Next that the Church of Rome is this vniuersall Church Thirdly that all the authority and efficacy of the Church is in the Pope alone And this to be the meaning I shewed in the 16. Digression whereto the Repiar hath wisely holden his tongue For it is the truth I said though he deny it for the odiousnesse and abhomination thereof For the question being What is the rule whereby all men at all times may be resolued in matters of faith he answers that the Church is it aske him againe what and which Church and he will answer The Romane Church in all ages past present and to come For a The WAY pag. 68. I shewed out of the Rhemists Bristo Posseuin and Baron that they admit no Catholicke Church but the Romane onely then aske him finally how a man may know which is the doctrine and teaching faith and beleefe of the Church and he will say againe as I shewed fully that WHAT THE POPE IVDICIALLY DETERMINES AND PROPOVNDS TO THE CHVRCH is it Did I therefore mistake when he said that by the Church he meant onely the Pope or was not himselfe rather vnable to defend the matter and therefore would auoid the very point of the question Did I not alleadge 9. Papists that all say the whole power and faculty of the Church is in the Pope Are not Gregory of Valenzaes b Pag. 24. tom 3. edit Venet. per Zal er an 1598 words plaine In this question by the Church we meant the Romane Bishops In whom resides the full authoritie of the Church when heple ases to determine matters of faith whether he do it with a Councell er without c Albertine a Iesuite sayes it expressely and in Terminis termâ—nantibus I say that besides the first verity there is an infallible rule liuing and indued with reason such as is the Church and this rule liuing and indued with reason is the chiefe Bishop of Rome this is no place to proue but you may see Valence Bell. Medina I say thirdly all the articles of our faith are lastly resolued into this rule tanquamin formalem rationem qua in proponendo Coral p. 251. edit Lugdun an 1610. apud Horat. Cardon Desiniendo arctat nos ad credendum prout ipse definiuerit Coquae exam p. 305. edit Friburg 1610. I say therefore againe that the Repliars Conclusion hath no other meaning then this The infallible rule which we ought obediently to follow is the doctrine and faith of THE POPE ALONE So himselfe writ in his d In the WAY §. 36. Treatise All Catholicke men must necessarily submit their iudgements and opinions either in expounding the Scripture or otherwise to the censure of the Apostolicke seate and God hath bound his Church to heare the chiefe Pastors in all things And all the places of Scripture that are vsed for the authoritie of the Church they applie and expound of the Pope To thee I will giue the keyes on this rock I will build Feede my sheepe c. Let vs see therefore in his next Reply how he will releeue himselfe That is meant by the Church whereto the chiefe promises made to the Church belong wherein the whole power of the Church resides whereby the Church it selfe is directed where the Church determinations begin But the Pope is he whereto the chiefe c. Ergo the Pope is meant by the Church 2 Neuerthelesse not answering these things when I obiected them he notes fiue things for the vnderstanding of his conclusion Which I answer in order To the first I grant our aduersaries distinguish the name of the Church into diuers senses by that distinguishing to gull the world but in this question when they say the teaching of the Church is the Rule they alway meane it of the Pope And the Repliar speakes vntruely that in his conclusion be meanes not the Pope but a company of men For either the company must first be taught by the Pope or else the Pope must be the mouth of that company Besides e Pag. 75. in his Introduction whither he referres himselfe hauing said that the name Church may be taken 4 waies either for the whole company of Christian professors consisting of sheepe and Pastors or for the more principall part to wit the whole company of Pastors either gathered together in a Councell or dispersed through the world or for Christs Vicar the Pope as he hath most ample authority either alone or with a Councell to propound the doctrine of faith or for euery particular Pastor as he is authorized vnder the Pope to feede the flocke committed to him he concludes that when he saies Church proposition is necessary it is not needfull for him to distinguish which of these waies he takes it because we the Protestants deny any such infallible authority to be in the Church at all in which sense soeuer he take it whereby it is plaine that he was ashamed to name in which sense he takes the Church For albeit we deny that which he cals the infallible authoritie of his Church all supreme and vnerring authoritie being in the Scripture alone yet the constant and certaine doctrine of the Church taken in the two first senses we allow to be the rule of faith because it is onely the contents of the Scripture as f The WAY § 13. n. 1. I answered to his conclusion but that he means the Church in the third sense alone appeares by this also that it is a principle among the Iesuits that the Church in the first second and fourth sense may erre and if at any time it do not it is through the guiding of the Pope who is the Church in the third sense Gregory of Valenza g In Tho. 22. tom 3. p. 247. d saies we must not distinguish betweene the Romane Church and the Romane Bishop so as if the iudgement of the Roman Church were infallible but not the iudgement of the Romane Bishop but rather these two are one and the same For THEREFORE THE APOSTOLICKE OR ROMANE CHVRCH IS SAID TO BE INFALLIBLE BECAVSE HE IS OVER IT WHO BY HIMSELFE HATH INFALLIBLE AVTHORITY Canus saies h Loc l. 6. c. 8. sub init when we come to the Apostolicke Sea to enquire the oracles of faith we do not enquire of all the faithfull in the Romane Church nor yet of the same Church assembled in a Councell see here the Church reiected in the first second and fourth senses but the Popes iudgement and sentence is it we exspect This is that I said that by the Church they meane THE POPE then he addes a reason which according to their former principles conuinces this that the firmenesse and certainety of truth must be auouched in Peter and his successors and then after in the Church whose head and foundation Peter is and therefore the more do I reprehend those which as the Repliar here by distinguishing the Apostolicke seate from the Pope thinke to ende the controuersie
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
of that I say And this is agreeing with the publicke profession and doctrine of their Church For it is holden e Quod ad nos pertinet certior fiâ—mior est Ecclesiae authoritas quam Sripturae Azâ—â— Inst tom 2 l 5 c. 24. See Abulens q. 13 prooem in Matth. Caiet apol de author Pap. par 2. c. 13. ad 5. Dried de eccl dogm l. 2. c. 3. ad 4. that the authoritie of the Church is greater then of the Scriptures f Stapl relect controu 4. q 5 pag. 494. 495. That the Churches authoritie is it that makes vs receiue the Scripture and euery thing that is to be beleeued yea the Church is to be heard MORE CERTAINLY then the Scripture because her doctrine is MORE MANIFEST AND EVIDENT THEN the doctrine of the Scripture And g Medin de rect in Deum fid l 5. c. 11 refert Azor. to 2 p. 602. our faith whereby we beleeue the matters of faith is reduced to the authoritie of the Church because we giue NO CREDIT TO THE SCRIPTVRES but for that the Church propounde the canon thereof to be beleeued And finally h Stapl relect pag 548. the Church hath the power to expound the Scripture from whom we must receiue the sense thereof i Pag. 550. which authoritie of the Church is the tower and bulwarke of our faith whereto euery faithfull man must retire when any question ariseth Pope Gregorie the 13 k D. 40. Si Papa annot sayes Men do with such reuerence respect the Apostolicall seate of Rome that they rather desire to know the ancient institution of Christian religion from the Popes mouth then from the holy Scriptures and they onely enquire what is his pleasure and according to it they order their life and conuersation By which words of theirs it is cleare that I said the truth For to what purpose should they alledge or mention Scripture for themselues that thus place all the power vertue and efficacie of it in their Church that in euery issue flie for the exposition of it to their Church that finde such wants and defects in it that all things must be supplied out of their Church If there were any error in my speech it lay in another point because I did not say all their speech is of the Pope no mention of the Scripture but of the Pope I should in stead of the Church haue said the Pope of Rome For l See below c. 35 n. 1 THE WAY digr 16. n. 4. howsoeuer they vse the name of the Church yet thereby they meane nothing but the Popes will he is the Churches mouth and head and from him the Church receiues her prerogatiues neither do we know or beleeue any thing to be the doctrine of the Church or sence of the Scripture vnlesse he deliuer it This is their doctrine 2 So that I might with good discretion compare our aduersaries to such as follow their mother onely and their mother her selfe to one of the Ethiopian kind without any imputation of scurrilitie And the Iesuite should not haue set vp his combe at the BB. about the matter for they will answer that a great Archbishop Thomas Becket of Canterburie long afore them did more then they haue done for they onely heard me vtter the speech but he vttered it himselfe m Iewel def apol pag 762. Our mother Rome is turned whore for money which being so I could not imagine when I writ how our aduersaries should call vpon any but their mother whose children they were of the surer side But if he thinke I haue slandered his mothers honestie the Court is open let him take his action against me and he shall heare my answer Francis Petrach a most learned man n Ioh Mar. Belg pag. 441. called Rome The whore of Babylon Budaeus o De Asse pag. 590. 601. If we consider the face and habit of our Cleargie speaking of the Church of Rome we shall be constrained to say the spouse hath renounced her husband and bidden him deale in his matters himselfe Now the spouse of Christ forgetting the band of mariage not onely lies from her husband but without all respect of shame goes vp and dowe the streetes and high waies and playes the whore from Prouince to Prouince Matthew Paris p Hist pag. 535. The vnsatiable greedinesse of the Romane Church so preuailed that all blushing set apart like a common and shamelesse whore she prostituted her selfe for money to all commers Ioannes Saris buriensis q Policrat pag. 402. An incestuous wooer is descended into the bosome of the Church Mantuan r Silu. l. 1. Mars is become father to our Romanes and a whore their mother Onus Ecclesiae Å¿ Cap. 43. n. 7. God by the Prophet Ezekiel speakes to the Church of our dayes in these words Thou hast committed fornication exceedingly and art not satisfied but hast multiplied thy fornication vpon earth and doest all the workes of a whore and of an impudent woman All these that thus speake were of the Church of Romes bed-chamber and attended on her and saw who came in and out and therefore their testimonie proues that I said of her Besides Nun-Bridget t Meretrix solet esse Procax in verbis Leuiâ— in moribus Pulcra facie Ornata vestibus Reuel l. 1. c 15. sayes the markes of a whore are foure Shamelesnesse in words Leuitie in manners A faire face And gay clothes All these agree to the Church of Rome as euery bodie knowes therefore I demand iudgement and my charges against the Iesuite CHAP. III. 1. 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 2. Their abodements Pag. 24. A. D. It would be too tedious to touch all particulars which may be obserued in this his Dedicatorie epistle in which like a man runne mad or franticke through furie he raileth and rageth against our religion and the professors thereof without care either of truth sinceritie modestie or common ciuilitie I will as I purposed giue the reader onely a taste leauing it to his discretion to thinke of the rest as he shall see cause The Iesuites saith he which are the Popes Ianizaries that guard his person and were brought in now at the last cast when the state of the Papacie was at a dead lift to support the waight of the maine battell haue pestered the land with their writings and filled the hands and pockets of all sorts of people with their papers yea fannes and feathers are lapped vp in them wherein it is admirable to see how presumptuously they take vpon them in disgracing our persons belying our doctrine and coyning and defending strange opinions of their owne neuer heard of afore c. How false this his relation is in diuers respects the discreete reader if he be acquainted with Iesuites will easily discerne As
among them that will dispute if euer it were a time to leaue wording and fall to realitie this it is wherein our aduersaries by the glorious and vnlimited reports of their owne sinceritie haue raised vp the opinions of so many to the expectation of matter at their hands and indeed the distraction of so many peoples minds about religion require and euen cry for materiall and sound dealing and is this now the performance thereof with reuiling words to pester their bookes and to the matter to reply Hoc nihil inuariabile Grosse vntruths blockishly ignorant against his owne knowledge and conscience carelesly inconsiderate I might here make an end c. Was this all the Iesuite could say against that which M. White confirmed by plain authorities could he confute his writing no otherwise then thus Then M. White tels him again that as he hath written nothing but what all learned men know to be true and many haue obiected against the Church of Rome long ago to farre better purpose then himselfe is able to do so his knowledge and conscience and the conscience of thousands with him are the firmlier assured of these things in that his aduersary is able to say so little against them A.D. Yet because in the 12. Pag 29. § of his Preface he offereth as he saith certaine externall markes and sensible tokens whereby the falshood of the Romane Church may be discouered and the most resolute Papist that liueth moued to misdoubt of his owne religion I haue thought it not amisse to examine these his markes and tokens as supposing that if I finde him to faile of truth and sinceritie in these men will not expect to finde it in the rest of his booke in regard he intending to moue by these his marke and tokens euen as he saith the most resolute Papist that liueth to misdoubt of his religion it is like he would vse all his diligence and care that such a carelesse man in so bad a cause could not onely to bring sensible but also sound and substantiall matter and that very truly and sincerely set downe as knowing that such resolute Papists will not be easily moued to misdoubt of their so ancient and well grounded religion by any sleight markes or tokens though neuer so seeming sensible especially if they may sensibly perceiue them to be vnsincerely and vntruly propounded and vrged against them That therefore the Reader may better guesse what truth and sinceritie he may expect in the rest of M. White his booke I haue thought fit briefly to view and runne through these his markes and tokens 9 What Reader now but would imagine the Iesuite to be with child of some substantiall matter and yet it will proue but a tympanie of mind and therefore I desire the Reader diligently to obserue what passes betweene vs. For I say againe that if a man neuer looke further those very things which I mentioned as externall markes and sensible tokens of the Roman Churches iniquitie are sufficient of themselues to moue the hotest and zealousest Papist aliue yet once again to lay his hand vpō his heart and better to look into his religion And what account soeuer the Iesuits resolute Papists that will not so easily be moued make of that I said yet still I offer it to their a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isid Pelusio ep 191. lib. 3. more retired and vnpreiudicate considerations especially now when this Iesuite hath studied out what he can to lay in against it and finding the demonstrations whereby though very briefly yet really I shewed euery Marke to be too hot for his mouth meddles not with them but passes them ouer and sayes not a word to them but onely repeates the motiue and making a face at it so lets it go not mentioning the arguments whereby I declare it b Chrysost This is the power of truth and the grace of innocencie when her enemie is her iudge and the diuell her accuser and wrath and furie and calumnie and hatred are impaneled against her yet she is quit and iustified CHAP. IX 1. The Apocrypha not accounted Canonicall Scripture 2. Papists professing to expound against the Fathers 3. The new English translation of the Bible 4. Traditions equalled with the holy Scripture 6. About the erring of Councels 7. And the sufficiencie of the Scriptures Pag. 29. A. D. The first marke is saith he their enmitie with the holy Scripture this is an euident vntruth proceeding either out of ignorance or out of enmitie and malice against vs. For who knoweth not that we be so farre from hauing enmitie with sacred Scriptures as we reuerence and respect them farre more then Protestants doe partly in that we accept all the bookes of them which the ancient Church hath deliuered to vs as sacred and canonicall whereas Protestants by their priuate spirit thrust some of them as it were by the head and shoulders out of the Canon and partly also for that we hold such reuerent regard to the diuine truth contained in them as that we do not presume either to translate or interprete them according to our priuate phansie or iudgement but conformably according to the approoued spirit and iudgement of the vniuersall Catholicke Church whereas the Protestants haue so little regard that they permit euery man to rush without reuerence into the sacred text to translate it if he haue skill in the learned tongues or to interprete it by his priuate spirit although he haue no skill in any besides the vulgar tongue 1 THe enmitie and rebellion of the Romane Church against the Scriptures is so apparent that the Iesuite thought it his best policie not to meddle with that whereby I shewed it more fully in the 22 Digr but to wrangle at that I here onely touched briefly by the way bearing the Reader in hand that I haue in this place vsed all the diligence and care I could and brought the soundest and substantiallest matter that I had when I onely in few words pointed at it First he sayes they be so farre from hauing enmitie with the Scriptures that they reuerence them more then we do His reasons to perswade this are two First they accept all the bookes of the Scriptures which the ancient Church hath deliuered vs for Canonicall whereas Protestants by their priuate spirit thrust some of them he meanes the Apocrypha out of the Canon by the head and shoulders I answer that we denie no part of the Canon which the ancient Church receiued and this bringing in of the Apocryphal books Wisd Ecclesiast Toby Iudith Maccab. and the rest into the Canon conuinces the Church of Rome of that contempt of the Scriptures which I mentioned when it exalts and aduances to the honour of diuine inspired Scripture that which is not so nor was esteemed so in the ancient Church For Rebels to place another in the same throne with the King and to giue him equall power and honour with him and to make
The second thing he replies is that the reason why they hold something else beside Scripture to be the rule are two First because we learne so out of the Scripture which he sayes he hath shewed both in his Treatise and in this Reply This is false as appeares in my Answer to his Treatise and shall yet further be manifest in this Defence against his Reply Secondly because we finde it necessarie to admit some other infallible rule and meanes to assure vs both what bookes be Scripture and what interpretation is to be followed which meanes is the authoritie of the Church Fathers Councels and Pope This reason is answered b §. 9. n. 3. and there Digâ— 2â— in THE WAY and hereafter in this DEFENCE and albeit the true Church of Christ which is not the Pope and his Consistorie be a subordinate meanes out of the Scripture it selfe to teach and leade vs forward to the knowledge of the Scripture and the interpretation as a Iudge shewes and expounds the law yet this proues not the Scripture not to be the rule but shewes that God hath commanded the ministerie of his Church to teach and guide vs by that rule For let any Papist say is the Law it selfe but one part of the rule of our obedience to the King and the Iudge the other so that the Law and the Iudge both together make but one rule because we finde it necessarie to admit the Iudge as a meanes infallibly to assure vs both which is the Law and what interpretation thereof is to be followed Not the Law in respect of vs hath all his authoritie in it selfe from the King and is the complete rule of euery mans obedience for more is no man bound to then the Law requires and yet magistrates are vsed to expound and publish it So is it with the Scriptures and therefore the Protestants haue meanes sufficient to secure their faith 6 But where he sayes in the margent that this infallible meanes that must so necessarily be admitted to assure vs what bookes be Scripture and what interpretation is to be followed is the authoritie of the Church Fathers Councels Pope I must admonish him c See THE WAY digr 16. n. 4. and below chap. 35. n. 1. that the current doctrine of Rome is that neither Church Fathers nor Councels exercise this authoritie infallibly but onely the Pope and that his sole definitiue sentence is the last and highest authoritie to secure vs and therefore the Iesuite is bound out and all Papists with him for euer from pretending any other infallible meanes beside the Pope whose iudgement alone being their Load-starre they doe but flatter themselues and mocke vs to our faces when they talke of Church and Councels But because I said the Church Fathers Councels and Pope by themselues were yeelded to be subiect to error and so consequently could not secure them therefore he obiects that a few pages before I acknowledged that it is a principle of their owne that a generall Councell cannot erre If by their owne principles a Councell cannot erre which I confesse there then it is false that I say here the Church the Fathers a Councell the Pope are yeelded by themselues to be subiect to error I answer that in the Councell of d Epist synodal de author cuiuslibet concil general sup Papam Basill ann 1432. it was adiudged that a generall Councell cannot erre whether the Pope confirme it or no. Since which time e Alliac Gers Maior Panorm Almain Ludov. Rom. quos refert Azor. to 2. pa. 565. 575. Viri quidam doctissimi sentiunt ConciliuÌ„ generale legitimè congregatum etiam absente Papa solidâ—m certamque habere authoritatem priusquam à summo Pontifice confirmetur Can. loc pag. 257. very many of the best learned in the Papacie haue followed that opinion therupon I said it was a principle of their owne that a generall Councel cannot erre speaking nothing of the Church Fathers or Pope and yet forsomuch as f Iacobat de conc p. 347. Bellar. de conc c. 11. Turrecr sum l. 3 c. 58. concl 2. CaietaÌ„ apol par 2. c 21. Azor. par 2. l. 5. c. 12. fauer Can pag. 259 loc the Iesuits others hold the contrary that a Councell not authorized by the Pope may erre forsomuch as Councels receiue all their strength from the Pope and g Occham dial par 1. l. 5. c. 25. 26. fauet Waldenf doct princip l. 2. c. 19. some that they may erre though the Pope do confirm them h Hadr. 4. de sacram Euchar pag. 26. others that the Pope may erre euen in his authoratiue conclusions therefore I obiected here that themselues confesse all these may erre This is neither carelesnesse nor yet saying and vnsaying in me but in them that haue no principle but it is contradicted among themselues for what I said a few pages before I spake according to the opinion of some and what I say here according to the contrary opinion of othersome Let the Iesuite shew me an vnforme opinion touching this matter in his Church and he shall deliuer me hereafter from such quarrels and exceptions as this is In the meane time when there is no certaintie or agreement in his church touching that they hold against vs but some say this and some that he must giue vs leaue to charge it with both opinions or with neither vntill they are agreed vpon a certainty Pag. 30. A. D. On the contrarie side Protestants who will admit no rule but onely Scripture doe not this for pure friendship and good will to the Scripture but for enmitie or not very good will to the Church whose authoritie while they do not admit to be infallible they haue left themselues vtterly void of all meanes sufficient to secure their faith by and to finde out the diuine infallible truth contained in the Scripture as in the Treatise and Reply is largely shewed 7 The Protestants I grant and heare solemnly affirme admit no rule whereby to trie what is matter of faith and what is not but onely Scripture the Church hath her authority if it be the true Church and lawfull Councels godly Bishops whereof the Pope is none are the ordinance of God to propound this faith vnto vs but the whole rule of the Churches iudgment is onely Scripture which if the student wil I wil say ouer again in capitall letters ONELY SCRIPTVRE ONELY SCRIPTVRE and NOTHING but Scripture for the exposition and confirmation whereof I refer him to THE WAY which he lost when he made his Reply Digr 3. And this we doe for pure friendship and good will to the Scriptures and Church both lest vngratefully against the Scriptures perniciously against the Church by relying vpon men we should leaue our selues voide of sufficient meanes to secure our faith by For a Cyril Ierosol catech pag. 15. Graec. saith the ancient Church the securitie of our faith
the feast of the Annunciation was not holden nor long after See Concil Mogunt l. c. 36. apud Binn tom 3. pag. 466. an ordinarie thing to father bastard writings on the ancient Doctors Sixt. Senens biblioth pag. 320. and therefore our aduersaries should not ground themselues on such writings if they were desirous of nothing but the truth not the words of Saint Austin but as it is supposed one Fulbert a superstitious French-man that liued Å¿ Hee died Ann. 1028. aboue a thousand yeares after Christ whose sermon containing this prayer is clapped into Saint Augustines workes by those that with his name would giue authoritie to their owne conceits This man t Baron an â—028 was our Ladies Chaplen and as they say was much deuoted to her seruice and writ a booke in her commendations and if the Legend lie not found the fauour to sucke her breast and therefore had reason to speake her faire and doe her seruice but yet in the meane time the Iesuite playes falsehood in fellowship in offering his words vnder the name of Austine yea seuen times ouer to aduance them with his name when Saint Austin was farre from that idolatrie and Saint Austins time but spake in another fashion u Confess l. 10. c. 42. Whom might I finde O God to reconcile me to thee should I haue gone to the Angels with what prayers with what Sacrament Many endeuouring to returne vnto thee and as I heare not able to do it of themselues haue fallen into the desire of curious visions and made themselues worthy to be deluded w cap. 43. but the true Mediator whom thy secret mercie hath made knowne to the humble is Iesus Christ the Mediator of God and men These words are farre from that which is here alledged vnder his name and possibly the Reply noting in the margent some harshnesse to be in them that needs a pious meaning alledged them against his conscience and was contented to vse any base cosenage to set some antiquitie and authoritie vpon his idolatrie but let him set his heart at rest neither the holy Virgin nor any Saint or Angell in those dayes were inuocated as now the Church of Rome vses Some priuate men began to hammer such a thing and the Fathers now and then were ventring at it for x 2. Thess 2.7 the mysterie of iniquitie began to worke in the Apostles time with guesses surmises and Rhetoricke but nothing was done certenly or taught resolutely this way Nicephorus y Hist eccl l. 15 c. 28. sub fin writes that one Peter Fuller who was a schismaticall Bishop of Antioch almost fiue hundred yeates after Christ inuented the inuocation of our Ladie that she should be named in all prayer contrary to the doctrine of the Church reported by z pag. 447. graec Epiphanius The bodie of Marie was holy * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but it was not God and she was a glorious virgin but not giuen vs to worship but her selfe worshipped him that tooke flesh of her c. Which words of Epiphanius plainly shew that the Church of Rome commits the same idolatrie with the blessed virgin by worshipping and inuocating her that those heretickes did against whom he writes and therefore he that condemneth them for it condemnes not Saint Austin but a wicked heresie that hath forged and coined many things vnder many mens names to win credit to it selfe CHAP. XV. 1. The Iesuites insolencie censured 2. Note bookes 3. A relation shewing how the Iesuites traine vp their Nouices to dispute 4. The doctrine of the Iesuites touching formall lies and equiuocation 5. The Repliers motion to Protestant Ministers answered A. D. I might now as if need be hereafter I shall go forward in this my examination of M. Whites vntruths Pag. 45. but I hope it shall not be needfull at this time to digge any deeper into this vnsauorie dunghill sith by this which is alreadie set downe I suppose the Reader hath had a sufficient taste of the mans talent in this kinde of vnsincere writing which may worthily make him suspect euery thing that he shall say against vs or rather may make him Ioath and abhorre for his sake to reade any English Protestant writers of controuersies especially when as appeares by M. Walsinghams * The title of this booke is a Search made into matters of Religion by Fr ncis Walsingham DeacoÌ„ of the Protestant Church before his change to the Catholicke Jn which is shewed among other things worthy of note the falsities of M. Caluin M. Iewel M. Io Fox M. Calfehil M. Doue M Mer. Hanmer M. Wil. Chark M. Wil. Perkins M. Morton M. Math. Sutcliffe M. Willet M. Bel M. Rogers Sir Philip Mornay and others book so many other of their owne principall writers out of whose bookes this and other pettie Ministers doe as it seemeth take their Note-bookes with which they furnish their discourses are found guiltie of many grosse vntruths very ill beseeming such as take vpon them to be Professors and especially Ministers of the simple Truth Verily my selfe haue sometime maruelled how it could come to passe that Protestant writers should so often and so grossely be taken tripping in this kind and hereupon haue sometime discoursed with my selfe what might be the cause being willing in mine owne thoughts to see if I could finde out a iust excusing cause But hauing considered the case although I was willing on the one side to imagine the best to wit that many of their errors might be excused in some sort by ouersight of wit pen or print or that some of the persons might be lesse blamed hauing in simplicitie receiued their errors from other their brethrens Note bookes or printed bookes not hauing perhaps heard how false and vnsincere these their bookes and Note-bookes are commonly sound yet on the other side I could not excuse all because I saw such store of palpable and vnexcusable errors obiected by our authors against Protestant writers which were all so insufficiently defended by themselues against our authors that I could not deeme them to haue proceeded from simplicitie or ouersight in regard I thought it not likely that men of their wit learning and reading should not see or suspect at least that these things which they writ were false and consequently formall lies proceeding from either wilfull malice or grosse negligence which made me muse with what conscience men of their qualitie could publish in print such palpable and pernicious vntruths tending to the seducing of soules and matters of religion and faith 1 IVstin Martyr a Ad Zen. Seren. pag. 389. sayes It is time for a man to hold his peace * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when his aduersarie begins to shout and I confesse this bragging and impudencie amazes me that I know not whether I should more abhorre him for it or vpbraid his followers that content themselues with such Masters For what one point of
faith but the illumination of Gods Spirit whereof faith is an effect 2. Himselfe in those words the Spirit of God must assist and concur with mans vnderstanding not onely in generall to preserue the faculty thereof but in a speciall manner to enable it to apprehend and yeeld confesses as much as I said or could meane taking my words in all their latitude 3. If faith be taken in one particular sence as sometimes it is for the receiuing of diuine illumination into the heart as a darke roome when the window is opened or a candle is brought in receiues light then it is true * â—rgo ante fidem absque fide intelligi Scripturas posse affirmas Hoc si tibi absurdum non videtur plus quam Pelagia nus es D. Stapl. de author script c. 8. §. 16. that the heart must be endued with faith before any man can vnderstand the rule and yeeld his assent to it vnlesse he will hold Pelagianisme neither doth my Aduersaries argument conclude any thing against this for the vsing of the rule and this faith go together as the opening of the eye and light concur to seeing Therefore as he that seekes a thing in a blind roome first opens the window and lets in light and then applies his eye with the helpe of that meanes to the obiect so though it be supposed that faith cannot be had before the rule instruct vs yet this light of Gods Spirit which is the beginning of faith as the medium whereby the rule is vnderstood goes in order before it As in all our sences * Nihil agit in distans nisi primo agat in medium Allias â—â—â—ct de anim c. 8. part 3. the way from the sence to the obiect is disposed by the medium But if faith be taken in the whole extent for the knowledge and assent of all that which is reuealed then I grant the rule must go before 2 Thirdly touching illumination of the Spirit which we both agree is necessary for the vsing and vnderstanding of the Rule he will haue 2. things noted First that this is not the Protestants spirit Whereunto I answer it is neither the Protestant nor Romish nor any priuate spirit much lesse the Popes spirit a Shewed Ch. 35. whereby alone they breathe that thus charge others with priuate spirits but the Spirit of God that is b 1 Cor. 12.6 giuen to euery man to profit withal Secondly that this Spirit of God is ready to assist all men at least sufficiently to the attaining of the truth and that no maÌ„ whoÌ„ grace hath excited to vse the rule need feare any want thereof but all men rather had need feare least themselues be wanting to concurre with this Spirit and least in stead of following the Spirit of God they suffer themselues as all they do that follow the Church of Rome to be misled by the spirit of Satan transfiguring himselfe into an Angell of light c. The which I am also well pleased to note and commend backe againe to himselfe and all of his sect who refusing the light of the Scripture that so euidently detects their errors haue suffered themselues to be seduced by the spirit of Antichrist * Apoc. 13.13 who hath transfigured himselfe into an Angell of light and broaching his owne priuate conceits yet colours all with the stile of S. Peters successour and seeming authority and spirit of the Church when the Primum mobile of all Papistry is now become the Iesuited Popes sole instinct 3 Fourthly he mislikes that besides these 3. properties of the Rule I would haue other two Vnpartiality that it be addicted to no side and Authority to conuince that there might be no appeale from it But these conditions I added for the better explication of the rest and to exclude the Church of Rome which is so partiall that it begges to be it owne iudge and so vnable to support the cause since that the clearest definitions thereof are still called in question by themselues as c Digr 36. I made demonstration The which being the true reasons of his mislike he dissembles and onely replies that these conditions are either not necessary or else included in the other 3. the former of which is not true the latter that they be included in the condition of infalliblenesse I will not contend about onely I noted them for the more distinct and particular explication of that which must belong to the Rule And so in this point there shall be no variance CHAP. XXVII 1. The Repliers terginersation 2. 3. The state of the question touching the sufficiency of the Scripture alone and the necessity of the Church Ministrie 3. The speeches of diuers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture 4. In what sence Scripture alone is not sufficient Pag. 177. A. D. Concerning the seuenth Chapter if my aduersaries did not ignorantly or wilfully peruert the state of the question they could not haue had colour to make so long discourse about this Chapter as they do both make My question was not whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether it alone be the rule and meanes ordained by God to breed in men that one infallible entire Faith which is necessary to saluation This my question my aduersaries peruert FIRST in that they would gladly as it seemeth make men beleeue that we exclude Scripture from being in any sort the rule of faith and thereupon * Pag. 10 11. M. Wootton maketh speciall opposition betwixt the Scripture which they assigne and the doctrine of the Church which we assigne for the rule of faith whereas we make no such opposition at all but hold the Scripture as propounded to vs by the Church to be part of that which in the tenth Chapter I call the rule of faith For by the doctrine of the Church which there I cal the rule of faith I do not meane any humane doctrine as humane is distinguished from Diuine but do account the same doctrine whether written or vnwritten which is called diuine because it was first immediatly reuealed by God to the Prophets and Apostles to be also Church doctrine because it is propounded interpreted and applyed in particular to vs by the Pastours of the Church This my aduersary might haue vnderstood euen by the very title of this Chapter in regard I said not the Scripture is not the rule of faith but Scripture ALONE is not the rule of faith SECONDLY they peruert the state of the question in that they take the rule of faith otherwise then I do and otherwise then according to the drift of the precedent Chapters wherupon this present Chapter doth depend they ought to do For whereas there may be distinguished in this matter First that which is a rule of faith but not the ordinary sufficient meanes ordained by God to breed faith in men viz the diuine reuealed verities as they are in themselues Secondly that which is so an
faith or needfull to be followed And so from that place to pag. 57 I disputed that the Scripture ALONE is the rule of faith that is to say That rule which my Aduersary in his fourth ground had said God had prouided whereby euery man learned and vnlearned may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for the true faith Now he complaines that the State is peruerted the question not being whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether Scripture alone be the rule and meane ordained of God to breed all faith And he notes two points wherein it is peruerted First in that I so affirme and defend the Scripture to be the rule as if he and his sectaries excluded it from being the rule in any sort which he sayes they do not For they hold the Scripture as propounded by the Church to be part of it I answer that I knew well enough they confessed the Scripture to be part of the rule and the Diuine doctrine which is the whole rule to be some of it written But I knew also that they denied it to be the whole rule ioyning therewith vnwritten traditions and the Popes Decretals which they call Church authority I knew also they allowed it to be no part of the rule but as and in such sence as the Church of Rome should please to propound it and I saw his conclusion in termes denying the Scripture alone to be the rule whereby men may sufficiently be instructed WHAT the faith is therefore I disputed directly opposite to all this that the Scripture alone without traditions is the whole rule to shew vs WHAT is to be holden for faith and nothing but the Scripture this is close to the question For albeit he yeelds it to be the rule in a sort because as his Church propounds it it containes part of the rule yet he denies it to be that whole and entire rule that his conclusion inquires of and so is to be disputed against as well as if he denied it to be any part of the rule at all Againe he holds two things First affirmatiuely that the Scripture is one part of the rule then negatiuely that the Scripture alone is not all the rule Both these are contradictory to my assertion The Scripture alone is the rule My assertion therefore affirming what he denies and denying what he affirmes containes the true state of the question and his inuoluing the matter with all this cauilling tends onely to the couering of his doctrine the loathsome visage whereof he is ashamed should be seene 3 The second point wherein he sayes the question is peruerted is in that I take the rule of faith otherwise then he doth For whereas he by that word rule meanes such a rule as not onely is sufficient to REVEALE all diuine truths that are to be beleeued but also to BREED or produce in vs the faith whereby we beleeue them I he sayes vnderstand such a rule onely as is sufficient to reueale the diuine verities though it be not sufficient to breed in vs faith and assent thereunto And it is true that I vnderstand such a rule indeed the Church wherein I liue onely beleeuing the sufficiency of the Scripture to containe all the obiect of faith but not to enable vs to beleeue it or vnderstand it ordinarily without the ministry of the Church and other meanes But this peruerts not the question * The state of the question touching Scripture ALONâ— for about the meanes there is no question but the question is whether Scripture alone excluding all Church traditions and authority comprehend the whole obiect or matter of faith that is to say All that we are bound to know beleeue and doe for our saluation though it be granted that to breed or produce faith and knowledge of that which is in the Scripture the Ministry of the Church and the helpe of Gods Spirit and our owne industry must concurre For our Aduersaries deny this and hold their runagate traditions and Church authority to be necessary not onely for the expounding and confirming to vs that which is in the Scripture if any one chance to deny it or not to see it but for the supplying of infinite articles of faith which are no waies at all comprised in the Scripture but vpon the said authority are to be receiued as well as that which is reuealed in the Scripture The Iesuite speakes as if he thought his Church authority to consist more in breeding faith and leading men to beleeue what is written then in adding any thing to the measure of the diuine verities contained in the Scripture and indeed sometime there be of his side that will plainely say so He that writ the defence of the Censure a Def. of the Cens pag. 141. NOTE THIS and inquire whether all Papists will stand to it sayes it is to be noted that the question betweene vs and the Protestants is of EXPRESSE SCRIPTVRE ONELY and not of any far fet place which by interpretation may be applied to a controuersie For this contention began betweene vs vpon this occasion that when we alledged diuers weighty places and reasons out of the Scripture for proofe of inuocation of Saints praier for the dead Purgatory and some other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they did not plainely and expresly decide the matter Whereupon came this question whether all matters of beleefe are plainely and expresly in Scripture or not which they affirme and we deny And this he sayes is is the true state of the question Gretser b Defens Bellar tom 1. l. 4. c. 4. p. 1598. sayes These things may be proued by Scripture but not sufficiently not effectually by Scripture alone without tradition but onely probably The which if my aduersary and his Church did hold constantly and in good earnest I would confesse I had peruerted the state of the question But they do not but hold many things belonging to faith to be wanting and no way at all neither openly nor expresly nor consequently contained in the Scripture Dominicus Bannes c D. Dann 22. Tho. p. 302. All things which pertaine to Catholicke faith are not contained in the Canonicall books either manifestly or obscurely nor all those things which Christ and his Apostles taught and ordained for the instructing of his Church and confirming of the faith were committed to the holy Scriptures and the contrary is open heresie Melchior Canus d Can. loc p. 151 There are many things belonging to the doctrine and faith of Christians which are contained in the sacred Scriptures neither manifestly nor obscurely Cardinall Hosius e Hos confess Polon p. 383. The greater part of the Gospell by a great deale is come to vs by tradition very little of it being written in the Scripture Peresius f Peres de tradit p. 4. Tradition is taken so that it is distinguisht against the doctrine which is found in the Canonicall bookes of the
follow that the Scripture ALONE euen in those plaine places is the rule because no man without some other meanes besides the plainenesse of the words can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands them right the which he proues first because some places seeming plaine are vnderstood otherwise then they seeme Secondly because the plainest places that are may be wrested to a wrong sense as that plaine place This is my body is wrested by the Caluinists to a figuratiue sense I answer his reason why Scripture alone could not be the rule of faith was because it is not plaine the which obscurity I denied to be in that which is necessary to be knowne affirming the Scripture in such places to be plaine now he replies that though such places be plaine yet still it cannot be the rule Thus first he denies the Scripture to be the rule because it is not plaine and then allowing it againe to be plaine yet still he denies it to be the rule What will this man stand to I maruell But they be not plaine enough because without some other infallible meanes besides the seeming plainenes of the words no man can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands aright euen those plaine places This absurd cauill I haue answered twenty times first that the meanes whereby this is done are the helpe of Gods Spirit our owne diligence the Church-teaching the light of nature and these meanes are infallible And these meanes I admit either coniunctim or diuisim to be necessary as a condition and medium for the full assurance of vnderstanding these places but this condition takes not away the true motion and reasons of plainenesse from them for as I answered in my booke to this argument that is not obscure which by ordinary and easie meanes may be vnderstood but which either hath no meanes at all to open it or onely such as are not ordinary to his confirmation d THE WAY p. 36. n. 2. I answered likewise But to his instances of the Caluinists wresting a plaine place This is my body to a figuratiue sense I reply first it is plaine and euident that it is a figure by the circumstances of the place when he that said the words This is my body that is giuen for you at the same instant held nothing but bread in his hand and liued and was neither yet glorified nor crucified and spake of a sacrament wherein it is ordinary to speake figuratiuely Secondly the Papists do the same in the next words This cup is the new Testament and yet they hold them to be plaine words if my aduersary will be smattering about the exposition of these words let him giue a reall answer to the place of my booke e Digr 49. n. 8. where they are handled of purpose for him 6 Next he sayes though the letter of the Scripture be neuer so plaine yet to haue infallible assuraÌ„ce of the sence there is required some other rule and meanes the which rule is not in the bare letter of the Scripture but is to be learned of the Church as Vincentius saith The which being the same he said before without difference or augmentation let it briefly receiue the same answer That the requisite coÌ„dition of vsing ordinary easie meanes wherof the ministry of the Church truly expounded is one I neuer denied but this proues not the Scriptures to be obscure nor remoues infallible assurance froÌ„ the Scripture to the Church but onely shewes that the Scripture infallibly out of it selfe giues vs this assurance by this meanes and VinceÌ„tius his words affirme no more for by the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence according to the which he requires the line of propheticall and apostolicall interpretation to be directed he meanes no vnwritten Church-tradition or doctrine that is wanting in the Scripture for he holds the Scripture it selfe to be sufficient for euery thing but onely that that which is in the Scripture be so vnderstood as agrees with the rule of faith which the true Church hath alwaies holden now that which the Church hath alwaies holden is contained in the Scripture alone that the Reader may see the Iesuites treachery in alledging Vincentius against the sufficiency of the Scripture who in that very place which belike he neuer saw with his owne eyes begins thus Here possible one may demand when the rule of the Scripture is perfect and in it selfe more then enough sufficient vnto all things Note here whether he thinks as the Iesuite doth that many substantiall points of doctrine needfull to saluation are not contained in them and that it is but a part of the rule what need is there to ioyne vnto it the authority of the Churches sence and he answers as the Iesuite hath alledged that this is because all men do not take it in one sence therefore it is necessary that the line of interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence In which manner he speakes also in f Diximus in superioribus hanc suisse semper esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem vt fidem veram duoâ—us his modis approbent Primum diuini canonis authoritate Deinde â—cclesiae catholicae traditione Non quia canon solus non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina pro suo plerique arburatis interpetantur cap. 41. another place not supposing any thing to be wanting in the Scripture so much as to giue infallible assurance of it owne sence much lesse any articles of faith needfull to saluation but onely supposing that some heretikes would not yeeld to that it gaue or possible through their owne default did not see it and thereupon aduises to oppose against them the rule and practise of the Church as a man by witnesses would conuince him that denies the truth the which practise as it hinders not the Scriptures to containe the perfect rule of faith so we will allow it and require no sence or exposition of the Scripture nor no point of religion to be receiued vnles it be thus directed 7 It is therefore vntrue that he concludes with one cannot infallibly be assured when the words of the Scripture are to be vnderstood properly and when not without the authority of the Church vnlesse it be by reuelation I say this is false vpon two points first because this assurance may be had as from the externall meanes by the Scripture it selfe though the Church say nothing Next because this Church authority he vnderstands to be the externall testimony of the Church reuealing if not making the said sence out of tradition which is not written and not out of the Scripture it selfe so that the vnderstanding which I haue of the sence and my perswasion that it is the true sence shall not be founded on the Scripture but on the authority of the Church of Rome that sayes it which g THE WAY §. 8. n. 7. digr 11. I confuted affirming that this
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
of faith contained and reuealed in Scripture it selfe 5 The difficultie is when I vpon the authoritie of the Scripture as I verily perswade my selfe beleeue contrary to the Church of Rome or any other presumed to be the true Church how it shall appeare to my selfe and others that I expound and vnderstand the Scriptures aright and not according to my own priuate spirit For answer whereto note first that this demand lies as well against the Beraeans and the rest of Gods people mentioned by Luke and Paul in the texts alledged as against the Protestants For they reiecting something that they were perswaded was not in the Scripture or receiuing that which they saw agreeable to the Scripture might be demanded how they were infallibly assured they had the true sence of the Scripture And a false Apostle when they should by the Scripture examine and reiect his doctrine might cauill as A.D. here doth and say they expounded it after their owne priuate spirit In which case the godly beleeuers could refer themselues to no other rule but onely leaue the truth still to be iudged by the Scripture by all such as would examine it Note secondly that the same difficultie presses our aduersaries For when they haue shewed and vrged the authoritie of the Church and their chiefe Pastor therin what they can yet this authoritie they cannot maintaine to be such as they hold but by the Scripture k Vbi sup liâ— b. Pezantius and k Vbi sup liâ— b. Greg. of Valence You wil ask how the proposition of the Church is known to be infallible Let him that is thus demanded answer He beleeues it by an infallible faith for the authoritie of the Scripture giuing witnesse to the Church which authoritie and reuelation he beleeues for it selfe albeit the proposition of the Church as a requisite condition be needfull thereunto I know not many of our aduersaries some l Durand 3 d 24. qu. 1. d. 25 q. 3. ibi Scot. Alm. Gabr. few Schoolmen excepted that hold the authoritie of the Church to be the formall reason of faith or the first and last cause of beleeuing but the authoritie of God himselfe reuealing these things which authoritie being something distinguished from the Church and aboue it can be no where manifested but in the Scripture Now when they alledge Scripture we may tell them againe they alledge it after their owne spirit which obiection may be multiplied as often as they multiply their discourses out of Scripture Thirdly therefore for satisfaction of the difficultie I beleeue and am assured of that I hold by infused faith God by a supernatural light reuealing and infusing the certaintie of that I beleeue partly by shewing to my vnderstanding out of the Scripture partly by stirring vp and inclining my will to assent vnto it and en brace it The which knowledge and assurance of mind when any man challenges as if it were but a priuate conceit subiect to error I can say no more but that which euery man sayes for his faith that so all true faith may be destroyed in that m For the beleeuer assents not by discourse to the matters of faith reuealed as by the formall reason of beleeuing but by simple cleaning adhering to theÌ„ faith neuer drawing forth her act by meanes of discourse but if discourse be vsed it is rather a conditioÌ„ helping to apply faith to it obiect Mat. 16.17 2. Cor. 10.5 Heb. 11.1 Fides secundùm se coÌ„siderata quod attinet ad causaÌ„ efficientem reuocanda est in motioneÌ„ diuinaeÌ„ lumenque diuinuÌ„ siue in habitum fidei Christiana fides etiam vt est in nobis reuocatur in DeuÌ„ mouentem diuinuÌ„que lumen Lud. Carb sum tom 3. c. 3. l. 1. pag. 6. no mans faith ascends aboue this infused illumination or can be demonstrated to be certaine by euident reasons n Tho. 1. part q 1. art 8 DuraÌ„ prolog sent qu. 1. pag 4. h. that shall conuince all gainsayers but onely there be forcible motiues to induce vnto it though when his reasons that thus beleeues shall be examined and his grounds of Scripture duly weyed by true Christians in a Councell or otherwise all that gainsay him may easily be confuted And this is the thing that we say for Luther and Scripture against the Papacie A. D. Yet saith M. White the Papists cannot denie but there is a heauenly light c. It is true Pag. 201. that Catholicks grant inward testimony of the Spirit to giue infallible assurance But what spirit is that which they thinke giueth this infallible assurance Not priuate spirit but the Spirit which is common to the Church the Spirit which inclineth men to humilâ—tie order and vnitie as in * Qu 6. the Introduction I haue shewed To whom also do they think infallible assurance to be giuen by the Spirit Not to euery one that presuming himselfe to be elect and to haue the Spirit shall rush without reuerence into the sacred text expounding it as he listeth or as it shall be suggested by priuate spirit but to such as with order humilitie and respect of vnitie reade and interprete Scripture as they learne it to be interpreted by the infallible authoritie of the Pastors of Gods Church Those that do otherwise though they may seeme to themselues to be infallibly sure yet indeed they are not as not hauing any substantiall ground to assure them which may not in like maner and with as probable colour be alledged by others whom although perswading themselues to be infallibly sure M. White himselfe wil grant to be deceiued in this their perswasion M. White * White pag. 62. 63. saith that his priuate men be assured by Scripture So say they M. White saith his men haue the witnesse of the holy Ghost So say they M. White saith his men were taught by the Pastors of the true Church This he saith indeed and so if they would be impudent they might say But whereas M White saith that his priuate men let Luther and Caluin be examples were taught by the Pastors if he meane they were taught by the Pastors those speciall points wherein they dissent from vs it is maruell that euen his owne blacke face blusheth not to vtter such a shamelesse vntruth Let M. White name if he can what Pastors those were that taught Luther and Caluin these new doctrines vnlesse he will allow the Diuell to be a Pastor whom Luther * Luth. de miss angul confesseth to haue taught him his doctrine against the Masse 6 If there be as the Replier grants a heauenly light in the things themselues that are beleeued and an inward testimonie of the Spirit that can giue infallible assurance to the beleeuer this is as much as we require for then this light and testimonie wheresoeuer and in whomsoeuer it be is sufficient as I said to assure the conscience of the truth of the things beleeued whosoeuer gainsay them and
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
those things that are written in the Scriptures or to bring in any thing that is not written Of images Epiphanius e Ep. ad Ioh. Ierosol sayes It is against the authority of the Scripture that the image of a man should hang in the Church And * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the making of statues resembling the images of the dead he calls an idolatrous and a diuellish practise And speaking of worshipping the image of the blessed Virgin which now is so commonly seene painted and attired f Pingitur cincinnis exculta vestibus ornatissimis pompa adeo inani structa vt illi etiam vniones ab auribus pendeant quod nemo possit sine stomacho aspicere Paleot de imag pag. 253. in the fashion like a Lady yea g Vestientes dominam nostram Magdalenam alias sanctas ornamentis profanis vanis ac meretricijs quibus etiam pudicae matronae sese vestire vererentur Nauar manual c. 11. n. 23. like a Curtisan and keeps such a court at Lauretto in the same place where h Leand. Albert descript Ital. in Picen pag. 428. sometime Iuno kept hers he addes that thereby men are drawne a whoring from God the body of Mary being holy but not God and shee an honorable Virgin but not giuen to be adored but her selfe adoring him that shee bare in her wombe Of the Supremacy which now the Pope vses ouer all other Bishops Gregorie who in his third argument the Repliar sayeth professed his religion i Lib 6. ep 30. sayes he will confidently auouch him to be the forerunner of Antichrist whosoeuer he be that desires to be called vniuersall Bishop proudly preferring himselfe before others Of images of the Trinity Gregory the second k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Leo. Isaur Imp. sayes they may not be made Of Purgatory it is cleare that the Greeke Church neuer beleeued it So saith Nilus l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nil de purgat p. 118. l. 1. Our Fathers neuer taught vs Purgatory neither did the Easterne Church euer beleeue it Roffensis m Artic. 18. No man now doubts of Purgatory and yet among the ancient there is little or no mention made of it yea the Greekes to this day beleeue it not and the Latins haue not with one consent conceiued the truth of this thing For the beleefe of Purgatory was not so needfull for the Primitiue Church as now it is Of the number of Sacraments which n Trid. conc sess 7. can 1. our Aduersaries will needs haue to be seauen Cassander o Consult art 13. §. de numero sacram sayes we do not reade the other Sacraments confirmation matrimony orders penance vnction by those ancient writers to be cōprehended in any certaine number nor shall you hastily find any before Peter Lumbard that determined any certaine or definite number of them Of the peoples receiuing the cup in the Sacrament p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Clē const p 145. Venet. the constitutions of Clemens say Let the whole Laity in order with feare and reuerence receiue the cup. By which few examples the Reader may discerne how vntrue it is that Coccius hath particularly set downe point by point the ancient Fathers with vnanime consent against the Protestants who hath brought nothing out of them to that purpose which is not clearely and sufficiently answered by * Jn the most waighty controuersies he is answered by M. Perkins in his Problema our Diuines in euery controuersie 2 His second argument is the testimony of those that writ the Centuries Who being themselues famous Protestants testifie this to be so in many points This argument was obiected in q THE WAY §. 44 Digr 47. his Treatise and fully answered and therfore should not haue bene repeated againe before my answer had bene auoided Yet a little I will satisfie him First if the Magdeburgenses acknowledge the Fathers in many points to be for the Papists which they no where do yet that is not all the Fathers with vnanime consent point by point in all points Some particular Fathers the Repliar knowes well enough speake that which hath no vnanime consent of the rest and their priuate opinions may giue colour to many things and yet will not reach from point to point Next it is false that is here reported of the Centuries They testifie no more but what they thought that Fathers held corruptly and themselues iudged to be errors and blemishes in their writings There is no Romish writer at this day but he doth the same Baronius in his Annals purposely intended against the Centuries hath not left one Father or one ancient history vncensured but still charges it with some error and blemish or other But my Aduersary sayes the things which the Centuries say were blemishes in the Fathers are such points as the Church of Rome now holds whereby it should seeme that in many things they testifie with the Church of Rome against the Protestants I answer first that in some points as the diligentest that are may sometime ouersee and now and then they mistake and call that the opinion or the error of a Father that is not This kind of ouersight we perceiue and pardon in our Aduersaries themselues Secondly diuers things noted by them for errors in the Fathers are not holden by the Church of Rome but are censured also by our Aduersaries themselues as well as by the Centuries Thirdly diuers points in particular Fathers are taxed which belong to that which is now holden in the Church of Rome but this iustifies not the Papists first because in such points there is no vnanime consent of all the Fathers or all the Church but onely the vnsetled and ambulatory opinions of some priuate Doctors Next what these Doctors deliuered touching such points is holden otherwise and to other intents and purposes now in the Church of Rome as their praying for the dead which the Centuries iustly note for a blemish was not with opinion of Purgatory as now it is in Rome Thirdly the mystery of iniquity began to worke in the primitiue Church whereby the fathers themselues though Bishops of the Church and most holy men yet but men sometime were deceiued and brought into error in some things thus it is written of Papias r Baron an 118 n. 2. 6. a Bishop of great authority in the Church and famous for the holines of his life that by misunderstanding ſ Apoc. 20.4 a Text in the reuelation t Prateol elench haeret l. 3. n. 17. Hiero. de scripto c. 18. he gaue occasion of the millenary heresie afterward condemned in the Church yet his credite and estimation was such that many great men followed him Nepos Irenaeus Victorinus Tertullian Lactantius Apollinarius Coracion and diuers others For being a man as u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb hist eccle l. 3. c. vlt. Eusebius sayes
vbi sup Fourthly the Feast of the Conception which imports she was without sinne is celebrated 5 Vasq vbi sup In which regard sayes Vasquez it would seeme verie strange to me if the Church should euer define she was conceiued in sinne when by her authoritie she hath alreadie commaunded the Feast of the Conception in token she was not conceiued in sinne and the common consent of Catholicks both vulgar and Diuines contending for the immaculate conception without sinne Suarez q Vbi sup prop. 4. sayes Sixtus Quartus did much fauour it whose decree the Councell of Trent approues and the whole Church doth vehemently leane to it that now the contrarie can haue either none at all or no firme or euident foundation But the truth is it is fully defined in the Councell of Basill Hitherto r Sess 36. sayes the Councell a difficult question hath bene made touching the Conception of the glorious Virgin We hauing diligently seene and examined the reasons define and declare that the doctrine which teaches her neuer to haue bene actually subiect to sinne but alwayes free from it and from all actuall sinne to be consonant to the religion OF THE CHVRCH AND CATHOLICKE DOCTRINE and that it shall be lawfull for no man hereafter to teach the contrarie moreouer we renew the ordinance made for the celebrating of this holy conception on the 6. of the Ides of December Whereby we see how false it is that it is not held as a point of faith For building themselues vpon this decree and vpon Å¿ Cum Praeexcelsa Graue nimis in extrau comm another of Sixtus Quartus whereto the t Sess 5. §. Declarat tamen Councell of Trent manifestly giues way by confirming the conceit u Almain Clictouae Titlem reported by Vasq Suar. vbi sup the forwarder sort of our aduersaries affirme it resolutely to be a point of faith defined by the Church But whether it be true or no that the faith of their Church is nothing but what this froward generation will confesse to be defined by the Pope by this it is plaine that touching this point the Pastors and Doctors and people of the Romane church differ from antiquitie Vasquez w Communis consensus Catholicorum non solùm imperiti vulgi sed etiam Doctorum Theolâ—gorum pro immaculata conceptione pugnat Vasq vbi sup sayes expresly Not onely that vnskilfull vulgar but the Doctors and Diuines and all Catholickes with one consent fight for the immaculate conception What immodestie is it now to denie that to be the Churches faith which is thus holden and to say it is not diligently digested that is thus concocted in the conceits not onely of the vulgar but of the Doctors and Diuines and all Catholickes with one consent in the Church of Rome CHAP. L. 1. Touching Seruice and Prayer in an vnknowne language 2. The Text of 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine 7. The ancient Church vsed prayer in a knowne language A. D. Secondly touching Latin Seruice although M. White say as it is easie to say that all antiquitie is against vs in this point Pag. 279. White p. 343. yet he will neuer be able to proue solidely that the ancient Church did condemne this our practise The words of the Apostle which he alledgeth proue nothing to the purpose as is shewed by Bellarmine and as for other authors which he citeth they do not disallow this this our practise Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Del. c 16. or account it vnlawfull whereas both by reason and authoritie our authors shew it to be both lawfull and laudable See Bellarmine lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 15. 1 THe vse of the Church of Rome to haue the publicke Seruice and Prayers and ministration of Sacraments in an vnknowne tongue is well enough knowne This I affirmed to be against antiquitie and a point wherein they haue altered the faith of the ancient Church And first I alledged the words of Saint Paul then the testimonie and confession of other Ecclesiasticall writers to all which he answers nothing but referres me to Bellarmine In which absurd course if I would imitate him I might also referre him to such as haue answered Bellarmine and the reader that expected to see the thing tried betweene vs should be deluded Neuerthelesse I will doe my best to bring this broode of darknesse to the light and euery thing that I haue said to the triall that the truth may appeare and the shame be theirs that turne their backes 2 First he sayes I will neuer be able soundly to proue that the auncient Church condemned this their practise I answer the Apostle condemnes it in the words a 1. Cor. 14.7 alledged If an instrument of musicke make no distinction in the sound how shall it be knowne what is piped or harped So likewise you vnlesse by the language you vtter words that haue signification how shall it be vnderstood what is spoken for you shall speake in the aire I will pray and sing with the spirit and I will pray and sing with the vnderstanding also Else when thou blessest with the Spirit how shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at thy giuing of thankes seeing he knowes not what thou sayest I had rather in the Church to speake fiue words with my vnderstanding that I might also instruct others then a thousand words in a strange tongue No enemie that the Church of Rome hath can more fully condemne Seruice in an vnknowne language nor in more effectuall termes speake against it For be requires all that which is done in the Church be it Exhortation Prophecie Singing Expounding or Praying to be done in a language that the people present vnderstands and rebukes the contrary All that the Replier sayes hereto is that Bellarmine hath shewed these words proue nothing Which is his policie to auoide the scanning of them for he knowes all the learned of his side be so deuided in their answer to these words that whatsoeuer he should say would fall out to be contrary to that which others affirme For the auoiding of which inconuenience he referres vs to Bellarmine as if in him we should find a iust answer and full satisfaction But he abuses the Reader as shall plainly appeare by propounding the summe and substance of all that Bellarmine sayes to the place First he sayeth It is certaine the Apostle in a great part of this chapter speakes not of the reading of the Scripture nor concerning the Seruice of the Church but of certaine spirituall exhortations and conferences then vsed Touching this point how true or false soeuer it be I will not greatly stand with him but then it is as certaine that in a great part of this Chapter he speakes of Church-seruice and prayers and of reading the Scripture as well as of spirituall conferences and collations So his patron Gretser that hath lately vndertaken to defend all his
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
or lesse as in a ciuill amity he loueth his friend more or lesse setting it in a decent place c. The which respect to his friends picture is no way any hinderance but rather a great helpe to shew and increase his respect to his friend in his owne person and cannot be accounted iniurious but gratefull to his friend Euen so the inferiour kinde of religious reuerence and respect which we giue to the image of Christ and his Saints more or lesse this reuerence and respect I say done to the images reliques c. is so far from being a hinderance to the reuerence and respect due to Christ himselfe or to his Saints as rather it much helpeth vs to shew and so to practise and so to increase our reuerence and respect to Christ himselfe and to his Saints and therefore cannot be thought iniurious * See Bellar. l. de imag c. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. but very gratefull vnto them Now vnderstanding our doctrine and practise about worshipping of images in this manner M. White doth not nor euer will be able sufficiently to proue or shew it to be vnlawfull or contrary either to Scriptures or to the doctrine of the ancient Church The proofes which he bringeth are either impertinent or of small moment or are answered already by Catholicke Authors 1 THe first example wherein the Digression shewed the Church of Rome to hold contrary to the Primitiue Church was in the point of IMAGES breefly producing diuers plaine testimonies out of the Scripture and other Ecclesiasticall writers whereby it appeares that the vse and worship of images now so solemne in the Romane Church was not permitted in those daies My Aduersarie replies The proofes which I bring are either impertinent or of small moment or are answered already by Catholicke authors His author is Bellarmine quoted in his margent but therefore M. White made choise of this point to see who of all his Aduersaries would step forth and first propound Bellarmines answers and then maintaine them against that which would be replied This had bene a directer course then thus euery where to refer me to his bookes whereby the Reader can take no benefit For I also can as easily refer him to the bookes of those that haue answered all that Bellarmine saies His reason rendred why the authorities and proofs produced should be impertinent and of small moment is because we do not rightly vnderstand the doctrine and practise of the Church of Rome about worshipping of images but slanderously misreport it therefore he will declare it that it may appeare to be neither vnlawfull nor contrary to the Scripture or doctrine of the ancient Church That which he sayes touching our not rightly vnderstanding the doctrine may be true For the idolatrie is so grosse that the distinctions and trickes inuented to defend it are such as themselues vnderstand not and the three things here noted by himselfe are the very nice distinctions whereof a De imag c. 22. Bellarmine and b De Trad. p. 226. Peresius confesse that neither the people nor themselues vnderstand or conceiue them or if they do yet they * Nec possunt nisi errando intelligere erre in doing it That it is no maruell if we vnderstand not that which they vnderstand not themselues But that the proofes alledged in the Digression are impertinent and of small moment is easily said but not so easily shewed For three things I am sure the Replier will grant me yea he grants them expresly in his discourse First that in his Church they haue and vse images Secondly that they worship them at least with some kinde of worship either ciuill or diuine Thirdly that some kind of images they worship with diuine honor at least with a distinction either properly or improperly or respectiuely or accidently or vniuocally or equiuocally or analogically Now the authorities alledged shew that none of all this was done and allowed in the Primitiue Church neither the setting vp of images in the Church nor the worshipping them with ciuil worship nor the worshipping of any of them with diuine worship with any distinction whatsoeuer And therefore the Replie by running into this irkesome and wilde explication of their doctrine doth but put a tricke on the Reader For the Digression produced the authorities not onely against worshipping of the images of Christ and God with diuine honor properly and for themselues but against worshipping them with diuine honor in such manner as he confesses it is giuen improperly accidently analogically and secondly against worshipping any images at all either with latria or dulia or hyperdulia And thirdly against the very setting them vp in the Church for any end whatsoeuer Now he by running into his distinctions makes shew as if nothing were required for answering me but onely to shew that they worship images with diuine honor onely improperly and accidentally or at the most analogically The which if he could shew neuer so substantially which he cannot yet when he had done he had also to shew the other three points That neither the setting vp nor adoring ciuillie nor adoring with Gods honor improperly accidentally and analogically were against the practise and doctrine of the Primitiue Church shewed in those authorities 2 Omitting therefore that which most properly concerned him he onely meddles with that I said touching the worshipping images with diuine honor the very same that is due to God And first he saies no man holds that the images of Saints are so to be worshipt because the Saints themselues are not worshipped with diuine honor and in his margent he shewes how in the first impression of my Booke I said absolutely without limitation the Church of Rome worships images with the same honor that belongs to God but in the second edition I added a limitation the Church of Rome worships images some of them with the same honor the which he saies I added for shame I answer the addition was not for shame as if there were any images in their Church which are not worshipt with diuine honor but for the more perspicuity to point at those images which I would most challenge And if he will not allow me thus much without controlement let the shame follow the chiefest writers in his owne Church Stapleton Suarez Valentian and his Briarly who all in their latter editions haue added many things to explaine the former and with a witnesse let him reach it Bellarmine for his recognitions I am so far from being ashamed of that I said They worship images yea images of Saints with diuine honour that I am contented the three words added in the second impression be razed out againe For doth he thinke we are so blinde that because in words they renounce it therefore we cannot discerne of their deeds is it enough to discharge them when they say they worship them onely with an inferior honor called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet giue both
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
by the words of Christ 3 Neither do the Repliars reasons prooue that the Bishop of Rome rather then of Antioch succeeds S. Peter in that wherein succession holds as I haue also shewed in the 29 Digression whereto he saies nothing The first it is gathered from that which is written is false For what one word is there written in all the new Testament either that the Bishop of Rome should be Peters successor or that Peter should be Bishop there himselfe Occham a Occham dial patr 1. lib. 2. c. 3. sayes These are in the number of things that neither are contained in Scripture nor can bee manifestly prooued by it alone that Peter was Bishop of Rome that he remoued his Sea from Antioch to Rome that the Bishops of Rome succeede S. Peter That the Church of Rome hath the primacie whereof there is no mention in the Scripture as likewise there is not that he gouerned the Church of Rome nor any thing touching the Papacy thereof The second that it is knowne by tradition to haue bene Christs institution is false likewise wheÌ„ the tide of Valences his learning is at the highest For neither doth he shew any such traditioÌ„ nor can such traditions be of infallible veritie The common opinion is that the succession of the Sea of Rome depeÌ„ds vpon Peters fact Cornelius Mus b Cornel. Mus. concio de Cathed Petri. p. â—39 saies that if Peter had died at Antioch that had bene the chiefe Church and the first Sea Suarez c Defens fid Cathol lib. 3. c. 13. nu 12. In that Peter placed his seate at Rome and vnited the Pontificall dignity to that Bishopricke whether this vnion was of diuine institution by a speciall commandement and reuelation as some will haue it or only of Peters owne humane will though inspired of God vpon this very point that it was neuer altered any more by Peter while he liued it remained ratified and therefore he that succeeded Peter in his Bishopricke necessarily succeeded him also in both dignities If the succession therefore depend onely on Peters dying at Rome what diuine institution is this vnlesse it can be shewed that God would the succession should be in the place where he died For the supposed primacie and the episcopall power may be separated that it is not necessary this alway draw that after it Doctor Stapleton giues no other reason of the Popes succession then this d Stapl. relect controu 3. q. 2. art 2. ad 3. that our Lord Christ commanded Peter to go to Rome who thereupon remoued his seate thither and died there as Marcellus in his Decretall Epistle and Innocent in an Epistle to Alexander the Bishop of Antioch write And he saith that more then this shall not be giuen Caluin seeing all antiquitie and the monument yet to be seene at Rome shewes it namely that Peter by the perswasion of the brethren going from Rome and shunning the persecution met Christ and saying to him Lord whither goest thou Christ answered I go to Rome againe to be crucified whereupon Peter by the commandement of Christ returned to Rome See Egesippus his third booke and second chap. This is the same I said e THE WAY Digr 29. nu 38. in THE WAY that now the Popes succeeding Peter depends on this consequence Peter died at Rome by Christs appointment Therefore it was Christs will the Pope should succeed him This consequence the Doctor proues not nor can it be proued by any industry or wit of man For what such connexion is there betweene Peters dying at Rome and the Popes succeeding him that Peters death being allowed to haue bene by Christs wil the Popes succession must necessarily be by the same will Away with these absurdities and let Christian cares no longer be molested with them Againe the antecedent is false The onely authors thereof being arrant counterfets and forged bookes f Margarin Dignae Bibl. SS Patrum tom 1. ad Lect. Posseuin apparat verb. Linus Baron an 69. n. 6. an 44. n. 45. Linus g See Cens Patrum by M. Ed. C. Posseuin v. Hegesipp Egesippus and this h Anto. CoÌ„tius annot in dist 16 Septuaginta Marcellus whose i Ep. 2. Marcel apud Binn Decretall also sayes no more but that by our Lords appointment he remoued the sea to Rome As for Innocent he sayes k Innocent 1. epist 18. apud Binn nothing at all to that purpose And such as haue reported it afterward followed what they had heard without examining the credit Let our aduersaries therefore sit downe and reckon how many points they haue to cleare in this difficultie First that Peter was Bishop of Rome Next that he died at Rome by the speciall commandement of Christ Then that he died inuested with such a Primacie And finally that his so dying there is sufficient without a new reuelation from God to make the succession of the Bishop of Rome of diuine authoritie When these things are sufficiently demonstrated the succession shall be acknowledged but not before To his confirmation I answer that by Christs appointment Peter was to haue his successors not one or other in any speciall place but the Bishops and Pastors of the Church all of them in euery place and not in the office of chiefe Pastor expounded by the Primacie and Apostleship for his Apostleship died with him and Primacie such as is intended he neuer had any but in his Pastorall cure of preaching ministring the word sacraments and gouerning the Church in communitie with other Bishops and Pastors as himselfe did these things in communitie with the Apostles Therefore the Bishop of Antioch succeeds him in place as well as the Bishop of Rome but in office all the Christian Bishops of the world succeed him and in preaching and ministration of the sacraments all the inferiour Pastors of the world But in that which is called his supremacie and monarchie ouer all other Bishops and Kings of the earth he hath no successor because no such thing was giuen him by Christ but first was deuised by the Pope himselfe for his own aduancement A.D. To the THIRD I answer that the disagreement of authors in assigning which particular men did Pag. 291. in order succeed one another is no argument that there was not at all an orderly succession as neither the like disagreement of authors about the yeare in which our Sauiour suffered is no sufficient argument to proue that he suffered not at all in one or other yeare 4 This answer affirmes it to be an orderly succession which he confesses cannot be put into order Yet he excuses the matter by the like disagreement of authors about the yeare of Christs passion But this is idle For the disagreement that is about the time of Christs passion makes the same time vncertaine to such as rely on those authors and so the contrarietie of opinions makes the order of succession vncertaine in the
done takes off their bells and sends them home againe where filling euery hedge and out-house with their tunes no maruel if other birds of the same feather and as wise as themselues by conuersing with them learne the like This is the guile of Heretickes August the learned to plie with their art and the simple with their errors It is incredible and enough to amaze a man to listen them whether he reade their books or heare their peoples wilde discourse Modestie is banished christian charitie that should guide all men in seeking the truth is extinguished confidence and prefidence carrie out all things the sacred Scriptures are put to silence the persons of men are sacrilegiously disgraced Gen. 37.31 as Iosephs coate was dipt in blood the Popes Breues and bare lust sway all things with them no rule of reason no example of the ancient Church no president of antiquity may be opposed against the Popes will his brest must inspire all things his determination must be the rule of all mens faith Not what is spoken but who speakes must be regarded Staplet Albertin The Bishop of Rome is the infallible rule of faith Hence it comes that all their questions and disputations Hildebrandize and are fortified with such conclusions of the Popes infallible and vnerring authority and grounded thereupon as the ancient Church neuer heard This was the vttermost that Mahomet could do for the establishing of his Alchoran Alchor Three Angels taking him into a mountaine the first ript his brest and washt his bowels in snow the second opened his heart and tooke out a blacke graine which was the portion of the Diuell the third closed him vp againe and made him perfit then they weighed him in a paire of ballance and ten men being not able to counterpoise him the Angell bad Let him go for no number of men should be able to weigh against him If it had not bene the Popes good fortune in this manner to haue bene washed and clensed and weighed by the latter Deuines of the Church of Rome the Iesuites specially in their Schools he had fallen short of Mahomet and the controuersies betweene him and vs were soone at an end when not his will but the word of God in a free councell should determine them We are not the first that haue complained of the corruptions of Rome and the Popes vsurpations but all ages haue done it before vs. Clemangis in a certaine Epistle to Gerson saies That all things falling to decay and going to nought in such manner as neuer was before yet no man might bewaile or vtter it and what meanes of remedy what hope of amendment saith he can there be where we may speake neither of amendement nor remedie where they that giue the wounds are counted good and excellent and rare men worthie of all commendations and reward and they which indeauour to keepe them off are called leaud perfidious and wicked persons worthie of all shame and reproach The immoderate and vnbounded ambition of the Pope being the Patriarke of the West and the pride of his Clergie were the first occasion that so many errors and corruptions came into the Church for the administration and managing of all things being in their hands it was an easie matter howsoeuer men complained for the court of Rome to bring in what it pleased De Sept. stat eccl Vbertine saies Albeit among the Locusts there be but one King that hath all manner of principality in euill yet the sanctity of Prelates could not on the suddaine be brought to such wickednesse vntil first for a long time together they began to fall by pompous ambition and multiplying the superfluous state of temporalities by Simoniacall couetousnesse peruerse elections and carnall promotion of such as they fauoured and neglect of spirituall worship these wicked dispositions going before the Diuell at last by these meanes might fully bring in the complete forme of the GRAND MISCHIEFE In Lament Ierem. Pascasius complained 700 yeares ago that there was almost nothing belonging to secular life but the Priests of Christ administred it nor no worldly affaires but those that serued at the altar put themselues into it And hence it comes and not from any ordinance of God or example of the ancient Church that the Pope with his Bishops and Cardinalls so presumptuously contest with Gods annointed Kings It was not so when Christ said it shall not be so among you Luc. 22. Liberat. breuiar Nor when Leo the first with many of his Bishops VPON THEIR KNEES INTREATED THE EMPEROR and his wife for a Synode Nor when Leo the fourth Grat. said to the Emperor Lewis That if he had done any thing inconueniently or not holden the path of his lawes he would reforme what he had offended AT HIS IVDEGMENT Nor when the Emperor Iustinian began his lawes with we COMMAND the Bishops and Patriarkes of Rome Constantinople Nouell and Alexandria Auentin Nor were his Prelates the companions of Princes when Charles the Great tooke downe the Bishop of Mentz about his proud Crosiar staffe with such words as these See our Shephards that professe the Crosse of Christ in ostentation in wealth in excesse challenge the greatest Emperours But these monsters grew vp since Thomas of Aquin or Thomas of England saies that which bred them was the loue of temporalties Tho. in 6. Gen. Ex TVNC exorti sunt in Ecclesia gigantes in magnis mirabilibus supra se ambulantes qui potius videntur Reges vel Marchiones quam Episcopi vel Abbates ideo nō mirum si per eos erigatur statua Babilonis terrena ciuitas dilatetur These men not remembring that howsoeuer in picture the eie be one of the noblest parts Plato Timae yet euery colour is not fit to paint it least so it ceasse to be an eie with outward greatnesse and vsurpations would set foorth their Priesthood And in very deed abusing the fauour and liberality of godly Princes who thought nothing too much they did for the Church to their owne lusts and ambition * The Emperor yaue the Pope some time So hy power him about That at the last the sillie kime The proud Pope thrust him out Chaue Sim. Schard Hypomnem thus at last they shouldred into their thrones and stole their scepters One Rupescissanus a Friar told the Cardinalls some 300 yeares since that the Pope and they were the Peacocke whom all the birds had inriched with their feathers whereby she was growne so proud that she would neuer know her selfe til the Kings of the earth should come another day and taking euery one his owne feather leaue her as bald and naked as they found her And then as their pride was the beginning of all these errors and corruptions in Religion that trouble the world so their humiliation shall be the end of them It hath pleased God in a speciall manner to call your Highnesse to
worship of images and the distinctions whereby the same is maintained are examined And our aduersaries finally conuicted of giuing Gods honor to their images The ancient Church was against image worship Chap. 54. The Popes supremacy was not in the ancient Church neither is it acknowledged at this day by many Papists Nunne Brigets speech touching the Pope And Cyrils riddle Chap. 55. The Communion in ancient time was ministred to the people in both kinds An innouation in this point in the Church of Rome The pretences vsed against the Cup. Chap. 56. Touching Transubstantiation It was made an article of faith by the Lateran Councell 1200 yeares after Christ How it came in by degrees The Fathers neuer beleeued nor knew it Chap. 57. Touching the first coming in of errors into the Church with the Persons Time and Place Purgatory and pardons not knowne in the ancient Church nor in the Greeke Church to this day The true reason why the ancient prayed for the dead Chap. 58. The Popes supremacy Single life of Votaries The worship of images The merite of workes The sacrifice of the Masse And the Popish doctrine touching originall sinne all of them innouations The disagreement of Papists in their religion And namely in their doctrine of originall sinne Chap. 59. Obiections against the outward succession of the Pope Touching Peters being at Rome His Pastorall office what it was Whether there be any diuine authoritie for the Popes succession Not certaine what Popes haue succeeded one another Vacancies diuers times in the Sea of Rome The storie of the woman Pope of what credite The Pope hath bene an heriticke and erred è Cathedra The Pope succeeds by Simonie and violence Such succession is a nullitie by his owne law The Pharisees in Moses chaire how A. D. defends the succession of an ASSE Many Popes at once Vrbanus his crueltie towards the Cardinals What the Protestants say touching the succession of the Church of Rome Good Reader in the printing of this Booke some faults are committed some whereof are not great but the rest noted with this marke * concerne the sence or reading more materially The marginall quotations some excepted I could not correct but hope they are reasonable perfect Correct them as followeth The first number signifieth the page the second the line Page 3. line 26. shreene skreene 8. 12 it is good it is a good 11 25. downe downe 14. 11. vse vseth 16.14 Lonel Louel 20 11.* her mot er our mother * and it was when it was 24 19. Cuyckins Cuyckius 34 5 * the king Now may the king how may 15. * possible impossible 36.5 not so much not much 38 11.* seauenth second 45. 26. Anard Ruard 60. 2 * of minde of winde 71. 3 ingeniously ingenuously 80. 27 * serueth seemeth 81 16. * against him his against his 86. 26. compiled fraud fraud compiled 94. 35. * see see 103. 13. Sato Soto 105. 15 * vncerten And vncerten and 106. 11. please pleaseth 109. 1. * to heauen to haue 112.28 the like the life 113 5 * in cause in state 116 1 * charging Chargeth 138. 9 * one promise on praemis 145. 20. none now 14â— 10. * Casenists Casuists 148. 10. this a poore this poore 14 and them put it forth 34. to beleeue not to beleeue 156. 27. contriued contained 157.30 yeed yeeld 174 4 * in themselues in the Scripture 180. 35. * visible inuisible 181 14.* inuisible members inuisible the members 188. â—6 answer for answer For. 192. 23. that which the which 194. 11 Henriquex Henriquez 199. 33. * Eusebius Justine Martyr 200. 20. daughter sonne 213 9 * this of God this will of God 12. as they call such as they call 226. 21. or* his purp for his purp 228. 5. none noe 229. 18. * no mans one mans 230 2. by othes by others 12 * the works euâ—â— the sinne euen of corrupt masse was not but was 238. 29. * deliberate not deliberate 245. 34. * the cause since the conscience 259. 29. * He replies sec he replies Secondly 264. 23. saies it ouer saith it ouer and ouer 265. 25. or translation of translation 275. 28. * motion notion 286. 31. lastly put it out and set the figure 7 that followes there 287. 16. conceiued conteined 21. dives diuerse 299. 1. * what heresies what he replies 304. 35. * in the fourth proposition in fower propositions 311. 3 is is it is it 315. 9. * first and last hiest and last 318. 12. RIGHR RIGHT 319. 26. may do can do 335. 16 knownes not knowes not 341. 20. we might impart we impart 367. 32. * vniuersall vniuocall 368. 7 manner matter 373. 21. held in the substance nor held the substance 381. 37. euer by euen by 403. 18. them them that them that 414. 30 * yet many yet the maine 437.9 Nanâ—us Nonnus 448. 26. Councell Councels 460. 15. had bene haue bene 471. 24. * as the profite all the profite 485. 18. * Then I haue Thus J haue 450. 8. And expounds how and he expounds how 505. 6. not with not onely with 504. 23. * to any other to â—â—â—ther 511. 31. * be reuolued be renewed 513. 33. * shewed them thawed them 527. 17. that contrary the contrary 529. 4. * Againe whether Againe whereas 532 1.* that it is sinne some that it is sinne 11. That it some that it 13. That it some that it 544 4 * alleadged alleadging 29. VNLERA VNLEAR In the Margent I obserued by the way Pag. â—7 letter c c. 52. Ch. 53. 23. r orthodonograph orthodoxagraph 24. * see c. 53. see Ch. 52. 38. r Sano Saxon. 67. c. Chap. 35. 1 Ch. 34. 1. 35. â— 77. â— * Ch. 54. Ch. 53. 95. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 108. u put forth the whole quotation ** 113. d Abulens parad l. 34. Abul parad l. c. 34. 121. * came to come to * 133. line 15. action occasion * 148. * cap. 35. and 36. chap. 34. and 35. * 158 * cap. 28.3 chap. 27. 3. * 194. * see vers see Gerson 261. e Philocrat Philostrat 280. i noted afore noted afore pag. 62 in the marg 528. â— Abul in Sent. Abul in Deuteron THE WAY TO THE TRVE CHVRCH defended against A.D. his Reply CHAP. 1. 1. The title of A.D. his reply A wonder not farre from Rome 2. Writers not putting their names to their bookes censured by the Iesuites The Popes iester 3. The name of Minister and Priest 4. Church the pillar of truth 5. The way of Catholick discipline is the way of the Scripture 6. The Iesuits Method in perswading to Papistrie 7. The maner of A.D. his replying and his promise to raile THis A.D. hauing taken my booke into his correction intitles what he hath written against it A REPLY made vnto M. Anthonie Wootton and M. Iohn White MINISTERS wherein it is shewed that they haue not sufficiently answered the TREATISE OF FAITH and wherein also the truth of the chiefe points of the said TREATISE is
others and deuide their kingdomes and diuers other things q Nu. 14. p. 26. If the Pope say that such a gouernment tends to the detriment of spirituall health or that such a law cannot be obserued without mortall sinne or that it is contrary to the law of God or that it maintaines sinne then we must stand to the Popes iudgement forsomuch as the King hath nothing to do to iudge of spirituall things Simancha Pacensis r De Cath. inst tit 23. n. 11. p. 98. If Kings or other Christian Princes become heretickes forthwith their subiects and vassals are freed from their gouernment Å¿ Tit. 45. nu 25. pag. 209. If any Prince be vnprofitable or make vniust lawes against religion or against good manners or do any such like thing to the detriment of spirituall things the Pope obseruing due circumstances may apply a fit remedie euen by depriuing such a King of his gouernment and iurisdiction if the cause require it D. Nicolas Sanders t Visib monar pag. 70. It is moreouer to be supplied that albeit the King when he was first made were a Christian Catholicke yet if afterward he become an Apostata or hereticke true reason requires that he be remoued from his gouernment u Pag. 71. The matter is now brought to this passe that it is fit an hereticall King be remoued from his kingdome w De clau Dau pag. 25. If any be so rauenous that of a lambe he become a wolfe deuouring the flocke stealing slaying and scattering the sheepe which the Pope will say euery Protestant Prince doth if any thing betide this man otherwise then well let him thanke himselfe that voluntarily runnes vpon the sword of the Church Gregorie of Valence x Tom. 3. pag. 444 c. If the crime of heresie or apostacie from the faith be notorious that it cannot be couered then euen before the sentence of the Iudge the aforesaid punishment of being depriued from his dominion and authoritie ouer his subiects is in part incurred that is to say so farre that the subiects may lawfully denie obedience to such a hereticall Lord. Mariana a Iesuite y Instit reg pag. 61. It is a wholesome meditation for Princes to perswade themselues that if they oppresse the common-wealth and grow intollerable through their vices they liue vpon those termes that they may be killed not onely lawfully but with glorie and commendations z Pag. 64. All this pestilent and deadly broode thus he speakes of such Kings as he calls tyrants which are all Protestant Princes it is a glorious thing to roote out of the societie of men it is therefore confessed that a tyrant may be slaine either by open force and armes or by making assault vpon his pallace and if they that haue killed him escape they are honored all their life after as great personages but if it fall out otherwise they die a sacrifice gratefull to God and men a Pag. 65. No difference whether ye kill him with sword or poison When Tyrone rebelled in Ireland in the yeare 1602 the schoole Doctors of Salamanca sent the Papists there this determination b Refert quaest bipart in M.G. Blackw p. 156. That the Bishop of Rome might by armes restraine such as opposed the Catholike religion Tyrones warre against the Queene was iust and by authoritie from the Pope and all Catholickes were bound to further him in the same and so doing their merit and hope of eternall reward should be no lesse then if they had warred against the Turke But all Catholickes had sinned mortally that had serued the English against Tyrone neither should they obtaine saluation or be absolued by any priest from their sinnes vnlesse they repented and forsooke the campe of the English The same thing was also to be deemed of such as in that warre had holpen the English with armes and munition or payed them the accustomed subsidies But such as were in Tyrones campe in no case were traitors nor had denied any due obedience or vniustly occupied the Queenes lands but rather had endeuoured themselues to set at libertie themselues and their countrey being oppressed with vniust and impious tyrannie and to their power defended the orthodoxe faith as Christians and Catholickes ought to do This was the resolution of the Popes Vniuersitie in Portugall for the confirmation of as vile and detestable a rebellion as euer any was The like was done in Desmonds rebellion D. Sanders being sent into Ireland to resolue and encourage the traitors * Quem virum magno lâ—teraruÌ„ incommodo dolenius defuâ—ctum non multo post in Hibernia duÌ„ in eam insulam veram religioneÌ„ restituere contendit Ioh Marian tract pro edit vulg c. 7. sub fin pag. 56. among whom by the iust iudgement of God he died in extremitie and misery In the yeare 1588 c Meteran Belgic hist l. 15. p. 473. when the Spanish fleete should inuade our nation for the promoting of that desseigne D. Allen was made a Cardinall and sent into Flanders with the whole administration of the English affaires committed to him by the Pope who among other his practises had the Popes declaration printed in English that should be published vpon the arriuall of the Fleete in which declaration the sentence of excommunication against the Queene was confirmed and she depriued of her kingdome honour and dignities and all men commanded to receiue the Prince of Parma The writings of this Allen Parsons Sanders and Creswell their Doleman Philopater and Rossaeus a booke canonized by the Pope in consistorie are so scandalous this way that I abhor to report the things they write Bellarmine hath taken vpoÌ„ him to be the principal patron of this doctrine in maintâ—nance thereof hath published diuers treatises There was neuer any d And there was a wicked man named Sheba the son of Bicri a man of Iemini and he blew the trumpet and said We haue no part in Dauid nor inheritance in the son of Ishai euery man to his tents ô Israel 2. Sam. 20.1 Sheba blew the truÌ„pet of rebellioÌ„ as he hath done His assertions are these e De Pont. l. 5. c. 6. The Pope as chiefe spirituall Prince may change kingdomes and take them away from one to giue to another if it be necessary for the sauing of soules as we wil proue It is a good rule that the Glosse giues when the Imperiall and Pontificiall lawes touching the same thing are found to be contrary if the matter of the law be a thing belonging to the danger of soules then the Imperiall law is abrogated by the Pontificiall f Cap. 7. If the Christians in times past deposed not Nero Dioclesian and Iulian and Valens the Arrian and such like that was because they wanted temporall strength For that they might lawfully haue done it appeares by the Apostle Besides to tolerate a King that is an hereticke or an vnbeleeuer labouring to draw men
bones of men and beasts as this wolfe of Rome hath his church with the spoiles of Princes there being no age since his teeth were growne wherein he hath not to the vttermost of his power made hauocke of their liues and kingdomes LEO ISAVRVS the Emperour of Constantinople about the matter of Images was excommunicated by Gregorie the second a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedren p. 373. P. Diac. miscell pag 617. Sigon de reg Ital. pag. 103. he forbad the payment of his tribute and gaue away his country to the Lombards whereby he and his successors lost all the Westerne empire which the Pope and the French King afterward shared betweene them Baronius b An. 730. n 5. sayes the Pope in this act left a worthy example to posteritie that hereticke Princes should not be suffered to raigne in the Church of Christ LVDOVICVS PIVS that was King of France and Emperour 800 yeares after Christ was thrust out of his kingdome c Sollicitato in patrem Gregorio Pontifice Rom. Papir Masson annal pag. 104. by the French Cleargie and the Pope The story is this d Io. Mar. Belg de schis con p. 426. A detestable and pestilent councell assembled at Compendium where the Cleargie men of that time most impiously conspired against Lewis their soueraigne Lord and Emperour For they as it is likely taking it grieuously that Lewis would reforme the superfluitie of their apparell conspired against him arming the sonnes Pipin Lewis and Lotharius against their father so that they put him him in hold the Bishop of Rome consenting and helping them Then in the said Councell the same Bishops and Prelates condemned him deposed him and made him betake himselfe to a Monkes cowle CHILDERICKE that was King of France a little before him e Aimoin gest Franc. p 403. P. Aâ—â—mil p 71. Papir Masson annal in Child p 83. was deposed and thrust into a Monastery by the Popes aduice who for that purpose discharged the French of their alleagiance to him A Bishop was sent vnto him to demaund whether were fitter to raigne Childericke that was of no authoritie or Pipin that swayed the State and he answered it was better he were king that swayed the State and so Childericke was depriued and Pipin crowned OTHO the GREAT that was Emperour in the yeare 963 was in danger to haue bene cast out of Italy by Pope Iohn the 12. f Jnde eijciendum existimauit â—igo reg Ital. p. 271. The stories say he did his vttermost thereunto and that g Luitpr l. 6. c. 6. the reason why the Pope hated the most holy Emperor was not so much vnlike the reason why the Diuell hated his Creator The Emperour as we see thinkes and workes the things of God maintaines the secular and ecclesiasticall affaires with his power adornes them with his manners repaires them with his lawes Pope Iohn is an enemie to all these things HENRIE the first the Emperour had Pope Bennet against him h Benn Card. vit Hildebr pag. 42. The storie sayes he endeuoured to cast him from the succession of the Empire for which purpose he sent a crowne to Peter the King of Hungarie with this verse The Rocke hath giuen Rome to Peter and the Pope hath giuen this crowne to thee HENRIE the fourth the Emperour was so shamefully vexed by three Popes one after another Hildebrand Vrbane and Paschalis that it is more then tragicall The quarrell that Hilderand pickt against him was about i Naucler pag. 777. inuestitures and k Sigon de regn Ital. pag. 342. symonie and l Confictis conscriptisque super eo criminibus quae pessima immundissima potuit odium liâ—or excogitare Vita Henric. 4. pag. 46. in Fascic rerum expet other crimes most vntruly layed to his charge But m Sigon pag. 360. Hildebrand excommunicated him and absolued the subiects from their obedience and first set vp against him n Avent pag. 458. Baron an 1080. n. 16. Geneb chron 595. Rodulfe the Duke of Sueden and Burgundie sending him a Crowne with this verse ingrauen o Petra dedit Petro Petrus diadema Rodolfo Avent The Rocke gaue the Crowne to Peter and Peter giues it to Rodulfe But he miscarried and perished miserably in his treason Then p Ipsius Vrbani authoritate regnum aduersus patrem in Lombardia suscepit Sigon reg Ital. p. 384. Vrban the successor of Hildebrand set vp Conradus his sonne who made warre against him and dying q Neque à Mathildú vnquam Pontificisque concilij discessisset Sigon pag. 387. in that rebellion r Naueler pag. 801. another of his sonnes who afterward succeeded him was armed against him Å¿ Vita Hen. pag. 49. who tooke him prisoner and forced him to resigne vp the empire The extremities and indignities whereunto the Pope brought this noble Emperour haue filled the bookes of writers among many other this was one t Benn vit Hildebr pag. 41. Fr. de Rosâ—ers Stem Loth. pag. 219. that Pope Hildebrand would not release him from his excommunication till on a time in the middest of winter he came bare footed to Canusium where the Pope lay and so waited three dayes before the gates of his pallace for his absolution which he hardly obtained by the intercession of Duchesse Matilda and not long enioyed being still vndermined with the Popes treasons to his dying day HENRIE the fifth his sonne for maintaining 3 Naucl p. 812. the priuiledges of the empire and the custome of his predecessors touching the inuestiture of Bishops a Vrsper p. 272 inde Naucl. generat 38. Sigo pag 409. inde was excommunicate by Paschalis the second and by him and his successors miserably vexed till his death b Vrspe p. 281. The Bishop of Traiectum conspiring against him and making an assault was apprehended and put in prison and afterward deliuered LOTHARIVS his successor c Otho Frising l 7. c. 18. about the same matter of inuestitures d Otho c. 20. Naucl. p. 826. and about the right to the Duchie of Apulia was molested and crossed by Innocent the second who made e Rex venitante fores iuraÌ„s prius vrbis honores Post homo fit Papae sumiâ— quo dante coronam Radevic p. 266. Sigo p. 433. the verses touching the Emperors being the Popes vassall to be written in his pallace at Lateran whereupon afterward f Rade vbi sup there grew so great contention in the time of Frederick g Naucl. p. 827. The same Pope ioyned also with the enemies of the Emperour CONRADVS his successor and hindered him that he should not recouer the Empire FREDERICKE the first called Barbarossa was at the time of his empire intangled with the Pope and his cleargies treasons The stories mentioning a dangerous conspiracie against him h Vrsp p 301. Naucl. p. 843. say the greater part of the Cardinals and the Popes hands were in
See Io. Marian. tract pro vulg edit c. 13 23. Matth. Aquar in Capreo prol pag 7. PERFORMED WITH AS GOOD ADVICE AND BY AS LEARNED AND GODLY MEN AS EVER IOYNED TOGETHER IN SVCH A WORKE SINCE TRANSLATION WAS VSED And if some priuate men skilfull in the learned tongues as Wickliffe or Tindall for example when better meanes failed translated the Bible of themselues so did Aquila Theodotion Symmachus Origen Ierom Lucian Isychius and d Fuere autem pene innume rabiles olim editiones Latinae Posseu appar v Biblia p. 223. innumerable others and diuers also lately in the Church of Rome Saint Austin e De Doct. Chr. l. 2. c. 11. sayes They which turned the Scripture out of the Hebrew tongue into Greeke may be reckoned but the Latin interpreters cannot by any meanes for in the first times of the faith as a Greeke booke of the Scriptures came into any mans hands that thought himselfe to haue some little facultie in both the tongues he would be bold to translate it the which thing truly did more helpe then hinder the vnderstanding c. In which words of Saint Austin besides the customes of those times in translating the Bible that in euery place the vulgar might vse it which I presume my Iesuite will grudge at we see they translated then as boldly and commonly and more then any among vs now do Or if the Iesuite will not allow vs the priuiledge of that time yet he may not for shame obiect that to our Church which is done in his owne where Vatablus Munster Pagnin Montanus and others men as priuate as any translator among vs haue translated or corrected the text out of the learned tongues and which I commend to the Iesuites good memorie and contemplation and to the consideration of all the Papists in England their translations agree with ours and differ from the vulgar Latin as much as ours Pag. 30. A.D. Now although we hold that Scripture is not the onely rule yet this doth not argue that we be enemies to the Scripture or that we are voide of all meanes to secure vs of the truth For first we hold the holy Scripture to be one rule yea a principall rule of our faith which we should not do if we were enemies to the Scripture And one reason why we hold something else besides Scripture to be with Scripture the rule of our faith is partly because so we learne out of the Scripture as in the Treatise and this my Reply will appeare partly because we find it necessarie to admit some other infallible rule and * This infallible meanes is the authoritie of the Church Fathers Councels and Pope which iâ— so farre from being yeelded by our selues to be subiect to error in any point of doctrine authoratiuely concluded that euen M. White himselfe who here affirmeth the Church Fathers Councels and Pope to be yeelded by our selues to be subiect to errour doth a few pages before acknowledge that it is a principle of our owne that a generall Councell cannot erre so carelesse this man was what he said or vnsaid so he might seeme to say something against vs. A.D. meanes which may infallibly assure vs both what Bookes be Scripture and what translation and what interpretation is to be followed for finding out the diuine truth contained in Scripture 4 This is his reason why the Church of Rome denies the Scripture to be the whole rule of faith for the vnderstanding whereof haue your eye vpon my words I said that one of their practises against the Scripture is their depriuing it from being the totall rule of faith and I added that hereby they left themselues vtterly voide of all meanes to secure their faith by and to finde the truth inasmuch as the Church the Fathers the Councels the Pope himselfe which is all the rule they can pretend are subiect to error and so by themselues confessed to be To this he replies three things first that they hold the Scripture to be one rule yea a principall rule of our faith which they would not do if they were enemies to the Scripture I answer distinctly three things first sometime some of them when they are pressed cannot shift theÌ„selues say as the Iesuit here doth the Scripture is the rule and the principall rule too yea more so Bellar. Tho. Antonine others whose words I haue reported in THE WAY Secondly howsoeuer some of them sometime speake thus yet againe others allow it to be but a part of the rule that is to say such as containes but one part of things belonging to faith Thus you see the Iesuit expounds himselfe in his next words we hold something else beside Scripture to be with Scripture the rule of faith Becan f Circ Caluin pag 278. sayes The totall and full rule of our faith is Scripture and Tradition both together and this is defined in g Sess 4. the Trent Councell And it is enough to shew their contempt and disdaine of the Scripture when thus they accuse it of imperfection and match base and vncertaine traditions with it Therefore vntill they can proue first that this defect is in the Scripture next that this defect is supplied by Traditions and then thirdly that these whereof they boast are the true Traditions proceeding from the same Spirit that the Scripture doth and left of God to supply this defect of the Scripture they can neuer shake off the imputation layed vpon them that they be enemies to the Scripture Thirdly they do not hold the Scripture to be a principall rule neither as the Iesuite speakes Would they did for their owne sakes but the Iesuite knowes it is holden to be the least part of the rule The Bishops of the Councell of Basil h Concil Basil p. 104. Bin. say The authoritie of an vniuersall Tradition or of a Councell is equall with the authoritie of the Scripture Caesar Baronius i An. 53. n. 11. Tradition is the foundation of the Scriptures and excels them in this that the Scriptures cannot subsist vnlesse they be strengthened by Tradition but Tradition hath strength enough without the Scriptures Cardinall Hosius k Conf Polon pag. 383. The least part of the Gospell is written and the greater part by farre is come to vs by Tradition Gregorie the 13. l D. 40. Si Papa in annot Men do with such reuerence respect the Apostolicall seate of Rome that they rather desire to know the ancient institution of Christian religion from the Popes mouth then from the holy Scriptâ—re and they onely enquire what is his pleasure and according to it they order their life and conuersation And if it be obserued how these Traditions in euery question and point of religion are preferred before the Scripture this that I say wil appeare to be true which they would not do if they were not mortall enemies to the Scripture and slaues to the Popes absolute will 5
Papists to explicate proue their transubstantiation that it is confessed to be too grosse and meerly false if the words be vnderstood as they sound of the bodie of Christ So the Glosse Nisi sanc intelligas verba Berengarij in maiorem incides haeresim quà m ipse habuit §. Dentibus Turrecremata Nec iste modus loquendi est tenendus Ibi. nu 1. §. Respondeo Hervaeus Quod quidem vocabulum vt sc à dentibus tereatur non est extendendum sed exponendum restringendum vt sit sensus non quod corpus verum Christi teratur dentibus sed quod illae species sub quibus realiter est tereantur dentibus Et ideo est alia opinio communior verior c. 4. d. 10. qu. 1. pag. 17. But this Glosse is proued vntrue by this that the words thus expounded containe nothing against Berengarius opinion who had denied onely the grosse and reall presence of Christs flesh it was sometime therefore beleeued by some bodie in the Church of Rome belike that his blessed bodie touching the place and maner of presence was as far from them that receiue the Sacrament as heauen is from earth This for the reall and spirituall presence If the Iesuite dare put his Transubstantiation to the triall let him looke into m Digress 49. nu 9. THE WAY and hearken what many of his owne learned men say of it and when he hath done let him take a view of the poore answer that in this his Reply he hath made vnto them Pag. 32. A.D. The fourth marke is set downe by M. White in these words The most points of Papistrie are directly and at the first sight absurd and against common sence and the law of nature If he meane that they seeme at the first sight absurd c. to the seduced people of his sect who neither beleeue nor rightly vnderstand either the things by vs beleeued or the reason or authoritie for which we beleeue them then it may be he saith true but nothing to the purpose For if this were a sufficient marke to make vs misdoubt our religion by the like reason other heretickes or infidels who do not beleeue the mysteries of the blessed Trinitie the Incarnation c. might thinke to make vs misdoubt the truth of these mysteries because they who neither beleeue these mysteries nor rightly vnderstand them nor the reasons and motiues which make vs beleeue them will say that these mysteries are directly and at first sight absurd c. yet in truth they are not absurd nor against but aboue our reason and sense so I say to M. White although other points of our religion seeme to him absurd yet in truth they are not absurd neither are they contrary to but at most aboue the reach of naturall reason 4 I do not obiect against the religion of the Papacie that it is but aboue the reach of reason For many mysteries of the true faith are so the which we must beleeue and n Nec quisquam potest intelligentiam Dei apprehendere nisi qui toto se despecto conuersus ad sapientiam Dei omnem quaerendi ratiocinationem transtuleriâ— ad credendi fideÌ„ Oros l. 6. c. 1. not examine by sence but that many points thereof are absurd and directly against sence and the light of nature which no peece of true religion is as for example that a man endued with reason should fall downe and adore and inuocate an image o Shewed in THE WAY §. 50. n. â—6 51. n 7. and below chap. 54. the which in the Church of Rome is taught and practised As many other points are as absurd as it But if it be true which the Iesuite sayes that they are mysteries which we vnderstand not being a seduced people not acquainted with the authority whereupon they are beleeued that is another matter that I knew not before for they are to blame that will demand reason for the mysteries of Rome that haue authoritie beyond reason p Apoc. 17.5 whose forehead hath the word Mysterie written in it and I had forgotten q Quia in his quae vult ei est pro ratione voluntas Nec est qui ei dicat cur ita facis Gloss §. Veri c. Quanto de transl ep Sacrilegij instaâ— esset disputare de facto suo Glos §. Quis enim d. 40. Non nos Jta nos ad iudices reuocas ac si nescires omnia iura in scrinio pectoris nostri collecata esse sic flat sententia Loco cedant omnes Pontifex sum Paul 2. Platin. p. 304. a rule in his law that forbids men to aske any reason of his doings But in the mean time where are the Iesuites r Introd q. 4. p. 100. prudentiall motiues without which nothing ought to be beleeued because the vnderstanding cannot assent to the thing propounded without some probable motiue For religion bids not men be stockes A. D. And one cause why the common sort of Protestants do at the first sight thinke them absurd is because they haue not heard points of our doctrine truly related and declared as our Authors declare them nor the reasons and authorities set downe for which we beleeue them but haue heard such ignorant or malicious Ministers as M White make false relation of points of absurd doctrine to be held by vs which we do not hold but abhorre As to go no further M. White falsely relateth in this very place that we hold the Pope to haue right to Lord it ouer the Scriptures Fathers Councels Church and all the world That we teach also men to murther the King to pay no debts to blow vp the Parliament to dispense with murther and whoredome c. These and such like be not points of our doctrine but shamelesse and slanderous vntruths by which simple people are drawne by ignorant or malicious Ministers to mislike our doctrine in generall and to be apt to haue a worse conceit of euery point of it in particular especially at the first sight then by due examination they shall finde it to deserue 5 Not Protestants onely thinke Poperie absurd but many Papists also censuring the points I haue named and misliking them shew plainly that I spake true yet the Reply sayes the cause why the common sort of Protestants thinke Poperie absurd is because they heare not the points of Papistrie truly related but their ignorant and malicious Ministers charge them to hold what they hold not This is false for first these Protestants that thus condemne Papistrie do dayly reade the Papists owne bookes which are not restrained and prohibited with a The reading and vse of Lutheran bookes forbidden not onely the vulgar but all others of what state degree order or condition soeuer they be though Bishops Archbishops or greater onely the Jnquisitors are excepted by a Decretall of Iulius the 3. See Sept. Decr. l. 5. tit 4. de lib. prohib c. 2. that seueritie wherewith
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
the Schoolemen But how 6 See the Protest apol tr 1. sect 3. n. 6. false this is the authorities of the Scriptures and auncient Fathers alleadged for this point by our Diuines do abundantly testifie Sixthly he nameth the Masse But he neither nameth nor can truly name the time when the place where or person which since Christ was first Author of the substance of it consisting onely in consecration oblation and consumption of the sacred host As for other additions which he mentioneth they are impertinent in regard they are not any substantiall part of the Masse If he vrge them not as substantiall parts of the Masse but as being in his opinion substantiall errours brought in contrary to the ancient faith I must require him to set downe not onely when and by whom they were added as ceremonies to the Masse but when and by whom they were at first inuented and taught and who did resist and continue to resist them as innouations in faith the which he is neuer able to shew Seuenthly he nameth 7 White p 284. Originall sinne But he doth not nor cannot name the first Author of any thing held about this matter 8 See Iod. Coccius Bellar. de Notis Eccl. c. 6. vniuersally by our Church as a point of faith and therefore he wasteth wordes anh speaketh nothing to the purpose when he rehearseth this or that Doctors opinion in this or any other point Because here onely my question is not about priuate Doctors opinions bu about doctrine of faith vniuersally and authoriratiuely taught by the Church of which kinde my 9 Worton p. 393. White p. 415. aduersaries cannot shew any one point held by vnanime consent of the ancient Church contrarie to that which is holden now by our Church as a point of faith whereas we can and do shew diuers points held in that manner by the ancient Church directly contrary to that which is holden by Protestants as points of their faith 1 THe Reply needes not so often distinguish betweene priuate opinions and the doctrine of faith vniuersally taught by the Church For euery one of the examples giuen in the Digression shew that the Church of Rome now holds against the vniuersall doctrine of the Church in former times Touching the Popes SVPREMACY I said diuers things whereof that concerning Boniface was but one I shewed out of good Authors that in ancient time he had superioritie neither ouer Kings Councels nor Bishops out of the Romane Patriarchie but was in all things like to other Patriarks concerning iurisdiction To all which the Replie saies not a word but onely answers touching Boniface that it is false I say the supremacie began in him But if it be false then his owne authors whom I alledged should haue bene answered For we Protestants make account that when wee prooue that we say by the testimonies of the chiefest of our Aduersaries themselues there is reason we be discharged and our assertion credited But this matter of Bonifaces getting the supremacie of Phocas is so plaine and witnessed so generally by all Histories that it was the desperatest answer that could be made to say it is false I shewed a Digr 27. n. 31. lett m. in another place before that this is the generall report of all Historiographers Anastasius Luitprand P. Diaconus Martinus Polonus Marianus Scotus Otho Frisingensis Rhegino Albo Floriacensis Platina Vrspergensis Sabellicus Nauclerus Duarenus all whose testimonies to denie with one word it is false is a good ready and easie way but it will not so easily remoue the euidence and whereas he addes that the falsehood of my assertion is shewed not onely by Catholicke but by Protestant authors referring the Reader to Briarlies Apologie I must intreate him to mend that fault for there is not one Protestant alledged that denies my assertion or affirmes the Pope had the Primacy before Boniface And indeed but that tyrants are seene by experience to hold fast a man conuersant in antiquitie would wonder how our Aduersaries for shame should auouch this Primacie I shewed in the 27 Digression that the Church gouernment was equally deuided among all the Patriarks and the B. of Rome was confined within his owne limits And restrained from taking appeals out of other countries He had no authority ouer generall councels either to call them or be president or to ouerrule them himselfe acknowledged the name and state of a vniuersall B. to be Antichristian b Euseb de vit Constant l. 2. c. 52. inde l. 3. c. 6.16.62 l. 4. c. 18.36.41 orat ad Sanct. caet post sin l. 4. Socrat l. 5. Proaem Iustin edict de fid orthod in iur graeco tom 1. pag. 521. Nouell 123. Nouel Heraclij Basilij Leonis Nicephori aliorum in iur graecor tom 1. Ausegis statut Ecclesiam Caroli Ludouici Isid cod Leg. Wisigoth l. 2. tit 1. c. 11.29 30. l. 3. tit 4. c vlt. l. 4. tit 5. c. 6. l 5. And the Emperors and Kings of the Catholicke Church did so ordinarily command and prescribe the things belonging to religion that it amaseth me to see it denied And if there were any superiority in those daies of one Patriarke ouer another the Greekes wil as confidently speake for their Patriarke at Constantinople as our Aduersaries do for the Pope and Anna Porphyrogenita in her historie with others a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 31. Graecorum plerique à Chalcedonensi Synodo principatum Ecclesiasticum Constantino politanis tributum esse putabant Haesch Not. p. 179. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leo. Constant Tit. 3. n. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in inr Graecorom to 2. p. 85. say it expresly My assertion therefore that the beginning of the Popes supremacie ouer other Bishops was in Boniface must stand till the authorities whereuppon it stands be taken away which the breath of a Seminary cannot do 2 Thirdly touching Priests mariage he saies its false that Siritius first restrained it but he that shall reade histories and obserue the course of things shall finde it to be most true And I for my part can iustifie it no otherwise and therefore I alledged fiue authors for that I said all of them Papists whose testimonie if the Replies bare word be enough to infringe I can say no more but thinke it good being a Masse Priest when his bare word shall make that false which is iustified by many witnesses But he saies I may learne by the 2 Councell of Carthage can 2 that Priests were restrained from companie of wiues long before Siritius daies euen by the Apostles themselues I answer the name and canon of this Councell is notably abused First it was not holden before Siritius time but vnder him Secondly the canon alledged cannot be prooued to be a canon of the Councell made by all the B B. but a motion or bill put vp by Aurelius wherein he moues that they which attended on the Sacraments be continent
calls the vniuersall doctrine of the Church authoritatiuely taught I cannot define nor himselfe determine when all these haue bene and yet are holden in his Church and haue their patrons who will all of them maintaine that his owne opinion is the doctrine of the Church This therefore is it I said that had their doctrine touching originall sin bin the truth anciently taught in the Apostles Church it could not haue bene thus often changed and remoued from opinion to opinion till the opinions be multiplied to as many as there be Doctors 8 And this example shewes how friuolous the common answer is that their differences are not in points of faith but in by-matters not determined wherein it is lawfull to hold any part For this difference is in a point defined though not by any Popish councell yet by the word of God or whether it be defined or no it is in a matter wherein they hold against vs bearing men in hand that they can shew catalogues and whole companies in all ages that held therein with them FOR WE DO NOT SO MVCH CARE TO SHEW THEIR DIVISIONS TO BE IN THE SVBSTANCE OF THEIR FAITH albeit they haue infinite such AS TO MAKE CLEARE DEMONSTRATION THAT THEY AGREE IN NOTHING WHICH THEY HOLD AGAINST THE PROTESTANTS The which kind of disagreement is sufficient to shew the things we haue refused in their Church to be matters broacht and brought in which neuer had the generall approbation of the Church That wherewith he concludes we can shew diuers points of the Protestants faith directly contrary to the ancient Church is a stale vntruth already sufficiently confuted in euery passage He can referre vs to his Coccius and Bellarmine but himselfe I thinke can shew little of his owne knowledge being one of them whom not knowledge but rumour and popularitie haue carried to the Popes side CHAP. LIX Obiections against the outward succession of the Pope 1. Touching Peters being at Rome 2. His pastorall office what it was 3. Whether there be any diuine authoritie for the Popes succession 4. Not certaine what Popes haue succeeded one another 5. Vacancies diuers in the Sea of Rome 6. The storie of the woman Pope of what credit 7. 8. The Pope hath bene an hereticke and erred è Cathedra 10. The Pope succeeds by Simonie and violence Such succession is a nullitie by his owne law 11. The Pharisees in Moses chaire how A. D. defends the succession of an ASSE 12. Many Popes at once 13. Vrbanus his crueltie toward the Cardinals 13. What the Protestants say touching the succession of the Church of Rome A.D. The fifth obiection Lastly Pag. 289. my aduersaries may obiect against the Romane succession which in this Catalogue I mention FIRST that it is not certaine that euer S. Peter was at Rome SECONDLY that we haue no diuine but onely humane proofe that the Bishop of Rome White pag. 416 Pag. 418. pag 419. pag. 421. rather then he of Antioch is S. Peters successor THIRDLY admitting that S. Peter had one to succeed him in Rome it is not certaine who this was which succeeded him and who afterward succeeded one another FOVRTHLY the Sea hath bene voide a good while together FIFTLY a woman was once Pope SIXTLY diuers Popes haue bene hereticks SEVENTHLY some haue entred into the Popedome by simonie and violence c. EIGHTLY there haue bene 30 schismes and therefore it is vncertaine who was the right Pope To the FIRST I answer that so many ancient * See the Fathers cited for this point in the Rhem. Test annot Rom. 16 Fathers do witnes and so many monuments yet remaining do testifie that S. Peter was at Rome and died there that it is great ignorance and impudencie to denie it 1 THe obiections here mentioned the first excepted I proposed Digress 53. and they clearely shew that the outward succession of Bishops in the Romane Church is neither so entire nor perfect as is pretended Our aduersaries neuer haue done with vrging the lineall succession of their Popes frō S. Peter to this day making it a signe of the Church and concluding from it that they alone are the Bishops and Pastors of the world which haue preserued the truth from all corruption and innouation Which outward succession in some degree the Protestants denie not onely they affirme two things against it that the same is to be found in other Churches as well as in the Church of Rome and that it hath bene so tainted and interrupted with defects of all sorts that it can proue nothing against vs but rather shewes manifestly that the ancient faith and gouernment commended by Christ to his Church hath bene changed as will appeare by viewing the seuerall things that are obiected 2 To the first he answers that so many ancient Fathers and monuments yet remaining testifie S. Peter to haue bene at Rome and died there that it is ignorance and impudencie to denie it He affirmes three things First that we denie Peter to haue bene at Rome This is vntrue Let the writings of our a D. Fulk answ to the Rhem. Rom. 16. nu 4. D. Rainol conser c. 6. diuis 3. D. Whitak controu 4. ◠3. c. ◠Iun. contr 3. l. 2. c. 5. Diuines be viewed and they denie it not but the vttermost they say is that the reasons and testimonies brought out of antiquity whereupon his being there is grounded are vncertaine and may sensibly be dissolued If b Whose demonstrations that Peter was neuer at Rome are printed by Illyricus with his boke called Refut inuectiu Bruni printed at Basil an 1566. by Oporin Velenus or some speciall men with him haue brought the matter in question it was free for them so to do and almost necessarie for the bolting out of the truth all things in antiquitie touching the same being perplexed with such difficulties that it were able to make any man misdoubt it Yet the Protestants are not curious and the Church of Rome gaines not a straw by it Secondly that the ancient Fathers testifie he was at Rome This I grant but yet all the Papists liuing cannot reconcile their testimonies nor maintaine either that he came thither in such a time or stayed there so long as is reported The which consideration hath mooued as learned Papists themselues as euer were any to doubt of his being there at all if my aduersarie thinke them so impudent that do it Marsilius Patauinus * Marsil defens Pacis part 2. c. 16. printed at Basil in fol. saies that by the Scripture it cannot be conuinced either that he was Bishop of Rome or euer was at Rome at all And then considering the Ecclesiasticall histories that affirme it he so doth it that it plainely appeares he beleeued them not Whence it followes that his being there was a common opinion but not certaine forsomuch as it was grounded on no surer testimonie then these circumstances of Time were The first that saies he sate
haue said A. D. Whereas I obiect that sectaries and the Diuell himselfe doth alledge words of Scripture Pag. 202. White pag. 64. M. White granteth it but saith he either they alledge not true Scripture or not truly applied as also they alledge the authority of the Church but either not the true Church or the true Church not truly Testimonium hoc verū est This which M. White granteth is the very truth and wanteth nothing but that he apply it to his priuate men Luther and Caluin and to his owne selfe Partiality will not suffer him to apply it thus but there is no reason that he should be iudge it is more fit that the iudgement of this matter be left to the Catholicke Church which he confesseth to be taught of God White pag. 63. 10 If my answer be true that when sectaries or the Diuell alledge Scripture or the Church they do it not truly let the Repliar giue ouer bragging and shew really that the Protestants haue not alledged these things truly And if it be no reason we be iudges our selues no more is it that the Pope and Papacy which k Nomine Ecclesiae intelligimus eius caput id est Romanum Pontificem Grego de Valent pag. 24. tom 3. Quod autem haec regula animata rationalis sit summus Pontifex non est hic locus proprius probandi Fra. Albertin Coroll p. 251. c. No maruell now though the Catholicke Church were so fast talked of he meanes by the Catholick Church be iudge but were it at that that we might haue a free Councell assembled and holden as Councels were of ancient time where the Pope and his faith might be tried as well as we it would soone appeare the Protestants haue not bene partiall in their cause when the late Trent Councell it selfe had come nearer vs then it did if it had not bene managed by Machiauellisme more then religion and the greatest tyranny and cosenage and villany vsed in it that euer stirred in any publicke busines CHAP. XXXIIII 1 The Papists pretending the Church haue a further meaning then the vulgar know 2 The Popes will is made the Churches act 3 Base traditions expounded to be diuine truth A. D. Concerning the tenth Chapter both my Aduersaries make maine opposition against the conclusion of this Chapter Pag. 202. one reason whereof is that they do not or will not rightly vnderstand what I meant when here I say the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith note therefore first whereas the name Church may be taken seuerall waies Intro q. 3. according to that which I noted in the Introduction whereas also in euery one of these senses it may be taken either as it is generally in all ages or as it is particularly in this or that determinate age my Aduersaries omitting all other senses principally vnderstand me to meane by the name Church the Pope or Pastours of this present age whereas in this Chapter I do not at least ex professo or primarily intend to speake of the Church in this sense but rather do speake of the Church in a more generall indefinite and indeterminate sense as it signifieth one or other companie of men liuing either in all ages or in one or other age who in one or other sense may be called the Church the doctrine whereof say I is the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all sorts of men in all matters of faith Note secondly that by the doctrine of the Church I do not vnderstand any Friars dreames White pag. 3 as M. White dreameth nor humane traditions especially opposite to Scripture but diuine doctrine including therein both the written diuine Scripture and the vnwritten diuine traditions and the true diuine interpretation of them both as by word writing signes or otherwise it is or may be propounded and deliuered to vs by the authority of the Church all which although it may worthily be called diuine doctrine as being first reuealed by God here I call Church-doctrine because as it was first reuealed and committed to the keeping of Prophets and Apostles who in their time were chiefe and principall members of the militant Church so by Gods ordinance it was to be propounded and deliuered to other men by the same Prophets Apostles and others their successors as they are Doctors and Pastors of the same Church Note thirdly that by the rule of faith I meane such a rule as is also a sufficient outward meanes ordained and set apart by God to instruct all sorts of men in all points of faith which consequently must haue those three conditions or properties of the rule set downe and declared in the sixt Chapter viz that it must be infallible easie to be vnderstood of all sorts and vniuersall or such as may sufficiently resolue one in all points of faith Note fourthly that when I say the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith I do not vnderstand that the doctrine as seuered from the Church or the Church as diuided from the doctrine is the rule of saith but that the doctrine as deliuered by the Church or the Church as deliuering doctrine is that rule and meanes which God hath ordained to instruct men in faith Note fifthly that to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of faith in such sort as now I haue said it might suffice for this Chapter that it be shewed that at least once or in one age there were one or other company of liuing men in one or other sense called the Church who were ordained by God and set apart to instruct all sorts of men in all points of faith being for that purpose in their doctrine and teaching furnished with these three conditions which are requisite in the rule of faith for this being shewed in this Chapter I shall easily shew in the next that the same is to be said of some or other company continuing in all ages In this Chapter therefore I chiefly vndertake to proue that once or in one age there was a company of liuing men who in one sense may be called the Church whom God specially appointed as a meanes sufficient quantū ex se to instruct all men in all matters of faith being for that purpose furnished with the three conditions or properties of the rule of faith 1 THe conclusion of this Chapter was that the infallible rule which we ought obediently to follow in all points of faith is the doctrine and teaching faith and beleefe of the true Church his meaning wherein he saies I would not or did not rightly vnderstand Let vs therefore see how I vnderstood it My answer was that we would freely grant this conclusion if the meaning were no more but that the doctrine and faith of the vniuersall Church is the rule of faith but there is a higher matter meant First that the Churches word and authority without grounding the same on the Scripture is the rule