first generally and then in the 49 Digression particularly I obiected the eight points here mentioned shewing that the church of Rome holds therein contrary to that which formerly was holden Now he replies that his answer shall be but briefe and in generall referring the Reader to other Catholicke authors that purposely haue writ of these points But when he made his challenge I supposed he would haue tried them with me himselfe not by referring me to his Catholicke authors whose writings the reader hath no meanes to suruey but by bringing what he thought good out of them and letting the reader see what the issue would be betweene vs. But seeing he durst not put his cause to that kind of triall my answer shall be like his argument That I also referre the Reader to other learned men who ex professo haue answered whatsoeuer his authors haue written of these points And what himselfe hath said I will answer that the reader shall wel perceiue my instances were sufficient to shew that the church of Rome now holds contrary to that which formerly was holden and beleeued 2 First touching the conception of the blessed Virgin he sayes it was neuer vniuersally held by the ancient Church as a point of faith that she was conceiued in sinne nor is it now held in the Church of Rome as a point of faith that she was not conceiued in sinne Let vs make short worke Both these are false First it was held as a point of faith that is to say as a part of the religion and profession of those times that she was conceiued and borne in sinne as all others are This I proue by his owne authors Paulus Cortesius in his writing vpon the Sentences directed to Pope Iulius b 3. d. 4. pag. 65 sayes that one Vincentius produces 260 witnesses affirming her to be conceiued in sinne Cardinall Turrecremata c De consecr d. 4 Firmissimè â— 11. affirmes that all the Doctors in a manner hold it and that himselfe had gathered together the testimonies of three hundred to that effect noting the places and words wherein they affirme it Dominicus Bannes d 1 part qu. 1. dub 5. §. Arguitur secundo pag. 89. Venet. sayes It is the generall consent of the holy Doctors that she was conceiued in sinne and yet the contrarie opinion is holden in the Church to be not onely probable but verie godly This is plaine dealing He sayes that which is contrary to the vnanime consent of all the Fathers is now holden by the Church as the more profitable and godly opinion The like is confessed by e Bonan 3. d. 3. art 1. qu. 2. Arimin 2. d. 30. qu. 2. art 1. Capreol 3. d. 3. art 1. Caietan opusc de concept Cano loc l. 7. c. 1. others as fully To f De nat grat c 36. the place alledged out of Austin Gregorius Ariminensis g Art 3. ad 1. answers that he meanes it onely of actuall sinne In which doctrine Saint Austin is not constant neither for he sayes h De perfect iustit cont Celest sub sin elsewhere Whosoeuer he be that thinkes there haue bene or are any man or any men excepting onely the Mediator of God and men to whom the remission of their sinne was not necessarie he goes against the Scripture and the Apostles Romanes 5. And the Fathers mentioning the text of Iohn 2.4 Woman what haue I to do with thee affirme in effect that she was a sinner Saint Austin i Tulit admonitionem Filij expauescat Filij inuentutem de Symb. l. 2. c. 5. sayes Christ admonished her and bids her feare her Sonne Athanasius k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orat 4. aduer Arian pag. 281. sayes he checkt her Euthymius l Corripuit eam in Ioh 2. pag. 320. he rebuked her Chrysostome m Asperiora hac verba indignatio hom 20. in Ioh. that he was angrie at her Irenaeus n Repelleni eius intempestinam festinationem l. 3. c. 18. that he repelled her vnseasonable hastinesse Theophylact o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ioh. 2. that he child her not without cause Few of the ancient Fathers this is the confession p Comm. in Ioh. 2. nu 11. of Maldonat a Iesuite but either openly say or obscurely signifie that there was some fault or error in her They thought therefore she was a sinner actually which could not haue bin if originall sinne which is the fountaine of actuall had not bin in her 3 Next the Church of Rome now holds the contrarie whether as a point of faith or no the reader shall iudge presently 1 Below in the letters First it is holden expresly contrary to that which the Fathers held that she had no originall sinne 2 Can. Bâ—n vbi sup Next I presume no Papist will denie it to be defended in the Church as a godly opinion 3 Suar. tom 2. d. 3 s 6. pro. 1. Vasq 3 d. 1â—7 n. 148. Thirdly the Church may define it when she will 4 Vasq
neither proueth our practise vnlawfull neither indeed can he proue that the contrary practise either of marying a wife or vsing the company of a wife was euer lawfull after holy orders but rather may finde it generally condemned for vnlawfull M. Whites examples to the contrary either are not authenticall or they speake of those that were maried before holy orders who neuer companied with their wiues after 1 THe fourth example was the forbidding mariage to the Cleargie Which by diuers pregnant authorities I shewed to be contrary to the practise of the Primitiue Church First I alledged the words of the Apostle allowing it Then the examples of the Priests in the old law diuers Bishops in the Primitiue Church vsing it then the confession of the most learned among our aduersaries testifying the present practise of the Church of Rome to be but A HVMANE CONSTITVTION AND NOT THE DIVINE LAW OF GOD. Whereunto he replies nothing but as you see in generall termes onely denies the authorities as if there were not a God that abhorred lying and imposture and these odious practises of shuffling and concealements and will one day seuerely punish them First to the text of S. Paul a 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.6 where he sayes a Bishop must be the husband of one wife hauing faithfull children his children in subiection with all grauitie which precept supposes it lawfull for him to haue a wife and children he replies M. White cites a mistaken sentence out of the Apostle But what mistaking can there be in words so plaine and when wife and children are mentioned what mistaking is it to conclude mariage b Chrysost ho. 2 in Tit. OecuÌ„ Theophyl in Tit. 1 Chrysostome Theophylact and the Greeke scholiast vpon this text write thus He will stop the mouths of heretickes calumniating mariage and shewes the thing not onely to be blamelesse but so honorable * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that therein a Bishop may ascend vp to his sacred throne These affirme that a man in the state of mariage without putting away his wife or vowing single life may be a Bishop And Soto maior a great Doctor at this day in the Church of Rome c Comm. in Tit. 1. §. vnius vxâ—ris handling this place confesses it proues BB. and Priests to haue bene maried at that time M. White alone therefore mistakes not the Apostle but others also with him 2 Secondly he saies I boldly affirme after my fashion that mariage of Priests was ordinary in the Primitiue Church But I affirmed nothing but what I gaue examples of my fashion and course holden throughout my writing being to iustifie what I affirme by authoritie He is the bolder of the two that dares charge his aduersarie with boldnes whose reasons and authorities he durst not looke in the face neuerthelesse let that he saies be considered First be sayes he proues not our practise vnlawfull This is folly For whatsoeuer restraines and forbids that which the Apostles and their Churches permitted and commended is vnlawfull But M. White cannot proue it was euer lawfull either to marrie a wife or vse the company of a wife after holy orders but he shall rather finde it condemned as vnlawfull All this I proued as will appeare by reading what I writ but yet you shall see what M. White can proue more though if he proue neuer so much all is one with my Repliar For his answer at the last will be the same that Aeneas who afterward was Pope Pius 2 made the Bohemians * Epist 130. post med We are not bound to al things which the Fathers did in the Primitiue Church they had wiues we haue none we therefore merit the more First d L. 6. c. 17. the Constitutions of Clemens expresly allowes Ministers Cantors Readers doore-keepers e Id asserunt omnes veteres Scholast DuraÌ„ do excepto Et ex recentioribus grauissimi quique idque videtur sensisse conc FloreÌ„t Trident. Bellarm. de ordin c. 8. who are within holy orders that is properly a sacrament in the Church of Rome * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 99. to marry after they are entred into orders and if it were lawfull for Bishops and Priests also after their entrance into orders to keepe and company with their wiues which they had maried before what reason can be giuen why they might not aswell marrie after their entrance into orders Now that it was lawfull to keepe and liue and company with their wiues after their entrance into orders I shewed by the testimonies of f Monâ—d Nazianzen g Epist ad Euopt Synesius h Epist ad Dracont 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 739. Commelin Athanasius i L. 4. c. 23. Eusebius k L. 5. c. 22. Socrates and l L. 12. c. 34. Nicephorus Which I will not here repeate And this was so far from being condemned as vnlawfull that it was iustified and practised against those that began to mislike it Nazianzen m Orat. in sanct Bapt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 656. rebukes them that said none should baptise them but an vnmaried Priest Sidonius a B. in France about the yeare 480. being intreated to commend a MetropolitaÌ„ to the prouince of Aquitaine in France commends one Simplicius reporting him to be maried and to haue children and hauing in many other things praised him as fit for the place n L. 7. conc p. 445. he proceeds thus His wife also is descended of the stocke of the Palladij who to the commendations of their order haue holden the seates of learnings or of the altars and verily in as much as the person of the matrone requires a modest and succint mention of her I will constantly auouch * Respondere illam foeminam sacerdotij vtriusque familiae vel vbi educta creuit vel vbi electa migrauit that woman to answer the Priesthoods of both the families either whence she was brought forth or whither she came when she was chosen Both of them well and wisely instruct their children This example doth so plainely shew that Bishops and Priests companied with their wiues after orders that it cannot be well eluded For therein not onely a maried man is preferred to be a Metropolitan almost 500 yeares after Christ but thought to be the fitter because of the quality of his wife being first descended of Priests and then a modest woman and such a one as * Filios AMBO instituunt together with her husband instructed their children which neither needed nor could be said if he liued not with her Isidorus Pelusiota in o L. 2. ep 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 198. a certaine Epistle to a Priest reporting a narration touching a woman bids him tell it his wife That Priest was married therefore But the Repliar sure will allow no example to be authenticall vnlesse it shew they lay together the which I confesse is much when
25 yeares there wherein sundrie of the ancient and all our Aduersaries to this day follow him is c Printed at Basil by Henrico Petri and elsewhere in Latin Olympiad 205. Eusebius chronicle translated by S. Ierom and yet in the Greeke d Printed an 1606. Lugduni Batauorum set forth by Scaliger * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is all he saies there is no mention of any time of his abode but onely that he went to Rome whereby it may be gathered that this matter of Peters being Bishop of Rome was much lesse at the first then afterward it came to be And whether the Fathers had any certainety of that they said or onely followed a common rumor begun by such a one as Papias was without examining it God knowes but our Aduersaries themselues feele the difficulty and cannot remoue it Thirdly that so many monuments yet remaining do testifie he was at Rome But those monuments are not so many There is e Baro. an 45. n. 11. an old chaire belike that on certaine daies is shewed the people and a sepulcher and certaine parts pretended to be relickes of his body but how shall these things be prooued to be such indeed when the iugling and imposture with relickes is so well knowne that the world hath long since abrogated all credit giuen to such monuments It hath not bene the least part of the Church of Romes policie for many ages together with fained miracles and counterfet relickes to breed and nourish in the vulgar people an opinion of the Roman holinesse But let them that will be led by such monuments first make sure they be not counterfets I would take some paines to discouer these monuments but that the thing he intends to proue by them is not so great that I will contend about it Pag. 290. A. D. To the SECOND I answer that we haue diuine authoritie to assure vs that there must be alwaies one in the Church who is S. Peters successour hauing the same absolute Pastorall authority that S. Peter had For first the name Pastour being peculiarly appropriate to S. Peter Ioh. 20.21 by these words Pasce oues meas signifieth an ordinarie office which dieth not with the person but is to be continued in a successour Secondly the end of this office being common to all ages argueth that our Sauiour meant so to institute it as it might serue for all ages and consequently that it should be continued in a succession of such Pastours Thirdly the loue and care which moued our Sauiour to institute this office for the good of the Church was common to the Church of all ages and the necessitie which the Church had of such a Pastour was not onely for that first age but for all succeeding ages and therefore it is not to be thought that Christ our Sauiour meant to institute that office onely for to continue in S. Peters person and to die with him but that he ordained it to continue in others who from time to time should succeed in his place Now that the Bishop of Rome rather then of Antioch should succeed in S. Peters office is not indeed expresly written in the Gospell but is partly gathered from that which is there written and is knowne vnto vs by tradition of the Church to be Christs institution as is learnedly declared proued See Bellarm. l. 1. de Rom. Pontif c. 12. Stapleron relect controu 3 q. 2. art 2 and defended by Gregorie de Valent. tom 3. disp 1. q. 1. de obiect fid p. 7. § 36. 37. and 38. The which to be so is confirmed in that by Christs appointment one or other is alwaies to succeed S. Peter in the office of chiefe Pastour but my Aduersarie cannot assigne any other besides the Bishop of Rome that did or could vpon so sufficient ground pretend to be S. Peters successor 2 This answer affirmes three things First that S. Peter had absolute Pastorall authoritie appropriate to him by those words Pasce oues meas Secondly that this authority was not to die with him but to continue for euer in the Church in some or other that should succeed him Thirdly that the Bishop of Rome rather then hee of Antioch was to succeed him in authoritie Touching the first and second let it be distinguished The Pastoral authority of Peter contained two things being taken in the whole latitude First his dutie to preach the Gospell and teach the people by ministring the word and sacraments to them Secondly his extraordinary and eminent power thereunto wherein he exceeded all ordinarie Pastors being called to be an Apostle and inabled to plant Churches conuert nations reueale Christ worke miracles c. Our Aduersaries adde a third his supreme iurisdiction ouer all the Apostles also and all the powers on earth spirituall and temporall whereby he was the ordinary Pastor and iudge ouer all the world directly as some say or indirectly as othersome will haue it The first of these is called his Pastorall office the second his Apostleship the third his Primacy or supremacie The which distinction being laied we grant that S. Peter had absolute Pastoral authority in the first and second sences to preach the Gospell as all other Pastors do and beyond them all to be an Apostle We grant secondly that authoritie to be an Apostle and Pastor of the Church that he might feed the flocke of Christ was either giuen or ratified to him by those words feed my sheepe We grant thirdly that the Pastorall authority taken onely in the first degree thereof was not to die with him but to remaine for euer in his successors the ordinary Bishops and Pastors of the Church But all this will do the Pope no good for it neither preferrs him of Antioch nor him of Rome but makes them both equall Fourthly we deny any to haue succeeded him in his Apostleship or God to haue ordained any succession in that second and eminent degree of his Pastoral charge neither dare our Aduersaries themselues simply and absolutely affirme it The Iesuite therefore in this his answer meanes the authoritie of Peter in the last sense as it imports the PRIMACY and iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles and the Kings and nations of the earth to rule and ouergouerne them This is denied and the Text alledged Feed my sheepe proues it not as I haue fully shewed in * Digress 26. nu 15. 22. The learned Reader may see Is Casaub exercitat 16. nu 132. p. 705. THE WAY where it was first offered me Whence it followes that hee could haue none to succeed him in any supremacy because he had none such himselfe For no man succeeds another in more then he hath himsâ—lfe And the Repliars three arguments proceeding onely for the first degree of his Pastorall authority proue nothing for the second or third By reason the Apostleship was not needfull for all ages and the supremacy intended was neuer giuen him at all nor meant
bad vnder pretence of aduancing the Gospell or the glory of God especially if they thinke that they may lawfully maintaine it by writing apparent and knowne vntruthes the better to defend it If I say there be any Protestant writers of such seared consciences I would wish they would plainely tell vs this their minds that so those poore soules who haue bene hitherto seduced may the better see how vnsound the Potestant Religion is which cannot be maintained but with apparent vntruths vttered by their writers either without due care of conscience or against their knowledge and conscience or with hauing such bad consciences as to thinke it lawfull to lie in this their cause pretended by them to be for the aduancement of Gods glory and of the Gospell or which is all one or worse to thinke one cannot lye too much in defence of this their Protestant cause or Gospell 5 This is a poore motion and proceeds from no great conceit yet I will satisfie it vpon condition he will rest satisfied with my answer Let this content you and beare not your selues in hand to the contrary we know our cause to be Gods owne truth which you haue corrupted with innumerable heresies patched thereunto and we not onely defend it as we do with a good conscience against you but wee would thinke it our greatest happines if the cause should so require to shed our blood in defence of it and it ioyes our hearts to see the weapons wherewith you fight against vs lying railing pride rage treason sedition fire and powder which is a signe that you are not of God this our cause we will maintaine with zeale and synceritie which shall be tried not by your calumnies but by the thing it selfe And I am so far from seduâ—ing any that I would giue my life for the reclaiming of those whom you haue seduced and bewitched with meere cozenage and impostures And as I hate lying to defend Gods truth so can I not but vpbraide them that run headily into Papistry afore they know how things stand betweene vs when vpon iust triall it will fall out that in the maine question betweene the Church of Rome and vs our aduersaries vphold themselues with meere imposture To the Reader HItherto reaches that which my Aduersary hath written against the Epistle and Preface of my booke now in the next place before he fall to replying vpon the booke it selfe he inserts an Introduction as he calles it containing a Declaration of the word Faith the which bebeginnes pag. 49. where his exceptions to the said Preface and epistle end And forasmuch as it is a new discourse intended * Since I see M. A Wotton to be either of so dull capacity of wit that he cannot conceiue or rather of so captious disposition of will that he will needes doubt and make a question what I meant by the word faith I haue thought good not onely to declare what I meant by the word but also by this action to set downe certaine points of doctrine pertaining to the thing signified by the word pag 49. of his Reply as it should seeme against M. Wotton and is no Reply to me but a superfluous and impertinent collection rudely and obscurely peeced together for the outfacing of that which he was not able formally to answer I would therefore cast away no time in medling with it but onely defend my selfe against such places thereof as touch my Booke because I will not be in his debt for a word Those places onely I haue here set downe in order as they lie in his Discourse with my Answer to them CHAP. XVI Touching assurance of Grace and Beleeuing a mans owne saluation 1. Perfection of the Scripture and necessitie of the Church Ministrie 2. 3. How the iustified conclude their saluation from the Scripture 4. The iustified haue the assurance of faith This is declared Full assurance voide of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome 5. Touching Perseuerance A. D. Now that it doth not at all appertaine to that kind of verities Pag. 57. which are to be beleeued by faith I proue out of the Protestants owne Principles to wit that * That this proofe must be by necessarie consequence without all authoritie of the Church is insinuated by White pag. 46 nothing is to be beleeued by faith but what is expressely set downe in Scripture or so contained that without all Church authoritie it may be euidently and by good consequence proued out of Scripture But the promise of Gods speciall mercie applied absolutely and in particular to Luther Caluine c. is neither expressed nor in manner aforesaid contained in Scripture Therefore it is not a verity to be beleeued by faith by the Protestants owne Principles 1 IN this Chapter where these words lye he discourses of the obiect of faith and inquires what the things are which belong to it and must be beleeued to no purpose intruding himselfe vpon an impertinent question touching the beleefe of a mans owne saluation and in this period he affirmes that it is against the Protestants owne Principles to beleeue it Because by their Principles nothing may be beleeued but what is set downe in Scripture either expressely or by good consequence which the saluation or remission of sinnes to Luther Caluine White or any particular man is not And to shew this to be our Principle he saies in the margent that M. White in such a place insinuats that nothing may be receiued as a point of faith vnlesse it can be proued by necessary consequence of Scripture without all authoritie of the Church meaning as I suppose that I require no Church authoritie to assure a man any thing but intend such things onely to be beleeued as may be proued at least by consequence of Scripture without the authoritie of the Church I answer 2. things First that in the place alleadged I deny no authority of the Church that is dâ—e vnto it but onely against them that charge the Scripture with insufficiency as if they wanted many things needfull to be beleeued which must be supplied by the Tradition and Authority of the Church I affirme that whatsoeuer is needfull to be knowne beleeued or done is contained in Scripture and by the same ALONE may absolutely be determined The meaning whereof is that what Ministrie and power soeuer the Church hath to teach and rule vs in the vse of the Scripture and points of faith which authority no Protestant will deny to belong to the true Church or to be needfull yet all things whatsoeuer belong to faith and the Church by any authoritie may propose vnto vs are contained in the Scripture and may be proued thereby alone the said Church authoritie being onely a requisite condition subordinate for the readier attaining to the sence and vse of the Scripture but no rule or principle either aboue or with the Scripture whereinto any mans faith in any point is resolued so that it
may be said This I must or I may beleeue vpon the tradition and authority of the Church though it be not any way reuealed in the Scripture The which assertion of ours hath 2. parts the one affirmatiue that the Scripture alone and absolutely considered in it owne Latitude and extent containeth all things belonging to faith without defect This is proued a Digr 3. 1 2. in the way The other Negatiue that the Churches authoritie is neither needfull nor able to supply any necessary or new point of faith that is not contained in the Scripture I deny it not to be ordinarily a necessary condition for the knowing and beleeuing that which the Scripture reueales for b Ro. 10.14 How shall they heare that they may beleeue without a Preacher c Act. 8.31 How can we vnderstand except we haue a guide d Mal 3.7 for the Priests lips should preserue knowledge and at his mouth they should seeke the Law for he is the Messenger of the Lord of hoasts I onely deny it to be the rule and foundation of faith or so much as the last infallible and cleare ground whereupon the beleeuer in any point that he beleeues restes himselfe The which to hold proportion with the Iesuit in this place I onely proue by the Papists owne principles to wit that the proposition of the Church is e Grego Val. tom 3. disp 1. q. 1. punct 1. pag. 32. §. sit nunc Sexta neither the last and clearest motiue whereupon our faith staies but there are higher and clearer then it which can be nothing but the immediate supernaturall light of the verities beleeued themselues shining vpon our hearts from the Scripture whereunto the light of Church authority when it hath reuealed the doctrine contained in Scripture to vs giues place as all lesser lights do when a greater begins to shine 2 Secondly I answer that from this Principle of ours Nothing may be beleeued but what is set downe in Scripture expressely or may be gathered from thence by good consequence it doth not follow that a particular man as Luther or White cannot beleeue the promises of Gods speciall mercie touching his owne saluation because though Luther or Whites name be not expressely set downe in the promise yet that which is set downe is so offered to vs that being penitent beleeuers and iustified and standing in grace whereof there is an infallible assurance f THE WAIâ— Digr 43. by our aduersaries owne confession we may conclude our owne particular Saluation from thence and must indeuour to beleeue it This part of my answer affirmes 2. things First that a penitent sinner iustified and eleuated into the state of grace may infallibly proue or gather the assurance of his Saluation by good consequence from the Scripture Secondly that this assurance thus to be gathered appertaines to those verities which are beleeued by the habite of faith I do not say any man can at all times so firmely and without feare of the contrary beleeue his owne reconciliation with God as he can the first articles of faith that are expressely and immediately reuealed I onely affirme that he beleeues it by the habite of supernaturall faith and is bound to endeuour and vse the meanes that he may beleeue it 3 The first point I haue purposely shewed g Digr 40. n. 39. 4â— n. 10. in the THE WAIE and confirmed by the confession of diuers of our Aduersaries whither I referre the Iesuit that he may see how and in what manner this assurance is gathered Onely I will here admonish the reader that if the penitent beleeuer could not by necessary consequence of Scripture and true application of the generall promises of the Gospell to his owne particular person conclude his saluation he were in no wise bound to beleeue it but now when he hath receiued the Testimony of Gods Spirit within him crying Abba Father the power of the same Spirit in his body and soule renuing him and producing the effectes of sauing grace the Faith of Christ whereby he giues consent to the Gospell the life of Christ whereby he liues not himselfe but Christ liues in him the power of his death whereby he dies to the world and sinne when finally in truth and conscience he performes all the conditions that the Scripture requires and feeles within him those very signes whereby the Gospell describes the elect it may not be doubted but by good consequence both in matter and forme he may conclude his owne saluation It is no where written in the Bible that Luther or Caluine shall rise at the last day yet the Reply will allow them to beleeue it by consequence from that which is written All men shall rise It is no where written that this Iesuite shall come into Iudgement and giue an account of this his faith and the waies wherein he walkes yet I presume he beleeues it by faith in that by consequence it necessarily followes of that Article He shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead In the same manner a penitent sinner examining himselfe concludes his owne saluation from the Scripture that sayes h Marc. 16.16 Rom. 10.9 Euery one that repents and beleeues shall be saued Therefore if there be any certainty of a mans owne repentance of his being in Grace of the testimony of Gods Spirit and i Paret Lombarâ—um nec vâ—luâ—sse nec doâ—â—isse vt doâ—erentur Christian de peccatorum remissione gratia Dei vita aeterna perpetuo dubitare aut diffidere quemad modum re vera nec vllus Orthodoxus sani iudicij Ecclesiastes inter Pontificios quod equidem sciam vnquam illud docuit Mart. Eisengren defens Concil Trid. de cert grat p. 216. fie vpon that mouth that will say there is none when the Scripture k 2. Co. 13.5 biddes vs Try our selues touching them it must needes be yeelded that there is a certainty likewise of his saluation 4 The second point that the remission of our sinnes and eternall life is beleeued by Faith is cleare vpon 4. points 1. because in the Creed those 2. Articles are made the obiect of Faith therefore the penitent sinner applies them to himselfe by the same habit 2. l Aliqui Catholici existimarunt posse vnumquemque credete fide diuina sine peculiari reuelatione dimissa sibi esse peccata Vasqu 12. disp 200. n. 5. Many learned Papists confesse so much Fisher of Rochester m Roffenf opusc de fid miserecord dei axiom 10. If we will enter into heauen we must not come with a double heart or wauering Faith but with that which is ALTOGETHER VNDOVBTING and MOST CERTAINE For to doubting minds there is no way open Gropper and the Diuines of Collen n Antididag c. de iustif §. proditum est p. 29. We are iustified by Faith whereby WITHOVT DOVBTING we firmely beleeue that our sinnes who are truely penitent are forgiuen vs for Christ
Ecclesiam Dei posse de assertione non vera facere veram aut de non non falsam Turrecâ—em sum de Eccl. l 4. part 2. c. 3. ad 6. our aduersaries denie the latter is not sufficient to make the Scripture onely probable in that howsoeuer for want of Church authoritie a man may not see such texts to proue the virginitie of Marie or the Baptisme of children yet the proofe is in them within their owne latitude and if there be any such matter in them at all then is it in them more then probably because no diuine testimonie is probable but necessarie but Gretser and the Church of Rome vse their traditions as Alchymists do the Philosophers stone with the touch of it they turne any mettall into gold or as Painters do Allum to giue tincture to their colours CHAP. XIX 1. 2. How the Churches authoritie proues the Scripture 3. The Iesuits plainely confesse that the Scriptures alone prooues it selfe to be Gods word 4. The Scriptures are Principles indemonstrable in any superior science 6. All other testimony resolued into the testimony of the Scripture 7. Touching Euidence and the Compossibility thereof with faith A. D. I will insist in that example which I propounded Pag. 68. in the treatise and thus I dispute All sorts both Catholickes and Protestants do beleeue and hold it a point necessary to be beleeued that S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. are true diuine Scripture and that these particular bookes which the Church vseth are the same true Scripture at least in sense and substance which was set downe by those holy writers But these points are not expressed in Scripture nor secluding Church authority and tradition so contained as that they can be proued euidently and necessarily out of any sentence of Scripture Ergo all points necessary to be beleeued are not so contained in Scripture as Protestants say they are M. Wotton and M. White both struggle with this argument as other Protestants haue done before theÌ„ but when they haue done said all one may easily see how they sticke fast in the mire To omit their impertinent speeches there are onely two things which to the purpose they do or can directly say viz. either they must deny these to be points of faith necessary to be beleeued or else they must shew how one may prooue these points euidently out of some sentence of Scripture For if they admit that these be points of faith necessary to be beleeued and that these cannot be prooued out of Scripture it followeth ineuitably that all points of faith necessary to be beleeued cannot be prooued by Scripture and that their Principle is false which saith nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of saith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture M. White saith that like as in other sciences White pag. 47. there are some Principles indemonstrable so in matters of faith it is a Principle to be supposed that Scripture is Diuine and so no maruell if it cannot be prooued as other points of faith are To this I reply that Principles in sciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of terms or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superior science by some other Principle more euident to vs. But that these books which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is * If it were euident how is it onely beleeued by faith For S. Paul calls faith argumentum non apparentium Heb. 11. v. 1. not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other Principle more euidently vnto vs that these books which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture Secondly I aske whether this point of doctrine that S. Mathewes Gospell c. is diuine Scripture be such a Principle of faith as it selfe is also a point necessary to be beleeued and that by the same infallible faith by which we beleeue the blessed Trinity Or that it is so a Principle as it selfe is not to be beleeued at all by faith or by the same faith by which wee beleeue the blessed Trinity If the first be said then either the opinion of Protestants who say nothing is to be necessarily beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued out of the Scripture is false or else this is not a Principle indemonstrable as M. White affirmeth If rhe second be said then it followeth that Protestants do not beleeue by faith S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. nor any other booke in the Bible to be diuine Scripture and consequently not hauing assurance of diuine faith in this point they cannot haue any faith at all in any other points since other points being not otherwise in a Protestants iudgement points of faith then as they are conclusions prooued out of Scripture cannot be more assuredly knowne then Scripture it selfe which is the onely Premise or Principle whence Protestants deduce all other points of their faith 1 MY Aduersary in a In THE WAY §. 9. but in his printed booke cap. 7. his treatise that I answered to shew that the Scripture is not the Rule whereby to find and iudge of true faith obiected the insufficiencie and imperfection thereof because there be diuers questions and points of faith not contained and determined therein Which he endeuours to proue by this argument here set downe Whereto I answered directly and in forme as b THE WAY §. 9. n. 3. inde the booke will shew The which my answer in this place he replies to as you see after his ordinary manner with bragging and saying nothing and casting out a few insolent speeches The Protestants struggle with this argument One may easily see how they sticke in the mire Onely two things to the purpose It seems M. White saw the weakenes of his answer c wherto I answer 2 First he sayes we struggle with this argument and sticke in the mire which in some sense I may not deny for when I vndertooke this Iesuit I struggled with a dunghill and therefore * Hoc scio pro certo quod si cuÌ„ stercâ—re c. no maruell if for my penance I sticke in the mire both here and in many other places of this reply his bragging and railing and facing it out with nothing when yet all this with many shall be accepted for sound diuinity being such as will bemire and weary any man in the world that desires nothing but the truth Otherwise my answer was direct and plaine for the point he is to proue is that the Scripture alone containes not nor determines the whole obiect of our faith but diuers points needfull to be beleeued are wanting in it and must be supplied by the authority and tradition of the Church his reason to proue this is the
Syllogisme here set downe Whereto I answered First granting the maior and acknowledging it to be a point of faith necessary to be beleeued that the Canonicall bookes which the Church vses are true diuine Scripture but I denied the second proposition that they cannot be proued so to be by themselues secluding Church authority and tradition And I distinguish for the Authority and direction of the Church is Gods outward ordinance to teach vs as a condition how to see the Scripture to be diuine but not the thing whereby they are prooued so to be and whereon our faith leaneth but this diuinity the Church as a bare Minister out of the Scripture it selfe prooues to be in the Scripture not by her owne authority that vpon her word and testimony either onely or particularly it should be taken for Scripture rather then the books of other men In the same manner that a man shewes a star giuing light to it selfe which yet another cannot see till the man point to it Or as a dead mans will kept in the Register of necessity must be sought there and thence receiued yet all the authority of that court which is great and ample specially in preseruing records neither makes nor prooues the will to be legitimate but is onely a requisite condition to bring it forth and vs to the sight and knowledge of it the will proouing it selfe by the hand and seale of him that made it affixed to it So it is with the word of God which we do not ordinarily see to be the word of God vntill the Church teach and traine vs vp therein But when it hath done the arguments whereby it is proued so to be and the authority whereupon I beleeue it are contained in the word it selfe which I expound and confirme by this that euermore and perpetually the Church by the Scripture it selfe and by no other argument prooues it to be diuine to those she teaches and vpon that ground at the first receiued them for such her selfe and many times it fals out as with some Atheists and Pagans that where no Church authority ministry or perswasion is vsed by onely reading of the Scripture it selfe in respect of the outward meanes a man coms to faith which could not be if the Scripture it selfe had not conuinced him forsomuch as an Atheist or vnbeleeuer will not be perswaded by any thing but that which he euidently sees to be Gods owne word and this perswasion arises in him from the very booke it selfe without Church authority 3 And this is yet confirmed by that which the Iesuites teach against the Anabaptists Swinkfieldians holding the motions of their inward spirit to be Gods word for Bellarmine c De verb. Dei l. 1. c. 1. 2. sayes that to the faithfull acknowledging the Scripture to be Gods word it may be prooued out of the Scripture it selfe that the Scripture is the word of God Molhusine and Gretsers d Gretser def Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. pag. 34. D. words are these It is manifest that Bellarmine onely affirmes that it may be prooued OVT OF THE SCRIPTVRES THEMSELVES and the Canonicall books thereof onely TO THE FAITHFVLL who receiue and reuerence them for such that the word of God is not the inward spirit whereof fantasticall men boast but the word of God is truly it which is contriued in those books which the faithfull hold for Canonicall In which words they say three things First that the faithfull who acknowledge the Scripture to be Gods word are they persons of whom they speake not such as receiue it not Secondly that to such it may be prooued that not the inward spirit of fantasticall men but the Canonicall Scripture is the word of God Wherein they affirme two things may be prooued A Negatiue that the inward spirit is not Gods word and an Affirmatiue that Gods word is truely it which is contained in the Canonicall books of the Scripture Thirdly that both this Negatiue and this Affirmatiue may be proued out of the Scriptures themselues Hence I reasō thus To the godly that receiue and acknowledge the Scripture this affirmatiue that Gods word is it which is contained in the Canonicall Bookes of the Scripture may be proued out of the Scriptures themselues therefore the Scripture it selfe can proue it selfe to be the word of God Therefore that the Scripture it the very word of God is contained in the Scripture because otherwise it could not be proued so to be out of the Scripture it selfe Therefore all things needfull are contained in this Scripture No wrangling can auoid this If to such as receiue them it may be proued out of themselues that these Bookes are the word of God then this point that these bookes are diuine Scripture is contained in Scripture and the cause why some see it not is their owne indisposition and vnbeleefe wherewith the Scripture must not be charged but to such as receiue these Bookes the Iesuits affirme it may be proued out of themselues that they are the word of God that is without all Church authoritie which is externall and not in the Scripture 4 Secondlie this being admitted that it is a a point of faith necessary to be beleeued that the Canonical Books are diuine and then againe that they could not be shewed so to be out of themselues yet doth it not follow ineuitably that all points of faith are not contained in them for the question is not whether the Scripture be Gods word or no which is granted of all hands but whether being confessed so to be it containe all such verities as a Christian man is bound to know in such measure that there is no point to be beleeued that is not contained therein The reason is because the Scriptures are the principles of diuine knowledge and the faith thereof * Not in nature but in proportion like the credite we yeed to the rules of humane sciences which are knowne and beleeued of themselues without any further demonstration And as the kings lawes containe all things whatsoeuer the subiect is bound to do and yet the said lawes not prouing themselues to be of authoritie but supposing it to be known before and otherwise are not thereby proued to be vnperfect or defectiue but being receiued then there is nothing wanting in them that is necessary for the common-wealth and as in all arts and sciences that we learne the rules and precepts thereof need not proue themselues for that which is the generall rule of other things is not ruled it selfe in the same kinde and yet it were folly to say they were therefore imperfect So may it be said to be in the Scripture supposing it had no more light thereby to authorize it selfe then Princes lawes and humane principles haue that it containes all points of faith though it were not expressed that it selfe is the word of God For the readier vnderstanding whereof let the Reader againe cast his eie vpon the occasion
demonstration by some other principle in a higher art more euident to vs. Here are two vntruths For first there is no higher art then themselues Thomas i Vbi supra sayes The sacred Scripture hath no higher science The setting vp of the Pope and his Church aboue it to giue it authoritie as a higher science giues to a lower is a blasphemous practise of Antichrist Bozius k Boz de sign eccl tom 2. pag. 439. writeth that the Scripture is not to be reckoned among such principles as before all things are to be credited but it is proued and confirmed by the Church as by a certaine principle which hath authoritie to reiect and allow Scripture Let the Reader by these words of Bozius a famous Papist conster my aduersaries meaning in this place if he chance to say he meanes not as I charge him Againe it is false that the Church is more euident to vs then the Scripture in that sense that belongs to this question I see indeed the Church that teaches me before I beleeue the Scripture to be diuine supposing I were a Pagan that as yet had not receiued the Scripture but I beleeue the Scripture to be diuine and am conuinced in my conscience that it is the word of God before I can beleeue the Church sayes true For I cannot beleeue it sayes true but vpon the grounds of Scripture which it offers me and therefore consequently the truth of the Scripture is more euident then the truth of the Church In which case it is as when a man stands in the doore with a torch in his hand to giue light to such as need where he holds out the torch indeed yet he puts no light into it nor does any thing but onely hold it before them The Church-authoritie in ministring to vs doth no more to the Scripture then this man doth to his torch I wil yet vse a more familiar conparison whereby the Reader shall see how absurdly my aduersary holds the Church to be more euident then the Scriptures and to giue them authoritie which they haue not of themselues because it propounds and perswades them vnto vs. Seius owes Caius mony vpon a bond that vpon trust and for the better keeping thereof is put into the hands of Titius For the proofe of this debt it is necessary that Titius bring forth the bond but when he hath done I demand whence hath the bond his credit How is it proued to be Seius his true deed rather then a counterfet Not by Titius his authoritie because he brings it forth but by it self in that the hand and seale thereof manifest themselues to be Seius his Titius that keeps it is but a means to bring it forth But what if Seius denie the debt that Caius be enforced to sue him and by law to cast him who giue Caius the right and makes Seius his debtor and who makes the bond of force doth the Iudge before whom the cause is tried The simplest man in the countrey will not say so for the bond both proues it self and giues Caius his right and make Seius a debtor when the Iudge onely giues it execution and declares no more but that which was in the bond before Let the Scripture be compared to this bond and let my aduersary put me to proue that it is the word of God as Caius is put to proue his bond and it wil manifestly appeare that though the Church haue some ministery in propounding it yet that ministery or authoritie call it what you will doth no more then the Iudge in this case doth It is not a principle aboue the Scripture or more euident whereby the truth thereof is proued as the Iudges authoritie proues not the bond 6 Our aduersaries when they haue wrangled what they can are inforced to confesse thus much in that they grant the last and highest resolution of our faith to be into the authoritie of the Scripture And let the Reader diligently obserue how it comes about In euery controuersie and article of faith they say they are moued by the authoritie of the Church they beleeue the Trinitie the Incarnation the Scripture to be Gods true word because God hath so reuealed by the infallible authoritie of the Church But how come they to know this authority to be infallible by what motiue doth the spirit of God induce them to beleeue it l Can loc p 48. Stapl princip doctr pag. 318. Tripl aduer Whica pag. 184 188. Greg. Val. tom 3. pag 31. Rodeâ— Delgad de auth Script pag. 51. Pezant comm in Tho. pag. 479. They confesse expresly it is the reuelation of the Scripture giuing testimonie to the Church which reuelation is beleeued for it selfe and for no other therfore the highest and last reason light authoritie mouing a man to beleeue the things of faith the sence of the Scripture the authority of the Church and al is contained in the Scripture it selfe For thus I reason The reuelation of the Scripture is beleeued for it selfe therefore the Scripture is a principle indemonstrable by any other and euident in it selfe therefore it is not beleeued by Tradition vpon the authoritie of the Church but for it selfe therfore this point that the Scripture is Gods word is contained in the scripture therfore the Scripture is al-sufficieÌ„t wants nothing that is needful to be beleeued 7 Hitherto I haue expounded the maner how the Scriptures are said to be Principles that are to be admitted immediatly without discourse of other arguments and how this their authoritie is not founded vpon nor demonstrated by the authoritie of the Church and how Church-authoritie is onely a condition and ministery to offer them vnto vs. Now I come to answer his argument wherby he would proue them not to be euident to vs the which is but a poore one For S. Paul doth not say Faith is the argument of things not euident as the vulgar Latin cited in the margent translates but of things that are not seene Now things may be euident and appeare manifestly to the vnderstanding though they be not seene when they are euident otherwise by any light or discourse to the vnderstanding The which kind of euidence and that also which is by sence may stand with faith for the declaration whereof note first that a thing is euident m Jn assensis principiorum scientiae humanitus inuentae est coactio propter euidentiam speculationis quia in eu intellectus euidenter conclusionem intuetur speculatur August Anconit q. â—9 arâ— 4. ad 1. when it moues the vnderstanding so sufficiently that it cannot chuse but assent vnto it note secondly that a thing may be euident three wayes first when it is sensible as that which we apprehend by our outward sense secondly when by the light of nature it is manifest by it selfe as two equall numbers put together make an equall Thus the first principles and notions of nature are euident Thirdly when it
is manifestly gathered from that which of it selfe is manifest as that a stone cannot moue vpward of it selfe naturally because all heauie things naturally moue downeward Hence it is plaine that * Albeit faith rest not vpon that eu dence but vpon duine reuelatioÌ„ Fides non elicit actus suos mediante discursu sed sicut visus immediate fertur in obiectum sub ratione lucidâ—â—ta etiam fulei habitus in suum obiectum sub ratione diuinae reuelationis The contrary whereof is Manichisme Putaruâ—t nihil amplius esse â—re dendum quà m quod possit euidenti ratione demonstrari August de vtil credend c. 1. tom 6. many obiects of faith may also be euident because that which is beleeued may also in some respect be seene as Peter that beleeued Christ yet also saw him Or otherwise be knowne by the light of nature or gathered from that which is knowne as that there is a God And before I read this in my aduersaries margent I neuer knew but there was a compossibilitie of faith and euidence in diuers respects whereby they might both stand together in the same man about the same obiect Eymericus n Eymeric Directo part 1. q. 2 n. 2. sayes We may know the vnitie of the Deitie by naturall reason yet we beleeue one God Delgado o De Author Script pag. 51. Many diuine things touching God which are receiued by faith may also be found out by naturall reason Caietan p Caiet 22. qu. 175. art 3. sayes though Paul were rapt into the third heauens where he saw things which before hee beleeued yet the habit of faith touching those things remained in him still c. Faith and knowledge q Mayro 3. d. 23. art 6. pag. 13 sayes Francis Mayronis are habits that may stand together Faith by authoritie reuealed knowledge by euident demonstration Thus it is no contradiction that the same obiect be beleeued by authoritie and euidently knowne by demonstration Altisiodorensis r Altisiod sum l. 3. pag. 273. According to diuers apprehensions the same thing is knowne and beleeued beleeued and doubted Å¿ Mag. 3. d. 24. Alexand. 3. part qu. 79. m. 3. Tho. 22. qu. 2. art 4. cont Gent l. 1. c. 4 Occh. 3. q. 8. art 4. c. Duran prol sent pag. 4 c. Ricard 3. d. 24. q. 5. pag. 85. Gabr. 3. d 24. qu. vnic art 2. concl 2. Henric. Albert. Bonau Tarantas quos refert sequitur Dionys 3. d. 24. Simanch cath instit tit 28 n. 18. Rectè porro Caiet ex hoc loco Pauli argumentatur esse nonnulla quae de Deo euidenter cognosci demonstratiue probari queant Perer. select disp in Roma pag. 83. The principallest Schoole-men that are do all hold thus which I would not haue noted so curiously but to beate the confidence of my aduersary thus peremptorily auouching against me that he knowes not For albeit faith exceeds the dimension of reason yet reason is subordinate to it as sense is to vnderstanding And therefore as it is no inconuenience to say we vnderstand the same things we see no more is it to say we beleeue that which is euident in diuers respects How many things are we commanded in the Scripture to beleeue which yet we can demonstrate by reason as that there is a God and the immortalitie of the soule For as one may reueale a thing to another two wayes together first by shewing him a light to see it and then by proposing some externall signe or marke whereby to finde it or some image or description whereby to conceiue it so God hath shewed vs the Scripture to be diuine not onely by the light that shines in it whereby we beleeue it but also by the outward contexture of it containing the image of the diuine wisedome and puritie as the principles of sciences shew their owne authoritie The place cited out of the Hebrewes is answered by that I haue said CHAP. XX. 1. A continuation of the same matter touching the Churches authoritie in giuing testimonie to the Scriptures 2. The Scripture proues it selfe to be Gods word 3. The light of the Scripture 4. 5. How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit 6. The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture 7. The Papists retiring to the Spirit 8. And casting off the Fathers A Councell is aboue the Pope The Pope may erre A.D. It seemeth M. White saw the weaknesse of this his first answer Pag. 70. White pag. 47. and therefore not standing vpon it he secondly attempteth to proue Scripture to be diuine out of the Scripture For saith he S Paul 1 1. Tim. 3 v. 16 saith All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and S. Peter 2 2. Pet. 1. v. 20. saith no prophesie in the Scripture is of priuate interpretation but the holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost Against this I reply that my argument doth not enquire onely how we proue in generall that there is any diuine Scripture at all which is all that these or any such like sentences can proue but chiefly I aske how we proue these books in particular which the Church now vseth bearing the titles of S. Matthews S. Marks Gospel c. to be diuine Scripture to be the same which was written by those writers whose title they beare For vpon the certain beliefe hereof dependeth the certaintie of other points proued out of these bookes Now it is certaine that this is not proued by those sentences of Scripture since it may be true that there is some diuine Scripture and that all true diuine Scripture was inspired by God and yet if we seclude Tradition and Church-authoritie the question may still be whether S. Matthewes S. Markes Gospell c. especially these in particular which are now vsed are part of that Scripture which these sentences speake of Secondly I say that before these sentences proue sufficiently that there is any diuine Scripture at at all these sentences themselues must be supposed to be diuine the which cannot sufficiently be proued either by themselues or any other like sentences if we exclude Tradition which doth shew that they be diuine 1 All this I answered in the words of my Booke a Digress 12. immediatly following these words that he hath cited and that so briefly directly that nothing could be spoken plainer To proue the imperfection of the Scripture he had said it was no where expresly set downe and determined in Scripture that these bookes are the true word of God this in particular of euerie Booke holden for Scripture we shall not finde expresly written in any part of the Scripture Whereto I answered that it was written expresly that b 2. Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is giuen by inspiration and c 2. Pet. 1.20 No Scripture is of priuate interpretation but the holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost
Pined in Iob 19 v. 26. nu 3. sayes a Iesuite when I see and heare some wise man of our age as Fran. Suarez a Iesuite for example and vpon occasion bring him into my Commentaries then when I cast mine eyes vpon many of the ancient Fathers Here antiquity must giue place to a Iesuite and yet if the Protestants do but one halfe of this they are audacious and impudent vpon their bold presumption This is that Erasmus l Annot in Hieron Praef. in Dan. tom 3. p. 28. noted of them long agoe When it is for our purpose the authority of Hierome is woorth any thing when otherwise it is not for our purpose it is worth nothing and afterward they condemne vs because we beleeue them not The examples how they cast off Fathers and Councels and all antiquity are innumerable they do it in euery question that fals out betweene vs whensoeuer they ioyne in the triall with vs and they confesse that they may be refused because they may erre Guido the Carmelite m Guido de Perpin de haeres c. 7. pag. 8. edit à Bad. Ascens an 1528. sayes Albeit the writings of the holy Doctors be to be handled and read and receiued with due reuerence yet is their authority neither so firme nor inuiolable but it may be lawfull to contradict them or doubt of them where they are not prooued and confirmed euidently and expresly by the holy Scripture and where the Church hath not determined their firme and vndoubted soothfastnes Whence it followes that an opinion cannot precisely be conuinced of heresie by the saying of the Doctors for where where is not infallible truth there is no certaine faith since certaine faith leanes vpon infallible truth yea there can be no infallible assent that a man should firmely cleaue to such things for when there is no infallible truth there can be no certaine and vndoubted faith But in the saying of the Doctors there is no infallible certaine or vndoubted truth partly because they sometime doubt themselues in their owne sayings whether they haue erred therein or no partly because their disagreement is a testimony of falsity and what disagreement there is among the Doctors no man doubts that hath read their writings It is not necessary therefore vndoubtingly to beleeue them but it is lawfull to THINKE AGAINST THEM DISALOW THEM AND REIECT THEM without any danger of heresie So he And yet you see how busily my aduersary taxes Protestants for neglecting the Fathers like the crabfish that chid her yong one for creeping backward and yet went backward her selfe it were an honester course and more relishing of piety for our aduersaries to spare our dissenting sometime from the Fathers as they do their owne onely inquire whether we dissent with reason as themselues sometimes do but this were labour and expence a Iesuites pen can afford railing and facing a great deale better cheape CHAP. XXI 2. Which is the Militant Church 3. And the Catholicke 4. The Church of the Elect inuisible 5. A rancid conceite of the Iesuite Pag. 113. A. D. This Church which consisteth of Professors M. White * White pag. â—9 100. calleth the Church Militant that which consisteth onely of the Elect he calleth the Catholicke Church but to keepe the Antithesis he should rather call it the Church Triumphant not Triumphant as we Catholickes take the name for the happiest part of the Church which is now glorious in heauen but as it being a Church inuisible in earth may triumph indeed as hauing no need to feare any persecutions in that none in time of persecutions can finde theÌ„ out nor can know them nor consequently can persecute or hurt theÌ„ for being members of Christs true Church But as in this respect it may be called the Church Triumphant so on the other side it may be called the Church Lamentant as hauing so iust cause to lament in that the members of it being vnknowne not onely to the world but to one another can haue no societie one with another requisite to the nature of a true Church nor can performe those offices which should be done in and onely in the true Church nor can tell whom to repaire to for instruction in faith or for counsaile in direction of manners or for the comfort of the holy Sacraments nor can haue any knowne Pastours to gouerne the Church nor any knowne sheepe to obey these Pastours nor can haue any Historiographer to write their actes thereby to edifie men with the vertues exercised by them or so much as to make it appeare to posterity that such a company hath bene according to Christs promise alwaies extant in the world In this respect it may be called a Church Lamentant or a Lamentable Church 1 MY Aduersary being in a deepe discourse about the persons and societies of men to whom alone God vouchsafes the assistance of his Spirit for the vnderstanding and beleeuing the things of faith thinks himselfe interrupted by a speech of mine in the place quoted touching the Church Militant and Triumphant the which if he had misliked he should haue confuted in it owne place where I vsed it to shew the true state of the question concerning the visiblenes of the Church saying the question is of the Militant Church though we say also that the Church mentioned in the Creed euery member whereof is saued be in some sort inuisible too in that the Church Triumphant in heauen which is one part of the Church mentioned in the Creed is to vs that liue here inuisible and onely beleeued This speech my Aduersary according to his disordered and cowardly Method vsed in all his booke durst not confute in it owne place where it lay but drawes in backwards by the taile into the den of his discourse as * Apollodo de orig deorum they say Cacus did the oxen he stole from Hercules that he might the better descant vppon it when his Reader by this his glancing at it cannot know the purpose whereto I intended it nor the ground whereupon I affirmed it 2 That which he sayes is foure things First that I call that which consists of Professours the Church Militant the which you see he mentions so that one would thinke he meant to condemne it yet he dares not but onely craftily repeats it to expose it to censure with the rest that followes for a Catech. Roman pag. 112. edit Colo. an 1507. Bellar. Eccl. mil. c. 1. his owne side speakes in the same manner D. Bannes b 22. pag 94. edit Venet. apud Dâ—mian Zâ—nar 1602. sayes The Church which VPON THE EARTH LIVES IN WARFARE is called Militant One way as it is a congregation of such as professe the faith of God another way as it is congregated not onely by faith but also by Baptisme In this therefore there is no fault but all is well for this part of the Church on earth that liues in the Camp warfaring with the
our Church vsed This shall be granted him in respect of the matter and doctrine contained which in all translations that varie but in character of speech is alike certaine But how shall the vnlearned which can neither vnderstand the originall nor compare translations nor so much as reade nor will admit infallible authoritie in the Church to assure them be infallibly certaine the translation containes no substantiall error euen in the matter this he would faine know My answer * My answer was not touing the vnlearned alone but of the vnlearned and learned together per commodam distributionem was that we know this by the same meanes whereby we know other truths and discerne other articles of Christian faith namely by the light of the doctrine translated the testimonie of the Spirit the ministerie of the word the rules of art and such like My aduersarie replies this is but a flourish of words and bids me answer directly to the point and thus he reasons If these be the meanes whereby we are assured our translations containe no substantiall error the light of the doctrine translated the testimonie of the Spirit the ministerie of the word the rules of art the knowledge of tongues and such like then they are so either ioyntly altogether or euery one seuerally by it selfe or onely some of them But neither are all of them ioyntly nor euery one seuerally nor onely some of them Ergo these be not the meanes ergo some other meanes must be assigned and that is the authoritie of the Church I will answer directly to the point granting the first proposition and distinguishing the second which hath three members first that all of them ioyntly together are not necessarie which he proues because so the vnlearned that want tongues and art could not haue this assurance I answer they are all of them ioyntly together necessary by concurring all of them in the Church some in the learned some in the vnlearned to the working of this assurance in the learned and vnlearned for they are not ioyntly the means so that they need all of them immediatly touch euery one that shal be assured but it is sufficient that art and tongues ioyned with Gods Spirit be in the learned and the ministerie of the Spirit and the Church and the light of the doctrine translated be in the vnlearned all concurring to produce * Viz. this clear assurance that the translation cōtains at least nothing contrary to the analogie and rule of faith one effect in both though not all alike existing in them both The second member is that euery one of these seuerally is not sufficient and this I grant for no other meanes is sufficient if Gods Spirit be wanting to giue effect to it The third member is that onely some of these are not a sufficient meanes to breed this assurance this is false for the light of the doctrine translated the testimony of Gods Spirit are sufficient to assure the vnlearned that what is translated to them is true at least touching the doctrine in the same maner that Gods Spirit and the light of the truth assure vs that the things taught by word of mouth in preaching are the truth which light and testimony of the Spirit neuer go with translations or preaching which contain false doctrine His D. Stapleton * Triplic in admonit says it ouer that by the internall perswasion of the Spirit of God alone any matter of faith may be beleeued though the Church say nothing at all but the Iesuits reason to the contrary is then it would follow that an vnlearned man hauing that Spirit of God by the onely light of the doctrine shining in it without any other help should vnderstand Greeke and Hebrew because the Scriptures are written in them but this followes neuer a whit for though I grant the doctrine shines in the Scripture and God by his Spirit giues a full assurance yet he doth not this to the vnlearned but by translations which assurance I vnderstand according to the state and condition of him that is to be assured the learned seeing the heauenly doctrine in the learned tongues and translated both the vnlearned vulgar people in the translation onely and not in the originall as a man sees light by the opening of a window because that is the meanes to let it in I do not say the light of the doctrine and the testimonie of Gods Spirit giue the vnlearned assurance in the Scripture it selfe euery way but in the Scripture truly translated into the language they vnderstand neither doth the contrary follow of my words We know the diuine doctrine to be one and the same in all translations immediatly in the originall and more obscurely in the translations and God directeth the children of light by the holy Ghost who openeth their hearts that they know his voice from all others and that the light of his truth may shine vnto them for this light shineth and this testimonie of the holy Ghost worketh first not immediatly but by meanes secondly not by the same meanes in all but diuersly whiles to such as haue the light of the holy Ghost being learned it shines in the originall tongues but being vnlearned onely in translations as the words that are printed in a booke are plaine and legible of themselues without any other meanes to him that hath light and a perfect eye but if a man be dim sighted then to him they are onely legible through his spectacles and as it is necessary though the light be cleare of it selfe yet to open the window in case a man be shut vp in a house so my saying the doctrine is one and the same in all translations and God directs the children of the light to discerne it and makes the light of it shine vnto them hinders not but I may well say also the window or translation must be opened to let in this light when men are shut vp in ignorance of the tongues and so still some of the meanes I named alone are sufficient where all cannot concurre 4 My aduersary in the knitting vp replies against this that if the holy Ghost doth not sufficiently assure vs without other meanes then the light of the doctrine and the testimonie of the Spirit are not the onely necessary nor alone sufficient meanes to assure vs that the translation we vse is not corrupted By which reason he may say also that when the opening of a window is a necessary meanes to shew the light this light is not the onely necessary nor alone sufficient meanes to enlighten me for there is sufficient in the Scripture to assure me but still the helpe of Church-ministery and industry are necessary to worke it in me or else my aduersarie must proue that the subordination of the meanes where by causes are applied to their effects take away the sufficiencie and perfection of the said causes that is to say the Grammar containes not all things necessary and
is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most doth import a great degree of profitablenesse Or if it import sufficiency it is not meant that alone sufficiency of which our questiō is but at the most sufficiency in suo genere in a certaine limited kind to wit of written Scripture Against the second part of my answer first M. White either had a corrupt copie of my treatise or else himselfe his writer or printer corrupteth euen my words and sense For I do not say as he maketh me the Scripture is sufficient because c. But I say onely that it is profitable the rather because it commendeth the authority of the Church By which corruption he maketh himselfe matter to worke vpon but very idlely most of his obiections being ouerthrowne only by reading my words aright as I set them downe His chiefe obiection is this The Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastours the Pope Councell and all but it cannot send these to the Church because these be the Church I answer that it sendeth euen these also to the Church First in that it sendeth them to the interpretation of Councels and Fathers of the ancient Church Secondly it sendeth them as they are priuate men needing instruction to themselues as authorized Pastours who by the assistance of Gods Spirit shall be enabled as neede shall require for their owne and other mens instruction to define rightly which is the right doctrine of faith in any point wherein Controuersie shall arise The answer of his other obiections may without difficulty be gathered out of that which here I haue said already and which I am after to say when I do shew how Church authority is prooued out of Scripture Whence followeth not that other places of Scripture either are superfluous or not to be accounted part of the rule or that Church doctrine is to be opposed to Scripture or to be accounted humane traditions or doctrine of men The sentences of Fathers and others which M. White bringeth to proue alone sufficiency of Scripture either proue nothing against me to wit being explicated that the Scriptures with other meanes prouided by God namely the authority of the Church are able to instruct vs or else they proue against him and his fellow M. Wootton as well as against me if the Fathers words be taken without limitation that the Scriptures alone without any meanes ioyned to thē are able to instruct vs in all things And it is maruaile that these men haue so little iudgement to alledge such authorities which make no more againe Church-authority required by me then against Church-ministery which is required by themselues as the ordinary meanes to instruct men in faith 1 The Apostle 2. Tim. 3.15 hath these words The holy Scriptures are ABLE to make thee wise TO SALVATION through THE FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST IESVS For the whole Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable to TEACH to IMPROVE to CORRECT to INSTRVCT IN ALL RIGHTEOVSNESSE That the man of God may be ABSOLVTE and made PERFECT VNTO ALL GOOD WORKES This text we alledge to proue the sufficiency of the Scripture whereto my Aduersary in his discourse a In the WAY §. 11. answered two things First that the Apostle doth not say in these words that the Scripture is sufficient to instruct a man to perfection but that it is profitable but I shewed that he affirmes it to be SVFFICIENT by three reasons the first because the Apostle sayes They are able to make vs PERFECT and that to EVERY good worke now that which doth this is sufficient inasmuch as God requires no more at any mans hand but perfection to euery good worke My Aduersary in this his cōfused Reply wherin he durst not deale openly and distinctly that I might perfectly discerne which part of my argument his words properly concerne seemes to deny the consequence because S. Paul sayes also that Piety is profitable to euery thing and yet it is not sufficient in such sort that there needs no other helpe or meanes to be ioyned with it to attaine whatsoeuer thing Whereto I reply againe First that euen this Piety being the totall and whole effect that the study of the Scripture works in mē is sufficiēt without the ioyning of any thing else to it that is not Piety for it followes in the next words that this Piety hath the promises of this life and of the life to come that is to say whatsoeuer is promised vs in this world or in the next is obtained by Piety Therefore Piety is sufficient Therefore any thing in this example notwithstanding the Scriptures being affirmed to be profitable to euery thing are affirmed also to be sufficient Secondly we do not maintaine the Scripture to be sufficient in that sense that without all helpe and meanes to learne them they will suffice for who euer denied the ministery of the Church the illumination of Gods Spirit and a mans owne syncere indeuour to be also requisite But when we say they are sufficient we do it against the assertion that sayes they containe not the substāce of al things needful to be knowne but besides the meanes to vnderstand and learne them we need Church authority and vnwritten tradition to supply diuers articles of faith that they reueale not Thirdly my Aduersary may possibly finde some formes of speech where a thing is called profitable to all things yet other things are as necessary as it for the profitablenes of one thing excludes not the necessity of another thing But wheresoeuer it is said that any thing is profitable not simply to this or that purpose but to make persect to euery thing in the same kind there the sufficiency thereof is absolutely concluded and thus the Apostle speakes of the Scripture that it is profitable to make PERFECT to EVERY good worke The said perfection being an effect of their profitablenesse for that profitable thing is sufficient of it selfe that makes and produces the effect perfect 2 My second reason whereby I shewed the sufficiency of the Scripture was this All that we need to saluation is either to be taught or reproued or instructed or corrected but the Scripture alone doth all this Ergo they are sufficient to this he answers nothing 3 Thirdly I reasoned thus That is sufficient and containes all things needfull to be knowne which is able to make a man wise to saluation but the Scripture is able to doe this Ergo it is sufficient this argument he hath tumultuously repeated as he hath all the rest and answered I know not how First he sayes if the word alone had bene put in it would more plainely appeare how it proues nothing let the world therefore be put in That which alone is able to make a man wise to saluation is sufficient but such is the Scripture that alone it is able to make a man wise to
Churches that should either refuse or examine the publike faith of the Church of Rome which he meanes by the Catholicke Church as Wickliffe Hus Luther and the Churches of England Scotland and Germany haue done the which his intent the rather because the Diuines of his Church are so a Proh nefaÌ„dum hominem Caluinus poeta Cynadus stigmaticus errare non potest Ecclesia tamen Christi sponsa errori est obnoxia Vna Geneua euibrato è sole radio coruscat Ecclesia autem in tenebris squalet conticescit West de tripl offic l. 3. pag. 337. violent therein I confuted by answering all his arguments which marching against priuate spirits I easily perceiued to be meant against the Protestant Churches casting off the papacy Now let vs see what heresies first he sayes that I seeme to disclaime from immediate teaching of priuate spirits and to grant the substance of his conclusion in that sense wherin it was principally intended He affirmes two things of me First that I seeme to disclaime the immediate teaching of priuate spirits This I grant and wish that himselfe and his sectaries by our example would likewise disclaime the priuate spirit of the Pope b Sicut coelum generat corrumpit ista inferiora alterat variat ipsa nihil tamen istorum inferiorum insurgit contra coeluÌ„ vel appellat contra ipsum sed patienter tolerat quicquid coelum operatur in eâ—s siue per generationem siue corruptionem siue alterationem sic potest as Papalis tanquam celestis ita potest omnes inferiores potestates tam Clericorum quam Laicorum generare cerrumpere alterare quia nulli licet insurgere vel appellare contra ipsum August Triumph sum de eccl pot q 6. â—â—t 5. Sententia Papae est praeferenda sententiae omnium aliorum Ioh de Turrecrem sum de eccleâ— l. 3. c. 64. concl 1. Sententiae Papae standuÌ„ est quando contradicit sententiae totius Concilii Ioh. Andrae quem refert Syluest sum v. Concil n. 3. Papa absque Concilio reuocat gesta in Concilio Si Papa Concilium diuersas constitutiones edant praefertur constitutio Papae tanquam maioris authoritatis Ioh. Capistran de author Pap. pag. 105. Jn pontifice totam esse Monarchiam spiritualem ipsius potestatem ab omni regula quae coarctet absolutam esse Hieâ—on Alban de potest Pap. pag. 125. n. 122. Summus pontifex tanquam agens vniuersale ecclesiasticas omnes potestates veluti agentia particularia sua authoritate continet Palaeot de consist pag. 61. Probatione non indiget Cardinalium aut aliorum consensum in rebus consistorialibus definiendis nullatenus necessarium esse pag. 25. Ad ostendendum Papae primatum super omnia potestatem dicitur corporalis in orbe Deus Dominic Iacobat de concil p. 653. edit Rom. per Anto. Blad 1538. who determines aboue beside and against the publike spirit of the whole Church Next that consequently I seeme to grant the substance of his conclusion as it was principally intended by him this is false for though I allow the conclusion yet not his principall intent which c In the WAY § 58. inde afterward he discouers to be against our Diuines Church that resisted the Papacy d §. 60 , 57. alledging this reason against them that they were but priuate men and a few of them lately sprong vp against the vniuersall Church Which was the cause why I distinguisht 2 senses of the conclusion the one seeming in the words the other lurking in the intent and this latter I confuted 2 Secondly he sayes notwithstanding we seeme to disclaime priuate spirits yet we are finally forced to flie to them againe No maruell when he sayes it but say on how are we inforced and by what necessity Because whensoeuer they be vrged How they know there be any Scripture How they know these bookes to be Scripture How they know this or that to be the sense of the Scripture they are forced finally to flie for infallibly assurance to the immediate teaching of their priuate spirit or else to run the round betwixt Scripture priuate spirit This is vntrue For we ground not our faith of these things or any thing vpon our owne spirit but vpon the Spirit of God bearing witnesse with our spirit and speaking vnto vs out of the Scripture it selfe in the middest of the Catholicke Church in this manner that euery one which is inlightned of God no other can haue assurance any way but remaines in vnbeleefe as Gentiles Atheists and Heretikes doe feels the holy Ghost testifying these things to his heart and infallibly assuring him by the Scripture it selfe which light of the Spirit of God shining to our spirit is the formall reason of beleeuing the which spirit if my Aduersary will deny or call a mans owne priuate spirit or measure whether it be Gods Spirit or noe by the agreement thereof with the Church of Rome and the Popes will when themselues are part of that that must be tried by the Spirit of God let him go for an Atheist and one that renounces the habit of infused faith which is not resolued into any thing e Actus sidei infusae est credere Diuinae veritati propter se Aquar in Capreol p. 43. e. but the authority of this spirit or if he distast that let him looke vpon two principles holden by his owne Diuines f Staplet princi doctr fid pag. 274. Triplicat pag. 183. The first that the internall perswasion of the Holy Ghost or the alone habite of faith infused is so effectuall that thereby ALONE WITHOVT THE TESTIMONY AND TEACHING OF THE CHVRCH a man may beleeue that is to say be infallibly assured of any thing that must be beleeued The second that g Greg. de Valent tom 3. p. 32. AlexaÌ„d Pesant in Thom. p. 479. the propositioÌ„ of the Church is beleeued to be infallible for the reuelation of Scripture giuing testimony to the Church which reuelation of the Scripture is beleeued FOR IT SELFE These principles affirming that without any authority of the Church by the Spirit of God alone a priuate man may be infallibly assured and that the Scripture prouing to vs the infallible authority of the Church is lastly beleeued for it selfe let him shew if he can so that we may vnderstand him that it must needs be a priuate spirit of a mans owne whensoeuer by the Scripture alone without and beyond the authority of the Church we rest contented and assured of that we beleeue For before the Church authority and after it and without it men may be infallibly assured by Gods Spirit in their hearts by meanes of the Scriptures beleeued therefore knowne and vnderstood in themselues Againe they hold the Pope to be the supreme Pastour yet thinke h Occh. op 90. dierum cap. 1. that in case of heresie one may appeale from him to a superior
My aduersarie therefore maintaining the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of faith * Suarez the Iesuit shames not to tell the king of England in his late writing against him that The authoritie of the Trent Councell which all the world knowes was mooued by the Pope in the same manner that Puppet motions are mooued by such as shew them is the authoritie of the vniuersall Catholicke Church Defens fid Cathol adu Angl. sect lib. 1. c. 9. nu 7. meanes nothing by the Church but THE POPE HIMSELFE and they that yeeld themselues to be led by the Romane Church must depend solely vpon his will and word 3 To the second this diuine doctrine of the Church which the Repliar saies is the rule of our faith is by himselfe expounded to include not onely the written Scripture but vnwritten traditions also and such decrees and interpretations both of Scripture and tradition as the Pope shall reueale and propound hence it followes that any Friars dreame may be thrust vpon vs as an article of faith necessary to saluation because these traditions and interpretations and this authoritie of the Pope containe many such dreames that is to say the Pope and his Church vnder pretence that they are diuine traditions and all power to propose matters of faith belongs to him may and doth require vs to beleeue lyes and errors and albeit the Iesuite affirme these traditions and interpretations of his Church to be reuealed by God to the Apostles and their successors the Doctors and Pastors of the Church as part of that diuine and Church doctrine which he would haue receaued o Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit veneratur Conc. Trid. sess 4. with the same obedience and affection wherewith we receaue the Scripture yet this is false For the whole obiect of our faith is contained in the Scripture alone as I shewed in the third Digression and because he denies that any such dreames can be contained in the doctrine of his Church thus I reason For whatsoeuer the Pope shall definitiuely propound to be beleeued that is the doctrine of the Church But he may definitiuely propound the very dreames of a Friar this I proue The bookes of i Baro. an 159. n 4. ind expurg Hispa p. 149. d. 15. Sanct. Romana Hermes and k Phot. Biblioth p. 156. edit Graec. Haschel Balâ—am respon p. 363 in Iure Graeco Rom. tom 1. Zâ—onar in Apost can vlt. Perer. Ioh. 13. disp 30. Clemens Constitutions are Apochryphall counterfet and vnsound writings but D. Stapleton l Hos similes libros in canoneÌ„ sacrae Scripturae si praesens Ecclesia referret nulla ratio obstat quin eos pro Canonicis admittere debeamus Relect. pag. 514. saies he may put these bookes into the Canon of the Bible and so binde men to beleeue them by diuine faith therefore he may define and make to be matter of faith that which is vnsound and no better then a dreame Againe Canus and Caietan m Refert Fra. Suar. tom 2. p. 30. a. affirme the opinion of the virgine Maries conception without sinne to be godly and probable in shew but false and vncertaine indeede Yet n Suar. ibi Vas qu. in 3. part Tho. to 2. p. 45. the Iesuits say the Pope may define it when he will Thirdly o Grego Val. analys fid pag. 325. they hold the authority of the Church in defining to be in the Pope who may determine the things of faith whether he vse care and diligence therin or not but he that defines without any care taking or diligeÌ„ce vsed may chance specially if he be a Friar p To the number of 52. Azor institut moral tom 2. l. 5. c 44. as many Popes are to thrust his Friars dreames vpon the Church Fourthly the Canon law q Gl Marg. c quanto de translatione sayes He may make something of nothing and make that a sentence which is none Lastly r Suar vbi sup the Iesuites hold that a supernaturall truth may be so implicitely contained in tradition or Scripture that * Canisius reports that in Paris in the Vniuersities of Spaine and elsewhere no man is admitted to any degree in diuinitie vnlesse he sweare that he will hold the Immaculate conception of the virgine Marial lib. 1. c. 7. Such trickes as this will make this consent swell and increase as fast as the mountaine the common consent of the Church increasing whereby oftentimes the Holy Ghost expounds traditions and Scriptures the Church may at last bring in her definition which shall haue the force of a reuelation The two doores of sleepe Å¿ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Odiss Ï„. mentioned so much in the Poets let not in more dreames then this doctrine doth lyes heresies into the world for whensoeuer the Church of Rome will bring in a new doctrine the implicite traditions and the increase of the Churches consent may be pretended 4 * Ad. 3. To the third he notes no more But what he said in his treatise and I granted in such sense as I layed downe in my answer And this noting it againe is needles and impertinent to the matter in hand which is not touching the quality but the quiddity of the rule 5 * Ad. 4. To the fourth we know well enough that the Church and the doctrine go together but it is false that the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule For the doctrine is the rule and the Church that which teaches both vs and it selfe according to it as the Iudge expounding and executing the law is not the rule together with the law but the law is the rule it selfe and the iudge is the kings officer to apply it but hauing no authority ouer or beside it And yet allowing the contrary and all that the Repliar sayes still in his conceite the Pope with his definitions shall be this Church and this doctrine which he thus conioynes to be the rule 6 To the fift to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of saith in such sort as the Repliar hath said Ad. 5. it is not sufficieÌ„t to shew that at least once or in some one age there hath bene a company of men called the Church in one sense or other ordained by God and furnisht with conditions to teach men the faith for the Repliar hath said that the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith in such sort as it includes not onely the written Scriptures but vnwritten traditions and the interpretation of them both by Church authority Where two things are affirmed first that vnwritten traditions are part of the doctrine that is the rule Secondly that our faith is built t Non quid dicatur sed quis dicat attendendum Staplet Princ. pag. 364. Relect. p. 429. on the authority of the Church Neither of these is proued by shewing that which is
virtually it is the Church of Rome and the Pope the Church of Rome representatiuely is the Colledge of Cardinals but virtually the Pope who is the head of the Church Pelaeottus f De consist part 1. qu. 3. pag. 19. The Pope alone may do not onely that which is granted to all and singular Prelates in the Church but also more then they all g Respons moral p. 44. n 4. Comitol The power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is not in the vniuersality of the Church as in the true subiect but in the Prelates thereof and in the Bishops of Rome as in the fountaine whence it flowes vnto all other Ministers of the new Testament Albertine h Coroll pag. 251. saies The Bishop of Rome is the rule of faith into which Rule all the articles of our faith are lastly resolued as into the formall reason whereby they are propounded to vs. Gretser i Defens Bell. to 1. p. 1450. B. saies when we affirme the Church to be the iudge of all controuersies of faith by the Church we vnderstand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being gouernes the ship of the militant Church and by liuely voice doth clearely and expressely expound his iudgement to them that seeke to him Zumel k Disput var. tom 3. p. 49 D. saies I beleeue that the chiefe Priest and Bishop of the Church the Pope who is the master of our faith cannot but attaine the truth of faith nor can be deceaued or erre if as chiefe Bishop and master of the faith he set downe his determination so that vnlesse a man be afraid of the truth there is no cause why he should feare the Popes determination It is idle therefore and sordid that the Repliar saies by the Church he meant the Pope but secondarily as it is ridiculous to say the Church is the rule indefinitely and abstracting from all time or per ampliationem which are termes deuised onely to besot the ignorant that they should not smell his heresie for if his Church be the rule he must needes meane such a Church as he thinkes in all ages and times successiuely to haue bene inuested with that authority and that Church is the Pope alone that miserable iudge of whom their owne men say h Do. Bann to 3. p. 106. b. It is no Catholicke faith but an opinion very probable that he is S. Peters successor and the most iudicious confesse i Alph. l. 1. c. 4. Hadrian pag. 26. ad 2. he may erre * August Anconit sum qu. 5. art 1 Iacobat de conc l. 4. art 1. Occh Dialog 1. part l. 6. 2. part c. 69. inde Cusan de concord cath l. 2. c. 17. Panorm de elect C. signif not 7. Zabarell tract de schismat Gerson de auferibil Pap. consid 10. inde and be deposed for heresie A.D. § 1. Pag. 205. That the doctrine of the Apostles was for their life time the rule and meanes First I say that my conclusion being vnderstood as in this Chapter I principally meant cannot be denied to be true for it cannot be denied but that the doctrine as deliuered by the Apostles themselues being for the time they liued the Church in such sense as here I take the name Church was such a rule and meanes as here we seeke for For first it is knowne to be infallible Secondly it was easie to be vnderstood c. Thirdly it was vniuersall c. Since therefore these 3. conditions requisite in the rule of faith are found in the doctrine and teaching of the Apostles it cannot be denied but that the diuine doctrine as deliuered by them in their life time either by word or writing was the rule and meanes which God ordained to instruct men in faith Taking therfore my conclusion in the chiefely intended sense I suppose that my aduersaries will neither deny it to be true nor the reason by which I proue it to be good 2 This discourse needed not for no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule either for their time or the time succeeding to the world ende I graunt therefore the Repliar his assertion and inferre thereupon that his Popes determinations and the doctrine of his Romish Church is not the rule of faith because they agree not with that which he here confesses was the rule in the Apostles time vnlesse he will maintaine when he replies againe that the rule is not one and the same at all times as k Cusan ep 2.7 his Cardinall writes that the Scripture is fitted to the time and variably vnderstood so that at one time it is expounded according to the fashion of the Church and when that fashion is changed the sense of the Scripture is also changed Againe Magalian a Iesuite I thinke yet liuing l Magal op Hierarch in tit p. 61. n. 6. saies Though it were granted that the wordes of Paule Tit. 1.6 containe a precept to marrie yet seeing Paule gaue it by his owne authority it were no diuine but an Ecclesiasticall precept which the Church may change yea abrogate and much more dispense with Marke what trickes heretickes haue to change the Apostles doctrine when it fits not their Church then the Apostles gaue it by their owne authority which I note that the Reader may perceaue there is no sincerity in the Repliars words For albeit he grants here the Apostles doctrine be the rule yet he meanes it to be the rule but for their owne time because the Pope may vnder colourable pretences expound it that is in plaine English change it when he will as his Cardinall and Iesuite here affirme A D. § 2. That the doctrine of the succeeding Pastours of the Church Pag. 207. is the rule and meanes The chiefe controuersie is about my conclusion as in a secondary sense it may be meant of the succeeding Pastors of the Church In which sense I affirme that like as the diuine doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture or as gathered thence by natural wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by the Apostles or the Apostles as deliuering this doctrine was the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in their daies in all matters of faith So the same doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture nor as gathered thence by naturall wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by Pastors of the succeeding Church or those Pastors as deliuering this doctrine is the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in succeding ages in all points of faith 3 This assertion I will grant as I did the former namely that the doctrine of the Pastors of the true Church such as succeed the Apostles is the rule and meanes of faith but the reader shall note two trickes that the Iesuite puts vpon him in the Proposition hereof First that affirming the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors of the Church to be the rule he saies not
whether this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors shal need to be the same that the doctrine of the Apostles was but onely affirmes that as the Apostles doctrine for the time they liued was the rule so the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors is the rule leauing roome enough for this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles that when we shew the present abuses in the Church of Rome and decrees of their latter Popes for these last 800. yeares to haue swarued from the Apostles doctrine and practise they may pleade the authoritie of their succeding Pastors And indeede it is true that the Church of Rome holds that it is not necessary the doctrine and teaching of the present and succeeding Pastors be the same in all things that it was in the Apostolicke and Primitiue Church but the Pope hath power to make a NEW CREED and NEW ARTICLES of faith For Iacobatius m De Concil p. 310. A. saies The Pope alone may make new articles of faith according to one acceptation of the word Article that is for such as must be beleeued which before needed not be beleeued and Zenzelin a Popish doctor n Gl. extr Ioh. 22. cum inter § doclaramus saies The Vicar of Christ may make an Article of faith taking an article not properly but in a large sense for that which must be beleeued when before by the precept of the Church it was not necessary to be beleeued Augustinus Triumphus writes o August Anconit sum de eccle potest q. â—9 art 1. that it belongs to the Pope alone to make a new Creed For in a Creed those things are put that vniuersally belong to Christian faith he therefore hath authority to make such a Creed who is the head of Christian faith and in whom as in the head all the members of the Church are vnited and by whose authoritie all things pertaining to faith are confirmed and strengthened And p Art 2. againe That the Pope may dispense in adding articles may be vnderstood 3. waies First in respect of the multiplication of the articles themselues Secondly in respect of expounding the things contained in the articles Thirdly in respect of the augmentation of such things as may be reduced to the articles ALL THESE WAIES the Pope may dispense in adding articles because as he may make a new Creed so he may MVLTIPY NEW ARTICLES OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER Secondly he may by more articles explicate the articles already placed in the Creed Thirdly because peraduenture all things beleeued in the Creed may be reduced after the aforesaid articles and by such reduction may be increased so that vnder each article MORE THINGS NECESSARY TO BE BELEEVED MAY BE PVT THEN ARE YET PVT The which being done marke what they say touching their authority q Roder. Dosm de auth script l. 3. c. 12. The Popes assertions ascend to the height of diuine testimony as the assertions of the Apostles did and of such as made the holy Scripture and there be who contend that they belong to the sacred Scripture it selfe which is contained in the bookes of the Bible This doctrine whereof all our aduersaries bookes are full shewes plainely that they intend not that this their Church teaching so much magnified to be the rule should alway be one and the same but such as shall follow the Popes lust and be altered with the time that so this Antichrist of Rome might abolish the whole Testament of Christ this is the first thing to be noted that the reader may see what he meanes by his Church doctrine that is the rule 4 The next thing is his distinction about this doctrine of the Church that it was the rule in the Apostles dayes and is the rule in succeeding ages but not as contained in onely Scripture but as deliuered by these Pastors Which speech containes 2. things a Negatiue and an affirmatiue the negatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is not the rule as it is contained in onely Scripture Meaning as * Ch. 27. n. 3. I haue shewed that all diuine doctrine belonging to the rule is not contained in the Scripture but much or the most of it in tradition vnwritten and that which is contained is not the rule by vertue of writing but by vertue of the Church that makes it authenticall Panormitan r Panorm tom 2. de praesumptione c. Sicut noxius sayes The words of the text of Scripture are not the Popes words but the words of Salomon in the Prouerbs but because this text is made Canonicall it is to be beleeued and induceth necessity so to do as if the Pope had set it foorth himselfe Because we make all those things to bee ours whereto we might impart our authority But whether without Canonization the sayings of Salomon be approued in the Church seeing they are in the body of the Bible say as the glosse saith and Ierom holdeth who seemes to conclude that they are Apocrypha which is to be noted and that because of this as also because Salomon had no power to make Canons This also must be obserued that the Reader may know the meaning of his conclusion and what it is that we deny therein For NO DOCTRINE EITHER OF THE APOSTELS IN THEIR TIME OR OF THE SVCCEEDING PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH IN ANY TIME IS THE RVLE OF FAITH BVT ONELY THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTVRE As I haue Å¿ In the WAY digr 3. shewed His affirmatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is the rule as it is deliuered by the Pastors or the Pastours deliuering this doctrine are the rule which is the same that he said a little before the doctrine as deliuered by the Church or the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule t Pars obiecti formalis fidei est vox Ecclesiae D. Stapler relect p. 484. Saltem aequalis est Ecclesiae Scripturae authoritas ibi pag. 494. His meaning is that the Churches testimony and authority mingles it selfe with the authority of the doctrine and is ioyntly with it or aboue it the rule of faith as when diuers simples haue their ingredience into one compound and two men equally carry betweene them one burthen Their doctrine this way is knowne wel enough how the Scriptures in regard of vs haue all their authority from the Church the sense of the Scripture is to be fetched from the Church whatsoeuer the Church of Rome shall teach is the word of God c. The which things being couched in the Iesuites conclusion as he vnderstands it we detest and spit vpon when he shall thus debarre the Scripture from being the rule to set vpon the bench his Papall Antichristian authority If the shame either of God or men or any respect of truth were with them they durst not thus presumptuously and basely steale the authority to themselues whereby both themselues and we and all the world
hath made his promises Our answer is we deny not our Church to be visible but thinke it to haue bene the same that in all ages communicated with the Church of Rome in the truth and substance of the ancient faith and we call it sometime inuisible onely in that sense which I haue so often declared against which that which is here propounded concludeth nothing 5 For S. Austin sayes no more in the first place but that the Catholicke Church stretches the boughs and increases abundantly ouer the whole earth which we confesse it doth two waies First in that howsoeuer the growth thereof be sometime hindered yet it cannot at all time be so oppressed but that it hath some time and many a long time liberty enough to dilate it selfe all ouer the world as winter corne that in hard weather is not seene to flourish yet hath season enough beside to grow all ouer the field Secondly in as much as it growes also and increases when it is most obscure as the Sunne retaines and exercises his light when it is most ecclipsed The Iesuites continuall error is that to be obscure and to be vtterly taken away is all one and that the suppressing of the outward liberty state and perfection supposes the extinguishing of the essence and being of the Church That which S. Austin sayes in the second place alledged I also grant answering that it may well stand with our assertion A cleare and manifest authority of the Church it appointed ouer the whole world and yet this authority may be resisted and called in question and abused and vsurped by Heretiques and persecutors and then though it be cleare and manifest in it selfe that the Church hath this authority yet the exercise thereof may be corrupted in such sort that sometime it shall need reformation Schismatickes and Heretiques are not to be beleeued but let the Repliar proue all these in whom our Church was to be such Schisme and Heresie haue their particular places and obscure and secret corners but not alwaies for in the Church of Israel when a 1. Reg. 19.14 the children of Israel forsooke the couenant of God Threw downe his altars slue his Prophets and none but Elias alone was left and when b 2. Cro. 15.3 for along season Israel was without the true God and without a teaching Priest and without the law and c 2. Cro. 28.24 when Ahaz the king of Iudah did cut in peeces the vessels and shut vp the dores of the house of God and made him altars in euery corner of Ierusalem and high places in euery seuerall city of Iudah to burne incense to other Gods It was not so Nor at such time as Ierom d Comment in Psal 33. §. Qui statis tom 8. sayed The Church is where the faith is for 20 yeares since Heretiques possessed all these Churches nor when Hilary e Pag. 316. d. writ One thing I forewarne yee of beware of Antichrist ill doth the loue of walles affect you ill do ye reuerence the Church of God in houses and buildings is there any doubt but Antichrist sits in them to me the mountaines and the woods and lakes of water and prisons and boggs are safer And if for the most part they haue doth it follow thereupon that all religion practised particular places and secret corners is Heresie what then shall become of Gods truth in such times as these are But it is absurd to say God hath possible other sheepe I know not where nor who they be that himselfe lookes to and so say I for he speakes of such as hold there may be some of the faithfull out of the Church or at the least so hidden in the Church that none can see them Neither of which is our doctrine but onely that sometimes they may be so oppressed that no man can see any congregation of them openly professing and exercising the worship of God purely and without corruption but the right faith and gouernment shall be euery where persecuted and kept vnder though many of these sheepe thus corrupted belong to the sheepfold of Christ by reason of the foundation of faith which they hold and their repentance of their errors S. Austin therefore proues not our assertion to be a shift Go we forward and let vs see the rest 6 If it were not a ridiculous shift men of our time would not haue bene moued at the hearing of it to say as one did Spectatum admissi That * Camp rat 3. one belike was one of Penelopees f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 odyss ◠wooers or of g Valer. Maxim l. 9. c. 12. Philemons kind that was choaked with laughing at his owne foolish conceite with a iest of his owne making and therefore I will quit them with a story in h Eustath in Hom. odyss p. 659. 22. Eustathius that they may laugh better The Terynthians were a nation generally flowted of their neighbours for their fleering and light countenance they could do nor see nor heare any thing but they would laugh at it Therefore they inquired of Apollo how they might be deliuered from that Passion who answered IF THEY COVLD SACRIFICE A BVLL TO NEPTVNE AND THROW HIM INTO THE SEA WITHOVT LAVGHING whereupon in a speciall consultation they agreed to go forward with the sacrifice but no boyes should be among them least they should laugh at any thing they did but it fortuned that as they were sacrifising a little Boy came in among them and seeing contrary to the custome euery mans countenance so grauely set hee also counterfaited an austeere lookes and carued a face sutable to them which affectation they perceiuing burst all out into laughter and lost their labour and so remained a laughing nation for euer after Their error was to laugh at that in the child which themselues did and with laughing to loose their Bull. It seemes my Repliar and the men that cannot refraine laughter and the man he mentions are of their posterity * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustath Iouiall companions that will laugh at that in others that they do themselues and will exchange their sacrifice for a iest let them go to the sea againe with the Bull and trie if they can haue any better lucke then the Terinthians i Barbaricum faciem Romanam sumere vultuni miror Ennod. Pitty Roman heads should haue so graue tongues and so light countenances 7 In the last place he obiects that our doctrine touching the inuisible Church hath made diuers learned Protestants obstinately bent against Papistry desperate for when they haue seene the Prophecies of the Scripture foretelling the amplitude splendor glory and continuance of true Christian Professors neuer to haue bene fullfilled in their inuisible congregation of Protestant Professors they haue either doubted ordenied or vtterly cast off the truth of all Christian Profession the reason is their obstinacy not suffering them to consider that in the Roman Profession onely these
downe all with his hands and fight with Iupiter with his new termes and larger explications he coniures the old faith out of the Church His golden Vincentius hath another point to this purpose that the Repliar ouersees d Monitor c. 30 It is lawfull that those ancient articles of heauenly doctrine be dressed and filed and polished but villanie to change them villanie to maime and curtall them Let them receaue if you will euidence light distinction but withall let them hold their fulnesse integritie and proprietie This rule the Church of Rome hath not obserued but contrary thereunto it hath not onely expounded the articles of the ancient faith corruptly but also added many new articles which in the ancient Church were neuer knowne CHAP. XLVI 1 The errors broached by the later Diuines of the Church of Rome 2 Their errors maintained by that Church And their writings to good purpose alledged by the Protestants 3 How that which they speake for the Protestants is shifted off 5 One reason why we alledge their sayings 6 That which is said in excuse of their disagreement answered A. D. The second obiection My Aduersaries may secondly obiect that all this notwithstanding it cannot be denied Pag. 274. but that in particular mens writings set out in these latter ages there haue bene are found diuers errors cōtrary to the former faith of the Fathers To iustifie the truth of this obiection it seemeth that M. White hath with great paines raked together all the riffe-raffe and odde opinions he could finde in any particular Catholicke Authors as thinking be like this way to discredit the Catholicke cause But he is very shallow witted if hee thinke by this meanes to ouerthrow or shake the vniuersall faith of the Catholicke Church Introduct quest 3. For as I noted in the Introduction the Catholicke Church doth not binde her faith vpon any priuate Doctors opinion nor indeed do those priuate Doctors deliuer their said opinions as any points of their owne or other mens faith euen then when in these their priuate opinions they hold this or that matter to pertaine to faith which other men thinke not to pertaine to faith but rather submit all their opinions as hereticall Doctors which haue no faith but priuate opinions wil not to the faith iudgement and censure of the Catholicke Church being also ready to renounce any of their opinions whensoeuer by lawfull definitiue sentence of the present Pastours or otherwise they may perceiue them to be contrary to the ancient faith of the Church Hence M. White may see how vainely he hath spent his time in seeking the sinkes and sweeping together so many odde sentences of some Catholicke Authors as here and there he noteth in his writings the which haue no more force against the sincere vnity of doctrine of faith maintained by the authority of our Church then that heape of filth and ordure of ill life of some particular men which he hath scraped together doth proue against the sanctitie of the profession of the Catholicke Church And it is maruaile that the man hath so little wit as to labour so much either in shewing the contrariety of opinions among Catholickes which altogether is impertinent to the vnity of their faith or in discouering the faults of some leude persons which is altogether impertinent to the sanctity of the profession of the Church especially when if he did but looke into the bosome of his owne Protestant congregation and particularly into the life and doctrine of the very primitiue parents thereof he may finde it no lesse but all circumstances considered namely of the smalnesse of the number of men and the little space of time since it came into the world c. far more faulty in either kinde And so he ought to haue bene affraid least when he had said all against Catholickes that his blind zeale or malice could deuise that the shame would be returned so much the more against his Euangelicall brethren some of which as Luther confesseth haue bene for their ill liues far worse then euen themselues were when they were Papists and as I may boldly say for odde errors absurd and impious opinions far worse then any Papists Which their absurd and impious opinions who list to reade he may finde set downe in Caluino-Turcismo and other Authors See Caluino-Turcismus and may oppose them to these which M. White relateth with this aduantage that whereas if by ignorance or passion some Catholicke writers hold any vnfit opinions yet actually or virtually they submit them to the faith and censure of the Church and so are not to be thought obstinately to erre in faith but in priuate opinion about some matter not sufficiently knowne to them to be contrary to the faith of the Catholicke Church But Protestant Doctors who haue no other faith but their owne firmely setled opinion gathered as it seemeth to them out of Scripture who also will not neither actually nor virtually submit these their opinions to the faith and censure of any Church ours or their owne may by their erronious opinions obstinately mainteined against the Church be conuinced of so many absurd and impious obstinate errors in faith as they haue absurd and impious opinions grounded as it seemeth to them vpon Scriptures White p. 349. But it seemeth M. White regardeth not what may be obiected against his brethren so that he may say something against vs and therefore in one place he doth in effect vrge this argument against vs If the ancient Catholicke truth did continue among vs in all points then there could not be among our Doctors variety of opinions in any point no more then there is in the doctrine of the blessed Trinity or Incarnation I answer first that this may better be vrged against the Protestants who as appeareth in Caluino-Turcismo haue not onely vncertainty and variety of opinions in other points but euen about the doctrine of the blessed Trinity and Incarnation neither haue they any such sufficient meanes as we haue to take away this variety of opinions Secondly I answer that the variety of opinions which is among our Doctors either is not in matters pertaining to faith or if the matter pertaine to faith the varietie is not in the substance of the point but in some circumstance which may be held this or other waies without preiudice to faith or if in some rare case any priuate Doctors hold opinion against the substance or circumstance so far as pertaineth to faith this is in ignorance and with readines to put away this opinion so soone as they vnderstand the contrary to pertaine to faith by some euident proofe of Scripture or tradition or by declaration of the present Church which is an argument that although they erre in opinion yet they erre not in implicite beleefe euen of the very point wherein through ignorance they do erre in opinion Now the reason why this ignorance and consequently variety of opinion may
beyond Salomon come to my Court and OVT WITH YOVR PVRSES AND YOV SHALL FINDE DAMNATION TO YOVR SOVLES And f SIMVLTVM STABIT SVPER â—OS DIADE RVTILANTE VT TIBI Eâ—FVNDANT ELECTRVM EA PROPT ER RVDES MIGINA MANDENT VIRODERE ET BLACE BLICIAE ALLVDE Bâ—NT TVNC CELIBES ET BLASCONES LVGERE CVâ— ROBOAM Bâ— BLENONES MIXTOS DORTONIBVS RIDERE CVM IEROBOAM pag. 11. the riddle of Cyril the Monke reported by g Telesph de Cusent l. de magnis tribul Venet. 1516. Telesphorus in his booke of prophecies may be expounded The diuell shall make a Pope with a worme in his head a sort of hungry parasites laughing at his heels CHAP. LV. 1. The Communion in ancient time was ministred to the people in both kinds 2. An innouation in this point in the Church of Rome 3. The pretences vsed against the Cup. A. D. Seuenthly concerning the Communion in one kind I answer Pag. 286. that the practise of the ancient Church it selfe did vse sometimes receiuing in one kind as is shewed by 1 See Greg. de Valent. tom 4. disp 6. q. 8. p. 5. §. 8. 9. Catholicke authors and although it vsed also receiuing in both kinds yet this proueth not that to receiue in one kind is contrary to the law of God but rather that it was by the law of God left indifferent Now in matters left indifferent by the law of God the practise of the Church may be different in different times or places according to the difference of occurring motiues and reasons and all good Which answer may be applied in case M. White shew other differences in the ancient and present Church practise which to shew is altogether impertinent to this our question where we are to see onely whether there be any practise or point of doctrine maintained by the present Church contrary to the law of God or contrary to the doctrine of faith held vniuersally by the ancient Church 1 THe communion in one kind I shewed to be contrary to the practise and doctrine of the ancient Church For a Mat. 26.27 Christ ordained it in both kinds and b 1. Cor. 11.28 commanded the vse of it in both kinds Chrysostome c Hom. 18. in 2. Cor. sayes There is wherein the Priest differs not from the people as in the participation of the sacred mysteries * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Ieron in Soph. l. sub init where one Body and one Cup is exposed to all alike And innumerable places might be brought out of antiquitie and be added to that which I but briefly toucht in the Digress but it shall not need for I presume no man will denie d Defens lib. de offic pij viri vnder the name of Veran Modest Pacimont p. 138. Cassanders words to be true This vse of our Lords bloud together with his bodie in the ministration hath the institution of Christ and the custome of the whole Church aboue a thousand yeares and of all the East to this day The consideration wherof moues the minds of many men religious and truly Catholicke vehemently to wish and labour that by some generall constitution this so ancient and long continued custome of ministring the Sacraments wholy might be reuolued The Reply answers it was left indifferent by the law of God and therefore the Primitiue Church vsed it also sometimes in one kind as Greg. Valence hath shewed This I denie Gregorie hath raked together all the places he could heare of in antiquitie to giue some colour to ministration in one kind and hath most leudly bestowed his wit to auoid the authorities that shew the contrary but it cannot be proued either that the thing is indifferent or that the Church solemnely in the congregations vsed but one kind as the Church of Rome now doth or that the practise of such particular persons as he pretends was according to the doctrine of the Church which are the things whereupon the true iudgement of this question depends 2 But this it is the B. of Rome and his Church are now growne to that height of presumption that whatsoeuer Christ instituted and practised himselfe and commended to his Church and the Church accordingly practised and taught many generations after him yet by vertue of the chaire and vnder pretence that he hath power to dispence and vary in diuers things any thing may be altered without changing the ancient faith But say good student say directly what reason can be assigned why the vse of the cup should be lesse commanded by Christ then the vse of the bread and why Christ should be thought to haue left the cup indifferent more then the bread The words in the institution sound alike for both the companie to whom he ministred receiued both and were bidden to vse both If the cup be not necessarie because no lay people were among them then by the same argument neither is the bread necessary I will onely vse the testimonie of Cyprian to proue that our Lord left not this mattter mutable or indifferent he a Ep. 68. edit Morel sayes Know ye that we are admonished in offering the cup to keepe the Lords tradition that nothing be done by vs but that which the Lord did for vs that the cup which is offered be offered mingled with wine Here Gregorie * Pag. 1002. A. answers that Cyprian affirmes no more but that when the cup is giuen it must be giuen in the same matter that Christ did not affirming the cup should be giuen to all This that the reader may haue a taste of his doings because the Reply referres me to him is but a tricke for he affirmes both not onely that we must offer it in such matter but that we must offer it For if that which Christ did were the reason why it should be offered in such a matter then is it also a reason why it must be offered And that this was Cyprians mind appeares by b Ep. 54. 63. another text where he and diuers more to the number of fortie Bishops appointed the Communion to be giuen in both kinds to the Christians in persecution giue this reason For how do we teach or prouoke them in the confession of his name to shed their bloud if we denie them the bloud of Christ when they are readie to fight or how shall we make them fit for the cup of martyrdome if we do not first admit them in the Church to drinke the cup of our Lord by the right of communion They thought the cup necessary for such as should shed their bloud for Christ but such are all men and at all times the cup therefore they thought necessary for all Againe all haue right to it it is not therefore indifferent 3 The reasons why the Church of Rome restraines the cup are needfull to be knowne I will take onely them that Tolet c In 1. Ioh. 6. ann 27. confirmed by Suarez Quia vix posset
vpon their authorities of Scripture prouing it no otherwise then thus 2 The same is to be said of his Fathers who will proue as little vnlesse as the Scripture is allowed the Church declaration so they also be allowed their c Ind. Exp. Belg c. vt liber Bertrami pious and commodious and deuised expositions so that for all the Replies confidence the ground that Transubstantiation hath either in the Scripture or antiquitie shall be this in the end There is for it sound authoritie both of Scripture and Fathers if you will allow the church of Rome who is a partie to declare the sence of the Scripture and her Diuines the Iesuites a facultie to giue the Fathers a sence if not true yet fit and pious and to deuise tricks which they neuer meant thus it may be proued soundly though when all is done it may still be doubted whether it be so or no as the learnedst and acutest in the Church it selfe still do doubt it Which being the case then the coniectures will no longer be M. Whites but his aduersaries and the best ground he can yeeld for his doctrine And whereas he addes in his margent that Briarly hath shewed in his Prot. Apolog. that euen Protestants far better learned then M. White will be in hast grant Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councel M. White answers that the parenthesis touching his learning is true neither can he refuse the comparison but he renders to God his most humble thankes that he so farre inferiour to so many yet hath done that which is sufficient for the maintenance of the truth against Romish heresies and the Replier finds himself so galled with it that it may be he will say to his fellowes as b Iud. 9.54 Abimelec wounded by a woman did to his page Draw thy sword and slay me that it be not said a woman slue Abimelec But yet the rest is false as c Prot. ap p. 94. n. 3. inde ad 22. the Deane of Winchester hath fully shewed in his answer and the vttermost that either the Centuries or the other Protestants alledged say is not that Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councell but that before that time in the writings of some particular Doctors there are some formes of speech which possible they like not so well as seeming to giue courage aâ—â—â— boldnesse to them who afterward abusing euery thing to their owne errors would vse them to confirme their Transubstantiation but that they grant the doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation was beleeued is a base vntruth no way to be gathered from their words For Transubstantiation had his growth by degrees First the Fathers without so much as dreaming of it onely to increase the reuerence and to suppresse the prophanation thereof vsed vehement and hyperbolicall speeches of the Sacrament Secondly in time a kinde of reall presence began to be conceited Thirdly then what these men could finde in antiquity that sounded that way they wrested to their opinion Fourthly till at the last in the Councell of Lateran it was confirmed as an article that must be receiued and had a name giuen it in token it was new borne 3 The reason assigned in the Replie for that which Lateran did containes matter worth the marking First before contrary heresies rose the Church had no occasion to make expresse determination This fully ouerthrowes himselfe For if no determination were made then was it no article necessary to be beleeued if no article nor necessary how could there be any heresie against it when a Dico hactenus nihil esse in hac controuersia ab Ecclesia definitum ideoque sententiam non esse de fide Suar. 2. to p. 30 e. nothing is an article that is not defined nor b Postquam autem propositio aliqua patefacta est per determinationem Ecclesiae esse contratia fidei secundum se quoad nos haeretica denominatur Caict. 22. q. 11. art 1. See Silu. v. haec 1. n. 4 can loc l. 12. c. 12. nothing heresie but what is against a definition Secondly men were not bound to know it so expresly as they were after the determination Therefore it was not determined till the Lateran Councell therefore it was no article of the ancient Church faith therefore it is not expresly or manifestly conceiued in the Scripture or Fathers Therefore they do but trifle that alledge them for it These consequences proceed in the thing as well as the name cannot be auoided But all did and all were bound euen from the beginning to beleeue it at least implicite But this is a beggarly shift for if it was beleeued but in the vertue of that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church then the Church was but with child of it for 1200 yeares till the Pope her midwife brought her abed of it and so the Fathers had neither faith nor knowledge of it then but beleeued whatsoeuer the Church should hereafter define this they neuer beleeued but held constantly the Church of Rome and a generall Councell might define an error and if they beleeued no more what treachery is it to proue by their writing what they neuer knew and what they could not mention but lay hidden in the bosome of the Church to be reuealed at the Councell of Lateran But what will not this man say that auouches such as held contrary to Transubstantiation as indeed the ancient Church did yet did also beleeue it by implicite faith How doth a man belieue that which he beleeues not he answers by resolution and readinesse to yeeld to the church they might beleeue that which in their ignorance they erred in Let vs make an end then the Reply hath got the victory The Fathers and the Church her selfe might for 1200 yeares be ignorant of Transubstantiation yea hold contrary to it or not expresse it in their writings and yet beleeue it too and their writings be full of testimonies for it in euery age because they were not obstinate but had implicite faith infolded in the generall assent that euery Catholicke giues to that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church By which faith they beleeued contrary to that they writte This Reader is our Aduersaries case and the last end of their antiquity not in this point of Transubstantiation alone but in all the rest they boast of succession and Doctors and Councels and Antiquity and Catalogues and yet these D D. and Councels in the Catalogue held these things but implicite and that must be enough to stop the Protestants mouth Sure this is one of the wittiest and acutest distinctions that euer I read For thereby I can proue all the ancient D D. to haue taught and beleeued flat contrary to all they writ For first I will make the present Church of Rome the Catholicke Church Then I will say they beleeued that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church Now the Church of Rome
A wonder not farre from Rome Writers not putting their names to their bookes censured by the Iesuites The Popes Iester The name of Minister and Priest Church the pillar of truth The way of Catholicke discipline is the way of the Scripture The Iesuites Method in perswading to Papistry The manner of A. D. his Replying and his promise to raile Chap. 2. The Papists trampling of the Scriptures and preferring their Church The Church of Rome touched in her honesty and reputed for a whore The conditions of a whore Chap. 3. The order of the Iesuites why and to what purpose erected by the Pope they are that to the Pope that the Ianisaries are to the Turke Their aboadments Chap. 4 Some examples of the Iesuites rapine Touching the present Pope Paule 5. and his nephew Burghesi The Iesuites deuouring those that entertaine thē Chap. 5. Touching the rapine and couetousnesse of the Romish Cleargy And their single life and what the world hath thought thereof Chap. 6. Touching the turbulency of our Iesuites and Maspriests in the State and their vnthankefulnesse to the King The seditious doctrine of the Church of Rome leading to all disobedience against the Magistrate and rebellion whēsoeuer occasion shall serue Tyrones rebellion and the Spanish inuasion promoted by the Pope A Catalogue of about forty Emperors Kings and Princes destroyed or vexed by the Pope and his Cleargy A consideration vpon the doctrine of the Popes power to depose kings Chap. 7. Concerning the doctrine of Merits taught in the Church of Rome and touching the Bull of Pius and Gregory against Michael Bayus the Deane of Louane Chap. 8. The Papacy brought in by Sathan The Iesuits spirit of contradiction The Church of Rome reuolted The fiue Patriarkes were equall at the first Plaine Scripture against the Papacy The ignorance of Popish laity Corruption of writings by the Papists Reformation desired long before it came Aduice giuen to A.D. Chap. 9. The Apocrypha not accounted Canonicall Scripture Papists professing to expound against the Fathers The new English translation of the Bible Traditions equalled with the holy Scripture About the erring of Councels And the sufficiencie of the Scriptures Chap. 10. The practise of the Papists in purging bookes The sacrifice of the Masse and reall presence denied Points of Papists absurd The Pope Lords it ouer all Papists need pay no debts May be traitors to murder Princes Iesuites plots in the powder-treason The Popes dispensing with sinne A meditation for all Papists Chap. 11. The Papists manner of dealing with immodesty and vncharitablenesse Briarly and Walsinghams bookes noted Some reports of the Papists meeknesse and mildnesse Hunt a Seminary arraigned at Lancaster The dumbe cattle slaughtered in Lancash The generall desire of vs all to reduce them to charity Chap. 12. Touching the ignorance that Papistrie hath bred among people Their barbarous manner of praying auoched Of Iohn the Almoner a legend The manner how a certaine Priest baptised The Replies zeale for recusants of the better sort A Lancash gentleman alledged by the Reply A note of a French Knight The successe of preaching in Lancash Chap. 13. Touching prayer to Saints Mediation of redemption and intercession Bonauentures Psalter Christ the onely mediator of intercession Reasons why we desire not the dead to pray for vs as we do the liuing The prayers of a Friar and an Archbishop It cannot be shewed that the dead heare vs. Deuices of the Schoolemen to shew how they heare vs. God not like an earthly King In their Saint-inuocating they Platonize Men equalled with Christ Chap. 14. More touching the worship of Saints The same words vsed to Saints that are to God The formall reason of worship The harsh praiers made to Saints how excused Nauarres forme of deuotion Counterfeits bearing the name of Fathers S. Austines doctrine to vse no mediator but Christ Chap. 15. The Iesuits insolency censured Note bookes A relation shewing how the Iesuites traine vp their nouices to dispute The doctrine of the Iesuites touching formall lies and equiuocation The Repliars motion to Protestant Ministers answered Chap. 16. Touching assurance of grace and beleeuing a mans owne saluation Perfection of the Scripture and necessity of the Church Ministry How the iustified conclude their saluation from the Scripture The iustified haue the assurance of faith This is declared full assurance voide of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome Touching perseuerance Chap. 17. Concerning points fundamentall and not fundamentall the distinction expounded and defended Who shall iudge what is fundamentall and what not A iest at the election of Pope Leo the x. Chap. 18. Touching the perpetuall virginity of Marie The celebration of Easter The baptisme of infants The Iesuits halting And the Scriptures sufficiency Chap. 19. How the Church proues the Scripture The Iesuites plainely confesse that the Scripture alone proues it selfe to be Gods word The Scriptures are principles indemonstrable in any superior science All other testimonies resolued into the testimony of the Scripture Touching euidence and the compossibility thereof with faith Chap. 20 A continuation of the same matter touching the Churches authority in giuing testimony of the Scriptures The Scripture proues it selfe to be Gods word The light of the Scripture How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture The Papists retyring to the Spirit And casting off the Fathers A Councell is aboue the Pope The Pope may erre Chap. 21. Which is the Militant Church And the Catholicke The Church of the elect inuisible A rancid conceite of the Iesuite Chap. 22. Reports made by Papists that the Protestants are without religion They hold the iustification of the Gentiles without the Gospell or knowledge of Christ No saluation but in one true religion The Repliars tergiuersation Chap. 23. Touching the implicit faith that is taught in the Church of Rome How defined by them In what sense the Protestants mislike or allow it Arguments made for it answered The ancient Church allowed it not Chap. 24. Touching the necessitie and nature of the Rule of faith And how it is reuealed and communicated to all men that none need to despaire Chap. 25. The text of 1. Tim. 2.4 God wils all men to be saued c. expounded The diuerse expositions that are giuen of those words Gods antecedent will as they call it is not his will formally The antecedent and consequent will of God expounded diuerse wayes Chap. 26. The properties of the rule of faith described None follow priuate spirits more then our aduersaries How the Rule must be vnpartial and of authority Chap. 27. The Repliars tergiuersation The state of the question touching the sufficiencie of the Scripture alone and the necessity of the Church ministery The speeches of diuers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture In what sence the Scripture alone is not sufficient Chap. 28. Touching our English translations of the Bible their sinceritie and infalliblenesse How
doctrine of this Mystery But whatsoeuer my aduersarie will haue to be thought of is c August de temp serm 6. Theodor. in Ezech pag. 486. Anibr in Luc. l. 2. c. 1. §. in men sc l. 10. c. 23. §. stabant au tem Epist l. 1. ep 5. 7. Basil vbi sup Hiero. in Ezec. 44. §. conuertit adu Heluid Epiphan l. 3 haer 78. sermo de laud. S. Mar. in Bibl. S. PatruÌ„ tom 7. pag. 26. edit 1. Hesych Chrysip ser de Maria ibi p. 33 inde Andrae Ierosolym serm de salutat Angel ibid. pag. 241. Proclus Cyzecen homil in Concil Ephes pag. 251. graec Commel in See Zuingl tom 3. pag. 233. the ancient Fathers brought the Scripture to proue it that if it were a matter of faith it should in their opinion be beleeued because it were contained in the Scripture 2 The celebration of Easter vpon the Sonday likewise is no point of faith but only a seemely and ancient ceremony of the Church d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l 5. c. 22. pag 249. Steph. at the first not thought so necessary as the Iesuits now affirme it to be specially the holding of it on that day for e Euseb hist l. 5. c. 23. the Churches of Asia held it on the 14. day of the moneth whether it were Sonday or not * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an old tradition f See Euseb ibid. inde l. 7 c. vlt. Socr. vbi sup Cassiod l. 9. c. 38 Niceph. l 12 c. 33. 34. Beda aequinoct vernal tom 2. Gab. Prateol Elench haer verb. quatuordecimani The which many Catholike Bishops as Polycarp Thraseas Irenaeus Sagaris Melito Polycrates Anatolius and diuers others many yeares together maintained which they would not haue done being all godly Bishops of the Catholike Church if the custome of the Westerne Church to keepe it on the Sonday had bene an article of faith g Alphons â—du haer v. Pascha Our aduersaries also confesse their custome were at this day lawfull but for the determination of the Church h Refert Beda rat temp c. 45. ibi Ramesiens gloss pag. 15. edit Basil per Heruag an 1563. Theophilus Caesariensis an ancient Father tels how the French Church in those daies alwaie kept it on the 8. of the Calends of Aprill which is the 25. of March what day of the weeke soeuer it fell because Christ arose on that day And with vs i Bed hist Angl. l. 2. c. 2 19. l. 3. c. 25 l. 5. c 22. The like disagreement among the Spaniards and French and others testified by Sigeb pag. 83. Cron. Caluis Cronolog an 546. the old Britons and Scots celebrated it not on that day that is now vsed whereby it is cleare that the holding of Easter on such a day is not Catholike And whereas the Iesuit sayes the celebrating it on a Sonday is not contained in the Scripture he saies truly yet the Church of Rome maintaining that order in old time thought otherwise as he may see in k To be seene in Bede de veâ—n aequinoct sub fin pag. 346. a Councell holden about that matter in Pope Victors time where the Scripture is roundly alleadged for it against the Asian B.B. 3 The Baptisme of Infants which is his third example we confesse to be an article of faith but we do not confes that it is not contained in the Scripture we say the contrary as appeares by our l Caluin instit l. 4. c. 16. instruct adu Anabapt art 1. writings against the Anabaptists yea the Papists theÌ„selues ordinarily vse to grouÌ„d it on the scripture This truth m De bapt c. 8. saies Bellar. is proued by three kindes of arguments The first is taken from the Scripture This is proued by the Scripture n Tom. 4. pag. 597. b. saies Gregory of Valentia the like is done by o Tho. 3. part q. 68. art 9. lansen concord c. 20. 100 Suarez tom 3. disp 25. sect 1 Henriquez sum moral de bapt c. 21. Vasquez in 3. part Tho. disp 149. nu 6. Tolet. in Ioh. 3. ann 10. Maldon in Ioh. 3. n. 20. In Math. 19. v. 14. he hath these wordes illud fortissimum apertissimum testimonium quo semper Ecclesia vt Infantes baptizarit adducta est Nisi quis renatus est c. many others which is woorth the readers obseruation because at other times when they deale against vs they will cry out it is a tradition vnwritten Let them go for egregious impostors by my consent that against the Anabaptists can proue by Scripture that which they make vs beleeue is but by tradition Beggars for halting at the townes end and going vpright when they are in the Alehouse are set in the stocks and nailed to the Pillorie but Iesuits counterfeiting after the same fashion in a higher matter one while with Scripture 3. arguments at once out of Scripture a most powerfull and plaine testimony of Scripture for the baptizing of children another while with their leg in a string no crosse but tradition and Church authority are made the guides of many mens faith p Nec pedibus ad insistendum idoneis Pet. Mâ—ff vit Loiol l. 1. c. 2 â—â—biae contractae breuitas rectè illum incedere prohibuit Ribad vit Ignat. l. 1. c. 1. The halting of Ignatio that created them was a type of the halting religion of his creatures 4 That which Gretser q Defens Bellarm tom 1. l. 4. c. 4. sub sin pag. 1598. Ingolst answers hereunto will not cleare them he saies these things may be proued by Scripture but not sufficiently not effectually by Scripture alone without tradition but onely probably This is against the authority and nature of the Scripture for it is the word of God therefore whatsoeuer is proued trulie thereby is proued effectually and sufficiently and not onely probably and this in respect of vs which is confirmed for r 1. Ioh. 5.9 the witnesse of God is greater then the testimony of man therefore if these things be to be proued at al out of the Scripture they are proued to vs and that effectually because whatsoeuer God saith he saith to vs and that not only probably but necessarily and euidently which if we see not then it is by reason of some indisposition in vs allowing tradition or Church authority to take away this indisposition and to expound and declare these Scriptures to these purposes yet is it not true that the Iesuite saies for then the said tradition and authoritie puts and driues some further meaning and sense into them then was in them before or it onely declares and expounds it The former Å¿ Occh dial 1. part l. 2 c. 14. Alphonâ— adu haer l. 1. c. 8. Dicimus enim quod quantum ad ea quae ad fidem pertinent Romanum Pontificem nec totam
whereof all this question rises 5 Our Aduersaries holding many points of religion which we refuse we require them to shew vs the said points in the Scriptures if they will either haue vs to beleeue them or free themselues from heresie their Tradition their Purgatory their Masse their Latine seruice their Transubstantiation their Images their seuen Sacraments their Inuocation of Saints and all the rest wherein we differ * This is shewed c. 28. n. 3. Their answer is that many diuine truthes and articles of faith are not contained in the Scriptures but reuealed by Tradition and Church authoritie which are to be receiued and beleeued as well as that which is written * The original cause why the Papists set a foot the question touching the insufficiency of the Scripture This is the originall reason why they stand thus against the sufficiency of the written word for their Church authoritie and to proue this they vse the Argument here propounded by the Reply and descant with it as you see Which is an impertinent kinde of proceeding when this point whether the Bookes contained in holy writ be Gods word is no question betweene vs but agreed vpon of all hands but the question is touching other speciall articles Images adoration halfe communion and such like a number more whether not being contained in the Scripture men are bound to beleeue them For touching these things it is properly that we say Nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture And therefore this argument is impertinent For where we affirme all points of faith to be comprised within the body of the Scripture we distinguish first of the things which we say are comprised for albeit we firmely hold the diuine truth and authoritie of these Bookes to be euident in themselues yet the points that we meane in this question are touching other matters for neither they nor we deny the Scripture but both they and we deny many things to be contained in it Secondly then againe of the manner how things are comprised for all other things are comprised in Scripture as the duty obedience of subiects is in the kings lawes and as true speaking is contained in Grammar or the right forme of resoluing in Logicke but this one point is so contained as light is in the Sunne or sweete in hony and according to the same notion whereby the authoritie of the Law and truth of Principles is contained in themselues This is it which very briefly I answered in * THE WAIE § 9. 3. digr 11. n. 17. two seuerall places of my Booke Now let us see what the Iesuite replies to it To this saith he I reply that principles insciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of termes or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superiour science by some other principle more euident to vs. But that these Bookes which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other principle more euident to vs that these Bookes which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture The substance of his Reply is that all principles are either euident of themselues or not euident such principles as are euident he grants need no prouing but the Scriptures are principles of religiō not euident of themselues but such as need to be demonstrated to be Gods word by some other principle in a higher science more euident to vs both denying them to be euident and also to be made so by onely declaring the words wherein they are vttered And to proue this he saies in the margent if it were euident that these Bookes in the Bible are diuine Scripture how is it onely beleeued by faith for Saint Paule cals faith Argumentū non apparentium Heb. 11.1 1. My answer is that the Scriptures are principles euident of themselues to those that haue the Spirit of God and such as need not to be proued by Church authoritie but onely to be reuealed and expounded according to that which is in themselues This my answer to helpe the reader out of the Iesuits perplexed discourse I will lay downe and explicate in 3. propositions First the Scripture in diuinitie hath the same office that principles haue in sciences that as the rules and principles of Grammar teach all true speaking and as the elements of Arithmeticke teach all right numbring so the doctrine contained in the Scriptures teaches all true faith Secondly as they are the principles of religion and rule of faith so they enioy the same priuiledge that principles do in forren Professions that is to be receiued and assented to for themselues without discourse For e Atist Poster c. 1. no humane science proues it owne principles or disputes against him that denies them and although the principles of an inferiour science may be demonstrated in a superiour yet this befalles not that which is the highest as the Metaphysicks which hauing no superiour science neither stands to demonstrate it selfe nor to receiue demonstration from another but our vnderstanding assents immediatly to the principles thereof and so goes forward by them to discerne of other things In the same manner the Scripture hauing no superiour science or rule aboue it is like these principles receiued for it selfe and is not occupied in prouing it selfe and the principles therin contained but shewing other things by them it selfe must be assented to without discourse by faith before we can argue out of it Thirdly all demonstration and proofe of principles is onely voluntary not necessarie against him that denies them as in Musicke the Musitian demonstrates his precepts not thereby to teach his arte but to conuince him that denies it Hence appeares the insufficiency of my aduersaries reply First in that he saies principles are not euident but need demonstration that so the Scriptures being yeelded to be the principles of religion yet they should not be receiued vnlesse they proue themselues vntill the authoritie of the Church come There is no man acquainted with f Principia per seipsa nata sunt cognosci reliqua verò per principia Arist prio l. 2 c. 18. idem Procl in Euclid l. 2. c. 2. humane art will say so His owne Thomas g Tho. 1. part q. 1. art 8. sayes that like as other sciences do not argue to proue their owne principles but out of the principles argue to shew other things so the sacred doctrine doth not argue to proue the owne principles but from them proceeds to shew something The same is said by h Capreol prol in 1. part q. 1. pag. 24. Greg. Valent. tom 1. pag. 50. a. others Next it is false that the Scripture is like those principles which need
d Luc. 1 70. God spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets therefore it is expresly written that all the bookes of Scripture are Gods word Any man may see this answer to be full his question being touching this Scripture that we vse and haue in our hand where therein it was written that it selfe is Gods word For I answer that it is written in these three places whereof he hath here rehearsed two Now he replies that he doth not onely enquire how we proue in generall that there is any diuine Scripture at all but how we proue these bookes which the Church now vses to be the same that those men writ whose titles they beare which he sayes cannot be proued by the Scriptures alledged because it may still be doubted whether these bookes that we vse as the Gospell of Matthew and Marke for example be part of that Scripture which the texts alledged affirme to be inspired of God and it must likewise be proued that these texts that affirme this are themselues the word of God Whereto I answer first that granting these places to proue some diuine Scripture to be and to be inspired of God it must be granted that the Scripture may be proued so to be by the Scripture it selfe For these sentences All Scripture is giuen by inspiration Holy men spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost and such like places could not proue so much as in generall that any bookes at all whether it were these that we vse or no are diuine Scripture if themselues were not diuine I say they could not proue it truly and effectually they might say it but they could not proue it because that which shall proue it must it selfe first be a diuine testimonie Secondly prouing some diuine Scripture to be and to be inspired they proue this that we vse to be such because they so mention the Scripture they speake of that it appeares to be this that we vse and it is agreed vpon of all hands that there is no scripture but this and therefore speaking of some scripture they speake of this This is my argument That Scripture whereof the sentences alledged speake is proued thereby to be diuine But the sentences alledged speake of the same Scripture that we vse For the Church hath alwayes vnderstood it so The sentences therefore alledged proue this Scripture that we vse to be diuine And so my aduersaries demaund is satisfied I enquire not onely how it is proued by Scripture that there is some diuine Scripture which is inspired by God but that these bookes in particular are that Scripture For if it giue any testimonie at all to any Scripture at all it is to these bookes in particular which are now vsed in that it describes these bookes neither are there or haue there bene any other nor dares the Church of Rome it selfe hitherto canonize any other howsoeuer some therein think it may 2 To this my aduersarie replies that before these sentences can sufficiently proue the Scripture to be diuine they must themselues be supposed to be diuine which cannot be proued by themselues if Tradition be excluded I answered this e Digr 12. in my Booke whereto he hath replied neuer a word but stands dumbe and offers the Reader that which I answered in stead of a Reply to my answer neuerthelesse I answer againe that all places in the Scripture which affirme the Scripture to be Gods word are proued to be Gods word by themselues and their owne light and not by Tradition or Church-authoritie which is but the ministerie whereby God reueales the proofe to vs and it selfe is iudged by the Scripture For if the Church-authoritie make them to be canonicall and diuine * For that is it properly that the Papists say Bellar. Stapl. Grego to vs then it is either by adding truth diuinitie authoritie to them which they had not before in themselues by diuine inspiration or onely by declaring and reuealing to vs that truth diuinitie and authoritie which they haue immediatly from God of themselues before the Church approued them that we might see and confesse it The former our aduersaries will not say or if they will it is Atheisme worse then blasphemie for so all our faith and the highest reason mouing vs to beleeue should not be diuine reuelation but humane authoritie and the Scripture which of it selfe had no truth or diuine inspiration should be canonized by men If the latter which our aduersaries dare not denie then who sees not that they proue themselues and in themselues haue diuine authoritie immediatly from God the Church-authoritie in approuing them being nothing else but bare ministerie in respect of the Scripture though in regard of vs it be authoritie in helping vs to see that which is in themselues When the King stampes coine and signes it with his image and superscription he puts that valew and currentnesse into it that was not there before Thus a small peece of copper of it selfe originally not worth a penie may be made worth sixe pence Thus the Church authorizes not the Scripture Stapleton f Staplet relect pag. 505. in explicat art sayes The Church approues not the Scripture the first way by making it sacred diuine for this approbation it hath onely from the holy Ghost the author thereof of whom alone it hath to be sacred and not humane nor the second way by making that through her iudgement it should be accepted for true and worthy credit because that which is in the Scripture is the diuine truth BY IT SELFE AND IS NOT MADE TRVE BY THE APPROBATION OF THE CHVRCH But the third way in that by the force of her approofe and iudgement they are accepted of the faithfull for sacred and diuine and infallible true And thus we beleeue these Scriptures to be Canonicall for the testimonie of the Church The King sends a commission vnder seale by a messenger this messenger giues no authoritie to the commission but is the Kings minister authorized to propound it to the subiects Thus the Church giues testimonie to the Scriptures that it is diuine and no otherwise and it selfe fetches this testimonie from the Scripture and all the authoritie thereof is lastly resolued into the testimonie of the Scripture 3 Next these Scriptures are proued to be diuine by their owne light shining and by their owne vertue shewing it selfe in them as sweetnesse is knowne by it owne taste and the Sunne seene by it owne light and as the Kings coine is knowne by his image vpon it and the fathers voice is knowne to his children by the sound and fashion thereof so are these Scriptures by the heauenly light image and sound inspired into them knowne to be the word of God The aduersaries against whom I deale haue here with Turks and Infidels debarred me from alledging Scripture to proue it selfe and therefore I will shew it otherwise Canus a Papist g Can. loc l. 2. c. 8. pag. 13.
nos certos faciat Grego de Valent tom 3. pag. 117. c. Verus Scripturae sensus inest Scripturae sicut signatum signo sed media certa explorata infallibilia quibus sensus iste eruitur non est ipsa Scriptura sed traditio Ecclesiastica vox definitio Ecclesiae seu eius qui Ecclesiae vice Christi praesidet Grets defens Bellar. tom 1. p. 1970. c. This is the finall euasion that the Iesuites vse against this argument in defence of their traditions and Popes authority against the sufficiency of the Scripture that the Scriptures haue in them a shining light and are as the Protestants say able to proue themselues to be the word of God and containe their true sense in themselues but this light we see not and this true sense we know not and this assurance that they are Gods word or that this is the true sense we cannot haue in the Scripture it selfe but by the meanes of Traditions and the Popes authoritie shewing and propounding these things to vs. As a candle though hauing light in it selfe yet shewes light to none when it is hid vnder a bushell but when it is set vpon a Candlesticke I answer 2. things First as I haue often said this authority and teaching of the Church is not alway nor simply necessary to shew all men the light of the Scripture or so much as to point to it for either by the immediate light of Gods Spirit or by the light of nature it may be knowne to be Gods word as by the light of nature it is knowne that God is whereupon it followes plainely that the Scripture alone as the Rule hath this light in it selfe and from it selfe shewes it else it could not in this manner without Church proposition shine to any Secondly I grant that ordinarily for the seeing and discerning of the euidēce perfection purity power sence all this light that is in the Scripture the proposition of the Church is necessary as a candlesticke to hold it forth but then this proposition may be expounded two waies one way to signifie such authority as by and from it selfe induces me to beleeue afore I see any authority in the Scripture and together with the authority of the Scripture the twofold authority of the Church and Scripture concurring to the moouing of my vnderstanding as when two men concurre as one formall beginning to the carrying and moouing of a blocke This Church proposition thus expounded I vtterly deny to be either needfull or possible Secondly it may be expounded for the Ministry of the Church by her Pastors and people reuealing the Scriptures to them that know them not and teaching the nature sense and meaning thereof But this ministry is but a bare condition adding no light sense authority or matter to the Scripture but onely leading vs to see it Of which Ministery there is no question betweene vs for all Protestants grant The authority or ministery of the Church supposes no want of light in the Scripture and vse it but the question is whether all the articles and whole nature of faith be contained in Scripture alone excluding vnwritten traditions though the Ministery of the Church be needfull as an instrument to shew teach and expound the Scripture as a candlesticke is needfull to shew the candle For the vse of this Ministry and requisite condition of all other meanes that are to be vsed supposes no want or defect in the obiect whereabout they are applied but onely produces it to his operation as the setting of a candle vpon the socket addes no light to it that was wanting in it selfe but onely remoues some impediments that hinder the standers by from seeing and the opening of a window to let in light makes not the Sunne imperfect or but a partiall light And if our aduersaries intended no more but this there were an end of the controuersie for no Protestant euer denied the necessity of Church ministry in this sense but freely confesse it although the authority * See it expounded Chap. 35. n. 1. inde and here immediatly after in nu 4. mentioned we renounce 4 For the better explication of this my answer and that the Reader may see how impertinent it is that my Aduersary sayes Note FIRST that o The quest betweene vs the Papists about the Churches authority the question is not whether some meanes be ordinarily required to the vnderstanding of the Scripture and the producing of faith in such as reade and vse it nor whether the Scripture worke infallible assurance immediatly in all men for in some it doth without the operation and coming betweene of the Church ministery For we hold it doth not But the point is whether this authority of the Church supply any article of faith or matter needfull to saluation that is wanting in the Scripture so that it may be said as my Aduersary alway speaketh the Scripture alone is but a part of the rule of faith which God hath left to instruct men what is to be holden for faith and there be many substantiall points belonging to faith which are contained in Scripture alone nether expresly nor thence to be deduced by consequence but to be supplied by tradition and Church authority and so the question is not about the expediency or condition of the meanes but about the perfection and sufficiency of the thing it selfe Note SECONDLY that my aduersary from the necessity of the means concludes the insufficiency of the thing thus The light of the Scripture shines not to vs the true sense of the Scripture is not infallibly assured vnto vs without the meanes of the Church The Scripture therefore is vnsufficient not containing all things needfull not instructing vs WHAT is to be holden for matter of faith as if a man should say the light of the candle appeares not to vs but when it is set on a candlesticke therefore there is much light that is wanting in the candle and is supplied by the candlesticke Note THIRDLY what the things properly are which our aduersaries attribute to the Church in comparing it with the Scripture They are there first to be a meanes to reueale and expound the Scripture to vs and to breed the faith thereof in our consciences Secondly to be the Foundation of our faith in this sense that we do beleeue this to be Scripture and this to be the true sense of the Scripture and this to be the matter of faith onely because the Church expounds the Scripture so Thirdly to supply vnto vs many articles of faith absolutely needfull to saluation that are wanting in the Scripture out of tradition and by the said tradition to expound the Scripture These two latter points they infer on of the first which is the incroching consequence that I except against in that the authority wherein God hath placed his Church is not in respect of the Scripture but in respect of vs being a bare Minister to the
onely as a condition to instruct vs and leade vs to the knowledge and assurance of that which is contained in the Scripture it selfe or else as a meanes to reueale vnto vs some thing that is not conceiued in the Scripture But not of the latter for all articles of faith are in the Scripture Therefore the former Therefore the Scripture alone is the rule of faith 6 My aduersarie saies it troubles vs that he sayes there be diues questions of faith which are not expressely set downe nor determined in the Scripture Whereto I answered that this was not the question for if by expressely he meant written word for word in so many syllables then the rule is not bound to containe all things thus expressely it being sufficient if all things needefull were contained therein in respect of the sense so that it might be gathered from thence by consequence the question not being in what manner but whether any way at all the whole and entire obiect of our faith be reuealed in the Scripture though some part thereof be gathered but by Consequence from that which is written expressely in so many syllables To this my aduersary replyes that it troubles vs sore to be thus conuinced with the euidence of the matter that we cannot deny it but are driuen to confesse diuers sustantiall points not to be expressely set downe But he is deceaued it troubles vs not a whit would this hatefull guise of bragging and talking of Conuincing when nothing is graunted but that which belongs not to the question troubled vs no more For no Protestant affirms all things to be written expressely but onely that All things belonging to faith are written in such sort that we haue in the Canonicall bookes either expresse wordes as plaine as any man can speake or infallible sense which any man by vsing the meanes may vnderstand for euery article of faith whatsoeuer Neither did D. M. Luther or any of the learned Diuines of our Church whom my aduersary in his canting language calles his new Masters euer hold otherwise He sayes by our leaues this was the question first when our Grandfather Luther was so hoate to haue expresse Scripture that he would haue all expressed euen in words c. And biddes me see Gretser in his defence of Bellarmine But by his leaue Gretser and he both speake vntruly and he absurdly For he so quotes Gretser that a man would thinke Gretser had shewed out of Luthers writings some places wherein Luther required expresse Scripture euen in wordes which he doth not nor Bellarmine whō he defends could do but be reports in English what Gretser lied in Latine and then biddes see Gretser when there is as little in Gretser to this purpose as in himselfe If M. Luther and the Diuines of our Church confesse many things not to be written verbatim in expresse syllables as it is not thus written that infants must be baptized or that Christ is consubstantiall with his Father do they therefore confesse they are not written at all or will himselfe conclude the Scripture wants that which is not written in so many words Is the true sense and meaning of the words nothing are they not as well conclusions of Scripture which are deduced by true discourse as which are expressed verbatim doth not Picus e Theorem 5. sub sin say such are most properly conclusions of faith which are drawne out of the old and new Testament or by good connexion depend on those that are drawne doth not the Cardinall of Cambrey f 1. q. 1. art 3. p. 50 h. say They are conclusions of diuinity not onely which formally are contained in Scripture but also which necessarily follow of that which is so contained And before him g Prolog sent qu. 1. art 2 pag. 10. f. Rom. edit Aureolus another Cardinall In the second manner of proceeding when we goe forward from one proposition beleeued and another necessary or from both beleeued to inquire of any one that is doubtfull no other habite is obtained but the habite of faith the contrary whereof are heresies in which wordes we see he affirmes a going forward from that which is certainely beleeued because it is expresly written to that which is gathered by discourse and makes this latter also to belong to faith I know few of the schoolemen deny this whereupon it followeth manifestly that it is reputed to be within the contents of the Scripture not onely which is expressed in words but also which is so in sense and good consequence In which manner I haue prooued vnanswerably that all the whole obiect of faith is expressed CHAP. XXXI Wherein the place of 2. Tim. 3.15 alledged to proue the fulnes and sufficiencie of the Scripture alone is expounded and vrged against the Iesuites cauills A. D. To my answer of the Protestant obiection whereas I say Pag. 190. the Apostle affirming the Scripture to be profitable doth not auouch the alone sufficiency of it Whereas also secondly I say it is rather profitable in that it commendeth the authority of the Church which is sufficient M. White replieth against the first part of this my answer White pag. 55. that when the Apostle saith the Scripture is profitable c. he meaneth that it is so profitable that a man by vsing it may be made perfect to euery worke and thereupon thus he reasoneth We do not say Scripture is profitable Ergo sufficient but it is profitable to euery thing Ergo sufficient I answer that this consequence is not good Piety is by S. Paul said to be profitatable to euery thing doth it therefore follow that it is sufficient in such sort that there need no other helpe or meanes to be ioyned with it to attaine whatsoeuer thing M. Wootton and M. White seeme to reason more strongly yet weakely enough to this effect That is sufficient which is able to make a man wise to saluation and which is profitable taking the word profitable as expounded by the word able to make one absolute and perfect c. But the Apostle affirmeth Scripture to be able and profitable to the foresaid purposes Ergo. To this I answer that if they had put into the argument the word alone of which all the question is it would more plainly appeare how it proueth nothing Secondly I might say that the Apostle speaketh of the old Testament Wootton p. 97 as M. Wootton granteth yea of euery parcell thereof as the word Omnis signifieth yet I hope that neither M. Wootton nor M. White will say that now the old Testament without the new and much lesse euery parcell of the old is of it selfe alone sufficient for all the foresaid purposes For if so what need were there of the new Testament or of the other parts besides any one parcell of the old Thirdly I say that the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word able and if it were the word able doth not signifie that the Scripture
all the gates of hell not onely ouer the sayings of men though holy men or deceitful custom Gods word is ouer all The diuine Maiestie is of my side that I care not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand King Harry-churches stood against me God can neither deceiue nor be deceiued Austin and Cyprian as all the elect may erre and haue erred In all these words there is nothing spoken simply against the Fathers but comparatiuely if a thousand Fathers were against the Scriptures he would rather stand to the Scripture wherein he speakes most godly and honestly that d Gal. 1. if an Apostle or an Angell from heauen farre greater then a thousand Austins and Cyprians should preach otherwise let him be accursed Neither Saint Paul nor Luther granted the Angels or Doctors of the Church to preach otherwise then they did but if any man would pretend and oppose their names and preaching against the Scripture let them be accursed the word of God is aboue all that I care not if a thousand Austins and a thousand Cyprians stood against me which is the truth and our aduersaries say as much themselues Baronius e An. 31. n. 213. Though the Fathers whom for their high learning we worthily call the Doctors of the Church were endued with the grace of the holy Ghost aboue others yet in expounding the Scripture the Catholicke Church doth not alway and in all things follow them D. Marta f De iurisdict part 1. pag. 273. The common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when the contrary opinion fauours the power of the Popes keyes or a pious cause And I haue shewed g THE WAY digr 47. elsewhere that this is the common practise of our aduersaries They speake not alway so zealously and plainly as Luther doth but for substance they say the same that he doth h Yesterday Ecchius brought against me Gregory Ambrose Chrysostome to whom I then answered nothing I will therefore now say what I then forgot opposing the rule of diuine Augustine that the savings of all writers must be iudged by the sacred Scripture whose authoritie is greater then the authoritie of all men Not that I condemne the iudgement of the most illustrious Fathers but I imitate those that come nearest to the Scriptures and if the Scripture be plaine I embrace it before them all Tom. 1. disput Lips cum Ecch. pag 263. Wittemb I mention the opinion of Austin not to defame or detract froÌ„ that holy man but because it is good necessary that these holy Fathers be sometime found like our selues men that the glorie of God may stand firme c. Jâ— Genesc 21 pag. 255. tom 6. Wittemb who thought also as reuerently of the Fathers as any man is bound to do 3 But it was not Luthers going against the Fathers that discontented our aduersaries it was his resisting the Popes Canons and the faith of the Church of Rome which they shrowded vnder the name of the Fathers wherein by their owne diuinitie he might be guiltlesse Peraduenture i Dialog tract 2. part 2. c. vult pag. 180. col 3. edit Lugdun per Ioh. â—rech an 1494. saith Occham one might say that simple men ought to beleeue nothing but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer to be beleeued explicately and should be content with things common not presuming vpon their owne vnderstanding to beleeue any thing explicitely but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer vnto them but HE THAT SHOVLD AFFIRME THESE THINGS WERE AN INVENTOR OF NEW ERRORS For though simple men be not ordinarily tied to beleeue explicitely but onely those things which are by the Cleargie declared to be so beleeued yet SIMPLE MEN READING THE DIVINE SCRIPTVRE BY THE SHARPNES OF REASON MAY SEE SOME THING THAT THE POPE AND CARDINALS HAVE NOT DECLARED EVIDENTLY TO FOLLOW OF THE SCRIPTVRE in which case they can and must explicitely beleeue and ARE NOT BOVND TO CONSVLT WITH THE POPE AND CARDINALS FORASMVCH AS THEY ARE BOVND TO PREFERRE THE HOLY SCRIPTVRE BEFORE THEM ALL. If all the Papists in the world can shew Luther did any more then Occham here allowes euery simple man to do I am much deceiued And if he did no more then by their owne iudgements he might doe then away with these friuolous and emptie exclamations against Luther and let vs heare no more of them A. D. But saith M. White Scripture promiseth Pag 201. that euery doctrine is of God which consenteth to it and this consent a man may know infallibly or else in vaine had the Bereans searched c. I answer that I do not denie but a man may know doctrine to consent to Scripture but I aske how he may know this by onely Scripture interpreted by ones owne iudgment or priuate spirit I hope I haue shewed the contrary neither will M. White be euer able to proue that the 1 Act. 17.11 Beraeans had infallible certaintie onely by the Scripture interpreted by their owne priuate iudgement or that 2 Es 8.20 the Prophet sent any for infallible certaintie to the law and testimonie expounded onely by priuate iudgement or that 3 Luc 1 4. Saint Luke or f Col. 2.2 Saint Paul whom he alledgeth meant that men should haue infallible assurance by onely Scripture interpreted by priuate iudgement or spirit 4 I neuer intended that any man could haue infallible assurance of that he beleeues onely by Scripture interpreted by his owne priuate iudgement all that I affirme is that priuate men may examine any doctrine that is publickly taught by whosoeuer and by Scripture alone as by a certaine rule they may be assured of the truth This is plainly euinced by the texts alledged For the Beraeans hearing the Apostles preach yet searched the Scripture dayly whether those things were so and therefore beleeued In which example the matter examined is the things that the Apostles preached The rule whereby this was examined is the Scripture alone which in the text is distinguished from the Apostles preaching and ministery and authoritie and opposed against them for by it the Beraeans examined them The persons that did this were a priuate people subiect to the Pastors of the Church as much as any can be The end why they did thus examine the doctrine was to see if it consented with the Scripture The euent and issue of their examining was Therefore many of them beleeued Whereby it is cleare that a priuate man by the Scripture alone may be able to iudge of any thing that is publickly taught and by the Scripture alone be infallibly assured if he hold the truth Not the Scripture alone excluding the condition of the meanes whereby God makes the sense thereof knowne but the Scripture alone as the rule of faith excluding all authoritie of the Church and Pastors Nor the Scripture interpreted by a mans owne iudgement and priuate spirit but by it selfe truly according to the manifest rule
whether it agree with the faith of the Apostolique Church and not oppresse vs with the name of their Councels And when we shew not onely particular Doctors in the Church of Rome to haue erred but their chiefest Councels also such as were those of Neece Lateran Florence Constance and Trent they are bound to quit them or not to deny our obiection 2 Therefore he grants that some kinde of Councell may erre and haue erred but he denies that Councels which haue bene generall and lawfully called and confirmed by the Pope can erre For this is the new distinction now in fashion Yet the meaning is not that a Councell either generall or called or lawfully called by the Pope himselfe or holden by his Legate is free from error vnlesse the Pope ratifie it vpon which ratification he thinkes all the authoritie of Councels must depend 1. Can. Loc l. 5. c. 4 concl 1. Staple relect controu 6. q. 3. art 4 2 Can. concl 2. Stapl. vbi sup The conclusions of his Doctors are these 1. A generall Councell not assembled nor confirmed by the Popes authoritie may erre in the faith 2. A generall Councell assembled by the Popes authoritie may erre in the faith 3. A generall Councell 3 Can. c. 5. Azor institut to 2. l. 5. c 12. Dom. Bann p. 135. concl 2. 4 Can c. 4. concl 3. Bellar. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. duely called and celebrated by the authority of the Popes Legates but yet not confirmed by the Popes authority may erre 4. A generall Councell confirmed by the Popes authority cannot erre My aduersarie answers by the last of these conclusions and biddes me proue the Councell whose errour is obiected to haue bene lawfully called continued and confirmed But this shall not need at this time because the Councels whose errors we most obiect he will confesse are such as the Pope hath confirmed And though I beleeue neither the calling continuance nor confirmation of Councels depends on the Pope yet will I be so farre from denying these Councels whose errours I obiect to be confirmed by him that I auouch their errours chiefely to haue sprong from his intermedling and vsurped authority ouer the Bishops therein who had lesse erred and more maintained the truth if he had lesse medled The Councels therefore charged with innouating the ancient faith are such as our aduersaries can take no exception to but whether they were generall or nationall called or not called continued or not continued by the Pope the Pope allowes them they being the soundest Councels that he least allowes 3 All the question will be whether the things obiected be errours for he thinkes it can be no errour that the Pope confirmes But he deceaues himselfe if he thinke the Popes authority can free Councels from erring e Papa in casu haeresis est ipso iute priuatuâ— Papatu Dom. Iacobat de Concil l. 10. art 7. p. 727 d. who himselfe may erre and be an hereticke the contrary whereof was neuer taught in the Church of Rome till of late time certaine parasites to gratifie the Pope and make their faction strong began to teach it For Waldensis f Wald. vbi sup saies None of these neither a Synod of Bishops nor a common decree in the Church of Rome nor peraduenture a generall Councell of the Fathers of the world is the Catholicke symbolicall Church mentioned in the Creed nor challengeth faith to be giuen vnto it Alphonsus g Adu Haer. l. 1. c. 4. calles them impudent flatterers that ascribe to the Pope the gift of not erring The Vniuersity of Paris alway hath maintained this against the Court of Rome whereof it seemes the prouerbe grew * Dici solet articulos ParisieÌ„ses non transire montes Alph. à . Caâ—t l. 1. c. 8. that the articles of Paris go not beyond the Alps. The Cardinall of Florence h Zabar de schism p. 703. edit Basil 1566 saies the Fulnesse of power is in the Pope but yet so that he erres not for if he erre then a Councell hath to do to conuert him wherein the fulnesse of power is as in the foundation Neither can the Pope by his constitution or by any other way make resistance in this point because so the Church should be subuerted And whatsoeuer our aduersaries hold or will graunt the thing it selfe is cleare that he and his Councels haue erred and of a Pastor is turned into an hereticke the greatest that euer was and this we prooue by the Scripture and doctrine of the Primitiue Church in all the controuersies depending betweene vs. Next whether the things obiected be errours or no must be tried by the word of God and iudged by the Catholicke Church and not by the peremptory censure of such as my Replyar is our assertion therefore is that the worship of images for example decreed by the Councell of Neece the communion in one kinde decreed by the Councell of Constance and the seuerall points which wee reiect in the Councels of Lateran Vienna Constance Trent Florence Colen Millan and the rest of that kinde are errours and damnable heresies contrary to the faith of the ancient Church Which assertion we proue by shewing the same points to be against the Scripture first and then repugnant to that which the ancient Fathers with vnanime consent taught and defended in their time Which the Repliar must not thinke to out-face with saying we ignorantly account that an errour which is none or corruptly cite the words or misinterpret the minde of the Councell for we both alleadge the wordes and minde of the Councels truly and challenge nothing in them to be erronious but what is contrary to the word of God and many learned in the Church of Rome confesse to be so as well as we as shall appeare in that which insues touching the second Nicen Councell approued by Pope Adrian and yet accused and refused as erronious in that which Adrian approued by all the Churches of these Westerne parts in another Councell vnder Charles the Great holden at Frankford CHAP. XLVIII Touching the Councels of Neece the Second and Frankeford 2. How the Nicene decreed images to be adored 3. What kinde of Councell it was 4. And what manner of one that of Frankeford was Frankeford condemned the Second Nicen 5. Touching the Booke of Charles the Great and of what credite it is A.D.M. White maketh his faire flourish about the Second Nicen Councell condemned as he endeauoureth to proue by the Councell of Frankeford Pag. 278. Wh. in his Praef to the reader for defining that the same adoration and seruice ought to be giuen to images of Saints which is giuen to the diuine Trinity But first the Nicene Councell which indeed was a generall Councell did not define that images were to be worshipped with honour onely due to God which supposeth that men must accompt images Gods This grosse conceite could neuer haue entred into any Christian mans minde who knoweth
into France whereupon in the time of the Emperour Charles the great and by the appointment of the Apostolicke sea a generall Councell called by the Emperour was celebrated at Francford in France which ACCORDING TO THE TRACT OF THE SCRIPTVRE AND TRADITION OF OVR ELDERS DESTROYED AND VTTERLY ABDICATED THAT FALSE SYNOD OF THE GREEKES whereof a large booke which in my youth I read in the pallace by the said Emperour was sent to Rome by certaine Bishops Nothing can be plainer then this testimonie against all the Replier hath said The like is written in p Ado chron an 792. Rog. Houed contin Bed an 792. Auent aun Boio p g 253. Aiâ—noin pa 450. Visperg pa. 187 Rhegin pag 30 many histories besides And after the death of Charles his sonne Lodowicke held a Councell at Paris which is extant about the same matter of Images wherein the decrees of Nice and the booke written by Adrian in defence thereof against the Councell of Frankford are againe condemned which shewes that the Councell of Frankford had done the same before Hincmarus q Vbi sup sayes By the authoritie of this Councell of Frankford the worship of Images was not a little suppressed but yet Adrian and other Bishops perseuering in their opinion and r Suarum pupparum cultum vehementius promouerunt promoting more vehemently the worship of their puppets after the death of Charles his sonne Lewis in a certaine booke inueyed farre more sharply against the worship of Images then Charles had done The Councell of Paris it selfe Å¿ Concil Paris pag. 19. Francfurt an 1596. in 8. sayes The Epistle of our Lord Adrian the Pope which he directed to Constantine and Irene for the setting vp of Images we made to be read before vs and as farre as we could perceiue as he iustly reprehends those which haue presumed to breake and abolish the images of Saints so himselfe is knowne to haue done indiscreetly in commanding them superstitiously to be worshipped For which cause also he assembled a Councell and by his authoritie decreed and that vnder an oath that they should be set vp and worshipped when it is lawfull indeed to erect them but vtterly vnlawfull to worship them The same Councell of Paris t Pag. 130. affirmes that it would haue hurt neither faith hope nor charitie if no image at all had bene painted or made throughout the world It is certaine therefore that the Councell of Nice was condemned by the Councels of Frankford and Paris both 5 But the Replier sayes All that is found touching this condemnation is but in a forged booke ascribed falsely to Charles This is vntrue twise ouer First because as I haue now shewed many others say it as well as the Booke of Charles Next I proued directly against Cope and the Iesuites that the booke is not forged and Bellarmine and Baronius confessing it to containe the Acts of Frankeford and the Councell condemned therein to be the second Nicene without all doubt testifieth so much It seemes that the pen-man was Albinus our countriman u Trithem de script in Alb. Sixt. Senen l. 4. Hittorp praef ad Lect. de diuin offic Rom. who was very great with Charles and his instructer in all kinde of learning and one of the famousest men in those times For thus writ w Annal. par 1. pag. 405. Roger Houeden and x Flor. hist pag. 215. Matthew Westminster Charles the king of Fraunce sent into England a booke of the Councell which was directed to him from Constantinople In which booke alas for griefe many things are found inconuenient and contrarie to the faith But especially that it was decreed by the consent of almost all the Easterne Doctors no lesse then three hundred or aboue this was the second Nicene Councell that images should be adored which the Church of God altogether abhorreth against which thing Albinus wrote an Epistle maruellously confirmed with the authoritie of the Scripture and in the name of the Bishops and Nobles brought the same with the booke to the King of France Albinus therefore it seemes penned it the Bishops and State approoued it and the Emperour ratified and published it This makes it of more authoritie then if the Emperour alone had done it But who penned it it is impertinent when Bellarmine and Baronius graunt it containes the acts of the Councell of Francford and no man may doubt but the Councell therein condemned is the second Nicene For this is enough to prooue the Nicene Councell to be condemned by the Councell of Frankford whosoeuer were the author of Charles his booke That which the Replier obiects touching the Constantinopolitane Councell named in stead of the Nicene helpes him not Bellarmine y De imag l. 21 c. 14. §. Neque obstat answers Constantinople is set downe in stead of Nice through vnskilfulnesse or want of memorie And z An. 794. n. 33. Baronius though he hold the councell of Constantinople that decreed images should be broken is meant there yet he grants the councell of Nice is meant and condemned also And it must needs be as Bellarmine sayes for though Constantinople be named yet it is added that there it was decreed that images should be worshipped which was not done in the Constantinopolitane but in the Nicene councell All which being put together the testimonies I meane whereby the booke is proued to be Charles his and the Councell meant to be the second Nicene it appeares plainly that the booke is authenticall and the author thereof both knew well enough what the Constantinopolitane and Frankford decreed and set downe the Canon neither by heare-say nor at aduenture nor yet by the imagination of his owne head but with good aduice and vpon certaine knowledge It being the vainest point of a thousand to imagine that Albine and the whole Cleargie of England France Germanie and Italie with the Nobilitie and States should condemne a thing which they vnderstood not and now after eight hundred yeares the true knowledge of all things should come by some reuelation belike to a few arrogant Iesuites who yet can agree in nothing about the same I admonish the Repliar by this example wherein he hath sped so vnluckily not to thinke to deface the truth with boldnesse and bragging but to giue way to the truth and in seeking it to tie himselfe to no mans deuice till he haue better assurance of it For there is scarce one example of antiquitie that we produce against them but his Iesuites are deuided in their answers and speake so contrary one to another that it is easie to see they intend nothing but to be obstinate and resolute And so the example of the second Nicene councell shewes that the Popes councels how generall or approoued soeuer haue erred in defining by the iudgement of the whole Christian world and their errors had beene controlled in former ages as well as the Protestants now controll them so that the things wherein
in their conscience they know the primitiue Church neuer made and raking into all the abuses of the Scripture that they can finde mens deprauing misexpounding misapplying them vsing them ouer boldly malepartly not with the respect they should hence most dishonestly they conclude the vtter suppressing of them not that they care how they are vsed for neuer any vsed them so vilely as themselues either * PRVRITANVS in applying reuiling or corrupting them but because they are mad at that which discouers their heresie 3 The Reply to salue the matter sayes that if the parties disposition be such that he may take benefit and no harme by reading then they permit the Scripture in the mother tongue both to laie men and women This is not true for how do they permit it to such where as in Spaine there is permitted no translation at all how it is permitted when the Pope sayes none may reade but such as are licenced by the Bishops and this power of licencing is taken from him by the Inquisition Againe euen by making this restraint they are gone from the primitiue Church which gaue rules had discipline to restraine such as abused the Scripture but the liberty of the booke it selfe they neuer restrained nor euer bound the rudest that was to go to the Bishop for a licence but by how much the more he was ignorant or transported with pride or indangered with heresie by so much the more they required him to reade the Scripture to reforme himselfe and if he did not they onely preached against his abuse and punisht the man but the translation they suppressed not And all the Papists in Europe in all the writings of the first 600 yeares cannot shew one period beyond this There are in the Fathers specially Nazianzen and Ierome sharpe speeches against abusers of the Scripture such as tosse turne thē to their owne lusts as Papists do but not a word against the translating and permitting them to all indifferently in the vulgar tongue to be read They neuer reproacht Gods people that desired his law with the name of dogges and swine as these * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustat Centaurs do nor euer imagined the permission of the sacred Scripture to be casting of pearles before them It is easie enough to see that if the laity were dogges and hogs neuer so much it were impossible they should trāple Gods blessed word worse then this Grillus drencht with Cyrces cup at Rome hath by this his application trampled it And whereas it may be some will beleeue him that the restraint made is onely in dangerous times and where there is perill of falling into error as he seemes to speake let it be remembred that at all times and in all places this restraint is made euen when and where there is no danger of error or heresie but onely of that which they will stile heresie when men by the Scripture see the horrible errors of the Church of Rome It being the doctrine of that side that the Scriptures should not be translated at all Let the wordes of Rainolds and Gifford in their a L. 4. c. 7. pag. 824. inde Caluino Turcismus be a litle pondered I conclude therefore that it is much more honour to the Scripture and saffe for religion and wholesome for the people that this power of the people to reade the Scripture in the mother tongue were altogether taken away without which they might both beleeue piously and liue holily and by so doing much more saffely and easily attaine eternall life 2 P. 825. It seemes to me this profane reuealing of the diuine mysteries by translating the Scripture is odiously contrary to the will of God and to the nature of the mysteries themselues 3 P. 830. The Pastors of the Church are not tied true for they haue broke the bonds to translate the Scripture into vulgar tongues there being no Apostolike precept or councell or so much as any light signification of their will to haue it so 4 P. 831. The manifold and great mischiefes which by the translations of the Scripture haue risen against the maiestie of God against the holinesse of the Scripture its selfe against the tranquillity of states against the faith and good conuersation of men * Satis magnā vim habere de buit ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi diuina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Thus Gods ordinance Christs Testament and the Apostles doctrine must giue place to the Popes lust should haue force enough vtterly to suppresse these translations yea ALBEIT THEY WERE SVPPORTED BY DIVINE OR APOSTOLICALL AVTHORITY Let the reader iudge by this if the Church of Rome do onely as the Reply blaunches it not promiscuously permit vulgar translations when they may be occasions of error by misinterpreting and not vtterly hate and condemne them as the causes of their discontent and desire the suppressing of them from all It s easie to discerne how pretiously they affect that which by reason onely of some abuse which also they multiply by their art many times a mote being in their eye when there is none in the skie they would haue vtterly taken away though by DIVINE AND APOSTOLIKE AVTHORITIE IT WERE SVPPORTED 4 To the testimonies alledged out of 1 Deut. 6.7 Moses 2 2. Tim. 3.15 S. Paule 3 Hom. 3. in Laz ho. 2. in Matthae S. Chrysostome 4 Epitaph Paul S. Ierom and 5 Cornel. Agrip. de vanit c. 100. the Councell of Neece whereby I shewed the doctrine of the Primitiue Church to be that lay people should reade the Scripture he answers nothing but contents himselfe hauing better helps for it with replying to the 5. of Iohn Search the Scriptures wherein I commend his discretion that falling so foule on this would let the rest alone First he saies the wordes were not spoken to all in generall but to the Pharisees and princes of the people because if they were spoken to the people he did wisely foresee that our Sauiour therein no longer counts them dogges and hogges but admonisheth them as Gods people bought with a price to the reading of the Scripture But how shall I be sure he speakes to none but the Pharisees and Priests when a V. 15. 18. the text saies he spake to the Iewes that sought to kill him whom the man healed at the poole of Bethesda had told of his healing which Iewes cannot be shewed to be the Priests and Doctors alone but some of the laity withall who were as eager in persecuting our Sauiour as the Priests and frequented the Temple and prouoked him in all places where he was as well as the Pharisees Or if it were granted he spake onely to the Priests yet how doth that auoide the argument when the Iewes had the Scriptures in their owne language neither Priests nor people vsing them in any other For it were too grosse to
moraliter id fieri sine magnus incommodis periculis contra reuereÌ„tiam huit sacramento debitam quae vel propter multitudinem comunicantiuÌ„ vel propter eorum varietatem tam in conditionibus affectibus corporu quà m in animi prudentia circumspectione vel denique propter ministraÌ„tiuÌ„ incuriaÌ„ nullatenus possent iuxta humanaÌ„ conditionem euitarâ— Suar. defens fid cathol l. 2. c. 5. n. 20. giues First for the reuerence and decencie of the Sacrament that the cup be not spilled and the wine shed in so great and confused a companie Next for vniformitie that all people euery where might receiue alike which should not be if the cup were ministred for some people loue no wine Thirdly to auoid their error that hold it may not be ministred in one kind Fourthly for the preseruation of the Sacrament and that it might be carried to the sicke which in wine it could not for sowring and spilling Lastly for the instruction of the ignorant that they may know Christ by Thomas his concomitancie is perfectly vnder either kind It were no hard matter throughly to shew the vanitie of these reasons and merrily to whip them but the Cardinall had forgot that all these reasons in his owne opinion held in the primitiue Church and yet then they moued not the Church to take away the cup. I haue read of words vttered in a great frost which freezed in the venting as they were spoken and were not hard till a thaw came a long time after so belike our aduersaries will answer These reasons might be vttered in the ancient Church but they could not be conceiued till d Praeterea nosse debueras quod fecit Deus duo magna luminaria c. de maiorit obed Solitae in decr l. 1. tit 33. the great light in the firmament of the Church had shewed them with his beames now of late within these three hundred yeares CHAP. LVI Touching Transubstantiation 1. It was made an article of faith by the Lateran Councell 1200 yeares after Christ 2. How it came in by degrees 3. The Fathers neuer beleeued nor knew it Pag. 286. A. D. Lastly concerning Transubstantiation 1 White pag. 343. 350. M. White setteth down some coniectures whereby he endeuoureth to perswade his Reader that the beliefe of Transubstantiation came into the Church of late to wit at the Lateran Councell But 2 See the Prot. Apol. tract 1. §. 3 n. 2. where it is shewed that eueÌ„ ProtestaÌ„ts far better learned then M. White will be in haste doe grant the Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councel See Bellar. l. 3. de sacram euchar c. 19.20 21. Gre. de Val. tom 4. disp 6. q. 3. p. 2. §. 2. 3. this is false For although the name Transubstantiation was not perhaps vsed before the Councell of Lateran yet the thing signified by this name to wit the reall presence of Christs body succeeding in the place of the substance of bread was held and beleeued from the beginning as appeareth by plaine and sound authorities of Scriptures and Fathers set downe by Bellarmine and others And although the Church had no necessary occasion to make expresse determination what was to be held in that point before contrary heresies arose which might be one cause that some men did not or were not bound to know it so expresly as after the matter was explaned and determined by full authoritie from the Church yet at least implicitè all did were bound from the beginning to beleeue it And although some in their ignorance did before this declaratioÌ„ of the Church doubt or hold opinion to the contrary yet this hindreth not that they might beleeue this by implicite faith in regard priuate doubts and opinions so long as they are in ignorance without obstinacie especially with resolution and readinesse to yeeld to the Church do not take away implicite faith infolded in the generall assent which euery Catholicke giueth to that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church 1 TO shew the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be contrary to the faith of the Primitiue Church and to be brought in afterward and neuer to haue bin an article of faith before the Lateran Councell I set not downe coniectures but direct full testimonies first * Another like hereticall and most daÌ„gerous aâ—sertion of theirs the Iesuites is that the ancient Fathers Rem transubstantiationis ne attigerunt Quodl p. 31. of the Fathers expounding the words of Christ touching the Sacrament and auouching the substance of bread and wine to remaine as we do then of diuers great Papists Schoole-men and others who confesse the same I say either in expresse words or in effect that not only the NAME of Transubstantiation but the DOCTRINE and thing it selfe was made a matter of faith by the Lateran Councell no man being bound to beleeue it before Their words are reported in the Digression and will giue testimonie to themselues without my contending about them The Reply sayes though the name Transubstantiation were not perhaps vsed before the Councell of Lateran yet the thing to wit the reall presence of Christs bodie succeeding in the place of the substance of bread was held from the beginning as Bellarmine and others haue shewed and euen Protestants farre better learned then M. White will be in hast do grant But the authorities alledged in the Digress shew the contrary not onely the name but the thing it selfe to be new as will appeare by viewing them And though Bellarmine take vpon him to proue Transubstantiation by the Scripture and Fathers yet he confesses it is not improbable that Scotus said There is not extant any place of Scripture so expresse that without the Church declaration can euidently constraine vs to admit it For though the Scripture which I haue brought seeme to vs so cleare that it may constraine a man not froward yet whether it be so or not IT MAY WORTHILY BE DOVBTED when men MOST LEARNED AND ACVTE doe thinke the contrarie Let this be noted he bring a De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. §. Non dissimili Scripture to proue that which may worthily be doubted whether it be so or no and such Scripture as cannot conuince without his Churches declaration b Decernit Synodus vt nemo sacraÌ„ ScripturaÌ„ contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet sancta mater Ecclesia cuius est iudicare de vero sensiâ— interpretari audeat Con. Trid. sess 4. that is to say vnlesse it be expounded so as shall agree with the doctrine of the Church of Rome The Reply therefore must not call them sound authorities of Scripture which without this wresting proue nothing and with all this wresting proue not so much but a man may still worthily doubt and most learned and acute men do doubt and the reader may see in what case he is that shall follow Bellarmine and the Reply in this opinion of Transubstantiation
may define contrary to that they all writ as the B. Virgin not to be conceiued in sin and so they shall beleeue iust that they beleeued not and the direct contrary CHAP. LVII 1 Touching the first coming in of errors into the Church with the persons Time and Place 2 Purgatory and pardons not knowne in the ancient Church nor in the Greeke Church to this day 3 The true reason why the ancient praied for the dead Pag. 287. A. D. To conclude it is not enough for M. White to name these eight or any other points of our doctrine and to say that we hold or practise contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church but I must require him to set downe the time place persons and other circumstances of this supposed innouation which circumstances are commonly noted in Histories when any such innouation against the vniuersall doctrine of the Church did arise This my demand 1 White Digr 5. pag. 374. M. White who will it seemeth sticke at nothing taketh vpon him to satisfie by naming seauen points of our religion offering to shew the time when and manner how they got into the Church And thereupon first he nameth pardons and purgatory the vse whereof he sayeth came lately into the Church To this I answer first that he nameth not the particular Time Place not Persons that first brought in the vse of pardons and purgatory and so he saieth nothing to the purpose Secondly I answer that our questions is not so much about the vse of pardons and purgatory as whether the doctrine which holdeth purgatory to be and pardons duely vsed to be lawfull came in of late contrary to the former doctrine of the Church Now M. White will neuer be able to shew that that Church did at any time vniuersally beleeue that 2 Concerning praier for the dead which supposeth the beleefe of Purgatory learned Protestants grant it to haue bene general in the Church long before S. Austins time as may be seene in the Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 2. nu 4. purgatory was not or that pardons duely vsed were vnlawfull or that the doctrine concerning the substance of these points was first brought in of late naming the first time place or persons which brought it in contrary to the former faith and shewing who resisted it as an heresie and who continued to resist it 1 HAuing no power to answer the examples I gaue of the Church of Romes now holding contrary to the ancient Church he concludes that it is not enough to name the points or to say they hold contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church vnlesse I set downe the Time Places Persons and other circumstances of the innouations as Histories vse to note them when any such innouations arises and therefore he must require me to set them downe I answer it is sufficient that I haue shewed the points not to haue bene holden by the ancient Church For if the ancient Church held them not what skills it when or by whom they were brought in when they were brought in since the times of the ancient Church for that which was not at the first is not Catholike but by some at some time was brought in contrary to that which is Catholicke And a THE WAY §. 50. n. 5 6. I haue shewed that there be many confessed changes wherein these circumstances cannot bee shewed Neuerthelesse for example b THE WAY Digr 51. I named him seauen points and the circumstances of Time Place and Persons of their getting in whereof the vse of PARDONS was the first He replies that I haue not named the particular time place nor persons that brought them in and therefore say nothing to the purpose Here let the Reader iudge whether hauing shewed out of the confession of his owne writers that they are not from the Apostles times not expressed in the Scripture or Fathers nor brought to our knowledge by their authority but lately come into the Church this be not enough for what is not from the Apostles times came in since there is the Time when What came in lately was not vsed in the Primitiue Church There is the Time againe what is not mentioned by the Scripture Fathers and ancient Church was deuised by innouators there is the Persons What the Scriptures and Pastors of the Church reueals not that growes vp as cockle and weed in the Church there is the place Let me adde to the rest whom I alledged in the Digression the words of B. Fisher c Art 28 p. 86. b. Pardons therefore began AFTER men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory I haue therefore brought euidence sufficient to proue pardons to be an innouation because it proues they were not vsed in the ancient Church nor reuealed by the Apostles 2 He replies that the question is not so much about the VSE of pardons and purgatory as whether the DOCTRINE that holds them came in of late CONTRARY to the doctrine of the Church And I answer againe affirmatiuely that it did For the vse is founded on the doctrine and the doctrine cannot be without vse There was no vse ergo there was no doctrine But M. White will neuer be able to shew that the Church beleeued there was no Purgatory or that pardons were not lawfull This is follie for how should M. White shew the Church condemned that which was not yet in rerum natura no man being able to speake of that which is not in being If pardons therefore were not M. White must be pardoned if he cannot shew how the Church condemned them And touching Purgatory though it be much ancienter yet neither did the Catholicke Church beleeue it There were some in the Church that conceited such a thing and the Fathers began in Saint Austines time but a Non redarguo quia forsitan verum est c. Aug ciuit l. 21. c. 26. see Enchirid. c. 69. and the Apol of the Gre. p. 132. waueringly and without any resolute certainety to mention it but it was not beleeued in their daies as a matter of faith that he which denied it should be an hereticke as it is now beleeued in the Church of Rome Besides the East Church beleeued it not to this day therefore the vniuersall Church beleeued it not Heare their owne words in an Apology written touching this matter b Apol. Graec. p. 119. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We haue not receaued from our Doctors that there is any such Purgatory or temporary punishment by fire and we know the East Church neuer thought so Heare also what the B. of Rochester c Art 18. p. 86. b. saies No true beleeuer NOW doubts of Purgatory whereof notwithstanding among the ancient there is very litle or no mention at all The Greekes also to this day do not beleeue there is a Purgatory Let whose will reade the commentaries of the ancient Greekes and so farre as I see he shall finde very rare
in all things that so what the Apostles taught and antiquitie held we also may keepe Thirdly this canon was moued b Sed canones illos spectantes ad continentiam clericorum quoniam ea esse statuta apparent ex admonitione Siritij Romani Pontificis ea de re scribentis ante decennium ad episcopos Affricanos dignum est existimare fuisse alicuius alterius Coneilij Carthaginensis eo tempore post acceptas eiusdem Siritij Papae litteras celebrati Baro. an 397. n. 46. by the suggestion of Siritius and therefore most strongly iustifies my assertion For if the Councell of Carthage restrained Priests mariage and Siritius by his letters and suggestion drew the Councell thereunto then it is plaine Siritius made the restraint The Reply possible will say But the Councell saies the Apostles taught it and antiquity kept it and so the restraint was long before Siritius euen from the Apostles But I answer that he which suggested the motion suggested also the reason and so consequently Siritius mouing the restraint is the author of those words wherein he innouated as well as he did in the canon it selfe All this is plaine against the Replie and most sensibly demonstrates Siritius to be the author Fourthly I answer yet closer to the point that so much as the Bishops consented to was that Clergie men should liue honestly and chastly whether in the state of mariage or single life and not come at their wiues at certaine seasons This I proue First by the answer of the B B. It was said to Aurelius his motion by all the BB. it seemes good to vs all that Bishops Priests and Deacons or such as handle the Sacraments the maintainers of chastity abstaine also from their wiues It is said of all it seemes good that chastitie be maintained in all and of all that serue at the altar Here is no canon that they shall haue no wiues but that contrary their wiues are mentioned and they commanded chastitie which I hope the Replie c Heb. 13.4 dares not deny to be in cohabitation with a mans owne lawfull wife Secondly either the same or another Councell of Carthage at the same time d See Baro. vbi sup Balsam Who puts this canon into the 6 Councell of Carth. p. 310. for many things are printed in one Councell of Carthage that belong to another e Placuit vt presbyteri Episcopi Diaconi proprijs terminis etiam à suis abstineant vxoribus can 74. Synodi Carth. apud Balsam ordained that Priests Bishops and Deacons should abstaine from their wiues AT SET TIMES but other Clergie men should not be vrged thereto but keepe the custome of their Churches It was therefore no part of the Councels minde that they should be restrained mariage or the vse thereof out of those SET TIMES Thirdly Balsamon expounding these canons hath these words f In can 4. Out of this canon which I last cited it is shewed that Priests Deacons and Bishops liued with their wiues neither did the Synod forbid their companie with them but in THEIR SET TIMES that is in THE SET DAIES OF EVERY MANS COVRSE when he was to attend on the altar g In can 74. and note that in the time of this Councell Bishops had their wiues without preiudice with whom yet they did not conuerse in the time of their course for the ministery of Priests was deuided into weekes If therefore the Replie had deuised with long deliberation he could not haue giuen me a better weapon against himselfe then this canon of the Councell of Carthage made by the suggestion of Siritius himselfe and yet obtaining nothing of the Councell but onely abstinence of Priests from their wiues at certaine times 3 Fourthly touching images I shewed two things Both that images of the Trinity were not vsed and that the beginning of image worship was in the second Nicen Councell Touching the images of the Trinitie he bids me see Bellarmine but there is nothing to be seene to the purpose for he alledges neither example nor testimonie that there were any in the Primitiue Church but onely stands to proue them lawfull Now this is not the question but whether the Primitiue Church vsed or permitted them I shewed no by the testimonie of a Pope and a Councell and must be answered againe by disproouing the authority which if he cannot do I will not giue much for Bellarmines prouing of the lawfulnesse when it appeares the Pope and a Councell 800 yeares agoe misliked it and himselfe confesses That it is not so certaine whether the images of God or the Trinitie may bee made as it is that the images of Christ and his Saints may be made and that a Abul in Sent. 4. q. 5. Durand 3. d. 9. q. 2 Peres tradit 3. tract most learned Doctors in the Church of Rome vtterly condemne it For if this be true himselfe had a good steele conscience when he would take vpon him to iustifie that which was not certaine but onely an vnsetled opinion gainesaied by as learned as himselfe in his owne Church Touching the Nicen Councell he saies it was so far from being the first author of image worship that it saies expresly it followed in this point the doctrine of the holy Fathers and tradition of the Church Now sure this is a poore answer and like the former of Siritius For is it therefore the doctrine of the Fathers and tradition of the Church because they say it could not they that decreed idolatrie learne of their images to tell a lie Is there any more truth in their pretence of antiquitie then in the image worship it selfe This is like the former example of the Councell of Cathage where the restraint of mariage must be by the Apostles because Siritius that made the restraint suggests so much to the Councell But let the Repliar heare me a word with patience of this paltrie Nicen Councell b Ch. 48. I haue said enough already and to giue him some taste of that which it decreed a great Bishop of his owne Church c Claud Espencae 2. Tim. pag. 151. a. hath lately confessed That they who in that Councell defended the worship of images did abuse thereto the apparitions of Diuels and old wiues dreames as may be seene in the 4. and 5. actions of the Councell I suppose the doctrine of the Fathers and traditions of the Catholicke Church vses not to be supported with such stuffe And what impudencie was it for them to say it and yet be able no better to shew it 4 The fift point was the Merit of workes Which his owne Waldensis calles Pelagianisme and charges to be a late inuention To this he replies his accustomed argument It is false as our Diuines abundantly testifie But was not Waldensis his owne Diuine and is not his testimony enough to discharge me who professe no more but what I say to make good by the confession of my owne
saluation Therefore it is sufficient How doth it now appeare so plainely that it proues nothing the first proposition is manifest of it selfe the second is as manifest for all that the Apostle affirmes is of the Scripture alone and of nothing else for of Scripture alone he saies it is able to make wise to saluation it is profitable to teach to reproue to instruct to correct that the man of God may be perfect the conclusion therfore must needs be true Secondly he saies the Apostle speakes of the old Testament yea of euery parcell of Scripture yet M. White will not say that now specially the old Testament without the New or euery parcell of the old it selfe is alone sufficient for all the said purposes whereto M. White answers that he neither speakes of the old Testament alone nor of any one parcell either of old or new separated from the rest but of the whole in this sense all the whole Scripture taken together is able c. And if the Iesuits and D. Stapleton whom this man traces had not renounced all truth they would not say it when that which the Apostle auouches of the Scripture cannot agree to euery parcel alone but to all together for what one parcell performes all these effects to make wise to saluation to teach to reproue to instruct to correct to make perfect the Scripture is so vnderstood as that all these things may truly be affirmed of it but these things cannot truely be affirmed of the parcels alone Ergo. 4 Thirdly he saies the word PROFITABLE must not expound the word ABLE or if it be the word ABLE doth not signifie that the Scripture is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most it imports a great degree of profitablenesse This is no answer to this argument But to another that he hath not expressed I said therefore thirdly though very briefly By the word able the other word profitable must be expounded Which I thus put into forme that which is PROFITABLE by being ABLE is sufficient the Scripture is so PROFITABLE that it is ABLE to make vs wise to saluation Ergo it is sufficient He first denies the Minor and saies the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word Able but he seemes to be dazeled For that which is able to make wise to saluation must needes be able to make absolute and perfect because perfection consists in being wife to saluation but the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation Ergo. Next he saies that supposing the word PROFITABLE be expounded by the word ABLE thus Scripture is able to make one absolute and perfect yet the meaning is not that it is able without other helpes and meanes concurring with it but at the most that it is very profitable and if it be sufficient yet this sufficiency is not that whereof our question is but in a certaine limited kinde to wit of written Scripture That is to say if by able to make vs wise to saluation be meant that the Scriptures are sufficient yet it is not meant that alone they are sufficient as the Protestants hold but with a limitation so far as Scripture can be sufficient In which his answer he plainely discouers himselfe to be foundred and spent For our question is not whether the Scripture alone without vsing the Ministery of the Church or our owne industry or such meanes as God hath appointed for the finding our and vnderstanding of that which is contained in it be sufficient for Bread and Drinke and all manner of food is not sufficient to sustaine mans life if he take no paines to get it or if he be not able to swallow and digest it and my aduersaries owne Church and traditions with all their royalties are not sufficient vnlesse men take paines to finde them and be so mad as to beleeue them and so blinde as to let them downe but the question is of their latitude and extent viz. whether the written Scripture containe in expresse words or sense the whole and entire doctrine of faith and good life so that the Church by her authoritie and traditions may adde no point of faith that is wanting in the Scripture This appeares to be the question by my aduersaries own words and the words of the Diuines in his Church Now the Apostle saying the Scripture is able to make one wise to saluation affirmes the sufficiency of it alone without any other helpe or meanes to supply any doctrine or matter of faith not contained therein because there is no more needfull but to be wise to saluation and that wisdome the Scripture is able to instruct vs in Which ability is not limited to certaine points but extended to all the whole obiect of faith by the word For thus I reason He speakes of the Scripture alone and nothing else therefore the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation therefore it is so profitable and in such sort to make absolute and perfect to euery good worke that it can do it For it is able Therefore it alone is sufficient Therefore this sufficiency is so limited to written Scripture that it is perfectly and wholy contained in it 5 The second part of my aduersaries answer in his discourse to the text alleadged was that the Scripture is said to be profitable because it commendes to vs the authority of the Church This his answer I opposed with 7. arguments But when I repeated it I put in the word sufficient thus He saies they be profitable and SVFFICIENT because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority the addition of which word you see he distasts and makes a vantage of thereby to put off the answer to sixe of my arguments That the Prouerbe might be true it s an ill winde but blowes some men profite for vnder that pretence he takes occasion to cauill and put off that he could not answer For first the word might well be put in without any preiudice to his sense For if their profitablenesse lie in commending to vs the Church authoritie then their sufficiency lyes there too and so I might well make him say they be profitable and sufficient because they cōmend vnto vs the Churches authority Secondly it is idle that he saies my obiections are ouerthrown Only by reading his words aright leauing out the word sufficient For let him looke vpon them againe and he shall finde they ourthrow his exposition of profitable as well as if he had expounded sufficient in the same manner But my aduersary will take a small occasion to shun an argument 6 Onely to the sixth he replies for whereas I said the meaning cannot be that they are profitable because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority because the Apostle saies they are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastor himselfe the Pope the Councell and all and it were absurd to say that the