A wonder not farre from Rome Writers not putting their names to their bookes censured by the Iesuites The Popes Iester The name of Minister and Priest Church the pillar of truth The way of Catholicke discipline is the way of the Scripture The Iesuites Method in perswading to Papistry The manner of A. D. his Replying and his promise to raile Chap. 2. The Papists trampling of the Scriptures and preferring their Church The Church of Rome touched in her honesty and reputed for a whore The conditions of a whore Chap. 3. The order of the Iesuites why and to what purpose erected by the Pope they are that to the Pope that the Ianisaries are to the Turke Their aboadments Chap. 4 Some examples of the Iesuites rapine Touching the present Pope Paule 5. and his nephew Burghesi The Iesuites deuouring those that entertaine thē Chap. 5. Touching the rapine and couetousnesse of the Romish Cleargy And their single life and what the world hath thought thereof Chap. 6. Touching the turbulency of our Iesuites and Maspriests in the State and their vnthankefulnesse to the King The seditious doctrine of the Church of Rome leading to all disobedience against the Magistrate and rebellion whēsoeuer occasion shall serue Tyrones rebellion and the Spanish inuasion promoted by the Pope A Catalogue of about forty Emperors Kings and Princes destroyed or vexed by the Pope and his Cleargy A consideration vpon the doctrine of the Popes power to depose kings Chap. 7. Concerning the doctrine of Merits taught in the Church of Rome and touching the Bull of Pius and Gregory against Michael Bayus the Deane of Louane Chap. 8. The Papacy brought in by Sathan The Iesuits spirit of contradiction The Church of Rome reuolted The fiue Patriarkes were equall at the first Plaine Scripture against the Papacy The ignorance of Popish laity Corruption of writings by the Papists Reformation desired long before it came Aduice giuen to A.D. Chap. 9. The Apocrypha not accounted Canonicall Scripture Papists professing to expound against the Fathers The new English translation of the Bible Traditions equalled with the holy Scripture About the erring of Councels And the sufficiencie of the Scriptures Chap. 10. The practise of the Papists in purging bookes The sacrifice of the Masse and reall presence denied Points of Papists absurd The Pope Lords it ouer all Papists need pay no debts May be traitors to murder Princes Iesuites plots in the powder-treason The Popes dispensing with sinne A meditation for all Papists Chap. 11. The Papists manner of dealing with immodesty and vncharitablenesse Briarly and Walsinghams bookes noted Some reports of the Papists meeknesse and mildnesse Hunt a Seminary arraigned at Lancaster The dumbe cattle slaughtered in Lancash The generall desire of vs all to reduce them to charity Chap. 12. Touching the ignorance that Papistrie hath bred among people Their barbarous manner of praying auoched Of Iohn the Almoner a legend The manner how a certaine Priest baptised The Replies zeale for recusants of the better sort A Lancash gentleman alledged by the Reply A note of a French Knight The successe of preaching in Lancash Chap. 13. Touching prayer to Saints Mediation of redemption and intercession Bonauentures Psalter Christ the onely mediator of intercession Reasons why we desire not the dead to pray for vs as we do the liuing The prayers of a Friar and an Archbishop It cannot be shewed that the dead heare vs. Deuices of the Schoolemen to shew how they heare vs. God not like an earthly King In their Saint-inuocating they Platonize Men equalled with Christ Chap. 14. More touching the worship of Saints The same words vsed to Saints that are to God The formall reason of worship The harsh praiers made to Saints how excused Nauarres forme of deuotion Counterfeits bearing the name of Fathers S. Austines doctrine to vse no mediator but Christ Chap. 15. The Iesuits insolency censured Note bookes A relation shewing how the Iesuites traine vp their nouices to dispute The doctrine of the Iesuites touching formall lies and equiuocation The Repliars motion to Protestant Ministers answered Chap. 16. Touching assurance of grace and beleeuing a mans owne saluation Perfection of the Scripture and necessity of the Church Ministry How the iustified conclude their saluation from the Scripture The iustified haue the assurance of faith This is declared full assurance voide of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome Touching perseuerance Chap. 17. Concerning points fundamentall and not fundamentall the distinction expounded and defended Who shall iudge what is fundamentall and what not A iest at the election of Pope Leo the x. Chap. 18. Touching the perpetuall virginity of Marie The celebration of Easter The baptisme of infants The Iesuits halting And the Scriptures sufficiency Chap. 19. How the Church proues the Scripture The Iesuites plainely confesse that the Scripture alone proues it selfe to be Gods word The Scriptures are principles indemonstrable in any superior science All other testimonies resolued into the testimony of the Scripture Touching euidence and the compossibility thereof with faith Chap. 20 A continuation of the same matter touching the Churches authority in giuing testimony of the Scriptures The Scripture proues it selfe to be Gods word The light of the Scripture How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture The Papists retyring to the Spirit And casting off the Fathers A Councell is aboue the Pope The Pope may erre Chap. 21. Which is the Militant Church And the Catholicke The Church of the elect inuisible A rancid conceite of the Iesuite Chap. 22. Reports made by Papists that the Protestants are without religion They hold the iustification of the Gentiles without the Gospell or knowledge of Christ No saluation but in one true religion The Repliars tergiuersation Chap. 23. Touching the implicit faith that is taught in the Church of Rome How defined by them In what sense the Protestants mislike or allow it Arguments made for it answered The ancient Church allowed it not Chap. 24. Touching the necessitie and nature of the Rule of faith And how it is reuealed and communicated to all men that none need to despaire Chap. 25. The text of 1. Tim. 2.4 God wils all men to be saued c. expounded The diuerse expositions that are giuen of those words Gods antecedent will as they call it is not his will formally The antecedent and consequent will of God expounded diuerse wayes Chap. 26. The properties of the rule of faith described None follow priuate spirits more then our aduersaries How the Rule must be vnpartial and of authority Chap. 27. The Repliars tergiuersation The state of the question touching the sufficiencie of the Scripture alone and the necessity of the Church ministery The speeches of diuers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture In what sence the Scripture alone is not sufficient Chap. 28. Touching our English translations of the Bible their sinceritie and infalliblenesse How
bad vnder pretence of aduancing the Gospell or the glory of God especially if they thinke that they may lawfully maintaine it by writing apparent and knowne vntruthes the better to defend it If I say there be any Protestant writers of such seared consciences I would wish they would plainely tell vs this their minds that so those poore soules who haue bene hitherto seduced may the better see how vnsound the Potestant Religion is which cannot be maintained but with apparent vntruths vttered by their writers either without due care of conscience or against their knowledge and conscience or with hauing such bad consciences as to thinke it lawfull to lie in this their cause pretended by them to be for the aduancement of Gods glory and of the Gospell or which is all one or worse to thinke one cannot lye too much in defence of this their Protestant cause or Gospell 5 This is a poore motion and proceeds from no great conceit yet I will satisfie it vpon condition he will rest satisfied with my answer Let this content you and beare not your selues in hand to the contrary we know our cause to be Gods owne truth which you haue corrupted with innumerable heresies patched thereunto and we not onely defend it as we do with a good conscience against you but wee would thinke it our greatest happines if the cause should so require to shed our blood in defence of it and it ioyes our hearts to see the weapons wherewith you fight against vs lying railing pride rage treason sedition fire and powder which is a signe that you are not of God this our cause we will maintaine with zeale and synceritie which shall be tried not by your calumnies but by the thing it selfe And I am so far from seduâ—ing any that I would giue my life for the reclaiming of those whom you haue seduced and bewitched with meere cozenage and impostures And as I hate lying to defend Gods truth so can I not but vpbraide them that run headily into Papistry afore they know how things stand betweene vs when vpon iust triall it will fall out that in the maine question betweene the Church of Rome and vs our aduersaries vphold themselues with meere imposture To the Reader HItherto reaches that which my Aduersary hath written against the Epistle and Preface of my booke now in the next place before he fall to replying vpon the booke it selfe he inserts an Introduction as he calles it containing a Declaration of the word Faith the which bebeginnes pag. 49. where his exceptions to the said Preface and epistle end And forasmuch as it is a new discourse intended * Since I see M. A Wotton to be either of so dull capacity of wit that he cannot conceiue or rather of so captious disposition of will that he will needes doubt and make a question what I meant by the word faith I haue thought good not onely to declare what I meant by the word but also by this action to set downe certaine points of doctrine pertaining to the thing signified by the word pag 49. of his Reply as it should seeme against M. Wotton and is no Reply to me but a superfluous and impertinent collection rudely and obscurely peeced together for the outfacing of that which he was not able formally to answer I would therefore cast away no time in medling with it but onely defend my selfe against such places thereof as touch my Booke because I will not be in his debt for a word Those places onely I haue here set downe in order as they lie in his Discourse with my Answer to them CHAP. XVI Touching assurance of Grace and Beleeuing a mans owne saluation 1. Perfection of the Scripture and necessitie of the Church Ministrie 2. 3. How the iustified conclude their saluation from the Scripture 4. The iustified haue the assurance of faith This is declared Full assurance voide of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome 5. Touching Perseuerance A. D. Now that it doth not at all appertaine to that kind of verities Pag. 57. which are to be beleeued by faith I proue out of the Protestants owne Principles to wit that * That this proofe must be by necessarie consequence without all authoritie of the Church is insinuated by White pag. 46 nothing is to be beleeued by faith but what is expressely set downe in Scripture or so contained that without all Church authoritie it may be euidently and by good consequence proued out of Scripture But the promise of Gods speciall mercie applied absolutely and in particular to Luther Caluine c. is neither expressed nor in manner aforesaid contained in Scripture Therefore it is not a verity to be beleeued by faith by the Protestants owne Principles 1 IN this Chapter where these words lye he discourses of the obiect of faith and inquires what the things are which belong to it and must be beleeued to no purpose intruding himselfe vpon an impertinent question touching the beleefe of a mans owne saluation and in this period he affirmes that it is against the Protestants owne Principles to beleeue it Because by their Principles nothing may be beleeued but what is set downe in Scripture either expressely or by good consequence which the saluation or remission of sinnes to Luther Caluine White or any particular man is not And to shew this to be our Principle he saies in the margent that M. White in such a place insinuats that nothing may be receiued as a point of faith vnlesse it can be proued by necessary consequence of Scripture without all authoritie of the Church meaning as I suppose that I require no Church authoritie to assure a man any thing but intend such things onely to be beleeued as may be proued at least by consequence of Scripture without the authoritie of the Church I answer 2. things First that in the place alleadged I deny no authority of the Church that is dâ—e vnto it but onely against them that charge the Scripture with insufficiency as if they wanted many things needfull to be beleeued which must be supplied by the Tradition and Authority of the Church I affirme that whatsoeuer is needfull to be knowne beleeued or done is contained in Scripture and by the same ALONE may absolutely be determined The meaning whereof is that what Ministrie and power soeuer the Church hath to teach and rule vs in the vse of the Scripture and points of faith which authority no Protestant will deny to belong to the true Church or to be needfull yet all things whatsoeuer belong to faith and the Church by any authoritie may propose vnto vs are contained in the Scripture and may be proued thereby alone the said Church authoritie being onely a requisite condition subordinate for the readier attaining to the sence and vse of the Scripture but no rule or principle either aboue or with the Scripture whereinto any mans faith in any point is resolued so that it
it may be the easing of him may do him good He complains this distinction when it is granted will not helpe the matter neither for the question may still be how many and which truthes those be that are necessary the which question if we leaue to be determinated by euery priuate spirit either we shall haue no point to be counted Fundamentall in regard the ignorance of some may be such that they may thinke a man may be saued by morall good life although through ignorance he beleeue nothing at all or else so many as shall please euery brainsicke fellow The determination therefore of this necessary question is to be left to the iudgement of the Catholicke Church that all such points that are confirmed by full authority of the said Church he receiued for such as must necessarily be beleeued by all men Wherein first I blame his discretion for where I mentioned the distinction I had no cause to inquire whose the authority is to iudge what is Fundamentall and what otherwise but assuming it as a thing iudged already I onely mentioned it affirming some points to be Fundamentall and some otherwise How it helps the matter therefore I had nothing to do in that my words were not vsed in this question Next I pittie his wretched state that in no controuersie running betweene vs no not so much as in this a poore distinction can preuaile vnlesse his owne Church and the Pope therein for * Shewed plainely below cap 35. 36. that he meanes by the authority of the Catholicke Church be made the iudge This is a very meane shift when a question depends betweene vs and them to put the Scripture and the consent of the Ancient Church by and require themselues to be iudges Thirdly this question as all other matters belonging to faith must be iudged by no mans priuate spirit but by the Catholicke Church of Christ as the Iudge and by the Scripture onely as the Rule and if they be no competent Iudges who through ignorance may thinke a man may be saued by morall good life though he beleeue nothing at all then away with the Church of Rome and let it be acknowledged as erroneous as any priuate spirit i See cap. 22. n. 1. wherein it is frequently holden that the Gentiles were iustified and might be saued onely by their morall life without beleeueing any thing at all Fourthly supposing the Protest left the determining of this question to priuate spirit which they do not but to the true Church of God following the Scripture yet let my Iesuite answer if the practise of his owne Church be not as bad where the Pope hath power k See cap. 36. n. 3. to make a new article of faith and that to be a Fundamentall point belonging to faith at one time which is not so at another so that all men shall then be bound to beleeue it which before were free to beleeue it l Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 §. ad argu Tonstall de verit corp p 46. as it hath already bene practised in the point of transubstantiation and may when the Pope will in the points of m Dico primò veritatem hanc sc virginem esse conceptam sine peccato originali posse definiti ab Ecclesia quando id expedire indicauerit probatur Nam imprimis EcclesiaÌ„ posse controuersiam hanc in alterutram partem decidere apertè supponunt Sixtus 4. Pius 5. Suar. tom 2. disp 3. sect 6. the conception of the B. Virgin and n Paul Benc Eugub l. de effic auxil c. 1. the concourse of Gods grace with mans wil and the o Staplet Princip doctr l. 9. c. 4. Relect. coÌ„tro 5. q. 2. art 4. Canonizing of Hermes or Clement into the sacred Scripture In which case his Holinesse might possible if not be brain-sicke which betides yonger men which Popes commonly are not vnlesse it be sometime when the yong Cardinâ—â— are in an humor to elect a Bennet or Iohn or * When Leo the tenth a yong man was elected in the Conclaue Alphonsus Petrucius a yong Cardinall proclaimed his election at the window Pontificem habemus Leonem decimum ac viuant vigeantque iuniores Pap. Masso in LeoÌ„ 10. he should haue cried by the order Annutiâ— vobis gaudium magnum Papam habemus Marcell sacr cerem pag. 19 Leo yet doâ—e at least by vertue of his age or for his recreation play the vice of a Play as p Alex. ab Alexand. genial dicr l. 3. c. 21. Amasis the King of Egipt would sometime do among his Courtiers and as q Aelian var. hist l. 12. c. 15. Agesilaus ride vpon a sticke among his children to make them sport the which comparisons howsoeuer his creatures will take vnkindly yet all the world knowes his Consistorie hath bene a stage whereon he hath many a time and often plaied these parts ere now as formally as the priuatest spirit or braine-sickest companion aliue can do and so I leaue him CHAP. XVIII 1. Touching the perpetuall virginity of Mary 2. The celebration of Easter 3. The Baptisme of Infants The Iesuits halting 4. And the Scriptures sufficiency A. D. I for breuitie sake will omit to vrge other points Pag. 68. which Protestants beleeue with vs viz the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgine against the errour of Heluidius White pag. 12. the celebration of Easter on the Sunday against those heretikes that denied it the Baptisme of Infants against Anabaptists who will not allow it c. 1 HEre my name is cited in the Margent and the page of my Booke as if I had written or some way insinuated that these 3. points were matters of faith and yet not contained in the Scripture But I writ nothing that sounds that way neither in the place cited nor any where else yet because I will misse no place where he cites me I answer he affirmes 3. things First that we hold the perpetuall virginity of the blessed Virgine the Celebration of Easter vpon the Sunday and the Baptisme of Infants to be a For that is the question expressed by himselfe a litle before pag. 67. of his Repl. points of faith necessary to be beleeued â—â—condly that these 3. are not contained in Scripture Thirdly that we beleeue all this with the Papists Wherein there is neuer a true word For to the first the perpetuall virginity of the Virgine Marie after the birth of our Sauiour as well as before we beleeue as a probable and likely truth but not as a matter of faith the which if my aduersarie mislike I require him to forbeare me and answer Saint Basil with whom we consent b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil pa. 233. graec Froben an 1551. That she denyed not the workes of mariage to her husband after the birth of her Sonne though it nothing hinder godly doctrine yet what was done after without medling with it let vs leaue to the
Syllogisme here set downe Whereto I answered First granting the maior and acknowledging it to be a point of faith necessary to be beleeued that the Canonicall bookes which the Church vses are true diuine Scripture but I denied the second proposition that they cannot be proued so to be by themselues secluding Church authority and tradition And I distinguish for the Authority and direction of the Church is Gods outward ordinance to teach vs as a condition how to see the Scripture to be diuine but not the thing whereby they are prooued so to be and whereon our faith leaneth but this diuinity the Church as a bare Minister out of the Scripture it selfe prooues to be in the Scripture not by her owne authority that vpon her word and testimony either onely or particularly it should be taken for Scripture rather then the books of other men In the same manner that a man shewes a star giuing light to it selfe which yet another cannot see till the man point to it Or as a dead mans will kept in the Register of necessity must be sought there and thence receiued yet all the authority of that court which is great and ample specially in preseruing records neither makes nor prooues the will to be legitimate but is onely a requisite condition to bring it forth and vs to the sight and knowledge of it the will proouing it selfe by the hand and seale of him that made it affixed to it So it is with the word of God which we do not ordinarily see to be the word of God vntill the Church teach and traine vs vp therein But when it hath done the arguments whereby it is proued so to be and the authority whereupon I beleeue it are contained in the word it selfe which I expound and confirme by this that euermore and perpetually the Church by the Scripture it selfe and by no other argument prooues it to be diuine to those she teaches and vpon that ground at the first receiued them for such her selfe and many times it fals out as with some Atheists and Pagans that where no Church authority ministry or perswasion is vsed by onely reading of the Scripture it selfe in respect of the outward meanes a man coms to faith which could not be if the Scripture it selfe had not conuinced him forsomuch as an Atheist or vnbeleeuer will not be perswaded by any thing but that which he euidently sees to be Gods owne word and this perswasion arises in him from the very booke it selfe without Church authority 3 And this is yet confirmed by that which the Iesuites teach against the Anabaptists Swinkfieldians holding the motions of their inward spirit to be Gods word for Bellarmine c De verb. Dei l. 1. c. 1. 2. sayes that to the faithfull acknowledging the Scripture to be Gods word it may be prooued out of the Scripture it selfe that the Scripture is the word of God Molhusine and Gretsers d Gretser def Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. pag. 34. D. words are these It is manifest that Bellarmine onely affirmes that it may be prooued OVT OF THE SCRIPTVRES THEMSELVES and the Canonicall books thereof onely TO THE FAITHFVLL who receiue and reuerence them for such that the word of God is not the inward spirit whereof fantasticall men boast but the word of God is truly it which is contriued in those books which the faithfull hold for Canonicall In which words they say three things First that the faithfull who acknowledge the Scripture to be Gods word are they persons of whom they speake not such as receiue it not Secondly that to such it may be prooued that not the inward spirit of fantasticall men but the Canonicall Scripture is the word of God Wherein they affirme two things may be prooued A Negatiue that the inward spirit is not Gods word and an Affirmatiue that Gods word is truely it which is contained in the Canonicall books of the Scripture Thirdly that both this Negatiue and this Affirmatiue may be proued out of the Scriptures themselues Hence I reasō thus To the godly that receiue and acknowledge the Scripture this affirmatiue that Gods word is it which is contained in the Canonicall Bookes of the Scripture may be proued out of the Scriptures themselues therefore the Scripture it selfe can proue it selfe to be the word of God Therefore that the Scripture it the very word of God is contained in the Scripture because otherwise it could not be proued so to be out of the Scripture it selfe Therefore all things needfull are contained in this Scripture No wrangling can auoid this If to such as receiue them it may be proued out of themselues that these Bookes are the word of God then this point that these bookes are diuine Scripture is contained in Scripture and the cause why some see it not is their owne indisposition and vnbeleefe wherewith the Scripture must not be charged but to such as receiue these Bookes the Iesuits affirme it may be proued out of themselues that they are the word of God that is without all Church authoritie which is externall and not in the Scripture 4 Secondlie this being admitted that it is a a point of faith necessary to be beleeued that the Canonical Books are diuine and then againe that they could not be shewed so to be out of themselues yet doth it not follow ineuitably that all points of faith are not contained in them for the question is not whether the Scripture be Gods word or no which is granted of all hands but whether being confessed so to be it containe all such verities as a Christian man is bound to know in such measure that there is no point to be beleeued that is not contained therein The reason is because the Scriptures are the principles of diuine knowledge and the faith thereof * Not in nature but in proportion like the credite we yeed to the rules of humane sciences which are knowne and beleeued of themselues without any further demonstration And as the kings lawes containe all things whatsoeuer the subiect is bound to do and yet the said lawes not prouing themselues to be of authoritie but supposing it to be known before and otherwise are not thereby proued to be vnperfect or defectiue but being receiued then there is nothing wanting in them that is necessary for the common-wealth and as in all arts and sciences that we learne the rules and precepts thereof need not proue themselues for that which is the generall rule of other things is not ruled it selfe in the same kinde and yet it were folly to say they were therefore imperfect So may it be said to be in the Scripture supposing it had no more light thereby to authorize it selfe then Princes lawes and humane principles haue that it containes all points of faith though it were not expressed that it selfe is the word of God For the readier vnderstanding whereof let the Reader againe cast his eie vpon the occasion
is manifestly gathered from that which of it selfe is manifest as that a stone cannot moue vpward of it selfe naturally because all heauie things naturally moue downeward Hence it is plaine that * Albeit faith rest not vpon that eu dence but vpon duine reuelatioÌ„ Fides non elicit actus suos mediante discursu sed sicut visus immediate fertur in obiectum sub ratione lucidâ—â—ta etiam fulei habitus in suum obiectum sub ratione diuinae reuelationis The contrary whereof is Manichisme Putaruâ—t nihil amplius esse â—re dendum quà m quod possit euidenti ratione demonstrari August de vtil credend c. 1. tom 6. many obiects of faith may also be euident because that which is beleeued may also in some respect be seene as Peter that beleeued Christ yet also saw him Or otherwise be knowne by the light of nature or gathered from that which is knowne as that there is a God And before I read this in my aduersaries margent I neuer knew but there was a compossibilitie of faith and euidence in diuers respects whereby they might both stand together in the same man about the same obiect Eymericus n Eymeric Directo part 1. q. 2 n. 2. sayes We may know the vnitie of the Deitie by naturall reason yet we beleeue one God Delgado o De Author Script pag. 51. Many diuine things touching God which are receiued by faith may also be found out by naturall reason Caietan p Caiet 22. qu. 175. art 3. sayes though Paul were rapt into the third heauens where he saw things which before hee beleeued yet the habit of faith touching those things remained in him still c. Faith and knowledge q Mayro 3. d. 23. art 6. pag. 13 sayes Francis Mayronis are habits that may stand together Faith by authoritie reuealed knowledge by euident demonstration Thus it is no contradiction that the same obiect be beleeued by authoritie and euidently knowne by demonstration Altisiodorensis r Altisiod sum l. 3. pag. 273. According to diuers apprehensions the same thing is knowne and beleeued beleeued and doubted Å¿ Mag. 3. d. 24. Alexand. 3. part qu. 79. m. 3. Tho. 22. qu. 2. art 4. cont Gent l. 1. c. 4 Occh. 3. q. 8. art 4. c. Duran prol sent pag. 4 c. Ricard 3. d. 24. q. 5. pag. 85. Gabr. 3. d 24. qu. vnic art 2. concl 2. Henric. Albert. Bonau Tarantas quos refert sequitur Dionys 3. d. 24. Simanch cath instit tit 28 n. 18. Rectè porro Caiet ex hoc loco Pauli argumentatur esse nonnulla quae de Deo euidenter cognosci demonstratiue probari queant Perer. select disp in Roma pag. 83. The principallest Schoole-men that are do all hold thus which I would not haue noted so curiously but to beate the confidence of my aduersary thus peremptorily auouching against me that he knowes not For albeit faith exceeds the dimension of reason yet reason is subordinate to it as sense is to vnderstanding And therefore as it is no inconuenience to say we vnderstand the same things we see no more is it to say we beleeue that which is euident in diuers respects How many things are we commanded in the Scripture to beleeue which yet we can demonstrate by reason as that there is a God and the immortalitie of the soule For as one may reueale a thing to another two wayes together first by shewing him a light to see it and then by proposing some externall signe or marke whereby to finde it or some image or description whereby to conceiue it so God hath shewed vs the Scripture to be diuine not onely by the light that shines in it whereby we beleeue it but also by the outward contexture of it containing the image of the diuine wisedome and puritie as the principles of sciences shew their owne authoritie The place cited out of the Hebrewes is answered by that I haue said CHAP. XX. 1. A continuation of the same matter touching the Churches authoritie in giuing testimonie to the Scriptures 2. The Scripture proues it selfe to be Gods word 3. The light of the Scripture 4. 5. How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit 6. The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture 7. The Papists retiring to the Spirit 8. And casting off the Fathers A Councell is aboue the Pope The Pope may erre A.D. It seemeth M. White saw the weaknesse of this his first answer Pag. 70. White pag. 47. and therefore not standing vpon it he secondly attempteth to proue Scripture to be diuine out of the Scripture For saith he S Paul 1 1. Tim. 3 v. 16 saith All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and S. Peter 2 2. Pet. 1. v. 20. saith no prophesie in the Scripture is of priuate interpretation but the holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost Against this I reply that my argument doth not enquire onely how we proue in generall that there is any diuine Scripture at all which is all that these or any such like sentences can proue but chiefly I aske how we proue these books in particular which the Church now vseth bearing the titles of S. Matthews S. Marks Gospel c. to be diuine Scripture to be the same which was written by those writers whose title they beare For vpon the certain beliefe hereof dependeth the certaintie of other points proued out of these bookes Now it is certaine that this is not proued by those sentences of Scripture since it may be true that there is some diuine Scripture and that all true diuine Scripture was inspired by God and yet if we seclude Tradition and Church-authoritie the question may still be whether S. Matthewes S. Markes Gospell c. especially these in particular which are now vsed are part of that Scripture which these sentences speake of Secondly I say that before these sentences proue sufficiently that there is any diuine Scripture at at all these sentences themselues must be supposed to be diuine the which cannot sufficiently be proued either by themselues or any other like sentences if we exclude Tradition which doth shew that they be diuine 1 All this I answered in the words of my Booke a Digress 12. immediatly following these words that he hath cited and that so briefly directly that nothing could be spoken plainer To proue the imperfection of the Scripture he had said it was no where expresly set downe and determined in Scripture that these bookes are the true word of God this in particular of euerie Booke holden for Scripture we shall not finde expresly written in any part of the Scripture Whereto I answered that it was written expresly that b 2. Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is giuen by inspiration and c 2. Pet. 1.20 No Scripture is of priuate interpretation but the holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost
infallible rule of faith as it is also the ordinary sufficient meanes ordained by God to breed faith in men My aduersaryes for their better aduantage take the question in the first sense whereas they ought to take it in the second sense in regard I so take it in the fift Chapter vnto which this Chapter hath reference For whereas in the foure first Chapters I had set downe for a certaine ground that one infallible entire faith was necessary to saluation in the first Chapter I proued that God had ordained some rule and meanes that is some such rule as was also a meanes sufficient to breed this one infallible entire faith in all sorts of men yea quantum ex se in all men In the sixt Chapter I set downe certaine conditions of this rule and meanes and consequently when in this seuenth Chapter I deny Scripture alone to be the rule I must needes meane that it is not the rule which is also a sufficient ordinary meanes of which all my speech went before Now in this true sense my aduersaries do not gainesay but conuicted by the euidence of truth yeeld that Scripture alone is not the rule taking the rule as it signifieth that which is so a rule as it is also the ordinary sufficient meanes to breed faith in men as here I take it The Scripture it selfe saith M. Wootton is a rule Wootton p. 66. or meanes made effectuall to some by reading without any outward helpe of man but this is not the ordinary course that God hath appointed for the instruction of the people Pag. 89. in the knowledge of his truth therefore if we say at any time Scripture alone is the rule of faith by ALONE we seuer it from the traditions and authoritie of men not from their Ministry and ascribe sufficiently vnto it in respect of the matter to be beleeued not simply of the meanes to bring men to beleeue And againe we require besides onely expresse wordes of Scripture the Ministry and industry of man together and conclude points of doctrine out of that which is written in Scripture White pag. 23. M. White although he seeme to make the doctrine it selfe of Scripture to be the rule the letter of the original or translation to be a meanes which like a vessell presenteth vnto vs this rule yet to the purpose of the question in my sense he granteth that the Ministry is the ordinary meanes Pag. 116. whereby we may learne the faith of Christ and that no man can of himselfe attaine the knowledge thereof but as the Church teacheth him excepting some extraordinary cases Whereby I euidently conclude that both M. Wootton and M. White yeeld to the principall conclusion of this Chapter to wit that Scripture alone whether taken for the originall or translation is not the rule of faith in such sense as I here speake of the rule of faith Idle therefore and impertinent is most of their long and tedious discourse vpon this Chapter which consequently I pretermit as vnworthie of any reply if any thing here brought by them and pretermitted by me seeme contrary to my conclusion it is such as is answered ordinarily by Catholicke Authors or such as these my aduersaries themselues if they wil not contradict this which is yeelded to by themselues ought to answer vnto as well as I. 1 HEre I must repeate my old complaint that I am forced to renew in euery question that falles out betweene vs that my aduersary omits and dissembles the whole substance of my writing and onely descants vpon some few remnants that he rends out here and there wisely foreseeing either that his cause would abide no triall or himselfe was not the man that was able to make the triall For though he could well enough translate and transcribe another man writing and patch it together when he had done to make a pamphlet yet the defence he must leaue to his Author being belike some student * A.D. Student in diuinitie as he professes himselfe that is proceeded no higher then translations and yet will serue the turne to beare the name of a Catholicke writer This abiect course which now adayes that side cleaues to as deuoutly as to their faith bewrayes the misery of their side to say no more and so I follow him whither the winde and the tide carrie me For he that rides a iade must take his owne pace or go afoote 2 First he sayes his Aduersaries either ignorantly or wilfully peruert the state of the question else they could haue had no colour to make so long discourse The which is no vnprofitable way when he cannot defend his question to picke a quarrel to the state And possible he hath learned it by poâ—ching in D. Stapletons bookes who in his time made good vse of this tricke But how was the question mistaken He saies his question was not whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether Scripture alone be the rule and meanes to breed faith For the trial of this I must intreate the Reader to take knowledge how things stand betweene vs though I haue once or twise already vpon like occasions repeated it The Iesuite in his Treatise that I answered beginnes with certaine propositions which he sayes are to be supposed and set downe for certaine and assured grounds First that no man can be saued without the true faith Secondly that this faith is but one neither can men be saued in any other Thirdly that this faith must be infallible and certaine so that the beleeuer be fully perswaded of the truth thereof Fourthly that it must be whole and entire beleeuing rightly all points one as well as another Fifthly that God hath ordained a certaine rule or meane whereby all men learned and vnlearned may be instructed in this faith and infallibly taught WHAT is to be holden for the true faith and WHAT not Sixtly that this rule must haue three conditions First infallibility to be certaine without deceiuing vs. Secondly easines that it may be plainely knowne of all sorts of men Thirdly latitude that by it we may know absolutely all points needfull to be learned Then a In THE WAY §. 5. and in his printed treatise p. 17. concl 1. he proceeds to inquire what in particular is the thing which may be assigned to be this rule whereto he answers in foure conclusions the first whereof is this whereabout he now contends The Scripture alone especially as it is translated * In his printed copie it is Specially as it is by Protestants translated into the English tongue into the English tongue cannot he this rule This I denied in another conclusion opposite to it vsing the words of the publike articles of our Church The Scripture comprehended in the Canonicall bookes of the old and new Testament is the rule of faith so far that whatsoeuer is not read therein or cannot be proued thereby is not to be accepted as any point of
is one thing it selfe that is beleeued the fore to be grounded on some superior authoritie Can loc l. ◠§. 8. D Weston layes the resolution of faith thus Our faith of any mystery is resolued into a former act wherby the Scripture containing this mystery is beleeued to be the word of God and this also is resolued into a former act as the cause thereof that the Church cannot erre Which we beleeue for the signes and notes which shew it to be a true Church Thus resoluing all diuine faith into humane motiues de Tripl offic c. 3. pag. 143. aduersaries themselues as I haue often shewed after all authoritie of Fathers Church Councels Pope and all do rest and resolue their faith vpon the second proposition of this Syllogisme I am taught this by Scripture our aduersaries denie not but Fathers Councels Popes may erre or if they cannot yet the authoritie of these things is not the reason of our faith for then faith should be humane but the inward authoritie of the Scripture and the Spirit of God If it be demanded how the Protestants can giue infallible assurance to others that they vnderstand the Scripture aright I answer that the same question is to be made to the Papists and both they and we must answer that vnlesse God illuminate their hearts we can giue no assurance neither they by the Church nor we by the Scripture but such as haue this illumination do see manifestly the truth of the things they haue beleeued But Luther he sayes held against the vniuersall Catholicke Church I answer and let all Papists well consider of it that they must proue this which I call the Papacie to be the vniuersall Catholicke Church afore they can say Luther was deceiued That they cannot proue but by the Scripture in which triall Luther shall retire to the Scripture no faster then themselues and then they may be deceiued as well as Luther in as much vnlesse they will runne in a round as all their other authoritie proofes and motiues must be tried by the Scriptures OVER WHICH GOD HATH SET NO VISIBLE IVDGE IN THIS WORLD THAT CAN INFALLIBLY CONVINCE AND PERSWADE ALL MEN. I wil make this plaine by laying downe the maner how Luther and how a Papist assures himselfe Luther and the Protestants for their part beleeue for example that a man is iustified by faith onely because the Scripture in plaine places excluding workes and proposing Gods free grace in Christ and maintaining the sole merits of Christ applied by faith debarres euery thing from iustifying that is in our selues and so teaches expresly that we are iustified onely by faith in Christ The Papists hold the contrary alledging the Church and the Pope whose doctrine they say it is that we are iustified by our workes But being demanded how we know infallibly that the Church or the Pope hath not erred in holding so they grant they may erre and answer that yet they are known not to erre in this point by the Scriptures which Scripture and the true sence thereof is knowne and beleeued for it selfe Here they are fallen into the same issue that the Protestants are I am taught this by the Scripture Now if they reply that we are infallibly assured the Scripture is meant as we say because the Church expounds it so who sees not that they make a circle thus to beleeue the Church first because of the Scripture and then againe to beleeue the Scripture because of the Church Their maine resolution therfore is the euidence and authoritie of the Scripture perswading them both that the doctrine is true and that the Church which teaches it is the true Church And so they lie open to the same cauils that are made against the Protestāts Luther in vnderstanding the Scripture may be deceiued so may they It is Luthers own cause so is this the Papists Luthers iudgment is to be suspected when he preferred himself before the iudgement of the Church The same say we to them They preferre their iudgement before the Church and all the Fathers in as much as we can shew the Church and Fathers to be against them and themselues professe that the Popes authoritie is aboue both Church and Fathers 2 Indeed if M. Luther had had a thousand Austins and Cyprians and other Fathers of the Church with one consent and plainly against him he had bin so much the more to be suspected for this is one maine thing that makes vs abhorre the present Roman Church because it prefers it selfe and the Popes determination before all the Doctors in the world but he neuer thought so nor said so His words are these in c Tom. 2. Wittemb pag 344. a booke that he writ against King Henry the 8. Lastly he produces the sayings of the Fathers for the establishing of the sacrifice of the Masse and sees my foolishnes who alone will be wiser then all other This is is it I say that by this my opinion is confirmed For this I said that these * His vnciuill speeches to the King himselfe afterward retracted Sleid. They are but a weak argumēt to discredit his reformation Lucifer Caralitanus his books against the Emperor Constantius are as bitter and violent If Luther offended against K. Harry the Iesuites and their supplies repay it to K. Iames and long since haue returned it with the interest to good Q. Elizabeth Thomisticall asses haue nothing to produce but a multitude of men and antique vse and then to him that brings the Scriptures to say Thou art the foolishest of all men that liue Art thou onely wise and then it must needs be so But to me who am the foolishest of all men it is sufficient that the most wise Henry can bring no Scripture against me nor answer that which is brought against him besides he is constrained to grant his Fathers haue often erred and his antique vse makes no article of faith in which it is lawfull but for the multitude of that Church to trust whereof he himselfe with his pardons is defender But against the saying of Fathers men Angels and diuels I oppose not ancient custome nor a multitude of men o This is that which the Fathers themselues aduise vnto when heresies haue long continued preuailed in the Church to flie to the Scriptures because the writings of the Fathers after the long continuance of heresie are in danger of corruption See Chrysost op imperf hom 49. sub init §. Tūo cum videritis abominationē Vincen. Lyrin cōmonit c. 39. but the word the Gospel of one eternal maiestie which themselues are constrained to allow wherein the Masse is euidently taught to be the signe and testament of God wherein he promises and by a signe certifies to vs his grace For this worke and word of God is not in our power here I set my foote here I sit here I abide here I glorie here I triumph here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Sophisters and
worship stands not in rehearsing Latin words but when the people by those words learne to know Gods wil and their own duty and offer him vp the requisite motions of their hearts which in an vnknowne tong they cannot do And if secondly the Priest be to expound the meaning of that which is done in the Liturgy then they are bound to vse it in a knowne language both because they cannot giue the meaning without interpreting the language and that interpreting when it comes to execution and practise will proue farre more difficult and obnoxious to danger and inconuenience then the simple reading in a knowne language 7 Hitherto I haue stood to cleare the Apostles text that I alledged from the answers that Bellarmine hath made thereto But beside that text I shewed by a place in Origen a Cont. Cels l. 8 bidding euery man make his praier to God in a knowne language that it was the custome of the ancient Church to do seruice and pray in a knowne language And I produced the testimonies of Lyra Thomas of Aquine Caietan Erasmus and Cassander all of them great persons in the Church of Rome to the same effect and confessing also that it were better for the Churches edification to haue it so still What could I do more or what can an aduersary require more then by so sufficient witnesses to proceede in my assertion If I had said it vpon my owne word only by way of assertion he would haue bidden me proue it now I proue it by pregnant and full testimony he replies my authors disalow not our practise but he hath authors that shew it to be both lawfull and lawdable and referrs me againe to Bellarmine He had as good haue renounced his cause for these Authors first shew the custome in the Primitiue Church to haue bene to haue seruice in the common vulgar language that was best knowen whence it followes secondly that they affirme the Church of Rome to be swerued from it in this point as I said which is all I alledged them for Neuerthelesse because the Repliar thinkes to saue himselfe by saying they account not our practise vnlawfull let him consider well with himselfe why they should mention this alteration from the Primitiue Church if they had not in their iudgement disallowed it How can they say as they do b Lyr. Tho. Caiet Cassand Erasm cited in TEH WAY In the Primitiue Church it was otherwise By Saint Paules doctrine it were better for the Churches edification if the publike seruice of the Church were in a knowne language and not disallow the present practise if they durst haue spoken all they thought or could haue told how to helpe it I will adde two more testimonies and so end the point leauing the censure of my proceeding to the reader Isidore c De Eccl. offic l. 1. c. 10 pag. 3. The hearers are not a little edified by reading Therefore it behooues that when the singing is all sing * Oratio ipsa sit pinguiâ—r dum mens RECENTI LECTIONE SAGINATA PER DIVINARVM RERVM QVAS NVPER AVDIVIT IMAGINES CVRRIT and when praier is all pray and when the lesson is read it be indifferently heard of all and thinke not that it is a small profite that comes by hearing the reading for thy praier is made fatter when thy minde lately fed with reading runnes through the images or formes of those diuine things which it hath lately heard Where are these images of the things that he hath heard read who vnderstandes not the language Secondly I haue lying by me diuers ancient Liturgies intituled to Saint Peter Saint Basil Saint Marke Saint Iames Saint Chrysostome Clemens Gregory and others in all which it is set downe that the people shall answer the Priest at many periods which imports they vnderstood the language or else they could not answer Balsamon the Patriarch of Antioch a Ius GraecoruÌ„ l. 5. Respons 1. p. 365. interrog 5. to this question Whether the orthodoxe Syrians and Armenians and other faithfull men of other countries may without danger celebrate in their owne language or must be constrained to do seruice in the Greeke tongue which they vnderstand not answers The Apostle saies Is God onely the God of the Iewes is he not also the God of the Gentiles He is verily Let them therefore which hold the true faith in all things * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they be ignorant of the Greek tongue do their diuine seruice in their owne language By this it appeares it was the custome of the Greeke Church to haue seruice in the vulgar language as by Isidore it is manifest the same custome was in the Latine Church till tyranny and heresie remooued it Our b Bell. c. 16. l. 2. foule mouthed aduersaries may call them schismatickes and heretickes but when they haue done their testimonies will remaine for sufficient recordes what was done in Gods true Church for 800. yeares after Christ CHAP. LI. 1.2 The Church of Rome against all antiquitie forbiddes the lay people the vse of the Scripture in the vulgar language 3. The shifts vsed by the Papists against reading Spitefull speeches against it 4. Testimonies of antiquity for it 5. The Repliars reason against it answered Pag. 280. A. D. Thirdly touching forbidding the laity to reade Scriptures and to haue them in the mother tongue there is no such generall prohibition among vs. 1 1. Pet. 3. v. 16. All that we say is that the holy Scriptures should not promiscuously be permitted to all men at least in dangerous times when men may by rash misinterpreting fall easily into errour and heresie running thereby into their owne perdition but that care should be had that the parties disposition be such as is like to take benefit and not harme by them The which our practise is not condemned by our Sauiour Christ or by the ancient Church but is most conformable to our Sauiours saying 2 Mat. 7. v. 6. Giue not the holy things to DOGS nor cast not pearles before HOGS Now care being had that the parties disposition be such as may take benefit by reading or hearing and no harme by rash misinterpreting we do not prohibite but with due order permit and wish the Scriptures euen in the mother tongue to be read and heard both by laie men and women That sentence of our Sauiour 3 Ioh. 5. v. 39. Search the Scriptures which is so often vrged hy Protestants doth not proue a necessity for all men immediatly to read the Scriptures For first these words were not spoken to all in generall but to Pharisies and Princes of the people Besides they either containe no precept as S. Cyril expoundeth or no absolute but conditionall precept or rather licence that since they would not beleeue our Sauiour himselfe they should or might search the Scriptures which themselues did admit Lastly if it were an absolute precept
the vnlearned know them to be sincere The new translation lately set foorth by the Kings authoritie defended Momus in his humor The subordination of meanes Chap. 29. Touching the obscuritie of the Scripture The necessitie of meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scripture proues not the obscuritie Traditions debarred A Councell is aboue the Pope The Scripture of it selfe easie to all that vse it as they should The certaine sence of the Scripture and the assurance thereof is not by tradition Chap. 30. Touching the all-sufficiencie of Scripture to the matter of faith It shewes it selfe to be Gods word Luthers denying S. Iames epistle How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture What they and what we hold about the authoritie of the Church How expresse Scripture is required Chap. 31. Wherein the place 2. Tim. 3.15 alledged to proue the fulnesse and sufficiencie of the Scripture alone is expounded and vrged against the Iesuites cauils Chap. 32. Touching priuate spirits that expound against the Church Such priuate expositions refused by the Protestants And yet the Papists haue no other All teaching is to be examined euen by priuate men Certaine propositions shewing how the Church teaching may be or may not be examined and refused Chap. 33. How a priuate man is assured he vnderstands and beleeues aright touching the last and highest resolution of faith Luthers reiecting the Fathers Occhams opinion that no man is tied to the Pope or his Councels The Beraeans examined the doctrine that they were taught The faith of the beleeuer rests vpon diuine infused light M. Luther sought reformation with all humilitie Scripture is the grounds of true assurance Who the Pastors were of whom Luther learned his faith His conference with the Diuel By the Church the Papists meane onely the Pope Chap. 34. The Papists pretending the Church haue a further meaning then the vulgar know The Popes will is made the Churches act Base traditions expounded to be diuine truth Chap. 35. The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope How and in what sence they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith And that the Scripture receiues authoritie from him Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not And they may iudge of that they teach The Iesuites dare not answer directly Chap. 36. An entrance into the question touching the visibilitie of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was Chap. 37. Not the Church but the Scripture is the rule The question touching the visiblenesse of the Church proceeds of the Militant Church In what sence we say the Militant Church is sometime inuisible The Papists thinke the Church shall be inuisible in the time of Antichrist Their contradictions touching Antichrist breefly noted Chap. 38. The Papists cannot proue the Church to be alway visible in that sence wherein we denie it The diuerse considerations of the Church distinguished His quarrels made for our doctrine touching the Churches seuerall states answered The faithfull onely are true members of the Church Vpon what occasion the question touching the visiblenesse of the Church first began Chap. 39. The Papists are enforced to yeeld the same that we say touching the inuisiblenesse of the Church Their doctrine touching the time of Antichrists reigne And the state of the Militant Church at some times Arguments for the perpetuall visiblenesse of the Church answered In whom the true Church consisted before Luthers time Chap. 40. Againe touching the visiblenesse of the Church and in what sence we say it was inuisible Many things innouated in the Church of Rome The complaints of Vbertine and Ierome of Ferrara All the Protestants faith was preserued in the middest of the Church of Rome A iest of the Terinthians What religion hath bred desperation Chap. 41. A narration of a popish Doctor and professor of diuinitie in the Church of Rome translated out of Acosta de temp nouissimis lib. 2. cap. 11. and Maiolus dies canicul tom 2. pag. 89. and inserted for answer to that wherewith the Iesuite reproches our Church in the last words of his precedent replie Chap. 42. An obiection against the Repliars Catalogue Diuers articles condemned by the Fathers mentioned in the Catalogue that the Church of Rome now vses What consent there is betweene antiquitie and papistrie Chap. 43. Whatsoeuer the Fathers of the primitiue Church beleeued is expressed in their bookes The Repliar is driuen to say they held much of his religion onely implicitely What implicite faith is according to the Papists The death of Zeuxis The Fathers writ that which cannot stand with papistrie Chap. 44. The whole Christian faith deliuered to the Church hath succeeded in all ages yet many corruptions haue sometime bene added how and in what sence the Church may erre A Catalogue assigned of those in whom the Protestants faith alway remained What is required to the reason of succession Chap. 45. The Fathers are not against the Protestants but with them Touching the Centuries reiecting of the Fathers The cause of some errors in the Fathers Gregories faith and conuerting England The Papists haue bene formall innouators How they excuse the matter Chap. 46. The errors broached by the later Diuines of the Church of Rome Their errors maintained by that Church and their writings to good purpose alledged by Protestants How that which they speake for the Protestants is shifted of One reason why we alledge their sayings That which is said in excuse of their disagreement answered Chap. 47. Councels haue erred and may erre What manner of Councels they be that the Papists say cannot erre It is confessed that both Councels and Pope may erre Chap. 48. Touching the Councels of Neece the second and Frankford How the Nicene decreed images to be adored What kind of Councell it was And what manner of one that of Frankford was Frankford cōdemned the second Nicene Touching the booke of Charles the Great and of what credit it is Chap. 49. The ancient Church held the blessed Virgin to haue bene conceiued in sinne The now Church of Rome holds the contrary Chap. 50. Touching Seruice and praier in an vnknowne language The text 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine The ancient Church vsed praier in a knowe language Chap. 51. The Church of Rome against all antiquitie forbids the laie people the vse of the Scripture in the vulgar language The shifts vsed by the Papists against reading spitefull speeches against it Testimonies of antiquitie for it The Repliars reason against it Chap. 52. The mariage of Priests and Bishops lawfull and allowed by antiquitie Some examples hereof in the ancient Church The restraint hereof is a late corruption Priests were maried euen in these westerne parts a thousand yeares after Christ Chap. 53. Wherein is handled the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the
make them pale for feare and therefore he would affixe it though I for my part will thinke he doe it not so much to terrifie vs as to gull his owne with the name of the Church If he had in any good fashion defended the exposition and application he made of it k THE WAY § 15. Reply pag. 223 in his Treatise he might haue vsed it the better and it would haue made vs the more afraid but hauing left it in the lash where I answered it he is not worthy so faire a text should come vnder his title Neuerthelesse there is good vse to be made of it against himselfe For if the Church be the pillar of truth and the Papacie which he striues for in his Reply be the pillar of lies then it will follow the Papacie is not the Church The first proposition is his text The second neither his Reply nor Treatise can put by The conclusion therefore is the truth And so the Text may keep his place to good purpose 5 On the backside of the same page hee hath placed in Latin and English this sentence of Saint Austin de vtil cred c. 8. If thou seeme to thy selfe to be sufficiently tossed to wit in doubts questions or controuersies of faith and wouldest make an end of these labours follow the way of the Catholicke discipline which did proceed from Christ himselfe by the Apostles euen vnto vs and from hence shall be deriued to posteritie I guesse his minde was to allude to the title of my booke which I called THE WAY and because therein I defend the way of the Scripture followed by the vniuersall Church which he likes not therefore he brings S. Austin reuoking vs to the way of Catholicke discipline This man sure hath a strange apprehension * Denique addimus Ecclesiam quae nunc Pontifici Romano obtemperat ture ac merito Catholicae nomen sibi vendicare eademque ratio ne fidem eius Catholicam esse censendam appellandam Suar. de fens si◠Cathol aduers Anglic. sect err l. 1. c. 12. nu 9. to thinke that wheresoeuer the Fathers vse the word Catholicke they vnderstand thereby this New-Roman-Catholicke and when they speake of Catholicke discipline they vnderstand his Church proposition determined by the Pope when they affirme nothing else but the doctrine contained and written in the Scriptures to be Catholicke and the discipline whereby men are directed both in faith and manners So S. Austin expounds himselfe l Cap. 6. in the same place Beleeue me whatsoeuer is in those SCRIPTVRES is loftie and diuine THERE is altogether IN THEM the truth and discipline most accommodate for the renewing and repairing of our mindes and so qualified that there is NO MAN BVT FROM THENCE HE MAY DRAW THAT WHICH IS SVFFICIENT for him if to the drawing he come deuoutly and godly as true religion requires So also Theophilus Alexandrinus m Epist 1. Pas chal pag. 377. cals the medicines taken out of the holy Scriptures for the curing of heresies the ecclesiasticall discipline The WAY to the Church therefore and S. Austins WAY of Catholicke discipline are both one because they both are the way of the Scripture and that sufficient and easie way which the simplest that is may finde though the Pope with his authoritie and traditions intermeddle not and he that will seeke the Catholicke discipline by Saint Austins consent must do it in the SCRIPTVRE which I doubt will not greatly please this Iesuite who hath spent all his time in groping for it about the Popes stoole he being the man when all is done that must determine this discipline and * Cum Pontisex definit Ecclesia per caput suum loquitur Suar. vbi sup c. 2◠nu 7. the mouth whereby their Catholicke Church must vtter and expound it 6 In the next page followes a Table of the contents of his booke and after that a short Preface to the Reader wherein first he commends his booke that I confuted and his Method vsed therein to bring men to resolution and then shewes how he was vrged by our writing against it to this Reply excusing himselfe for the plainesse of his stile and concluding with a grieuous complaint of our vnsincere dealing which he proceeds to shew in that which followes The Commendation that he giues his Method may not be denied for we allow Apes to hugge their yong ones and heretickes to conceit their owne deuices and I must confesse it is good round Method indeed for the purpose and profitable for them to be followed For if you will see it this it is Good Eue for your soules health I were readie to shed my best bloud and therefore haue ventured my life as you see vpon the entertainment you know of such as I find in the hiding roomes to bring you home to the Catholicke Church your Method is this Close vp your eies and examine nothing but obstinately renouncing the Protestants and stopping your eares against the Scriptures in all things beleeue vs who on my owne word are the Church of God and submitting your selfe to the direction of your ghostly father without more adoe be resolute and you shall easily be perswaded of our Roman faith This is a good sure Method to resolution and makes many resolute indeed and the Iesuite hauing found by experience how kindly it works with good natures had reason to commend it though in any indifferent iudgement it be a poore one as will appeare The rest of his Preface is trash come we to that which is materiall 7 After the Preface to shew my vnsincere dealing whereof he complaines he makes a title of examples of grosse vntruths gathered out of M Woottons and M. Whites bookes by which the discreete reader may see how little sinceritie or care of truth they haue had and consequently how little credit is to be giuen to their writings and hauing dispatched M. Wootton he comes to me with these words Now to come to M. White whose booke is said to do much more harme among the simple then M. Woottons doth I hope I shall lay open such foule want of sinceritie and care of truth in him as it will plainly appeare that those which shall hereafter take harme by giuing credence to his words or writings shall shew themseluis to be very simple indeed So that in all probabilie he should haue some great matter to shew that makes so large an offer and yet euery one of these examples will proue in the scanning so many testimonies of his owne weaknesse and immodesty when hauing had the book foure yeares in his hands and so many of his consorts to ioyne with him in replying all which time their rage against it and desire to discredit it and vowes to confute it appeared well enough yet now at the last can obiect no other examples of vntruth then these And that we may know he comes furnished he cals for a railing roome to brawle 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
may be said This I must or I may beleeue vpon the tradition and authority of the Church though it be not any way reuealed in the Scripture The which assertion of ours hath 2. parts the one affirmatiue that the Scripture alone and absolutely considered in it owne Latitude and extent containeth all things belonging to faith without defect This is proued a Digr 3. 1 2. in the way The other Negatiue that the Churches authoritie is neither needfull nor able to supply any necessary or new point of faith that is not contained in the Scripture I deny it not to be ordinarily a necessary condition for the knowing and beleeuing that which the Scripture reueales for b Ro. 10.14 How shall they heare that they may beleeue without a Preacher c Act. 8.31 How can we vnderstand except we haue a guide d Mal 3.7 for the Priests lips should preserue knowledge and at his mouth they should seeke the Law for he is the Messenger of the Lord of hoasts I onely deny it to be the rule and foundation of faith or so much as the last infallible and cleare ground whereupon the beleeuer in any point that he beleeues restes himselfe The which to hold proportion with the Iesuit in this place I onely proue by the Papists owne principles to wit that the proposition of the Church is e Grego Val. tom 3. disp 1. q. 1. punct 1. pag. 32. §. sit nunc Sexta neither the last and clearest motiue whereupon our faith staies but there are higher and clearer then it which can be nothing but the immediate supernaturall light of the verities beleeued themselues shining vpon our hearts from the Scripture whereunto the light of Church authority when it hath reuealed the doctrine contained in Scripture to vs giues place as all lesser lights do when a greater begins to shine 2 Secondly I answer that from this Principle of ours Nothing may be beleeued but what is set downe in Scripture expressely or may be gathered from thence by good consequence it doth not follow that a particular man as Luther or White cannot beleeue the promises of Gods speciall mercie touching his owne saluation because though Luther or Whites name be not expressely set downe in the promise yet that which is set downe is so offered to vs that being penitent beleeuers and iustified and standing in grace whereof there is an infallible assurance f THE WAIâ— Digr 43. by our aduersaries owne confession we may conclude our owne particular Saluation from thence and must indeuour to beleeue it This part of my answer affirmes 2. things First that a penitent sinner iustified and eleuated into the state of grace may infallibly proue or gather the assurance of his Saluation by good consequence from the Scripture Secondly that this assurance thus to be gathered appertaines to those verities which are beleeued by the habite of faith I do not say any man can at all times so firmely and without feare of the contrary beleeue his owne reconciliation with God as he can the first articles of faith that are expressely and immediately reuealed I onely affirme that he beleeues it by the habite of supernaturall faith and is bound to endeuour and vse the meanes that he may beleeue it 3 The first point I haue purposely shewed g Digr 40. n. 39. 4â— n. 10. in the THE WAIE and confirmed by the confession of diuers of our Aduersaries whither I referre the Iesuit that he may see how and in what manner this assurance is gathered Onely I will here admonish the reader that if the penitent beleeuer could not by necessary consequence of Scripture and true application of the generall promises of the Gospell to his owne particular person conclude his saluation he were in no wise bound to beleeue it but now when he hath receiued the Testimony of Gods Spirit within him crying Abba Father the power of the same Spirit in his body and soule renuing him and producing the effectes of sauing grace the Faith of Christ whereby he giues consent to the Gospell the life of Christ whereby he liues not himselfe but Christ liues in him the power of his death whereby he dies to the world and sinne when finally in truth and conscience he performes all the conditions that the Scripture requires and feeles within him those very signes whereby the Gospell describes the elect it may not be doubted but by good consequence both in matter and forme he may conclude his owne saluation It is no where written in the Bible that Luther or Caluine shall rise at the last day yet the Reply will allow them to beleeue it by consequence from that which is written All men shall rise It is no where written that this Iesuite shall come into Iudgement and giue an account of this his faith and the waies wherein he walkes yet I presume he beleeues it by faith in that by consequence it necessarily followes of that Article He shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead In the same manner a penitent sinner examining himselfe concludes his owne saluation from the Scripture that sayes h Marc. 16.16 Rom. 10.9 Euery one that repents and beleeues shall be saued Therefore if there be any certainty of a mans owne repentance of his being in Grace of the testimony of Gods Spirit and i Paret Lombarâ—um nec vâ—luâ—sse nec doâ—â—isse vt doâ—erentur Christian de peccatorum remissione gratia Dei vita aeterna perpetuo dubitare aut diffidere quemad modum re vera nec vllus Orthodoxus sani iudicij Ecclesiastes inter Pontificios quod equidem sciam vnquam illud docuit Mart. Eisengren defens Concil Trid. de cert grat p. 216. fie vpon that mouth that will say there is none when the Scripture k 2. Co. 13.5 biddes vs Try our selues touching them it must needes be yeelded that there is a certainty likewise of his saluation 4 The second point that the remission of our sinnes and eternall life is beleeued by Faith is cleare vpon 4. points 1. because in the Creed those 2. Articles are made the obiect of Faith therefore the penitent sinner applies them to himselfe by the same habit 2. l Aliqui Catholici existimarunt posse vnumquemque credete fide diuina sine peculiari reuelatione dimissa sibi esse peccata Vasqu 12. disp 200. n. 5. Many learned Papists confesse so much Fisher of Rochester m Roffenf opusc de fid miserecord dei axiom 10. If we will enter into heauen we must not come with a double heart or wauering Faith but with that which is ALTOGETHER VNDOVBTING and MOST CERTAINE For to doubting minds there is no way open Gropper and the Diuines of Collen n Antididag c. de iustif §. proditum est p. 29. We are iustified by Faith whereby WITHOVT DOVBTING we firmely beleeue that our sinnes who are truely penitent are forgiuen vs for Christ
against sauing faith A Fundamentall point therefore is that which belongs to the substance of faith and is so reuealed and so necessary that there can be no saluation without the knowledge and explicit faith thereof of which nature are the things contained in the articles of our faith a point not Fundamentall is that which directly belongs not to the way of Saluation neither doth error or ignorance therein make void or destoy that which is Fundamentall Forsomuch as such a point is reuealed but for the manifestation of the other and is beleeued but in order to the other as that Abraham had so many children Paul had a cloke The dead pray for the liuing c wherein it may fall out that we may erre or be ignorant and yet the faith not preiudiced 2 I know none of our Aduersaries that deny this distinction but vse and explicate it as well as we though none such as this Iesuite is be growne so peruerse and malepart that they will endure nothing that we say be it neuer so true b 22. q. 2. art 5. DicenduÌ„ quod fidei obiectum per se est id per quod homo beatus efficitur Per accidens auteÌ„ aut secundario se habeâ—t ad obiectum virtutis omnia quae in sacra Scriptura continentur sicut quod AbrahaÌ„ habuit duos filios c. Thomas hauing deuided the obiect of faith into that which is so by it selfe and that which is by accident and secondarily defines the first to be that whereby a man is made blessed and saued the latter that which is reuealed whatsoeuer it be as that Abraham had two sonnes and Dauid was the sonne of Iesse c Dialog 1. part l. 2. c. 2. pag. 6. Occham sets downe three differences of verities to be beleeued Some touching God and Christ whereon principally depends our Saluation as that there is one God and three persons that Christ is God and man that he suffered and died and rose againe c. Some whereon our Saluation depends not so principally which though we beleeue yet do they not * Non directè sed indirecte quod ammodo ad salutem humani generis pertinere noscuntur so directly belong to our Saluation as many things written of Pharaoh c Of the third sort such as are not reuealed but either agree with that which is reuealed or follow manifestly of it And d Vbi sup c. 11. pag. 9. Sunt quidam Moderni dicentes quod multae assertiones sunt quae in rei veritate aduersantur diuinae Scripturae quae tamen ab Ecclesia minimè sunt damnandae nec sint inter haereses numerandae he reports it to haue bene an opinion in the Church in his time that many assertions which in truth of the matter were against the Scripture yet were not condemned by the Church nor counted heresie Espencaeus e Espencae in 2 Tim digress 17. p 119. discoursing of things to be knowne and beleeued sayes The infolded faith of simple people will serue well enough in such things as are the obiect of faith onely BY ACCIDENT and in subtile considerations that arise about the Scripture but in those things which OF THEMSELVES are the obiect of faith whereby men are led to happines they need an vnfolded faith the Colliars faith will do no good f Mag 3. d. 23. ibi Scholast coÌ„muniter Tho. Bonau DuraÌ„d Ricard Dionys Gabr. Occh. q. 8. Bann 22. q. 2. art 8 dub 2. Ouand 4. d. 13. prop. 12. Eymeâ—ic director part 1. q. 2. ad 8. ibi Scoliast Pezant 22 p. 504. a. Syluest sum v. fides nu 6. Simanch cachol instit tit 28. nu 20. Pic. Mirand de fid ord credend theor 12. p. 286. All the Casenists and Schoolemen that haue written touching the nature of heresie and the measure of Catholicke faith agree that there is a certaine measure and quantity of faith without which none can be saued but euery thing reuealed belongs not to this measure and it is enough to beleeue somethings onely by the Colliars faith The which doctrine doth euidently allow our distinction that some things are Fundamentall and some not for no Protestant thinks any point to be so not Fundamentall but that euery man is bound with humility and reuerence to accept it whensoeuer the knowledge and necessity thereof shall be offered him by the Church which is all our aduersaries require in their infolded faith 3 This distinction by g THE WAY pag. 110. me onely touched and that by the way briefly vpon another occasion the Iesuite in this chapter frowardly cauils at and in this place wrangles with the definition that I gaue of points Fundamentall because it is not found in the words of the Scripture that I cited for it in the margent Whereto I answer three things First h Act. 4.12 1. Cor. 3.11 Eph. 2.19 the Scriptures cited shew the knowledge expresse faith of Christs death to be absolutely necessary for all men and two of the places call the matter of this knowledge a foundation Therefore such a point as is absolutely to be knowne and rightly holden of all which euery point reuealed is not may be called a Foundation or Fundamentall point Therfore againe such as by the like confession of our aduersaries some men and all men of some times may erre in or be ignorant of without preiudice of Saluation may be called a point not Fundamentall whence it followes againe that my distinction is grounded well enough vpon the places cited in the margent Secondly I answer that how scornefully soeuer Iesuites thinke of the Scripture yet we Protestants had as lieffe borrow our conclusions distinctions and words wherein we expresse them from it as from the stinking puddles of rotten Schoolemen or new found mint of vpstart Iesuites Thirdly my aduersary himselfe in this very chapter acknowledges the distinction if it bee not applyed to a wrong end to be good For first touching the termes thereof Fundamentall not Fundamentall He finds theÌ„ in S. Austin True it is S. Austin insinuates a distinction of some points Fundamentall and some not Fundamentall Therefore the words are according to Saint Austin and that is well Next in the matters themselues also he sayes Catholicke Diuines make some distinction and hold some to be more necessary to be actually and expresly knowne of all sorts then other therefore he quarrels at that which himselfe confesses to be the truth There be some humours loue to be doing if it be but to keepe their hand in vre * Maiol dies Canic I haue read of one that had so vsed himselfe to pilfring that he would pick his owne purse and steale things out of his owne closet The Iesuite seems to be of that kindred that will quarrell and keepe a wrangling with the doctrine of his owne Church rather then he will cease from his contentious spirit 4 Yet the saddle somewhere pinches him and
doctrine of this Mystery But whatsoeuer my aduersarie will haue to be thought of is c August de temp serm 6. Theodor. in Ezech pag. 486. Anibr in Luc. l. 2. c. 1. §. in men sc l. 10. c. 23. §. stabant au tem Epist l. 1. ep 5. 7. Basil vbi sup Hiero. in Ezec. 44. §. conuertit adu Heluid Epiphan l. 3 haer 78. sermo de laud. S. Mar. in Bibl. S. PatruÌ„ tom 7. pag. 26. edit 1. Hesych Chrysip ser de Maria ibi p. 33 inde Andrae Ierosolym serm de salutat Angel ibid. pag. 241. Proclus Cyzecen homil in Concil Ephes pag. 251. graec Commel in See Zuingl tom 3. pag. 233. the ancient Fathers brought the Scripture to proue it that if it were a matter of faith it should in their opinion be beleeued because it were contained in the Scripture 2 The celebration of Easter vpon the Sonday likewise is no point of faith but only a seemely and ancient ceremony of the Church d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l 5. c. 22. pag 249. Steph. at the first not thought so necessary as the Iesuits now affirme it to be specially the holding of it on that day for e Euseb hist l. 5. c. 23. the Churches of Asia held it on the 14. day of the moneth whether it were Sonday or not * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by an old tradition f See Euseb ibid. inde l. 7 c. vlt. Socr. vbi sup Cassiod l. 9. c. 38 Niceph. l 12 c. 33. 34. Beda aequinoct vernal tom 2. Gab. Prateol Elench haer verb. quatuordecimani The which many Catholike Bishops as Polycarp Thraseas Irenaeus Sagaris Melito Polycrates Anatolius and diuers others many yeares together maintained which they would not haue done being all godly Bishops of the Catholike Church if the custome of the Westerne Church to keepe it on the Sonday had bene an article of faith g Alphons â—du haer v. Pascha Our aduersaries also confesse their custome were at this day lawfull but for the determination of the Church h Refert Beda rat temp c. 45. ibi Ramesiens gloss pag. 15. edit Basil per Heruag an 1563. Theophilus Caesariensis an ancient Father tels how the French Church in those daies alwaie kept it on the 8. of the Calends of Aprill which is the 25. of March what day of the weeke soeuer it fell because Christ arose on that day And with vs i Bed hist Angl. l. 2. c. 2 19. l. 3. c. 25 l. 5. c 22. The like disagreement among the Spaniards and French and others testified by Sigeb pag. 83. Cron. Caluis Cronolog an 546. the old Britons and Scots celebrated it not on that day that is now vsed whereby it is cleare that the holding of Easter on such a day is not Catholike And whereas the Iesuit sayes the celebrating it on a Sonday is not contained in the Scripture he saies truly yet the Church of Rome maintaining that order in old time thought otherwise as he may see in k To be seene in Bede de veâ—n aequinoct sub fin pag. 346. a Councell holden about that matter in Pope Victors time where the Scripture is roundly alleadged for it against the Asian B.B. 3 The Baptisme of Infants which is his third example we confesse to be an article of faith but we do not confes that it is not contained in the Scripture we say the contrary as appeares by our l Caluin instit l. 4. c. 16. instruct adu Anabapt art 1. writings against the Anabaptists yea the Papists theÌ„selues ordinarily vse to grouÌ„d it on the scripture This truth m De bapt c. 8. saies Bellar. is proued by three kindes of arguments The first is taken from the Scripture This is proued by the Scripture n Tom. 4. pag. 597. b. saies Gregory of Valentia the like is done by o Tho. 3. part q. 68. art 9. lansen concord c. 20. 100 Suarez tom 3. disp 25. sect 1 Henriquez sum moral de bapt c. 21. Vasquez in 3. part Tho. disp 149. nu 6. Tolet. in Ioh. 3. ann 10. Maldon in Ioh. 3. n. 20. In Math. 19. v. 14. he hath these wordes illud fortissimum apertissimum testimonium quo semper Ecclesia vt Infantes baptizarit adducta est Nisi quis renatus est c. many others which is woorth the readers obseruation because at other times when they deale against vs they will cry out it is a tradition vnwritten Let them go for egregious impostors by my consent that against the Anabaptists can proue by Scripture that which they make vs beleeue is but by tradition Beggars for halting at the townes end and going vpright when they are in the Alehouse are set in the stocks and nailed to the Pillorie but Iesuits counterfeiting after the same fashion in a higher matter one while with Scripture 3. arguments at once out of Scripture a most powerfull and plaine testimony of Scripture for the baptizing of children another while with their leg in a string no crosse but tradition and Church authority are made the guides of many mens faith p Nec pedibus ad insistendum idoneis Pet. Mâ—ff vit Loiol l. 1. c. 2 â—â—biae contractae breuitas rectè illum incedere prohibuit Ribad vit Ignat. l. 1. c. 1. The halting of Ignatio that created them was a type of the halting religion of his creatures 4 That which Gretser q Defens Bellarm tom 1. l. 4. c. 4. sub sin pag. 1598. Ingolst answers hereunto will not cleare them he saies these things may be proued by Scripture but not sufficiently not effectually by Scripture alone without tradition but onely probably This is against the authority and nature of the Scripture for it is the word of God therefore whatsoeuer is proued trulie thereby is proued effectually and sufficiently and not onely probably and this in respect of vs which is confirmed for r 1. Ioh. 5.9 the witnesse of God is greater then the testimony of man therefore if these things be to be proued at al out of the Scripture they are proued to vs and that effectually because whatsoeuer God saith he saith to vs and that not only probably but necessarily and euidently which if we see not then it is by reason of some indisposition in vs allowing tradition or Church authority to take away this indisposition and to expound and declare these Scriptures to these purposes yet is it not true that the Iesuite saies for then the said tradition and authoritie puts and driues some further meaning and sense into them then was in them before or it onely declares and expounds it The former Å¿ Occh dial 1. part l. 2 c. 14. Alphonâ— adu haer l. 1. c. 8. Dicimus enim quod quantum ad ea quae ad fidem pertinent Romanum Pontificem nec totam
Ecclesiam Dei posse de assertione non vera facere veram aut de non non falsam Turrecâ—em sum de Eccl. l 4. part 2. c. 3. ad 6. our aduersaries denie the latter is not sufficient to make the Scripture onely probable in that howsoeuer for want of Church authoritie a man may not see such texts to proue the virginitie of Marie or the Baptisme of children yet the proofe is in them within their owne latitude and if there be any such matter in them at all then is it in them more then probably because no diuine testimonie is probable but necessarie but Gretser and the Church of Rome vse their traditions as Alchymists do the Philosophers stone with the touch of it they turne any mettall into gold or as Painters do Allum to giue tincture to their colours CHAP. XIX 1. 2. How the Churches authoritie proues the Scripture 3. The Iesuits plainely confesse that the Scriptures alone prooues it selfe to be Gods word 4. The Scriptures are Principles indemonstrable in any superior science 6. All other testimony resolued into the testimony of the Scripture 7. Touching Euidence and the Compossibility thereof with faith A. D. I will insist in that example which I propounded Pag. 68. in the treatise and thus I dispute All sorts both Catholickes and Protestants do beleeue and hold it a point necessary to be beleeued that S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. are true diuine Scripture and that these particular bookes which the Church vseth are the same true Scripture at least in sense and substance which was set downe by those holy writers But these points are not expressed in Scripture nor secluding Church authority and tradition so contained as that they can be proued euidently and necessarily out of any sentence of Scripture Ergo all points necessary to be beleeued are not so contained in Scripture as Protestants say they are M. Wotton and M. White both struggle with this argument as other Protestants haue done before theÌ„ but when they haue done said all one may easily see how they sticke fast in the mire To omit their impertinent speeches there are onely two things which to the purpose they do or can directly say viz. either they must deny these to be points of faith necessary to be beleeued or else they must shew how one may prooue these points euidently out of some sentence of Scripture For if they admit that these be points of faith necessary to be beleeued and that these cannot be prooued out of Scripture it followeth ineuitably that all points of faith necessary to be beleeued cannot be prooued by Scripture and that their Principle is false which saith nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of saith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture M. White saith that like as in other sciences White pag. 47. there are some Principles indemonstrable so in matters of faith it is a Principle to be supposed that Scripture is Diuine and so no maruell if it cannot be prooued as other points of faith are To this I reply that Principles in sciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of terms or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superior science by some other Principle more euident to vs. But that these books which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is * If it were euident how is it onely beleeued by faith For S. Paul calls faith argumentum non apparentium Heb. 11. v. 1. not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other Principle more euidently vnto vs that these books which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture Secondly I aske whether this point of doctrine that S. Mathewes Gospell c. is diuine Scripture be such a Principle of faith as it selfe is also a point necessary to be beleeued and that by the same infallible faith by which we beleeue the blessed Trinity Or that it is so a Principle as it selfe is not to be beleeued at all by faith or by the same faith by which wee beleeue the blessed Trinity If the first be said then either the opinion of Protestants who say nothing is to be necessarily beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued out of the Scripture is false or else this is not a Principle indemonstrable as M. White affirmeth If rhe second be said then it followeth that Protestants do not beleeue by faith S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. nor any other booke in the Bible to be diuine Scripture and consequently not hauing assurance of diuine faith in this point they cannot haue any faith at all in any other points since other points being not otherwise in a Protestants iudgement points of faith then as they are conclusions prooued out of Scripture cannot be more assuredly knowne then Scripture it selfe which is the onely Premise or Principle whence Protestants deduce all other points of their faith 1 MY Aduersary in a In THE WAY §. 9. but in his printed booke cap. 7. his treatise that I answered to shew that the Scripture is not the Rule whereby to find and iudge of true faith obiected the insufficiencie and imperfection thereof because there be diuers questions and points of faith not contained and determined therein Which he endeuours to proue by this argument here set downe Whereto I answered directly and in forme as b THE WAY §. 9. n. 3. inde the booke will shew The which my answer in this place he replies to as you see after his ordinary manner with bragging and saying nothing and casting out a few insolent speeches The Protestants struggle with this argument One may easily see how they sticke in the mire Onely two things to the purpose It seems M. White saw the weakenes of his answer c wherto I answer 2 First he sayes we struggle with this argument and sticke in the mire which in some sense I may not deny for when I vndertooke this Iesuit I struggled with a dunghill and therefore * Hoc scio pro certo quod si cuÌ„ stercâ—re c. no maruell if for my penance I sticke in the mire both here and in many other places of this reply his bragging and railing and facing it out with nothing when yet all this with many shall be accepted for sound diuinity being such as will bemire and weary any man in the world that desires nothing but the truth Otherwise my answer was direct and plaine for the point he is to proue is that the Scripture alone containes not nor determines the whole obiect of our faith but diuers points needfull to be beleeued are wanting in it and must be supplied by the authority and tradition of the Church his reason to proue this is the
demonstration by some other principle in a higher art more euident to vs. Here are two vntruths For first there is no higher art then themselues Thomas i Vbi supra sayes The sacred Scripture hath no higher science The setting vp of the Pope and his Church aboue it to giue it authoritie as a higher science giues to a lower is a blasphemous practise of Antichrist Bozius k Boz de sign eccl tom 2. pag. 439. writeth that the Scripture is not to be reckoned among such principles as before all things are to be credited but it is proued and confirmed by the Church as by a certaine principle which hath authoritie to reiect and allow Scripture Let the Reader by these words of Bozius a famous Papist conster my aduersaries meaning in this place if he chance to say he meanes not as I charge him Againe it is false that the Church is more euident to vs then the Scripture in that sense that belongs to this question I see indeed the Church that teaches me before I beleeue the Scripture to be diuine supposing I were a Pagan that as yet had not receiued the Scripture but I beleeue the Scripture to be diuine and am conuinced in my conscience that it is the word of God before I can beleeue the Church sayes true For I cannot beleeue it sayes true but vpon the grounds of Scripture which it offers me and therefore consequently the truth of the Scripture is more euident then the truth of the Church In which case it is as when a man stands in the doore with a torch in his hand to giue light to such as need where he holds out the torch indeed yet he puts no light into it nor does any thing but onely hold it before them The Church-authoritie in ministring to vs doth no more to the Scripture then this man doth to his torch I wil yet vse a more familiar conparison whereby the Reader shall see how absurdly my aduersary holds the Church to be more euident then the Scriptures and to giue them authoritie which they haue not of themselues because it propounds and perswades them vnto vs. Seius owes Caius mony vpon a bond that vpon trust and for the better keeping thereof is put into the hands of Titius For the proofe of this debt it is necessary that Titius bring forth the bond but when he hath done I demand whence hath the bond his credit How is it proued to be Seius his true deed rather then a counterfet Not by Titius his authoritie because he brings it forth but by it self in that the hand and seale thereof manifest themselues to be Seius his Titius that keeps it is but a means to bring it forth But what if Seius denie the debt that Caius be enforced to sue him and by law to cast him who giue Caius the right and makes Seius his debtor and who makes the bond of force doth the Iudge before whom the cause is tried The simplest man in the countrey will not say so for the bond both proues it self and giues Caius his right and make Seius a debtor when the Iudge onely giues it execution and declares no more but that which was in the bond before Let the Scripture be compared to this bond and let my aduersary put me to proue that it is the word of God as Caius is put to proue his bond and it wil manifestly appeare that though the Church haue some ministery in propounding it yet that ministery or authoritie call it what you will doth no more then the Iudge in this case doth It is not a principle aboue the Scripture or more euident whereby the truth thereof is proued as the Iudges authoritie proues not the bond 6 Our aduersaries when they haue wrangled what they can are inforced to confesse thus much in that they grant the last and highest resolution of our faith to be into the authoritie of the Scripture And let the Reader diligently obserue how it comes about In euery controuersie and article of faith they say they are moued by the authoritie of the Church they beleeue the Trinitie the Incarnation the Scripture to be Gods true word because God hath so reuealed by the infallible authoritie of the Church But how come they to know this authority to be infallible by what motiue doth the spirit of God induce them to beleeue it l Can loc p 48. Stapl princip doctr pag. 318. Tripl aduer Whica pag. 184 188. Greg. Val. tom 3. pag 31. Rodeâ— Delgad de auth Script pag. 51. Pezant comm in Tho. pag. 479. They confesse expresly it is the reuelation of the Scripture giuing testimonie to the Church which reuelation is beleeued for it selfe and for no other therfore the highest and last reason light authoritie mouing a man to beleeue the things of faith the sence of the Scripture the authority of the Church and al is contained in the Scripture it selfe For thus I reason The reuelation of the Scripture is beleeued for it selfe therefore the Scripture is a principle indemonstrable by any other and euident in it selfe therefore it is not beleeued by Tradition vpon the authoritie of the Church but for it selfe therfore this point that the Scripture is Gods word is contained in the scripture therfore the Scripture is al-sufficieÌ„t wants nothing that is needful to be beleeued 7 Hitherto I haue expounded the maner how the Scriptures are said to be Principles that are to be admitted immediatly without discourse of other arguments and how this their authoritie is not founded vpon nor demonstrated by the authoritie of the Church and how Church-authoritie is onely a condition and ministery to offer them vnto vs. Now I come to answer his argument wherby he would proue them not to be euident to vs the which is but a poore one For S. Paul doth not say Faith is the argument of things not euident as the vulgar Latin cited in the margent translates but of things that are not seene Now things may be euident and appeare manifestly to the vnderstanding though they be not seene when they are euident otherwise by any light or discourse to the vnderstanding The which kind of euidence and that also which is by sence may stand with faith for the declaration whereof note first that a thing is euident m Jn assensis principiorum scientiae humanitus inuentae est coactio propter euidentiam speculationis quia in eu intellectus euidenter conclusionem intuetur speculatur August Anconit q. â—9 arâ— 4. ad 1. when it moues the vnderstanding so sufficiently that it cannot chuse but assent vnto it note secondly that a thing may be euident three wayes first when it is sensible as that which we apprehend by our outward sense secondly when by the light of nature it is manifest by it selfe as two equall numbers put together make an equall Thus the first principles and notions of nature are euident Thirdly when it
d Luc. 1 70. God spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets therefore it is expresly written that all the bookes of Scripture are Gods word Any man may see this answer to be full his question being touching this Scripture that we vse and haue in our hand where therein it was written that it selfe is Gods word For I answer that it is written in these three places whereof he hath here rehearsed two Now he replies that he doth not onely enquire how we proue in generall that there is any diuine Scripture at all but how we proue these bookes which the Church now vses to be the same that those men writ whose titles they beare which he sayes cannot be proued by the Scriptures alledged because it may still be doubted whether these bookes that we vse as the Gospell of Matthew and Marke for example be part of that Scripture which the texts alledged affirme to be inspired of God and it must likewise be proued that these texts that affirme this are themselues the word of God Whereto I answer first that granting these places to proue some diuine Scripture to be and to be inspired of God it must be granted that the Scripture may be proued so to be by the Scripture it selfe For these sentences All Scripture is giuen by inspiration Holy men spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost and such like places could not proue so much as in generall that any bookes at all whether it were these that we vse or no are diuine Scripture if themselues were not diuine I say they could not proue it truly and effectually they might say it but they could not proue it because that which shall proue it must it selfe first be a diuine testimonie Secondly prouing some diuine Scripture to be and to be inspired they proue this that we vse to be such because they so mention the Scripture they speake of that it appeares to be this that we vse and it is agreed vpon of all hands that there is no scripture but this and therefore speaking of some scripture they speake of this This is my argument That Scripture whereof the sentences alledged speake is proued thereby to be diuine But the sentences alledged speake of the same Scripture that we vse For the Church hath alwayes vnderstood it so The sentences therefore alledged proue this Scripture that we vse to be diuine And so my aduersaries demaund is satisfied I enquire not onely how it is proued by Scripture that there is some diuine Scripture which is inspired by God but that these bookes in particular are that Scripture For if it giue any testimonie at all to any Scripture at all it is to these bookes in particular which are now vsed in that it describes these bookes neither are there or haue there bene any other nor dares the Church of Rome it selfe hitherto canonize any other howsoeuer some therein think it may 2 To this my aduersarie replies that before these sentences can sufficiently proue the Scripture to be diuine they must themselues be supposed to be diuine which cannot be proued by themselues if Tradition be excluded I answered this e Digr 12. in my Booke whereto he hath replied neuer a word but stands dumbe and offers the Reader that which I answered in stead of a Reply to my answer neuerthelesse I answer againe that all places in the Scripture which affirme the Scripture to be Gods word are proued to be Gods word by themselues and their owne light and not by Tradition or Church-authoritie which is but the ministerie whereby God reueales the proofe to vs and it selfe is iudged by the Scripture For if the Church-authoritie make them to be canonicall and diuine * For that is it properly that the Papists say Bellar. Stapl. Grego to vs then it is either by adding truth diuinitie authoritie to them which they had not before in themselues by diuine inspiration or onely by declaring and reuealing to vs that truth diuinitie and authoritie which they haue immediatly from God of themselues before the Church approued them that we might see and confesse it The former our aduersaries will not say or if they will it is Atheisme worse then blasphemie for so all our faith and the highest reason mouing vs to beleeue should not be diuine reuelation but humane authoritie and the Scripture which of it selfe had no truth or diuine inspiration should be canonized by men If the latter which our aduersaries dare not denie then who sees not that they proue themselues and in themselues haue diuine authoritie immediatly from God the Church-authoritie in approuing them being nothing else but bare ministerie in respect of the Scripture though in regard of vs it be authoritie in helping vs to see that which is in themselues When the King stampes coine and signes it with his image and superscription he puts that valew and currentnesse into it that was not there before Thus a small peece of copper of it selfe originally not worth a penie may be made worth sixe pence Thus the Church authorizes not the Scripture Stapleton f Staplet relect pag. 505. in explicat art sayes The Church approues not the Scripture the first way by making it sacred diuine for this approbation it hath onely from the holy Ghost the author thereof of whom alone it hath to be sacred and not humane nor the second way by making that through her iudgement it should be accepted for true and worthy credit because that which is in the Scripture is the diuine truth BY IT SELFE AND IS NOT MADE TRVE BY THE APPROBATION OF THE CHVRCH But the third way in that by the force of her approofe and iudgement they are accepted of the faithfull for sacred and diuine and infallible true And thus we beleeue these Scriptures to be Canonicall for the testimonie of the Church The King sends a commission vnder seale by a messenger this messenger giues no authoritie to the commission but is the Kings minister authorized to propound it to the subiects Thus the Church giues testimonie to the Scriptures that it is diuine and no otherwise and it selfe fetches this testimonie from the Scripture and all the authoritie thereof is lastly resolued into the testimonie of the Scripture 3 Next these Scriptures are proued to be diuine by their owne light shining and by their owne vertue shewing it selfe in them as sweetnesse is knowne by it owne taste and the Sunne seene by it owne light and as the Kings coine is knowne by his image vpon it and the fathers voice is knowne to his children by the sound and fashion thereof so are these Scriptures by the heauenly light image and sound inspired into them knowne to be the word of God The aduersaries against whom I deale haue here with Turks and Infidels debarred me from alledging Scripture to proue it selfe and therefore I will shew it otherwise Canus a Papist g Can. loc l. 2. c. 8. pag. 13.
sayes A minde well disposed discernes the doctrine of God as the mouth being in taste doth the difference of tastes Saint Austin h Aug. tract 35. in Ioh. In the night of this world the Scriptures as a candle are lighted vp vnto vs that we should not remaine in darknesse i Rob. Parsons in his Directorie sets downe against the Atheist how the certaintie of these Scriptures is layed before vs. 1. By the Antiquitie thereof pag. 63. 2. Their manner of writing Authoritie and Preseruation p. 65. 3. Their sinceritie and the vprightnesse of the writers pag. 67. 4. The Consent of the Writers one with another pag. 72. 5. The Scope whereto they tend pag 73. 6. The Simplicitie Profoundnesse and Maiestie of the writers pag. 76. 7. The Contents pag. 80. 8. The Testimonie giuen to them by heathens pag 100. c. Pars Christ Directorie printed ann 1585. This light and heauenly maiestie by all men with one consent affirmed of the Scriptures proues that they are the word of God If the light k Vbi priùs saith the same Saint Austin be able to shew those things that are not light shall we say it failes in it selfe doth not that open it selfe without which other things are not opened and do you light a candle to see a burning candle Is not the Sunne or a starre seene by his owne light to them that haue eyes And if the ministerie of the Church be required to propose and offer and expound them to vs as it were l Apoc. 1. vlt. a candlesticke * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Areth. ibi to hold vp the candle so that as the Iesuites vse to reply to this argument this light should not shine nor this diuinitie appeare in the Scripture vnlesse the Church proposed them m Possibâ—le est actu crâ—dere omma credendâ— per solam fidem infusam ABSQVE TEâ—TIMâ—Nâ—O Dâ—CTRINA â—T MAGâ—STâ—RIO ECCLESIAE Stapl. princip l 8. c. 3. PER ILLAM SOLAM Sp sancti persuasioneÌ„ quodlibet credendum credi queat TACENTE Pâ—ORSVS VEL NON AVDITA ECCLESIA fide priuata via extraordinaria testimonio interno Relect. in Adm. Whitak §. Iam quum doth this light and maiestie therefore arise from the Church doth the light of the candle arise from the socket that beares it Doth the man that carries a torch before his master giue light to the torch and not the light thereof rather from out of it selfe enlighten both his master and him This light hath immediatly conuerted Atheists enlightened Infidels reclaimed heretickes that neuer so much as receiued or knew this Church-authoritie and tradition Which propertie of the Scripture thus to eleuate it selfe aboue all Church-authoritie inuincibly shewes that they prooue themselues to be the word of God In all this that hath bene said I grant we beleeue the Scripture and the things of faith by the ministerie of the Church but not for the authoritie of the Church Pag. 111. A. D Thirdly they hold that by this Spirit they are made infâ—llibly sure of the diuine authoritie of the Scriptures insomuch that when they heare or reade any booke they can by their spirit discerne clearly and infallibly whether it be diuine Scripture or not holding the Scripture of it selfe to shine like a candle to them and that they discerne it from other writings and the true sense of it from false in matters necessary to saluation as the sense of taste discerneth sweet from sower Vpon this bold presumption of hauing and being taught by the Spirit proceedeth their audacious and impudent neglect of the authoritie of the ancient Fathers generall Councels or whatsoeuer else standeth against that which they imagine to be taught them by the Spirit especially when they haue seeming words of Scriptures to second that which is suggested by this their spirit Pag. 114. A. D. Againe M White saith pag. 126 that the publicke word of God speaketh in the Scripture openly though the children of God onely know and beleeue it 4 He sayes it is our doctrine that we are made infallibly sure of the diuine authoritie of the Scriptures by this spirit insomuch that reading the Scripture we can thereby discerne whether it be Scripture or no c and to shew this he alledges some words of mine M. White saith that the sheep of Christ know his voice To which purpose my other words also are vsed that he alledges three pages after M. White saith that the publicke word of God c. There is little hope of reducing our aduersary to any indifferencie when they will not so much as sincerely report nor ingenuously acknowledge that we hold for if they would there were an end and the world should see we hold the truth Yet I wil make all things plaine and let the Reader iudge for in the ordinary course of attaining to faith we do not in the first place referre men to their owne spirit but binde them to heare the Church and stoope to her ministery which hauing done then we bid them examine themselues and affirme that such as are led by the Spirit of God through the helpe and teaching of the Church going before are by this Spirit made sure of the diuine authoritie of the Scriptures and can discerne thereof as of the light c. This Spirit therfore neither goes before the Church teaching ORDINARILY nor is the priuate spirit of man but the Spirit of God * For Gods Spirit testifies to our spirit all truths that are beleeued giuing that light that infused faith immediatly rests vpon 1. Ioh. 2.20 27. witnessing with our spirit This being premised the Reply sayes we hold that by THIS spirit they are made infallibly sure of the diuine authoritie of the Scriptures insomuch that by THEIR spirit they can discerne c. This is vntrue For the spirit whereby the authoritie of the Scripture is assured vnto vs is neither this spirit nor their spirit nor yet n For in pâ—ocesse of time when the Church began to abound in temporals forgetting in a manner all conscience many rulers therein cloking the Scriptures with sundrie wiles feared not to falsifie the vpright iudgements of God therein We see persons hauing neither conscience nor science gouernâ— the spouse of Christ sayes Fascie rerum antiq an 1414. the vnsauorie spirit of the Pope and his cleargie but the Spirit of God testifying to our spirits that it is his word after the Church hath begun to teach vs. So that it giues not testimonie to euery one immediatly without al ministery of the Church but theÌ„ wheÌ„ the Church propounds and reueales the Scripture to such as know it not the Spirit of God by that ministery descending into their hearts and assuring them and then all the testimonie and authoritie of the Church in this her ministery giues place againe to this greater light of the Spirit of God in the beleeuers heart and is no part of that authoritie whereon
his faith of the Scripture resteth 5 Let our aduersaries therefore leaue this custome of forging and misreporting and let them acknowledge the truth No matter to this point whether Protestants or Papists be the elect that haue this spirit but say directly and shrinke not is there not a Spirit euen the Spirit of God enlightning the conscience whereby euery one that beleeues is assured without which the authoritie and perswasion of the Church can do no good Then if there be such a Spirit why may it not be called the voice of Christ the light that shines in the Scriptures themselues and what defect is there in saying that by this Spirit true Scripture and true doctrine too is discerned o The soule hath it taste it feeling it smelling sayes Gers serm de Bern. tom 2. pag 750. edit Paris 1606. as the taste discernes sweet from sower such as know not the Scripture haue not this Spirit The word of God speakes in the Scripture openly though none but Gods children beleeue it Here I challenge my aduersarie and all his sect let them denie this if they can I would not haue them with gesture to out-stare it but as Christian men ought to do shew some reason if it be false which they cannot do D. Stapleton that laboured in this matter beyond all others yet p Triplicat in admonit confesses the internall perswasion of the Spirit to be so necessarie and so effectuall for the beleeuing of euery obiect of faith that neither without it can any thing of any man be beleeued though the church should beare witnesse a thousand times and by it ALONE any thing that should be may be beleeued THOVGH THE CHVRCH ALTOGETHER BE SILENT OR BE NOT HEARD q Princip l. 8. c. 3. Let our aduersaries know we do no way so extoll the outward voice of the Church that we should teach * There can be no faith absolutely without it sine ea nullam fidei rationem posse absolutè consistere Here we see D. Stapleton grants that by the Spirit of God inwardly perswading we may be and are and without it are not assured of any thing to be beleeued and that such as haue this Spirit doe by IT discerne which is the true Scripture and the true sense thereof and which is not as our taste discernes sweet from sower as our eyes light from darknesse doth euidently follow of his words And to let the Reader see how this ignorant Iesuite censures that he vnderstands not his owne Canus r Loc. l. 2 c. 8. pag. 43. edit Colon. an 1605 sayes that as the taste well affected easily discernes the difference of tastes so the good affection of the minde makes that a man can discerne the doctrine of God from error It is therefore true that the beleeuer in himselfe doth taste and see by it owne maiestie the Scripture to be Gods word when the Church hath testified it a thousand times and this taste and light of the Spirit in the heart is a thing distinct from the Churches authoritie and aboue it though ordinarily this Church-authoritie in ministring leade vs to the attaining it and help to open our eyes that we might see it 6 And the reason why some do not thus discerne the true Scripture or any truth is not because the Scripture is not euident enough of it selfe but because such as discerne it not want their taste and such as see or heare it not want their senses in the same maner that they do which cā neither taste the sweetnesse of hony nor heare the sound of a bell nor see the light of the Sunne because they are senslesse for the Sunne hath light in it selfe and honey sweetnesse in it selfe which are discerned by the sense it selfe but some haue no such sense and therefore Saint Austin ſ Prolo de doctr Christia sayes They which vnderstand not the things I write must not reprehend me because they vnderstand not like as if I should shew them with my finger the Moone or a starre which were not very bright and they had not eye-sight enough to see my finger wherewith I point they ought not therefore to be incensed at me So they who vnderstand ng these precepts that I giue cannot yet perceiue the obscure things which are in the sacred bookes must not blame me but pray that some light may be giuen to their eyes from God aboue For though I can with my finger point at a thing yet I can kindle light in no mans eyes to make them see that I point at And againe t Tract 35. in Ioh. in another place he sayes that as our eyes though whole and open yet need the helpe of outward light to see so our minde which is the eye of the soule vnlesse by the light of truth which illuminates other things but it selfe is not illuminated it be enlightned can come neither to wisedome nor righteousnesse In which words Saint Austin affirmes all this that we say that the Scripture and euery truth therein contained shines as a light and by proportion tastes of it selfe and speakes publickly to all as the Sunne shines openly to all and the reason why men discerne it not is not any defect in themselues which must be supplied by Church-authoritie and tradition but onely the def ct of disposition in themselues whereof the want of Church-ministery may be one cause And a little more to shew my aduersaries presumption in denying this let the words of u Ad Antolych l 1 pag 285. 289 edit Basil Henrico Petr. an 1555. Theophilus Antiochenus that liued two hundred yeares afore Austin be obserued If thou who art a Gentile say to me that am a Christian shew me thy God I will bid thee againe shew me that thou art a man and then I will shew thee my God Let me see the eyes of thy soule and the eares of thy heart open For as with carnall eyes we see the things belonging to this life so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the eyes and eares of the soule onely it is possible to behold God who is not seene of all but of such onely as can behold him hauing the eyes of their soule opened All haue eyes yet some are so dimme sighted that they see not the Sunne * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet the Sunne hath neuerthelesse light albeit the blinde see it not who must accuse themselues for their owne blindnesse In like manner O man are the eyes of thy soule possessed with blindnesse c. This therefore which our aduersaries so scurrilously call bold presumption of hauing and being taught by the Spirit was beleeued in the Church from the beginning and it was neuer called either audacious or impudent till this Romane Church and her creatures most audaciously and impudently renounced the authoritie maiestie and euidence of Gods blessed Spirit to aduance the tyrannie heresie and pride of Antichrist For the intended drift
Scripture Bellarmine g Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. c. 1. The name of tradition is applied by Diuines to signifie onely vnwritten doctrine Alphonsus h Alphons à Castr adu haer lib 1. c. 5. This is to be laid for a most sound foundation that the traditions of the vniuersall Church and the determinations thereof in things concerning faith are of no lesse authority then the sacred Scripture it selfe though there be no Scripture to proue them Hessels of Louan i Hessel expli symb c. 69. p. 38. The Apostles neuer intended by their writing to commit to writing the whole doctrine of faith but as necessity vrged them what in their absence they could not teach that they committed to writing Costerus the Iesuite k Coster enchirid p. 43. It was neuer the mind of Christ either to commit his mysteries to parchment or that his Church should depend on paper writings Lindane l Lind. panopl. pag. 4. We Catholickes teach that Christians are to beleeue many things which are to be acknowledged for Gods word that are not contained in the Scripture and many things finally to be receiued with the same authoritie wherewith those doctrines of faith are receiued which are contained in holy writ Rodericus Delgado m Roderic dosm de autor Script l. vlt. p. 63 Albeit these things are not found written in the Bible yet they must no lesse be obserued by the godly that they may fulfill the precepts and firmely beleeue the mysteries of the heauenly faith Doctor Stapleton n Staplet princip doctr l. 12. cap. 5. There both were among the Iewes and are among vs very many things religiously performed in the worship of God and also necessary to saluation and necessarily to be beleeued which yet are not comprehended in the Scriptures but are approued or commended to vs ONELY by the authority of the Church Gregory of Valentia o Valent. tom 3. p. 258. D. All the controuersie is whether the Apostles by word of mouth WITHOVT WRITING deliuered any such doctrines as now affoord an infallible argument for the determining of the controuersies of faith in the Church These wordes of our aduersaries make it more then plaine that the Church of Rome holds the Scriptures vnsufficient not onely in respect of breeding faith or bringing men to know and beleeue it ordinarily which we grant but also in respect of containing it in themselues which we deny And that my aduersary holds the same thing I will prone directly For ha-laid downe 4. grounds First that true faith is necessary Secondly that this faith is onely one Thirdly that this faith must be certaine Fourthly and entire in all points he addes the fift that it must not be doubted but God hath prouided and left some certaine rule and meanes whereby euery man may in all points and questions be sufficiently and infallibly instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith and then immediately he puts the question what in particular may be assigned to be this rule wherto he answers in his first conclusion The Scripture alone especially as translated into English cannot be this rule Which I denied Therefore his question was touching the sufficiency of the Scripture as the said sufficiency is opposed to vnwrittē traditiō not as it is distinguished against the requisite condition of the meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scripture And this I confirme for my aduersary saies they hold the Scripture to be part of the rule because it is part of the doctrine of the Church immediatly reuealed by God but yet there are many substantiall points of faith not contained in them Yea p Pag. 67. Reply his expresse words are The question is betwixt vs and Protestants whether God did reueale any thing to the Prophets and Apostles necessary to be beleeued which is not now expressed or so contained in the Scripture that by euident and necessary consequence excluding all tradition and Church authority it may be gathered out of some sentence expresly set downe in the Scripture I did not therefore peruert the state of the question but my Aduersary hauing nothing else to say thought good by this shift to rid himselfe from that which he saw could not be answered 4 Neuerthelesse pleasing himselfe with his owne conceite he concludes that conuicted with the euidence of truth I haue yeelded to his conclusion in that sence wherein he meant it That Scripture alone is not the rule of faith And therefore all my discourse is idle and impertinent I answer two things first if his conclusion The Scripture alone is not this rule which almighty God hath prouided whereby euery man may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith meane no more but onely to adde the Ministry of the Church and mens owne industry to the Scripture as the meanes for the ordinary vnderstanding and beleeuing that which is written in it in this sence the Scripture alone is the rule whereby to iudge whatsoeuer matter belongs to faith but Scripture alone is not the ordinary rule and meanes by it selfe to kindle in vs the true knowledge and faith of that which it containes without the Ministrie of the Church and other things be ioyned with it for the learning of it then I grant it and require the Iesuite againe in lieu thereof either to renounce his traditions or else confesse they haue no other vse but onely to helpe to expoūd and teach that which is wholly contained in the Scripture without any power to supply any defect of doctrine that may be supposed to be therein And when he hath done the next treatise of faith he writes to distinguish a little better betweene the Rule and the Meanes of applying it and not say that is no sufficient rule whereby to be instructed WHAT is faith and WHAT not which onely is not a sufficient meanes to bring men to faith without the subordinate condition of such meanes as is required in the application of any rule Secondly I answer that his conclusion meanes more viz. That Scripture alone is vnperfect and defectiue 2. waies The first in that without other meanes it doth not ordinarily breed or draw foorth in vs assent to that it reueales nor so much as make vs see the reuelation to be And therefore there needes the Church by her Pastor to teach and perswade vs and there needes the Spirit of God and industrie in our selues This way no Protestant euer denied The second is in that it alone containes not all Gods word or all such truth as he hath reuealed necessarily to be beleeued but onely one small and obscure part thereof the best part or at least some part being by Tradition onely vnwritten This way we deny with open mouth and the Iesuite holds it and in the place now controuerted hugges it in his armes and therefore I discoursed against him as I did and in no other sense and so consequently it is
words seeming plaine are to be vnderstood properly as they sound and when they are to be taken in a figuratiue or improper sence This say I is not to be learned sufficiently in the bare letter of Scripture alone but is to be learned of the Church according to that worthy saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyr. cont haeres c. 2. Because all men do not take the holy Scripture for the height of it in one and the same sence but diuers men interpret the sayings of it diuersly in so much that almost so many different sences may seeme possible to be drawne from it as there are diuers men c. Therefore it is very necessarie that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence True it is that by other probable meanes viz. rules of art knowledge of tongues obseruation of circumstances conference of places c. one but not euery lay-man woman and childe euen of M Wotton and M. Whites owne parish may probably finde out when the words are and when they are not to be vnderstood properly but infallibly in such sort as to build thereupon infallible assent of faith one cannot without infallible interpretation had either immediatly by reuelation of the Spirit which is not ordinarily to be expected or by infallible authoritie of the Church True it is also that ordinarily Diuines hold it for a certaine rule that words of Scripture are to be vnderstood properly as they sound vnlesse to auoide some absurditie we be compelled to interprete by a figure But when such an absurditie occurreth that ought to compell vs to interprete plaine words of Scripture by a figure and when not although reason it selfe may probably know which probable knowledge may suffice for direction of manners yet infallibly in such sort as is required to the assent of faith reason alone not assisted by Church authoritie cannot at the least alwayes tell sith many things may seeme absurd to our priuate sence and reason which in truth are not absurd as in the mystery of the blessed Trinitie may plainly appeare and contrariwise many things may seeme in reason not absurd which in true Diuinitie are absurd and most false 1 HIs second reason against the Scriptures being the rule of faith was their obscuritie because they faile in the second condition of the rule being of themselues alone so obscure and vnknowne both to the vnlearned and learned that no man can thereby alone be sufficiently directed This reason was handled § 7 and 8. where I answered the argument whereby he prosecuted it and euery word also that he replies here which makes me to wonder with what conscience he followes his cause when that he sayes here being answered he shrinks from replying and onely repeates his old argument againe and yet intitles his booke a Reply when he replies nothing but conceales all from his Reader that I answered neuerthelesse that he sayes I will answer againe 2 First he tels in what sence he holds the Scripture to be obscure and how farre forth Not that it cannot by any meanes be vnderstood or that it is any imperfection in the Scripture to be obscure but the perfection rather the onely thing he goes about to proue being that de facto it is obscure or at the least not so easie as the ordinary rule of faith ought to be which is denied and confuted not denying some parts to be obscure as many prophecies and mysteries therein nor affirming any of it to be so effectuall to our vnderstanding that without the motion of Gods Spirit and vse of the meanes euery man can effectually vse it to his saluation for I neuer denied the requisite condition of Gods grace and the Churches teaching and our owne endeuour to open our vnderstanding euen in the plainest Scripture that is but I onely affirme all things concerning faith and good life needfull to be knowne to be so plainly set downe therein that the vnlearnedst man aliue vsing the meanes which is not the Church-authoritie intended by my aduersary and being enlightned with Gods Spirit may sufficiently vnderstand them to his saluation which is enough to make it a rule perfect entire and as easie as is possible for a rule to be for the finding out and deciding whatsoeuer matter belongs to faith For howsoeuer some things in the Scripture the knowledge whereof is not simply necessary to saluation be very obscure and doubtfull yet the whole rule of our faith needfull to all men is set downe so plainly that it may be vnderstood of all men allowing them some eleuation and onely supposing them to haue the light of grace and to take that paines in searching that is ordinarily required in the vse of any rule and in the execution of any meanes whatsoeuer It seemes my aduersarie would conclude from hence that therefore I grant Scripture alone not to be so easie as the rule of faith ought to be because I require so many euen outward meanes and helpes for the vnderstanding thereof beside the helpe of Gods Spirit within vs. But he is deceiued and deceiues his Reader for I expounded my selfe that it is not necessarie the rule be so easie and effectuall that no helpe shall be needfull for the applying it to our conscience but the perfection and easinesse of it stands in this that a man vsing diligence and eleuated by grace from his naturall ignorance shall finde therein absolutely and plainly all things whatsoeuer he is bound to know and beleeue and needs not that the Church by her authoritie and traditions should adde any thing to it that is not contained in it And that this condition of vsing meanes and outward helpes takes not away the reason of a rule he must confesse by his owne principles for let his Church-teaching and authoritie his owne Helena be the rule yet afore any man can determinately know it or vnderstand and yeeld to it he must I hope haue the grace of the Spirit and seeke it out and diligently attend what it teaches him which is as much as we require for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures This therefore is a vaste partialitie in my Iesuite that he will conclude a thing cannot be a sufficient rule or meanes that requires the helpe of grace and a mans owne industrie in the applying it when themselues holding their Church to be the rule yet confesse that no man can heare the voice thereof not vnderstand nor yeeld assent to it without the very same meanes that we require for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures What voice what complaint what querimonie shall we vtter against this peruersnesse against this spirit of contradiction But my aduersarie sayes that among these outward meanes and helpes which M. White requires to the vnderstanding of the Scripture besides the Spirit of God there must be one an outward meanes which is * There is no such outward infalible means in this life
HOC NOBIS SIT SATIS INDVBIVM APVD LITERATOS HABERI NVLLVM ESSE IN TERRIS IVDICIVM QVOD ERRARE LABI DECIPI NON POSSIT Pic. Mirand apolog pro Sauanarol l. 1. c. 1. infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance and so easie to be knowne and vnderstood of all sorts that all may ordinarily direct themselues thereby onely by diligent attending and assenting to it and this is the rule of faith that in this place he meanes wherein if he meane good earnest this question is at an end and the Scripture is granted to be the rule for he will allow that to be the rule which by the helpe of grace supposed is sufficient to direct all sorts onely by diligent attending and yeelding assent to it now such is the Scripture alone that the grace of God supposed onely by diligent attendance and assent vnto it it is sufficient and therefore also you see the necessitie and requisite condition of vsing diligence by my aduersaries owne words hinders not the Scriptures from being the rule of faith euen in his owne sence as himself vnderstands the rule of faith for such as is both infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance in vs and so easie to be knowne and vnderstood that all sorts of men may direct themselues in all points of faith onely by diligent attending and assenting to it because onely diligent attention and assenting being added on our behalfe to the helpe of Gods grace it may thereby be determinately vnderstood of all sorts in all things needfull to be knowne 3 But he sayes that as in a common wealth besides the written lawes there are vnwritten customes which interprete the written law and liuing magistrates that haue authoritie to interprete both written and vnwritten lawes and to compell men to his sence without which the written lawes were not a sufficient rule and meanes to preserue good order in the state because through the peruersnesse of men they would be misvnderstood so in the Church beside the written Scriptures there must be admitted some vnwritten traditions to interprete the Scriptures and some liuing magistrate the Pope to propound and expound the Scriptures and to compell men to take the sence that he giues because the Scriptures are not so plaine but they may be misvnderstood c. This comparison and the conclusion of it I denie for albeit meanes must be ioyned with the Scripture yet this Church-authoritie and these vnwritten traditions are none of the meanes but onely that which I haue named for there needs no meanes to supply any matter of faith that is wanting in the Scripture but onely to open our eyes that we may see what is therein whereas these traditions and this Church-magistracie are supposed to be necessarie for the adding of innumerable things to be beleeued that are not contained in the Scripture as I haue * Ch. 27. n. 3. shewed My aduersarie therefore plainly shewes the difference that is betweene vs and discouers what he meanes when he pretends the Church and her authoritie for this rule of faith he expounds transparently to be the Pope with his traditions and to him giues that which is denied in the Scriptures plenarie power partly out of the Scripture partly out of his Decretals to propound to all men the matter of their faith and compell them to take his sence be it true or false This is the Antichristian bondage whereinto the man of Rome will bring all the world and the hellish pride wherin he aduanceth himself to sit as God in the Church exalting his owne will lawes aboue the wil and lawes of the eternall God and subiecting Gods blessed word to his cursed will which his base a Coâ—ceruauâ—runt sibi magistros ad desideria sua non vâ— ab eu discerent quod facere deberent sed vt eorum studio calliditate iâ—â—â—niretâ—r ratio qua licereâ— id quod liberes Spoken of the Popes clawbacks by Concil delect Card. sub init Parasites for their backes and bellies so much striue for which we execrate as hell and leaue to the Diuell from whence it first appeared vnto the world ciuill states and the commonwealths of this world may haue such vnwritten customes and allow this authority to magistrates but God hath left no such traditions to his Church nor set any such head ouer it thus to expound the Scriptures or to determinate the sense thereof but all his whole will is written and out of the Scripture it selfe is to be reuealed imparted to particular men when any doubt arises by the ministry of the Church either in ordinary preaching or in the Councels of godly orthodoxall Bishops b That a Councel is the highest tribunall vpon earth and aboue the Pope affirmed by Iustinian in praetermiss per Anto. Cont. p. 11. Phot. Nomocan tit 9 c 1 6. The Councels of Pisa Const Basil and the Vniuersity of Paris to this day See to this purpose Card Florent tract de Scism Anto. de Rosell monarch tract de concil Mich. Cezen lit ad imperat part 12. sub sin Ioh. Fran. Pic. Mirand apol pro Sauanaro l. 1. c. 1. to the which the Pope and his rabble if they will know the truth and be saued ought to subiect themselues as well as the poorest Christian that liues and the written word is so absolute and sufficient to direct them herein and his spirit so infallibly ready to guide them if they will vse the meanes that there is no more to be required for the full manifestation of any thing needfull for any man whatsoeuer and c CertuÌ„ est quod possit errare etiam in ijs quae tangum fidem haeresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo Hadrian 4. de sacra consit p. 26. see below this authority of the Pope it selfe when all is done is faine to be reiected 4 Thirdly whereas I said out of Chrysostome that howsoeuer some part of the Scripture be obscure yet some places are so plaine and easie to vnderstand that euery man by reading may know the meaning which speech I extend to so many places as are sufficient to teach vs all things needfull to saluation in this sense that the whole rule of faith is set downe in plaine places of Scripture which any man of himselfe by reading may vnderstand requiring still the grace of God and diligence in searching he replies three things The which afore I answer the Reader must note that the words he opposes are Chrysostomes and what I said I proued by many arguments the last whereof was the testimonie of the ancient Fathers who say in expresse words as much as I. The which arguments he answers not a word to and therefore replying vpon my conclusion he opposes through me the plaine Scripture the ancient Church and his owne writers by all which I confirmed that I said 5 First he sayes that albeit some places are plaine yet it doth not
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
assurance and the assurance of all other things beleeued is wrought and bred in the heart by the Spirit of God principally and then by the alone words of the Scripture ioyned therewith as by the formal beginning of that my assurance and by the ministry of the Church onely as Gods ordinance appointed to helpe me to attaine and recouet that sence and assurance that by meanes of this helpe arises in me from the Scripture it selfe though many times and very ordinarily this is done without all motion of the Church whatsoeuer by onely reading as I haue often said in case when men are either conuerted from Athisme or confirmed in the truth without hearing or knowing of the Church by onely reading CHAP. XXX Touching the Al-sufficiency of the Scripture to the matter of faith 2. It shewes it selfe to be Gods word Luthers denying Saint Iames his Epistle 3. How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture 4. What they and what we hold about the authority of the Church 6. How expresse Scripture is required A. D. § 3. Pag. 187. The Scripture containeth not all points of faith concerning my third reasō I wish the reader to obserue that I do not attribute any imperfection to the Scripture when I proue that it containeth not all points of faith For want of perfection in a thing is not to be accounted an imperfection vnlesse it can be shewed that the perfection which wanteth doth necessarily pertaine to the nature of the thing or at least is due and ought to be in it as my aduersaries will neuer be able to shew that to containe all points of faith doth necessarily pertaine to the nature of Scripture or is due or ought to be in it This being noted I need say little in confirmation of this argument as hauing vrged it sufficiently against M. Wootton and M. White in the introduction in such sort as they will neuer be able sufficiently to answer it Onely here I will aske one question of M. White White p. 48. who telleth vs that the Scripture manifesteth it selfe to be diuine in regard the vertue and power that sheweth it selfe in euery line and leafe of the Bible proclaimeth it to be the word of the eternall God and the sheepe of Christ discerne the voice and light thereof as men discerne light from darkenesse c. If this be so how chanceth it that his illuminated Luther whom doubtlesse M. White will account one of the sheepe of Christ could not see that S. Iames his Epistle was diuine Scripture by the vertue and power that sheweth it selfe in euery line and leafe of it no lesse then in other places of Scripture shall he be accounted illuminated or rather starke blinde that could not discerne light from darkenesse And shall not M. White also be accounted not so much blinde as braine-sicke that fancieth to himself such a light to shine in euery leafe and line of the Bible that euery one that is the sheepe of Christ discerneth it no otherwise then he that hath corporall eye-sight discerneth outward light from darkenesse True it is there is the vertue and power of God in the Scripture there is puritie and perfection of matter maiestie of speech power ouer the conscience certaintie of Prophecies c. but these do not shine like light to our vnderstanding till it be illuminated with the light of faith as euery one euen of the elect is not at all times indued with faith nor then neither vnlesse those things be propounded duly mediatè or immediatè by the authoritie of the Church vpon which being like a candlesticke the light of the Scripture must be set or else it will not according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence sufficiently shine and appeare vnto vs in such sort as to giue infallible assurance Wootton p. 89. White pag. 46. that it is the word of God It troubleth M. wootton M. White both that I say there be diuers substantiall points which are not expressely set nowne and determined in Scripture which they being conuinced with euidence of the matter cannot deny to be so but say they this is not the question But by their leaues this was first the question when their Grandfather Luther was so hoate to haue expresse Scripture See Gretz in defens Bellar. tom 1 in li. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 3. See introduct q. 2. as that he would haue all expressed euen in wordes Afterwards indeed when his fury cooled a litle he thought it sufficient if all were expressed though not in so many sillables yet in sense And now of late our new Ministers seeing that this also cannot be defended haue made the question whether all be contained in Scripture that is either expressely or so as without Church authoritie or Traditions al necessary points of doctrine may be necessarily euidently or by good consequence deduced out of that which is expressed in Scripture In which sense also they will be neuer able to shew that all points and namely those which I mentioned in my third argument Wootton p. 93. are contained in onely Scripture but must be forced to run to tradition and Church authority if they will haue sufficient assurance of them 1 THe third thing obiected against the Scripture was Imperfection that it containes not the whole matter of faith but many things else are needfull to be knowne and beleeued that are not written therein For though he spake somwhat reseruedly There be diuers questions of faith which are not EXPRESSLY set downe yet his meaning is There be diuers particular points to be beleeued which are contained therein neither expressely nor anyway at all but receiued vpon sole Tradition and Church authoritie as I haue a Ch. 27. n. 2. shewed and his Introduction here mentioned affirmes which being a grosse and blasphemous assertion therefore to couer the odiousnesse of it here in the first place he saies that by affirming the Scripture not to containe all points of faith he doth not attribute any imperfection to it And how I maruell will he perswade vs this when it is impossible it should be perfect that leaues vs vnperfect in the faith and reueals but a portiō of that which yet of necessitie must be known to saluation his reason is because his aduersaries will neuer be able to shew that to containe all points of faith doth belong to the nature and perfection of Scripture But I answer it pertaines to the perfection of the Scripture and is due to the nature thereof to containe all things because it selfe sayes so and there can be no other infallible or conuenient reuelation And b Propounded in the WAY Digr 3. 13. many testimonies and arguments euince it which my aduersary not being able to answer hath well and wisely passed by with silence And therefore denying this they attribute imperfection to it For to deny that which the Scripture is is to make it imperfect Athanasius
c Orat. cont Gent. sub init saies The holy Scriptures are * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient by themselues to shew the truth Isiodore Pelusiota d L. 2. Epist 369. The sacred volumes hauing the testimony of the diuine Scriptures are the stayres whereby we ascend to God All therefore brought out of them in the Church of God receiue as proued gold tried in the fire of the Spirit of Gods truth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whatsoeuer things without these volumes are carried about though they haue shew of probability leaue to those that plot the fables of heresies S. Basil e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de fid pag. 394. edit Basil an 1551. It is manifest presumption and apostasie from the faith either to abrogate any of the things that are written or bring in any thing that is not written And Vincent Lirin f Monito c. 2. 41. The rule of the Scripture is perfect and in it selfe sufficient and more then sufficient vnto all things And g 3. d. 25. qu. vnic a. Gab. Biell his owne Schoolman All things necessary to be beleeued are contained in the Canonicall Scripture it belonges therefore to the perfection of the Scripture to containe all things 2. Against this he obiected the stale and threadbare argument it is not contained in the Scripture that it selfe is the word of God My answer was that the vertue and power that shewes it selfe in euery line and leafe of the Bible proclaimes it to be the word of God and the sheepe of Christ discerne the voice and light of it as men discerne sweete from sowre light from darkenesse Now he demandes in this Reply How then it chances that our illuminated Luther could not see the Epistle of S. Iames to be diuine Scripture I answer readily to the point if the Scripture be so easily and infallibly knowne to be Gods word by the authority of the Church how chances it that his illuminated Caietan h Catharin cont Nov. dog Caiet S xt Senens Biblio l. 6. annot 337. denied the same Epistle of S. Iames to be diuine Scripture how chances i Noted afore so many Papists deny the Apocrypha to be Canonicall as well as we how comes it about that Genebrard k Genebrard chronol p. 181. Posseuin appar verb. Gilb. Genebrard affirmes the third fourth Bookes of Esdras to be Canonicall Scripture which the Chuch denies Thus my Iesuit is fallen vnawares into the same pit he made for me Secondly my aduersarie l Verum est doctorem quidem Lutherū quosdam alios exemplum veteris Ecclesiae imitatos de libris modo dictis non ita praeclare sensisse sed tamen jidē postea re diligentius perpensa priorem sententiam mutare non dubitarunt Eckhard fascic pag. 21. cannot proue that M. Luther perseuered to the end in the deniall of this Epistle The iudgement of m Nonnul i antiquitus de epistolae huius authoritate dubitarunt Passeuin appar v. Iacob Apost see Euseb hist. Eccle l. 3 c. 25. Ieron Doroth de viris illust v. Iacobus so many in the Primitiue Church refusing it dazeled Luthers eyes and made him to doubt for a time but that he neuer saw and beleeued it to be Scripture to the end my aduersary will scarse be able to shew Thirdly Luthers not seeing this light proues not that there is no such light or voice in the Scripture for all faith thereof is not in an instant but successiuely and by degrees and all men at all times haue not eyes and disposition alike to see it as the Apostles at the first saw not Christ to be that he was though he were the light that came into the world Saint Austine n Tract 35. Ioh. sayes The Scriptures are lighted vp to be our Candle in this world that we walke not in darknesse Therefore they are seene by their owne light For the same Saint Austine n saies will you light a Candle to see a burning Candle for a burning Candle is able both to make manifest other things that are hidden in darkenesse and to shew it selfe to thy eyes The Scripture therefore by it owne light shewes it selfe as I said to be the word of God and if any see not this light the defect is in themselues and is remoued by no other light added but by the same light at such time as pleases God to open the eyes Theophilus Antiochenus o Orat. 1. ad Antolych sayes we must not say there is no light because the blind see it not but let them that see it not accuse their owne eyes For as in all other matters of faith it falls out among the children of God that p 1. Cor. 13.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ibi hom 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scol graec ibi some see and know more and some vnderstand and beleeue lesse then othersome yet the matters of faith themselues are one and the same and the beleeuers are inlightened with Gods Spirit though not all in the same measure so may it fall out about this obiect that some particular men may not at the first or alway perfitly see the light of euery part of Scripture or perfitly heare the voice of Christ founding therein for here in this life we know but in part and prophecy but in part though the light of the Scripture shine fully forth vnto all 3 This light of the Scripture my aduersary grants but yet to bring in his traditions and Church-authority marke how he replyes What light soeuer there be in the Scripture yet it shines not to our vnderstanding till it be illuminated with faith which the elect themselues at all times are not the which I grant and thereupon inferre that this light was neuerthelesse in the Scripture though Luther saw it not in one place thereof and the reason why he saw it not was because euery one of the elect is not at all times indued with all faith but my Iesuite addes that this light whereby the Scriptures shew themselues to be the word of God shines not to the vnderstanding illuminated with faith neither vnlesse it be propounded by the authority of the Church vpon which as vpon a Candlesticke the light of the Scripture must be set or else it will not sufficiently shine vnto vs to giue vs of it selfe infallible assurance that it is the word of God q Concedimus igitur sacras liteteras quae diuinae doctrinae continent lumen tanquam lucernam esse per seipsam splendidissimam atque fulgentissimam sed nobis tamen non in se lucidam sed quatenus est diuinitus in Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritate tanquam in candelabro positum vt luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt Errant igitur aduersarij cum scripturam esse lucernam ac illuminare nos idem esse existimant quod eam non egere Ecclesiae infallibili authoritate vt
nos certos faciat Grego de Valent tom 3. pag. 117. c. Verus Scripturae sensus inest Scripturae sicut signatum signo sed media certa explorata infallibilia quibus sensus iste eruitur non est ipsa Scriptura sed traditio Ecclesiastica vox definitio Ecclesiae seu eius qui Ecclesiae vice Christi praesidet Grets defens Bellar. tom 1. p. 1970. c. This is the finall euasion that the Iesuites vse against this argument in defence of their traditions and Popes authority against the sufficiency of the Scripture that the Scriptures haue in them a shining light and are as the Protestants say able to proue themselues to be the word of God and containe their true sense in themselues but this light we see not and this true sense we know not and this assurance that they are Gods word or that this is the true sense we cannot haue in the Scripture it selfe but by the meanes of Traditions and the Popes authoritie shewing and propounding these things to vs. As a candle though hauing light in it selfe yet shewes light to none when it is hid vnder a bushell but when it is set vpon a Candlesticke I answer 2. things First as I haue often said this authority and teaching of the Church is not alway nor simply necessary to shew all men the light of the Scripture or so much as to point to it for either by the immediate light of Gods Spirit or by the light of nature it may be knowne to be Gods word as by the light of nature it is knowne that God is whereupon it followes plainely that the Scripture alone as the Rule hath this light in it selfe and from it selfe shewes it else it could not in this manner without Church proposition shine to any Secondly I grant that ordinarily for the seeing and discerning of the euidēce perfection purity power sence all this light that is in the Scripture the proposition of the Church is necessary as a candlesticke to hold it forth but then this proposition may be expounded two waies one way to signifie such authority as by and from it selfe induces me to beleeue afore I see any authority in the Scripture and together with the authority of the Scripture the twofold authority of the Church and Scripture concurring to the moouing of my vnderstanding as when two men concurre as one formall beginning to the carrying and moouing of a blocke This Church proposition thus expounded I vtterly deny to be either needfull or possible Secondly it may be expounded for the Ministry of the Church by her Pastors and people reuealing the Scriptures to them that know them not and teaching the nature sense and meaning thereof But this ministry is but a bare condition adding no light sense authority or matter to the Scripture but onely leading vs to see it Of which Ministery there is no question betweene vs for all Protestants grant The authority or ministery of the Church supposes no want of light in the Scripture and vse it but the question is whether all the articles and whole nature of faith be contained in Scripture alone excluding vnwritten traditions though the Ministery of the Church be needfull as an instrument to shew teach and expound the Scripture as a candlesticke is needfull to shew the candle For the vse of this Ministry and requisite condition of all other meanes that are to be vsed supposes no want or defect in the obiect whereabout they are applied but onely produces it to his operation as the setting of a candle vpon the socket addes no light to it that was wanting in it selfe but onely remoues some impediments that hinder the standers by from seeing and the opening of a window to let in light makes not the Sunne imperfect or but a partiall light And if our aduersaries intended no more but this there were an end of the controuersie for no Protestant euer denied the necessity of Church ministry in this sense but freely confesse it although the authority * See it expounded Chap. 35. n. 1. inde and here immediatly after in nu 4. mentioned we renounce 4 For the better explication of this my answer and that the Reader may see how impertinent it is that my Aduersary sayes Note FIRST that o The quest betweene vs the Papists about the Churches authority the question is not whether some meanes be ordinarily required to the vnderstanding of the Scripture and the producing of faith in such as reade and vse it nor whether the Scripture worke infallible assurance immediatly in all men for in some it doth without the operation and coming betweene of the Church ministery For we hold it doth not But the point is whether this authority of the Church supply any article of faith or matter needfull to saluation that is wanting in the Scripture so that it may be said as my Aduersary alway speaketh the Scripture alone is but a part of the rule of faith which God hath left to instruct men what is to be holden for faith and there be many substantiall points belonging to faith which are contained in Scripture alone nether expresly nor thence to be deduced by consequence but to be supplied by tradition and Church authority and so the question is not about the expediency or condition of the meanes but about the perfection and sufficiency of the thing it selfe Note SECONDLY that my aduersary from the necessity of the means concludes the insufficiency of the thing thus The light of the Scripture shines not to vs the true sense of the Scripture is not infallibly assured vnto vs without the meanes of the Church The Scripture therefore is vnsufficient not containing all things needfull not instructing vs WHAT is to be holden for matter of faith as if a man should say the light of the candle appeares not to vs but when it is set on a candlesticke therefore there is much light that is wanting in the candle and is supplied by the candlesticke Note THIRDLY what the things properly are which our aduersaries attribute to the Church in comparing it with the Scripture They are there first to be a meanes to reueale and expound the Scripture to vs and to breed the faith thereof in our consciences Secondly to be the Foundation of our faith in this sense that we do beleeue this to be Scripture and this to be the true sense of the Scripture and this to be the matter of faith onely because the Church expounds the Scripture so Thirdly to supply vnto vs many articles of faith absolutely needfull to saluation that are wanting in the Scripture out of tradition and by the said tradition to expound the Scripture These two latter points they infer on of the first which is the incroching consequence that I except against in that the authority wherein God hath placed his Church is not in respect of the Scripture but in respect of vs being a bare Minister to the
is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most doth import a great degree of profitablenesse Or if it import sufficiency it is not meant that alone sufficiency of which our questiō is but at the most sufficiency in suo genere in a certaine limited kind to wit of written Scripture Against the second part of my answer first M. White either had a corrupt copie of my treatise or else himselfe his writer or printer corrupteth euen my words and sense For I do not say as he maketh me the Scripture is sufficient because c. But I say onely that it is profitable the rather because it commendeth the authority of the Church By which corruption he maketh himselfe matter to worke vpon but very idlely most of his obiections being ouerthrowne only by reading my words aright as I set them downe His chiefe obiection is this The Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastours the Pope Councell and all but it cannot send these to the Church because these be the Church I answer that it sendeth euen these also to the Church First in that it sendeth them to the interpretation of Councels and Fathers of the ancient Church Secondly it sendeth them as they are priuate men needing instruction to themselues as authorized Pastours who by the assistance of Gods Spirit shall be enabled as neede shall require for their owne and other mens instruction to define rightly which is the right doctrine of faith in any point wherein Controuersie shall arise The answer of his other obiections may without difficulty be gathered out of that which here I haue said already and which I am after to say when I do shew how Church authority is prooued out of Scripture Whence followeth not that other places of Scripture either are superfluous or not to be accounted part of the rule or that Church doctrine is to be opposed to Scripture or to be accounted humane traditions or doctrine of men The sentences of Fathers and others which M. White bringeth to proue alone sufficiency of Scripture either proue nothing against me to wit being explicated that the Scriptures with other meanes prouided by God namely the authority of the Church are able to instruct vs or else they proue against him and his fellow M. Wootton as well as against me if the Fathers words be taken without limitation that the Scriptures alone without any meanes ioyned to thē are able to instruct vs in all things And it is maruaile that these men haue so little iudgement to alledge such authorities which make no more againe Church-authority required by me then against Church-ministery which is required by themselues as the ordinary meanes to instruct men in faith 1 The Apostle 2. Tim. 3.15 hath these words The holy Scriptures are ABLE to make thee wise TO SALVATION through THE FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST IESVS For the whole Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable to TEACH to IMPROVE to CORRECT to INSTRVCT IN ALL RIGHTEOVSNESSE That the man of God may be ABSOLVTE and made PERFECT VNTO ALL GOOD WORKES This text we alledge to proue the sufficiency of the Scripture whereto my Aduersary in his discourse a In the WAY §. 11. answered two things First that the Apostle doth not say in these words that the Scripture is sufficient to instruct a man to perfection but that it is profitable but I shewed that he affirmes it to be SVFFICIENT by three reasons the first because the Apostle sayes They are able to make vs PERFECT and that to EVERY good worke now that which doth this is sufficient inasmuch as God requires no more at any mans hand but perfection to euery good worke My Aduersary in this his cōfused Reply wherin he durst not deale openly and distinctly that I might perfectly discerne which part of my argument his words properly concerne seemes to deny the consequence because S. Paul sayes also that Piety is profitable to euery thing and yet it is not sufficient in such sort that there needs no other helpe or meanes to be ioyned with it to attaine whatsoeuer thing Whereto I reply againe First that euen this Piety being the totall and whole effect that the study of the Scripture works in mē is sufficiēt without the ioyning of any thing else to it that is not Piety for it followes in the next words that this Piety hath the promises of this life and of the life to come that is to say whatsoeuer is promised vs in this world or in the next is obtained by Piety Therefore Piety is sufficient Therefore any thing in this example notwithstanding the Scriptures being affirmed to be profitable to euery thing are affirmed also to be sufficient Secondly we do not maintaine the Scripture to be sufficient in that sense that without all helpe and meanes to learne them they will suffice for who euer denied the ministery of the Church the illumination of Gods Spirit and a mans owne syncere indeuour to be also requisite But when we say they are sufficient we do it against the assertion that sayes they containe not the substāce of al things needful to be knowne but besides the meanes to vnderstand and learne them we need Church authority and vnwritten tradition to supply diuers articles of faith that they reueale not Thirdly my Aduersary may possibly finde some formes of speech where a thing is called profitable to all things yet other things are as necessary as it for the profitablenes of one thing excludes not the necessity of another thing But wheresoeuer it is said that any thing is profitable not simply to this or that purpose but to make persect to euery thing in the same kind there the sufficiency thereof is absolutely concluded and thus the Apostle speakes of the Scripture that it is profitable to make PERFECT to EVERY good worke The said perfection being an effect of their profitablenesse for that profitable thing is sufficient of it selfe that makes and produces the effect perfect 2 My second reason whereby I shewed the sufficiency of the Scripture was this All that we need to saluation is either to be taught or reproued or instructed or corrected but the Scripture alone doth all this Ergo they are sufficient to this he answers nothing 3 Thirdly I reasoned thus That is sufficient and containes all things needfull to be knowne which is able to make a man wise to saluation but the Scripture is able to doe this Ergo it is sufficient this argument he hath tumultuously repeated as he hath all the rest and answered I know not how First he sayes if the word alone had bene put in it would more plainely appeare how it proues nothing let the world therefore be put in That which alone is able to make a man wise to saluation is sufficient but such is the Scripture that alone it is able to make a man wise to
Scriptures make the Church perfect by cōmending it to it self for thē the Apostles should speak thus by my aduersaries exposition the Scriptures are profitable to make the Church perfect by commending to it the authority of the Church and yet he defendes it First because it sendes them Pastors Pope Councell and all to the interpretations of Councels and Fathers of the ancient Church But then I demand how did they make perfect the ancient Church it selfe the first Councels and Fathers of whom the Apostle speakes as well as of the latter for they had none to retire to but the Scripture onely Secondly because the Pastors of the Church sustaine two persons one as publike Pastors authorized to teach another as priuate men needing instruction themselues and so the Apostle saies the Scripture sends them as priuate men to themselues considered as publike men inabled as need shall require to define the truth in any point the which is an irkesome answer to any that shall consider it for although a Pastor be considered these 2. waies yet it is false that is assumed that he which as a priuate man erres and is ignorant yet as a publike person is able to direct himselfe and others and define the truth this I say is a trick to mocke an ape with though it be all the shift they haue to defend the Pope from being a formall hereticke and yet admitting it to be true that the Pastors of the Church considered as priuate men are sent to themselues considered as publike men yet it cannot be true that the Scripture makes thē perfect this way by sending and commending them to themselues because the perfection auouched is the effect of that teaching that reprouing that correcting that instructing which is contained in the Scripture it selfe and not in the authoritie of man whither the Scripture is imagined to send vs. For all that the Apostle in this text affirmes is of the Scripture alone as appeares 7 Besides my argument I alleadged some testimonies of Chrysostome and certaine Papists to iustifie my exposition wherein they affirme as much out of the text as I doe whereto he replies that the said testimonies must either be explicated to mean that the Scriptures are able to instruct vs with the meanes of Church authority or else be taken without limitation if they be thus explicated they proue nothing against him if they be taken without limitation they proue as much against vs as against him I answer to the first the testimonies are to be seene and the words thereof are so full that they cannot be thus explicated as for example Chrysostome in his words expounds S. Paul to distinguish the Scripture against his owne ministry Thou hast the Scripture to teach thee in steed of me if thou desire to know anything there thou maiest learne it that which can teach vs in steed of the Church Pastours can teach vs without their authority if God as Antonin says hath spokē but once that in the Scriptures that so fully that he speakes no more how can the meaning be that other authority should be ioyned with them for so God should speake twice once in the Scriptures another time in the Church and in the Scripture so far from fully that he needs speake againe in the Church The like may be said to the other testimonies but I refer the iudgement to the conscience of the Reader To the second if these words be taken without limitation that alone without any means ioyned to thē they are able to instruct vs they proue as much against me as against him that its maruell I should haue so little iudgement I demand and why so I pray because then they will make as much against our Church ministery as against his Church authority which had bene spoken to the point if we by Church ministry had meant either the same or as much as he doth by Church authority but when his Church authority intends a supply of that which is wanting in the Scripture by traditions our Church ministry no more but a simple cōdition of vsing the meanes to make vs see that which is contained in thē which ministry also we do not hold to be alway vnto all persons necessary he may let our iudgements alone and take a new reckoning of his owne that is so simple as to make alike things that are so far vnlike his Church authority and our Church ministry CHAP. XXXII Touching priuate spirits that expound against the Church 1. Such priuate expositions refused by the Protestants 2. And yet the Papists haue no other All teaching is to be examined euen by priuate men 5. Certaine propositions shewing how the Church teaching may be or may not be examined and refused Pag. 196. Wootton p. 110 White pag. 62. A.D. Concerning the ninth Chapter M. Wootton and M. White both seeme to disclaime from immediate teaching of priuate spirits and consequently seeme to grant the substance of the conclusion of this Chapter in such sense as it was principally intended by me yet wheresoeuer they be vrged to tell how they infallibly know that there is any Scripture at all and that these and no other bookes be Canonicall Scripture and that this or that is the true interpretation and sense of this or that text of holy Scripture vpon which questions well resolued the whole frame of their faith doth depend after alledging other reasons drawne from rules of art and knowledge of tongues c. which they know to be infallible they must be forced finally to flie for infallible assurance either to the immediate teaching of their priuate spirit or else to run the round betwixt Scripture and priuate spirit in such sort as I haue shewed in the Introduction Introd q. 6. and hence it seemeth to proceed that they both thought fit to make answer to my reasons which they needed not to haue done if the conclusion of this Chapter had no waies bene contrary to their doctrine White pag. 59. 60. M. White before he begin to answer my reasons distinguisheth a double meaning of the word priuate which I put in my conclusion and saith that if I meant it as it is opposed ô strange opposition to diuine and spirituall I said well but vsing it as we Catholickes do as it is opposed to common he saith that a priuate man may so be assisted with the Holy Ghost that he may interprete Scripture truely and infallibly against a company as big as the Roman Church 1 HIs third conclusion touching the rule of faith was that no priuate man who perswadeth himselfe to be specially instructed by the spirit can be this rule of faith specially so far foorth as he teaches or beleeues contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church the which I granted to be true but admonished the Reader withall that he had a further reach therein then yet he made shew of For his intent was to condemne all particular men and
of such a man is to be followed in interpretatioÌ„ of Scripture or otherwise as the rule of faith or as a sufficient infallible means to leade men and to direct them in the knowledge of matters which are to be beleeued by faith Now this being the sense of my conclusion let vs heare how my aduersaries will answer my proofes 5 First he grants that a priuate man assisted by the holy Ghost may interpret Scripture truly and infallibly against a company as big as the Romane Church supposing the said company were not so assisted but it is not to be thought that the holy Ghost forsakes the Catholick Church to assist any who interpret contrary to it Which I thinke too and therfore neuer denied his coÌ„clusion nor gaine-said the arguments whereby he confirmed it in this generall sense But when these priuate men were expounded to be the reformed Churches and their Pastors and this holy Catholicke vniuersall Christian Church vnderstood to be the Papacy and the Romish faction then I affirmed that priuate men might haue the Spirit of God and his truth and the Church want it But that I be not mistaken and that the Reader may vnderstand wherein I and my aduersaries differ Note that the name of the Church may be taken 3. waies First for the whole company of such as professe Christ and his Gospell collectiuely in all ages and places which is most properly and really the Catholicke vniuersall Church So expressely o Princip doctr pag. 99. 101. edit Ascens an 1532. Waldensis This is the Catholicke Apostolicke Church of Christ meant in the Creed the mother of beleeuers whose faith cannot faile not any speciall Church Not the African as Donatus said not the particular Romane Church but the vniuersall Church not assembled in a generall Councell which we know hath sometime erred but the Catholicke Church of Christ dispersed through the whole world since the Baptisme of Christ by the Apostles and their successors to these times is it which containes the true faith and holds the certain truth in the midst of all errors Secondly for any part of this Catholicke Church in this or that time or contrey as the particular Churches of Greece Rome Corinth or any assembly of Bishops congregated in a Councell either generall or particular Thirdly for the Papacy or Romish Church peculiarly containing that faction which imbraces the Romish religion and liues vnder the Popes subiection In which sense my aduersary and all Papists alway vse the name of the Church p Est coetus hominum eiusdem Christianae fidei professione corundem Sacramentorum communione colligatus sub reginunt legitimorum Pastorum ac precipuè vnius Christi in terris Vicarij Romani Pontificis excluduntur schismatici qui habent fidem in sacramenta sed non subsunt legitimo Pastori Bell. de eccl milit c. 2. Est visibilis hominum câ—etus sub Christo apite â—â—us in terris Vicario â—astore ac summo Pontifice agens Simanch Cath. instit tâ—t 24. n. 1. defining it by this Romish faith with subiection to the Pope and excluding from it all that refuse the Papacy The which distinction being thus laied I propound my answer and that we say touching the point in the fourth proposition First No man or company of men beleeuing and expounding the Scripture contrary to that which the vniuersall Church in the first sence hath alway beleeued and expounded can be assured they haue the assistance of Gods Spirit but the contrary they may assure themselues they are led by the spirit of error The reason is for no truth can be reuealed to any but that which is in this Church for if it be not in it so that the Church neuer knew or beleeued it then it cannot be the truth For q 1. Tim. 3.15 the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and so a priuate man holding it must needs hold an error Secondly A priuate man and priuate companies of men may be and many times are so assisted by the holy Ghost that they may beleeue and expound the Scripture truly against a particular Church or Councell of Bishops either generall or particular The reason is for God hath left his truth with his Church therein to remaine for euer but not infallibly euery parcell of his truth with euery part or assembly of the Church But his prouidence and promises to his Church are sufficiently vpholden if he so support the true faith that it alway remaine in some of the Church Therefore a particular Church or councell of Bishops may at some time and in some points erre and then it cannot be denied but others may see the truth against them this proposition our aduersaries dare not denie nor do not Thirdly a priuate man and priuate companies of men beleeuing and expounding the Scripture onely against the Papacie may be infallibly assured they are assisted by the holy Ghost The reason is because this Papacie is no part of Gods truth but the late inuentions of men added vnto it Fourthly Priuate men and priuate companies of men beleeuing and expounding contrarie to the Papacie resist not the true Church of Christ nor any part of it The reason is for the Papacie being nothing else but a disease or excrement breeding in the Church must not be expounded to be the Church it selfe as a wenne or leprosie growing on the bodie is not the bodie it selfe and he that cuts off the wen or purges away the leprosie cannot be said to resist or wrong the bodie 6 These foure propositions thus laid downe it is manifest my aduersarie doth but cauill in this place For if his conclusion intended no more but that priuate men must not be thought to know the truth and the true Catholick Church to be in error no man would speake against him But the sence of his conclusion is against the three last of my propositions That no man can be thought inspired of God or to haue the truth when he expounds Scripture as Luther and his did contrary to the church of Rome in which sence onely I dispute against him and in no other Not affirming that priuate men may see the truth and the Catholicke vniuersall Church not see it but onely that priuate men beleeuing contrary to that which my aduersarie meanes by the Catholicke vniuersall Church may haue the truth on their side and be infallibly sure therof without holding any thing contrary to the vnamine interpretation of the precedent or liuing Pastors of the sound part of the Catholicke Church CHAP. XXXIII 1. How a priuate man is assured he vnderstands and beleeues aright touching the last and highest resolution of faith 2. Luthers reiecting the Fathers 3. Occhams opinion that no man is tied to the Pope or his Councels 4. The Beraeans examined the doctrine that they were taught 5. The faith of the beleeuer rests vpon diuine infused light 6. M. Luther sought reformation with all humilitie 7. Scripture is the
ground of true assurance 8. Who the Pastors were of whom Luther learned his faith 9. His conference with the Diuell 10. By the Church the Papists meane onely the Pope A.D. To the reason alledged by me and namely to that point of it wherein I say Pag. 200. that a priuate man who presuming to be inspired by the spirit doth oppose himselfe against the Church neither can know himselfe or can assure others that his spirit is infallible M. White answereth denying this to be true For saith he the Scripture is a light and knowne by the sonnes of light and by it they may be assured Now they that be thus assured are infallibly sure they be taught by the holy Ghost for all Scripture is inspired of God and containeth the teaching of the holy Ghost To this I reply asking how in particular Luther for example could by Scripture assure himselfe or others that he was taught by the Spirit of God It seemeth by M. Whites answer that this assurance came by this or the like Syllogisme Whatsoeuer is taught by Scripture is infallibly taught by the Spirit of God But I Luther am taught by Scripture this and that point viz. that I am iustified by onely Faith c. Ergo I Luther am infallibly assured and may assure others that in these points of doctrine although contrary to the doctrine of the vniuersall visible Church I am taught by the Spirit of God But who seeth not the weaknesse of this proofe when all the certaintie thereof is finally resolued into Luthers owne priuate and particular iudgement in his owne case which cannot be proued to be infallible by saying he was assisted in his iudgement by the Spirit of God but by begging the question and supposing that which is the point that needeth most proofe to wit that he is in those points taught by the Scripture or that he is assisted by the Spirit to interprete aright He iudged so it is true but his iudgement is fallible and is so much the more to be suspected to be false by how much he did prize and ouerweene his owne iudgement in his owne cause when with intollerable pride he preferred it so contemptuously before the iudgement of a thousand Augustines and Cyprians and of other most worthy and learned Doctors of the Catholicke Church 1 HE that opposes himselfe against the true Catholicke Church holding contrary to the vniuersall doctrine thereof can giue no assurance either to himselfe or others that his Spirit is infallible this is true but when Luther and the rest opposed themselues against the Church of Rome which is the Papacie this was no presumption but the worke of Gods Spirit in them whereof they might infallibly be assured themselues and giue infallible assurance to others My reason was this The Scripture is a light and knowne by the sonnes of light and by it they may be assured now they that be thus assured are infallibly sure they are taught by the holy Ghost For all Scripture is inspired of God and containeth the teaching of the holy Ghost To this he replies that then the assurance which they haue arises by such a Syllogisme as he hath set downe Whereto I answer granting that it doth saue that in the conclusion there is more although contrary to the doctrine of the vniuersall visible Church then he was able with all his skill to contriue into the premisses But he replies that Luther could haue no certaintie of the second proposition that he was in those points taught by the Scripture when he taught against the vniuersall Church The which reply grants that a priuate man may haue infallible assurance he is taught by the Scripture and assisted by Gods Spirit so long as the thing he holds is not against the vniuersall Church But holding this or that point against the Church he can haue no such assurance I answer first that Luther and the priuate men whom he meanes taught nothing contrary to the vniuersall Church much lesse did they frame to themselues in their mind the conclusion of this Syllogisme that their conscience should checke them as if they had taught contrary to the vniuersall Church or felt themselues so taught by the Scripture that withall they felt the true Church to be against them They felt no such thing but categorically they concluded I am infallibly sure that in this point of iustification for example I am taught by the Scripture Secondly I answer that Luther and euery priuate Protestant beleeuing Iustification by onely Faith and all the rest that our Church holdeth against the Papacie haue infallible assurance they are taught by the Scripture the which assurance is bred by the plaine and euident places of Scripture and the vniuersall teaching of the true Church confirming the same whereto the Spirit of God giues witnesse inwardly in their conscience But this he sayes is the question that should be proued that Luther had these things on his side I answer there is in this life no further or after proofe aboue these things a For albeit the proposition and ministerie of the Church concurre as a condition yet the authoritie of God himselfe speaking in the Scripture induces vs to beleeue in as much as all the authoritie which the Church hath with a beleeuer is because the said beleeuer sees and vnderstands by the Scripture that it is the true Church c. Jassisse Deum vt Ecclesiae credamus non ex Ecclesiae authoritate suspendimus veluti propria aut sola ne quidem in genere causae externae huius fidei nostrae causa sed partim ex Scripturis manifestissimis quibus ad Ecclesiae magisterium remittimur partim ex ipso fideâ— symbolo Stapl. Triplicat pag. 279. the finall and formall resolution of faith being into the authoritie and light of the Scripture and Gods Spirit speaking therein so farre foorth that our b For the Iesuites say the proposition of the Church is beleeued vpon the testimonie of the Scripture the Scripture is beleeued for it selfe Si quis rogatur quare credat si sermo sit de ratione formali assentiendi Dicat se id credere quia Deus reuelauit Si rursus interrogetur vnde cognoscat Deum reuelasse Respondeat se id clare non nosse credere tamen fide infallibili ob infallâ—bilem tamen propâ—sitionem Ecclesiae tanquam conditionem ad idâ—redendum requisitam Quaeres vnde cognoscatur propositioneÌ„ Ecclesiae esse infallibilem similiter respondeat se id credere fide infallibili ob authoritatem Scripturae testimonium perhibentis Ecclesiae cuâ— authoritati reuelationi ob seipsam crâ—dit Alex. Pezâ—nt in Tho. 22. p 479. B. Greg. de Val. toÌ„ 3. p. 31. They that hold the authoritie of the Church to be the hiest reâ—son inducing vs to beleeue fall into two grosse absurdities 1. because so our faith shall not be diuine being grounded on the authority of men 2. because this authority of the Church
all the gates of hell not onely ouer the sayings of men though holy men or deceitful custom Gods word is ouer all The diuine Maiestie is of my side that I care not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand King Harry-churches stood against me God can neither deceiue nor be deceiued Austin and Cyprian as all the elect may erre and haue erred In all these words there is nothing spoken simply against the Fathers but comparatiuely if a thousand Fathers were against the Scriptures he would rather stand to the Scripture wherein he speakes most godly and honestly that d Gal. 1. if an Apostle or an Angell from heauen farre greater then a thousand Austins and Cyprians should preach otherwise let him be accursed Neither Saint Paul nor Luther granted the Angels or Doctors of the Church to preach otherwise then they did but if any man would pretend and oppose their names and preaching against the Scripture let them be accursed the word of God is aboue all that I care not if a thousand Austins and a thousand Cyprians stood against me which is the truth and our aduersaries say as much themselues Baronius e An. 31. n. 213. Though the Fathers whom for their high learning we worthily call the Doctors of the Church were endued with the grace of the holy Ghost aboue others yet in expounding the Scripture the Catholicke Church doth not alway and in all things follow them D. Marta f De iurisdict part 1. pag. 273. The common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when the contrary opinion fauours the power of the Popes keyes or a pious cause And I haue shewed g THE WAY digr 47. elsewhere that this is the common practise of our aduersaries They speake not alway so zealously and plainly as Luther doth but for substance they say the same that he doth h Yesterday Ecchius brought against me Gregory Ambrose Chrysostome to whom I then answered nothing I will therefore now say what I then forgot opposing the rule of diuine Augustine that the savings of all writers must be iudged by the sacred Scripture whose authoritie is greater then the authoritie of all men Not that I condemne the iudgement of the most illustrious Fathers but I imitate those that come nearest to the Scriptures and if the Scripture be plaine I embrace it before them all Tom. 1. disput Lips cum Ecch. pag 263. Wittemb I mention the opinion of Austin not to defame or detract froÌ„ that holy man but because it is good necessary that these holy Fathers be sometime found like our selues men that the glorie of God may stand firme c. Jâ— Genesc 21 pag. 255. tom 6. Wittemb who thought also as reuerently of the Fathers as any man is bound to do 3 But it was not Luthers going against the Fathers that discontented our aduersaries it was his resisting the Popes Canons and the faith of the Church of Rome which they shrowded vnder the name of the Fathers wherein by their owne diuinitie he might be guiltlesse Peraduenture i Dialog tract 2. part 2. c. vult pag. 180. col 3. edit Lugdun per Ioh. â—rech an 1494. saith Occham one might say that simple men ought to beleeue nothing but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer to be beleeued explicately and should be content with things common not presuming vpon their owne vnderstanding to beleeue any thing explicitely but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer vnto them but HE THAT SHOVLD AFFIRME THESE THINGS WERE AN INVENTOR OF NEW ERRORS For though simple men be not ordinarily tied to beleeue explicitely but onely those things which are by the Cleargie declared to be so beleeued yet SIMPLE MEN READING THE DIVINE SCRIPTVRE BY THE SHARPNES OF REASON MAY SEE SOME THING THAT THE POPE AND CARDINALS HAVE NOT DECLARED EVIDENTLY TO FOLLOW OF THE SCRIPTVRE in which case they can and must explicitely beleeue and ARE NOT BOVND TO CONSVLT WITH THE POPE AND CARDINALS FORASMVCH AS THEY ARE BOVND TO PREFERRE THE HOLY SCRIPTVRE BEFORE THEM ALL. If all the Papists in the world can shew Luther did any more then Occham here allowes euery simple man to do I am much deceiued And if he did no more then by their owne iudgements he might doe then away with these friuolous and emptie exclamations against Luther and let vs heare no more of them A. D. But saith M. White Scripture promiseth Pag 201. that euery doctrine is of God which consenteth to it and this consent a man may know infallibly or else in vaine had the Bereans searched c. I answer that I do not denie but a man may know doctrine to consent to Scripture but I aske how he may know this by onely Scripture interpreted by ones owne iudgment or priuate spirit I hope I haue shewed the contrary neither will M. White be euer able to proue that the 1 Act. 17.11 Beraeans had infallible certaintie onely by the Scripture interpreted by their owne priuate iudgement or that 2 Es 8.20 the Prophet sent any for infallible certaintie to the law and testimonie expounded onely by priuate iudgement or that 3 Luc 1 4. Saint Luke or f Col. 2.2 Saint Paul whom he alledgeth meant that men should haue infallible assurance by onely Scripture interpreted by priuate iudgement or spirit 4 I neuer intended that any man could haue infallible assurance of that he beleeues onely by Scripture interpreted by his owne priuate iudgement all that I affirme is that priuate men may examine any doctrine that is publickly taught by whosoeuer and by Scripture alone as by a certaine rule they may be assured of the truth This is plainly euinced by the texts alledged For the Beraeans hearing the Apostles preach yet searched the Scripture dayly whether those things were so and therefore beleeued In which example the matter examined is the things that the Apostles preached The rule whereby this was examined is the Scripture alone which in the text is distinguished from the Apostles preaching and ministery and authoritie and opposed against them for by it the Beraeans examined them The persons that did this were a priuate people subiect to the Pastors of the Church as much as any can be The end why they did thus examine the doctrine was to see if it consented with the Scripture The euent and issue of their examining was Therefore many of them beleeued Whereby it is cleare that a priuate man by the Scripture alone may be able to iudge of any thing that is publickly taught and by the Scripture alone be infallibly assured if he hold the truth Not the Scripture alone excluding the condition of the meanes whereby God makes the sense thereof knowne but the Scripture alone as the rule of faith excluding all authoritie of the Church and Pastors Nor the Scripture interpreted by a mans owne iudgement and priuate spirit but by it selfe truly according to the manifest rule
whether 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
should be iudged Pag 210. A. D. Thus therefore we see that those texts which I alledge do not onely pertaine to the Apostles and men liuing in that age as my Aduersaries ignorantly White pag. 72. 73 74. and absurdly make answer to some of the texts but that they pertaine also to men liuing in other ages and consequently as my reason drawne out of them proueth infallibility and other conditions requisite in the rule and meanes to be in the Apostles doctrine so it proueth also infallibility and the said other conditions in the doctrine of succeeding Pastours 5 The texts alledged were these Math. 28 20. Ioh. 14.16 and the 16.13 Math. 28.19 Luc. 10.16 The thing he would proue by them was that the doctrine of the Church is infallible which conclusion in a good sense u §. 13. n. 1. §. 14 n. 2. in the WAY by me set downe I granted But when he meant it otherwise * Ecclesia docere potest aliquid extra praeter verbum scriptum D. Staplet relect p. 431 Eius doctrina quoque est infallibilis pag. 463. according to the doctrine of Rome that the Church can erre in nothing it teaches albeit it teach that which is not in the Scripture I answered the texts he brought out of the Scripture and to these foure I said that they belonged either onely or properly to the Apostles I answered them sufficiently otherwise all which the Repliar here conceals if they were applied to the whole Church but that also was one part of my answer Therefore here he replies that ignorantly and absurdly I make answer because they belong to the Church Pastours in all ages as he hath shewed Yet x The same word may be applied in the Apostle◠and to the succeeding Pastors so far foorth as to proue the substance of the thing signified to agree to both although in circumstance of measure manner or degree there be great difference A. D. Reply p. 208. 217. his owne confession is that this is onely secondarily or by consequence but primarily and principally they pertaine to the Apostles which is as much as I said For I do not so restraine them to the Apostles but that I allow part of the sense therein contained to concerne the Church and therefore I answered them also otherwise whereto the Repliar replies neuer a word And if they had proued the infallibility of his Church so pregnantly let him giue ouer his confidence and tell vs how then comes it to passe that so many in his owne Church hold some that y Occh. dial part 1. l 5. c. 25. Turtecrem sum de eccl l. 3. c. 58. concl 2. Caiet apol part 2. c. 21. Councels some that z Mic. Cezen lit ad Imperat. c. vlt. Hadrian 4. p. 26. Alphons l. 1 c. 4 Onus eccl c. 15. n. 34. the Pope himselfe may erre and let him not talke of erring definitiuely and è Cathedra for that distinction is in none of the texts alledged The priuiledge of not erring is by no words thereof tied to the chaire but that which is promised is tied to the persons So that the persons of these Pastors not being made infallible by these texts it followes that no such infallibility at all as the Repliar dreames of is giuen them therein A. D. As by the promise of Christ we be assured that the Apostles Pag. 214. and consequently in some sense the Pastours of the Church are taught all truth by the Holy Ghost so by the commission warrant commandement and threat ioyntly considered as here I consider them we are assured that the same Holy Ghost doth so assist them as not to permit either the Apostles or the Pastours vniuersally to teach authoratiuely false doctrine or their owne deuices in regard otherwise men should be bound sometimes to beleeue false doctrine which inconuenience cannot be auoided by saying as M. White saith White pag. 75. that the band hath a limitation that we heare them so farre as they teach agreeable to Scripture and no further and by those Scriptures we may releeue our selues if they chance to teach falsely Because first that conditionall limitation is no where expressed nor in M. Whites sense to be necessarily gathered out of any place of Scripture Secondly I aske how those should releeue themselues who cannot reade much lesse vnderstand Scripture 6 The limitation whereof I spake that we heare the Pastors of the Church NO FVRTHER THEN THEY TEACH AGREEABLE TO THE SCRIPTVRE is expressed and necessarily gathered out of Scripture euen in M. Whites sence For the Scripture bids a 1. Th. 5.21 trie all things and hold that which is good And b 1 Ioh. 4.1 beleeue not euery spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God And that we may know the Scripture alone is the rule whereby this triall must be made it sayes againe c 2. Pet. 1.19 We haue a more sure word of the Prophets whereto we do well to take heede as to a light that shines in the darke till the day dawne and the day star rise in our hearts d Ioh. 5.39 And search the Scriptures for in them we thinke to haue eternall life and they be they that testifie of Christ And the mē of Beraea e Act. 17.11 searched the Scriptures daily whether those things which the Apostles preached were so There were nothing more harsh then these speeches of the Holy Ghost if the Scripture were not allowed and appointed as a sufficient and the last outward meanes to preserue the faithfull from false teaching And as I haue often heretofore affirmed the Papists themselues cannot auoid this limitation For the Pope and Councels and particular Pastors may all erre and teach false Adrian that himselfe was a Pope and therefore best knew what belongs to Popes f Vbi sup sayes It is certaine the Pope may erre euen in such things as touch the faith auouching heresie by his determination or decree Touching Councels not confirmed by the Pope Azorius the Iesuite g Azo instit moral tom 2. l. 5. c. 12. sayes All Catholickes are agreed that they may erre touching particular Pastors and Bishops Waldensis h Doctrinal fid l. 2. c. 19. sayes we know that all these both Cleargy and Prelates of the Church haue often erred If all these may erre then it followes that their teaching must be examined accepted with this limitation if it consent with the Scripture Gerson i De exam doctr part 1. confid 5. tom 1. saies Euery man sufficiently learned in the Scriptures is an examiner of doctrines put case there be a simple man not authorised excellently seene in holy writ then in the point of doctrine his assertion is more to be beleeued then the Popes declaration For it is plaine the Gospell is more to be beleeued then the Pope if therefore such a learned man teach any verity to be contained in the
AND IN THE WRITINGS OF THESE MEN TOVCHING THE SCRIPTVRES SACRAMENTS CHVRCH POPE COVNCELS TRANSVBSTANTIATION IMAGES INVOCATION OF SAINTS IVSTIFICATION GOOD WORKS c. WAS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHVRCH AND PROFESSED BY THE BISHOPS OF ROME FATHERS AND COVNCELS EXPRESSED IN THE FIRST 800 YEARES OF THIS CATALOGVE this is our obiection whereto the Replier answers that he can retort it more strongly against the Protestants c. But this is but wind and so let it passe and come we forward to the substance of his answer CHAP. XLIII 1. Whatsoeuer the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued is expressed in their bookes 2. The Replier is driuen to say they held much of his religion onely implicitely What implicite faith is according to the Papists The death of Zeuxis The Fathers write that which cannot stand with Papistrie Pag. â—67 A. D. Secondly I answer that to say there be diuers points held by vs whereof no mention is made in those ancient Fathers is no good argument to proue that which we hold was not holden by them For this is Argumentum ab authoritate negatiua which argument is of no force to proue this point vnles it be first proued that those Fathers held nothing explicitè or implicitè which is not expresly to be fouÌ„d in their writings But this my aduersaries will neuer be able to proue Now on the contrary side we can shew good reasons or at least probable presumptions sufficient to proue first that they held more then is expressed in their writings Secondly that they held explicitè or implicitè the same in all points of doctrine which we hold First I say we haue reason to thinke that they held more then is expressed in their writings because since ordinarily the writings of these Fathers were not by them set out of purpose to expresse in particular euery thing that they held implicitè or explicitè concerning all matters of faith but rather were written vpon some speciall occasion it is to be thought that their writings contain only some parts of the doctrine to wit so much of it as was that requisite to be written vpon that special occasion The which is confirmed euen by experience of these our times in which although learned men do ordinarily set downe more expresly in Catechismes bookes of controuersies c what the Catholik faith is in diuers points then formerly it hath bin set downe as they haue more occasion by reason of more heresies daily arising then learned men of former ages when those heresies were not haue had Yet no learned man now adaies writeth euery thing which explicitè or implicitè he beleeueth to be the Catholick faith For euery Catholicke man beleeueth explicitè or implicitè all that is contained in Scriptures and traditions in that he beleeueth whatsoeuer was reuealed by God to the Apostles deliuered by them in word or writing to the Catholicke Church and which the Church in Scriptures and vnwritten traditions propoundeth and deliuereth to vs diuers particulars whereof are not necessary to be expresly knowne to or written by any particular learned man of any age but are alwaies preserued at least in the implicite or infolded faith of the Church the which infolded faith of the Church may and shall be vnfolded the holy Ghost still assisting and suggesting all the aforesaid reuealed truth as necessitie shall require that the truth should be in any point expresly declared which necessitie chiefly is when some new heresie ariseth oppugning particularly the truth of that point 1 HEre he sayes the Fathers named in his Catalogue might hold what the church of Rome holds though there be no mentioÌ„ therof in their writings because they might hold that which is not expresly in their writings We had thought vntil now that this had bin a plain demonstration The ancient Fathers in all their writings make no mention of diuers points of the Popish religion Ergo they held them not Or thus What religion the Fathers held that they mention in their writings But the Popish religion they mention not in their writings Ergo they held not the Popish religion But he hauing good experience that the second proposition is true denies the first and will shew either by good reasons or probable presumptions that they held more then they mention and expresse in their bookes Wherein at once he hath destroyed his Catalogue and laid his religion open to the scorne of women and children For if the Fathers in all their writings handled nothing but the cause of religion teaching expounding and defending it against Iewes Gentiles hereticks schismatickes whereby they could not but mention what they held and yet neuer mentioned diuers points of Poperie it is plaine they neuer held them But the Iesuite sayes this is Argumentum ab authoritate negatiua which is not good they might hold either explicitè or implicitè that which they haue not expressed Wherein you must marke his tergiuersation For to shew a visible Church in all ages professing openly his Romane faith that all men may see it he tenders this catalogue But when we bid him proue that the Fathers of the first 600 or 800 yeares beleeued and professed that part of his Romane faith which the Church of England reiects that it may appeare so to vs and we may see it he sayes he can shew good reasons and presumptions that they beleeued more then is expressed in their writings whereas he should shew by their WRITINGS that they held and beleeued as the Romish Church now doth because it is impossible to shew what they held but by their writings and himselfe sayes in another place We cannot haue any certaintie of things past but by the writings of those times And if he will haue his Church to be so visible in the Fathers time and those Fathers to be so eminent members thereof good reason men see it yet see it they cannot by presumptions but by their writings 2 But he sayes We haue reason to thinke that they held more then expressed in their writings forsomuch as no man writes euery thing which explicitè or implicitè he beleeues I answer though it be granted that both they and we in all our writings may omit some things not belonging to faith or religion yet many articles of faith such as our aduersaries say theirs are the deniall whereof they call schisme and damnable herersie and persecute with fire sword and gun-powder cannot but be expressed for so much as such articles are simply needfull vnto saluation and are the grounds and conclusions of all theologicall writing and discourse Secondly it is impertinent to the obiection which denies the Fathers of the first 600 yeares to haue done that which the Catalogue sayes they did professed VISIBLY as the Romane Church now doth which obiection is not satisfied by saying they might explicitè or implicitè professe that they neuer writ because no man writes all he beleeues but by shewing in their writings this
obliging all sorts of men yet since it is affirmatiue it is not to be thought absolutely to obligue all in particular especially at all times and with whatsoeuer inconuenience of circumstances but rather to be limited to such particular persons times and circumstances as may make the obseruation of it necessary or at least conuenient as happeneth in other particular affirmatiue precepts Which limitation if my Aduersaries will not admit I aske how they will haue those to fulfill this precept who cannot reade at all Or who by onely reading can no more vnderstand the Scriptures in English then if they were in Hebrew How chance also that they do not obligue euery man to reade all the Scripture yea at all houres and to do nothing else but reade and search into the whole Scripture For 4 White p. 344. if because the words seeme absolute they will admit no limitation then these my questions must be satisfied which proceed vpon supposall that the precept be absolute and generall without all limitation 1 THe third instance c Digr 49. n. 3. that I gaue was the forbidding of the Laitie to reade or haue the Scripture in their mother tongue For when the ancient Church propounded in the first parts of his catalogue not onely permitted the reading of the Scripture indifferently to all but by prouiding translations tooke order that all sorts of people should freely haue them in their mother tongue what a manifest alteration is it in the Church of Rome now to prohibite this and practise the the contrary The Replie sayes there is no such GENERALL prohibition among vs. He grants then there is a prohibition which he cannot shew to haue bene in the first 600 yeares but it is not GENERALL This will we see presently First the law is expresse against it Whereas experience shewes that if the Bible be euery where without difference permitted in the vulgar tongue more hurt then good will arise thereby in this point let the iudgement of the Bishop or Inquisitor be followed that with the aduise of the parish Priest or confessor they may permit the reading of the Bible translated by Catholicke authors in the vulgar language to such as they shall vnderstand can take no hurt by such reading but increase in pietie The which licence of the Bishop let them haue in writing And if any presume without such a licence either to reade or haue it vnlesse he come in first and giue vp his Bible to his ordinarie let him not haue the pardon of his sinnes And the bookesellers without such licence selling or any way affoording Bibles in the vulgar Language shall forfeit the price of the books and be liable to such other punishments as the Bishop thinkes meete a Index lib. prohib Pij 4. regul 4. This order was set downe by the Pope the Councell of Trent wherein there is shew of liberty to reade and haue the Scripture in their mother tongue for such as are licenced which is the reason why the Replie saies there is no generall prohibition but marke the issue b Ib. obseru circa 4. Pope Clement 8 in his obseruation vpon this rule tells vs It is to be obserued concerning this rule of Pius 4 that by this impression and edition no new power is granted to Bishops or Inquisitours or superiors to licence the buying reading or keeping the Bible in the vulgar tongue Seeing hitherto by the commandement and practise of the holy Romane and vniuersall Inquisition the power of granting such licences to reade or keepe Bibles in the vulgar Language or any parts of the Scripture as well of the new as of the old Testament or any summes or historicall abridgements of the same in any vulgar Language hath bene taken from them There is therefore a generall prohibition the same that we obiect and the Reply puts but one of his ordinary trickes vpon me For first none may reade but that is licenced Secondly none may be licenced but obstinate and froward Papists such as are sure for starting for they onely are meant by * Eis concedere possint quos intellexerint ex huiusmodi lectione non damnum sed fidei atque pietatis augmentum capeâ—e posse reg 4. those that will take no hurt nor bring any detriment but increase to the faith by reading Thirdly which is the point to be noted the power of granting such licences also is taken away that whatsoeuer to blinde the eies of the world the Pope and his crew made shew of yet indeed nothing at all is permitted 2 Secondly the practise of the Church of Rome for many yeares past hath bene to restraine with fire and sword all such vse of the Scripture Neither did it euer till this other day that the Rhemists translated how and for what ends I will not now stand to say prouide or set forth any English translation but forbidding hereticall translations made by Protestants consequently forbad all that were And the doctrine of all Papists handling this matter confirmes that I say Peresius c De tradit p. 45. b. saies Shall no bounds be set to popular rude and carnall men Shall old men before they haue put off the filth of their mind and young men that yet speake like children be admitted to reade the Scripture I suppose verily and my opinion fails me not this ordinance vnder the pretence of pietie was inuented by the Diuel Azorius the Iesuite d Instit tom 1. l. 8 c. 26. §. Tertio quaeritur inde It is demanded whether the sacred Scriptures may be translated into the mother tongue of euery nation that euery one may the better reade and vnderstand them I answer that Lutherans and Caluinists are in that heresie that they affirme the sacred Scripture ought to be translated into the vulgar Languages of all nations against whom the Councell of Trent in the fourth rule thus hath And so repeats the constitution as I haue set it downe That constitution therefore forbids the translation and vse of the Scripture in the vulgar tongue as I haue said Then he goes forward The Gospells and Epistles which are read in the Church throughout the yeare may not be printed alone but with the expositions of the Catholicke authors vpon them and all praier bookes containing Psalms and canticles of the Scripture in the vulgar tongue are likewise forbidden But is it expedient and decent to haue the sacred volumes translated into the mother tongues I answer No. Because therby the vnity of beleeuers would sustaine detriment then much ignorance and folly would insue in the Church besides diuers causes of errors and heresies would arise Moreouer the vncertainetie and multitude of translations yet there is not more varietie and vncertainety in any translations then among their owne Latine ones would cause innumerable contentions quarrells and other discommodities and euils almost infinite Thus most immodestly and heretically they make those exceptions against the Scripture that
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
say the people might not reade that which they had in their owne language b Act 15 21. which they daily heard read in their Synagogues and c Deut. 6.7 which they must rehearse continually to their families d 2. Tim. 3.15 and wherein they brought vp their children from their infancy Secondly he saies either they containe no precept or but a conditional precept or licence that when they would not beleeue Christ himselfe they might search the Scripture Faine he would say absolutely it is no precept because it would serue his turne better But belike he read in his Cyrill e In Ioh. l. 3 c. 4 that the common and receaued expopositionis that with a certen COMMAND our Sauiour stirres them vp to search the Scripture Athanasius f Tom 2 p. 248. Commelin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saies He COMMANDED them to search the Scripture g Aschet p. 599. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil wheÌ„ a COMMANDEMENT is giuen vs let vs obey our Lord saying Search the Scripture h Ho 40. 39. in Ioh. Chrysostome he COMMANDS to digge deepe into the Scripture he sends them away to the Scripture i Pag. 343. in Ioh. Euthymius He COMMANDS them to search k Iansen concord c. 36. Peter seleâ—â— disp to 4. in Ioh. 5. d. 20. Our aduersaries confesse this to be the commonest exposition and some of them the best l In Ioh. 5. Maldonat the Iesuite Cyrill thinkes the word SEARCH not to be the imperatiue but the indicatiue mood but Chrysostom Theophylact. Austine I thinke ALL GRAVE AVTHORS except Cyrill do BETTER thinke it to be the imperatiue And this is confirmed by manifest reason For in case of error the Iewes and all men are bound by precept to haue recourse to such meanes as can reforme them But the Repliar is content it be a precept so he may haue the hammering of it First therefore he saies It s but a conditionall precept or rather a licence that seeing they would not beleeue our Sauiour himselfe they might search the Scripture which they did beleeue This is transparently against the Fathers yet it will serue my turne and vtterly destroy his cause For such a licence the Pope and the Inquisitors will neuer grant as Clement 8. hath professed And if our Sauiour when the Iewes beleeued not him permitteâ— them to search the Scripture then by this text when the People beleeue not the Pope but misdoubt his doctrine he must giue licence to them to reade the Scripture which he will neuer do Gretser to helpe the Repliar a little m Tom. 1. pag. 893. c. answers There is not the same reason of Christians that there was of the Iewes and why so the Iewes beleeued not in Christ but opposed both his doctrine and person whereas he that is a true Christian beleeues Christ and honours him This is true that is said both of the Iewes and Christians but this difference is no reason why a beleeuing Christian may not search the Scripture as well as an vnbeleeuing Iew. For the Christian though he beleeue in Christ yet is ignorant of much of his wil or weake in faith or assailed with heresies increasing in the world or desirous to confirme himselfe and others in the truth in which cases let the Iesuite shew why Christ for the curing of the Iew should allow him to reade the Scripture and yet debar the Christian whose state needes the support of the Scripture one way as much as the state of the Iew doth another Nay this is a good argument against himselfe and my Repliar For if the reason why the laity may not reade the Scripture be because our Sauiour hath commanded vs not to giue holy things to dogges nor to cast pearles before hogges and the Iewes not beleeuing Christ but opposing his doctrine and person be more dogges and hogges then Christians hence it will follow roundly that the Scripture is to be permitted to Christians much more then to the Iewes because the Iewes were permitted to reade the Scriptures though they were dogges and hogges 5 Secondly he sayes that allowing it to containe an absolute precept which he doth as a child kisses the rod for he must do it if he wil follow the coÌ„sent of the Doctors yet being an affirmatiue precept it obliges not all meÌ„ nor at all times but may be limited to particular times as to the time of the Primitiue Church to particular persons as now only the Clergy and other circumstances which the Church of Rome shal think meet I answer affirmatiue precepts first binde all persons to whom they are giuen Secondly they binde at all such times as the matter therein contained agrees vnto Thirdly they receiue limitation or restraint from none but from the lawgiuer himselfe in all which properties they agree with negatiue commandemeÌ„ts therefore omitting all intricate discourse touching this matter the precept of searching the Scripture binding in this manner it is sufficient for the allowance thereof to the people For first they that cannot reade may fulfill it by hearing it read Searching being restrained no more to the one then to the other Secondly there is none but by searching that is to say by diligent labour may vnderstand them in their mother tongue better then in Hebrew Because I haue shewed many times ouer that the articles of faith and rules of good life are set downe so plainely that the simplest may vnderstand them vnlesse he will make lay people so sencelesse that they haue not the common light of nature Thirdly we binde not euery man to reade all the Scriptures and at all houres doing nothing else because there is no such thing in the precept Then I haue satisfied his questions and admit a limitation in things wherein the precept limits it selfe but how followes this Affirmatiue precepts haue their limitations therefore the Pope may limit them Or this Circumstances limit precepts therefore the Church of Rome vpon her Antichristian circumstances may restraine the precept of Christ Or this Some lawfull and legitimate circumstances may stay the execution of an affirmatiue precept therefore the malicious and desperate imputations layed vpon the people or some misdemeanors committed by them indeed may lawfully debarre the people from hauing the Scripture any more Away with these circumstances and giue vs substance CHAP. LII 1 The mariage of Priests and Bishops lawfull and allowed by Antiquitie 2 Some examples hereof in the ancient Church The restraint hereof is a late corruption Priests were married euen in these Westerne parts a thousand yeares after Christ Pag. 281. A. D. Fourthly touching the mariage of Priests M. White citeth * See Bellar. de cleric c. 19. Prot Apol. tract 1. sect 3. n. 1. sect 7. tract 2. c. 1. sect 3. a mistaken sentence out of the Apostle and boldly affirmeth after his fashion that mariage of Priests was ordinarily in the Primitiue Church But he
side and checks the Pope and all his counsels thereby to inuite them to peace and vnity they know that we inuocate one God and beleeue all the articles of the Creed and rule of faith and preach and presse godlinesse of life without partiality punishing sinne and rewarding well doing as much as can be done in any kingdome or state that themselues allow they haue seene within the memory of man innumerable soules giuing their life for the testimony of that we beleeue onely we differ in diuers articles which potent and skilfull aduersaries at seuerall times in ages past brought into the Church let our writings be vnpartially weighed and the Scriptures be diligently read and the first Antiquity well considered and it will appeare they are in an error and kept in bondage thereto onely through the subtilty and cunning of their masse Priests God of his goodnesse open their eyes and eares that they may embrace the truth and come forth of Babylon and shaking off their superstition content themselues with the Testament of Iesus Christ to whom be all honour and power ascribed for euer Amen xij Maij 1614. A Table of the Questions and Controuersies either purposely and largely handled or by occasion briefly falling out betweene my Aduersary and me in this Defence A ANtichrist and his persecution with the time of his Reigne as the Papists hold it pag. 361. and 378. Apocrypha not Canonicall Scripture pag. 61. and 62. in the marg Assurance of grace and saluation Chap. 16. Antecedent and Consequent will of God pag. 212. Authoritie of the Church and Scripture Chap. 30. nu 4. B Baptisme of infants by Scripture pag. 151. nu 3. The Bull against Mich. Baius pag. 48. nu 5. C Catholicke discipline what pag. 5. Church defined and distinguished pag. 365. nu 2. The visiblenesse of the Church at large Chap. 37.38.39 In what sense the Church Militant is sometime inuisible pag. 355. 360. 373. Hypocrites not true members of the Church pag. 369. Where the Church was before Luther 386. 390. 394. How the Church is subiect to error pag. 421. nu 2. Councels subiect to error Chap. 47. Charles the Emperor his booke against Images pag. 458. nu 5. Conception of the B. Virgin in sin Chap. 49. Communion in one kinde Chap. 55. E Celebration of Easter pag. 150. nu 2. Erre the Church may erre pag. 421. nu 2. And how Councels Chap. 47. Errors came in by degrees into the Church pag. 519. nu 1. F Fathers their consent with Protestants pag. 410. and Chap. 45. They professed not Papistrie Chap. 43. The Papists manner of reiecting them pag. 177. Fundamentall and not Fundamentall points of faith Chap. 17. Frankford Councell against images Chap. 48. G Grace assurance of grace Chap. 16. Gregory what faith he taught pag. 433. H Hypocrites no true members of the Church pag. 369. Hildebrands doctrine touching the Popes power ouer Princes pag. 27. nu 2. inde I Iesuites when and to what purpose ordained pag. 13. The maintainers of turbulencie and treasons pag. 25. and 81. Charged with purging bookes pag. 56. and 72. with inhumanitie pag. 87. with training vp their people in ignorance pag. 54. and 92. Inuocation of Saints by praier Chap. 13. and 14 Implicite faith and all the doctrine of the Papists touching the same Chap. 23. Image worship and the doctrine of Rome touching the same pag. 453. and 528. and Chap. 53. Iustification of the Gentiles Chap. 22. nu 1. L The Laitie forbidden the Scripture pag. 479. Permitted in ancient time to reade them Chap. 51. Luther whence he had his assurance and who taught him pag. 320. nu 8. His reiecting the Fathers pag. 310. nu 2. He sought reformation with all humility pag. 317. Where the Church was afore his time pag. 386. and 390. and 394. M Marriage of Priests Chap. 52. and Chap. 58. nu 2. Masse Priests see Iesuites Masse pag. 74. and Chap. 58. nu 5. Merits Chap. 7. and Chap. 58. nu 4. N The second Nicen Councell Chap. 48. O Originall sin pag. 530. nu 6. P Peters being at Rome and being Bishop of Rome pag. 534. nu 2. Pope how many Princes he hath bin Traitor to pag. 34. nu 3. The Papists make him the rule of faith and iudge of all pag. 67. and 79. and 299. and Chap. 34. and 35. His supremacy chap. 54. and pag. 525. His succeeding of Peter pag. 537. nu 2. and 3. He hath erred and bene an Hereticke euen in Cathedra pag. 543. nu 7. Purging of bookes pag. 56. and 72. Praier to Saints Chap. 13. and 14. For the dead Chap. 57. nu 3. Protestant religion whether it bring men to desperation p. 401. nu 8. Pardons Chap. 57. nu 2. Purgatory Chap. 57. nu 2. Priests mariage Chap. 52. and Chap. 58. nu 2. Predestination whether for grace foreseene pag. 220. nu 10. inde Predetermination of mans will by Gods will pag. 236. nu 21. Papists cast off the Fathers pag. 177. maintaine saluation without the knowledge of Christ pag. 162. haue changed the ancient faith pag. 339. purged the ancient writings pag. 56. and 72. R Rome a whore pag. 11. n. 2. Romane Clergy their couetousnesse Ch. 4. nu 1. and Ch. 5. Their charity pag. 23. nu 3. Reall presence pag. 76. Rule of Faith and the properties thereof Ch. 26. and Ch. 35 nu 6. S Scripture put downe pag. 9. and 65. and 79. and 250. Translation thereof into the vulgar tongue pag. 63. and Ch. 51. Such translations forbidden the laity pag. 479. nu 2. Scripture proues and expounds it selfe Ch. 19. and 20. and 32. The sufficiency thereof against Traditions Ch. 27. and 30. and 31. and pag. 274. Obscurity and perspicuity of it Ch. 29. The light of it pag. 280. What certainty or infallibility there is in translations Ch. 28. How particular men are assured of the sense of the Scripture pag. 314. Spirits priuate Ch. 32. and pag. 315. Saints their inuocation Ch. 13. and 14. How they are supposed to heare vs. pag. 105. Sufficient grace whether giuen to all pag. 231. nu 15. Succession of the true Faith in the Church how it was Ch. 44. Succession of the Romish faith set forth in Catalogues how answered pag. 406. Seruice in an vnknowne language Ch. 50. T Transubstantiation Ch. 56. Traditions preferred and Scripture put downe pag. 9. 65. 79. 250. Treasonable doctrine and traiterous practises defended by Papists pag. 27. inde Translation of the Scripture into the mother tongues pag. 63. See Scripture V Vacancy in the Sea of Rome pag. 541. nu 5. Virginity of the B. virgine Mary pag. 149. nu 1. Woman Pope pag. 542. nu 6. Scripture expounded at large 1. Tim. 2.4 God will all men to be saued pag. 210. nu 4. 2. Tim. 3.15 All Scripture is inspired of God c. Chap. 31. 1. Cor. 14. Ch. 50. THE CONTENTS OF THE SEuerall Chapters of this Booke CHAP. 1. THe title of A. D. his Reply
* Jtaque ne in posteruÌ„ quidem Lipsi rosas ogita sesamam aut papauer sed spinas si as aâ—â—ynthium acetuÌ„ Lips const 1.10 I must craue the readers patience if contrarie to my vsuall course he finde me in this passage something sharpe because M. Whites outrages are such as require more then an ordinarie sharp reprehension Let him therefore take the Gun roome or if he will the n Lucian Iupit Tragoe 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cart where in old time they vsed to raile freeliest I am indifferent what he say hauing propounded to my selfe to answer not his scurrilitie but his Diuinitie though he keepe so good promise in this he threatens and his insolencies both in railing and bragging be such that it were able to dissolue into some passion or other the best patience that an aduersary can haue And had he as well performed the grosse vntruths he vndertakes to shew as he hath his sharpnesse which he promises he might haue gone for a good pay-master but to raile and run away is womens fight If he would haue men to thinke my outrages are such as he sayes he should haue expressed some of them and quoted the pages of my booke where the reader might see them which when he doth not nor cannot do the reader may suspect he sayes this to make way for his owne railing For the Booke it selfe will testifie what I haue done better then any thing I can say here wherein there are I denie not many sharp and bitter speeches against the abuses of the Church of Rome but they are not mine but the Papists whom being vrged thereunto I alledge it is one of the things that hath alwaies made me haue a base opinion of our aduersaries that these foule tales of their Church being blabbed out by themselues yet they would neuer giue vs leaue to report them againe or mention them Other outrage or railing then this I haue vsed none nor neuer did in all my conflicts with theÌ„ neither is it my maner to practise or defend it but by this my last will testament I bequeath it in legacie to himselfe and o Namely to D. Harding StapletoÌ„ Sanders Parsons Euans Surius Feuardentius Gret ferus I'acenius his Cleargie and other his consorts whose spirit I haue reasonably tasted these many yeares together p Iude v 9. The Angell disputing with the Diuell about the bodie of Moses durst not blame him with reuiling speeches but bad the Lord rebuke him According to which example I wish there were lesse bitternesse and more going to the argument in their writings For mine owne part q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isid Pelus pag. 453. I thinke it not so meete to speake euery thing that my aduersarie deserues to heare as to let nothing passe me that becomes not my selfe CHAP. II. 1. The Papists trampling of the Scriptures and preferring their Church 2. The Church of Rome touched in her honestie and reported to be a whore The conditions of a whore Pag. 22. A. D. First in his epistle Dedicatorie in which he speaketh not to simple men but to his most reuerend Fathers in God Toby the Archbishop of Yorke his Grace Primate and Metropolitan of England and to George Lord Bishop of Chester his very good Lords he affirmeth to our disgrace that all our speech is of the Church no mention of the Scriptures or God our Father but of our Mother the Church the which he confirmeth with a scurrilous comparison Much like saith he as they write of certaine Ethiopians that by reason they vse no mariage but promiscuously companie together it commeth that the children follow the mother the fathers name is in no request but the mother goeth away with all the reputation Thus he Now how lowd and lewd an vntruth this is I referre to the iudgement of any man almost neuer so simple supposing he haue had any ordinarie conuersation with Catholickes or be in a meane measure acquainted with their words and writings For what man is so simple who cannot discerne this to be euidently contrarie to our ordinarie practise and common speech and contrarie to our profession and publicke doctrine of faith And is it then possible that a Minister whose name is White should haue a face so blacke as without blushing so soberly to asseuere such a notorious vntruth especially in the sight or hearing of those his good Lords and reuerend Fathers in God Surely it is maruell that those his reuerend Fathers or some for them did not examine and marke this and other his grosse vntruths or marking them that they would for their credits sake suffer them to passe especially twice to the print And much more maruell it is that in stead of reproouing the man for such his shamefull vntruths which had beene the dutie of reuerend Fathers in God they would permit him to vse their names in the forefront or beginning of his booke by which men may suppose that they by their authoritie doe canonize or at least giue countenance to so many his grosse errors and vntruths as are found in this his booke 1 THe first example of my outrages and insinceritie is in those words of the epistle Dedicatorie All their speech is of the Church no mention of the Scriptures or God our Father but of our mother the Church c. Wherein if there be any trespasse yet he shewes it but meanly by saying it is a lewd and lowd vntruth and referring the matter to such as are acquainted with Catholickes and their writings For this and the railing that followes and his emptie maruelling at the BB. that would permit me to say so purges not Papists from the imputations but charges them deeper For S. Chrysostome sayes that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hom 22. Rom. when a mans aduersarie fals to scolding it is a signe he is guiltie And if the truth must be tried by the words and writings of his Catholickes then the matter will go well enough on M. Whites side For how should the coÌ„moÌ„ people of whoÌ„ I properly spake talk of the Scripture which they know not b THE WAY § 2. n. 3. See Staplet relect pag. 535. which they are forbidden to reade c THE WAY § 1. n. 3. which they must beleeue containes the least part of that which belongs to their faith The Rhemists d Annot. Luc. 12 11. teach lay Catholickes when any of them are called before the commission to answer that he is a Catholicke man and that he will liue and die in that faith which the Catholicke Church teaches and this Church can giue them a reason of all the things which they demand of him and he that answers thus they say saith enough and defends himselfe sufficiently Here we see all their speech is of the Church no mention of the Scriptures And he that dwels among them or hath occasion to discourse with them of religion shall finde the truth
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
they to whom this was commanded The Apostles and their successors And who be these successors He that now holds the first sea of Rome he that holds the second of Constantinople he of Alexandria and Antioch and he of IerusaleÌ„ This is the fiuefold top that is the power of the fiue Patriarkes of the Church in their power is the iudgement of diuine doctrines This man and his name stands in l Menolog Grae Nouemb. 11. tom 4. Bibl. SS Patrum the Greeke Kalendar in his time to fit the controuersie depending betweene the student and me thought all the Patriarkes together to haue the right of iudgement and not he of Rome alone which shewes that it is true which the Cardinall of Cusa m Cusan conc l. 2. c. 12. writes that by custome of mens obeying him he hath gotten beyond the bounds of ancient obseruation And so the head being departed I hope the bodie stayed not behind A.D. And § 11. where he affirmeth Pag. 28. that Protestants haue the Scripture in manifest places free from all ambiguitie for their side 4 If this be not true say directly why do you teach most blasphemously that the Scripture is so obscure so defectiue so dangerous for the people to meddle with Why do you forbid the people the reading of it in the mother tongue What Protestant if he would studie to do it of purpose can speake plainer then they against n Exod. 20.4 Deut. 4.15 images o Apoc 19.10 22.8 the worshipping of Saints p Act. 10.25 the Popes pride q 1. Cor. 14. Latin prayers and Seruice r Luc. 17.10 Phil. 3.12 Merit and perfection of workes Å¿ Psal 37.37 Apoc. 14.13 Purgatorie t Luc. 22.25 the Popes primacie u 1 Cor. 10 16. Transubstantiation w 1. Sam. 26.8 Rom. 13.1 Deposing and murdering Kings x 1. Tim. 4.3 Distinction of meates for conscience what finally can be spoken plainer in defence of y 1. Tim. 3.2.11.12 Priests mariage or to shew the Pope and his crew to be z 2. Thesâ—â—3 Apoc. 17.18 that Antichrist c. The Scripture therefore is manifest enough for vs but a Hos de expr Dei verb. our aduersaries haue a rule that the Scripture as it is alledged by Protestants is the word of the diuell and therefore be it neuer so manifest yet it must not be manifest when we alledge it A.D. And againe Pag. 28. that Protestants haue the principles of religion contained in the Lords prayer the Creed the ten Commandements leading directly to euery point of Protestancie and that for this reason the Church of Rome forbiddeth the reading and exercise of these things to the people lest they should see so much 5 As for example to pray to God alone and to no other for the Lords prayer teacheth vs to pray to him that is our Father to whom it belongs to forgiue vs our trespasses and whose is the kingdome the power and the glorie all prayers being to be made after this forme we are directly lead from praying to Saints to whom these things agree not to call on God alone Secondly the second commandement leades directly against image-worship and that is the reason why the Papists haue not onely forbidden the reading of it but also a In their Catechismes Van. Canis Ledesm Office of our Lady and other put it cleane out in their ordinary Catechismes Thirdly the Creed saying that Christ being ascended into heauen sits at the right hand of God from whence he shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead teaches plainly to beleeue that he comes not downe euery day to be eaten in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wine In like maner we affirme these three the Creed the Lords prayer and the ten Commandements to be such a rule as serues to conclude in true and perfect consequence whatsoeuer we hold against our aduersaries and whether the Church of Rome haue not forbidden the people to vse them I referre my selfe to the times of King Henrie the 8 what time the people with incredible ioy and admiration first heard them in the English tongue I referre me to the manner of their praying mentioned b Ch. 12. hereafter which had not bene if they had bene permitted the vse of these things And because the Iesuite denies this let him say truly what incouragement haue they giuen the common people to reade the Scriptures to vse the Lords prayer and the rest in their mother-tongue to exercise themselues diligently in these things Let them shew vs the time when the words wherewith the benefite that hath ensued thereby No they haue reuiled and reproched these things and bred a hatred of them in the people and all to keepe them in ignorance my selfe continued many yeares in a parish where there were not a few Recusants and in all the number I did not in the time though I made triall of many finde one that could say and pronounce these things in the English tongue vnlesse he were which few were book-learned Among many other I came to an aged womans house and desiring her to repeate vnto me the Creed she said it in fustian Latin of that sort which I haue expressed c Ch. 12. a litle below and assaying to teach it her in English she answered that seeing her Latin creed had serued her turne to this age she would now learne no new And when I asked her who Iesus Christ was that the Creed said was borne of the virgin Mary she answered she could not tell but by our deare Ladie it is sure some good thing or it should neuer haue bin put in the Creed but what it is I cannot tell you for I was neuer taught so much my selfe This woman afterward heard me willingly and reioyced to heare the vnderstanding of these things and reported strange things of the barbarous ignorance and irreligion of those times wherein she was brought vp The experience that we haue of these things shewes how and in what sort Papists exercise their people in the principles of Religion and my owne particular knowledge hereof obtained by conuersing diuers yeares among them is such that all the Seminary Priests and Iesuites in England if there were ten thousand of them shal neuer outstare it with their great lookes A.D. And againe Pag. 28. that the ancient Fathers are for Protestants in expresse termes in all things that they held constantly and certainly with one consent and that in the principall points touching Scripture Iustification Merit of workes Images and all the rest they write most clearely with Protestants 6 This I shewed throughout my writing in euery point I stood vpon and if it be not so shrinke not but answer why haue you corrupted the writing of the Fathers d De vnit eccl in the Rom. Antw. prints and in all that follow them Cyprian to auoide his euidence against the
Popes Supremacie e Hom. 49. in op imperf Paris in 8. an 1557 See Bellar. de verb. Dei l. 4. c. 11. §. Sexto profert Posseu appar to 1. pag. 847. Chrysostome where he iustifies the Scriptures f Ind. expurg Hisp pag. 18. Gregorie Nyssen where he speakes against the worship of creatures Why do you g Iâ—d ex purg Belg. pag. 12. professe that in the old Catholicke writers you beare with many errors and when in disputation they are opposed against you you extenuate and excuse them and many times by deuising a shift denie them and feine some fit sence vnto them Why do you take order that h Posseu biblio select l. 1. c. 48. pag. 38. in the publicke Libraries of Princes and others euery one shall not see the manuscripts Greeke Latin or any other which are not permitted by the Church because these also must be purged What is the meaning of that speech which i Apparat. verb Anton. Florent Posseuine the Iesuite vses of Antoninus and his writings that he now enioying the blessed light of heauen no doubt desires that all his writings should be reviewed and occupied purer then of old they were Say now and dissemble not is it not a violent presumption that the Fathers are cleare for Protestants when Papists thus purge and censure their writings in such things as are in controuersie betweene vs and are they not resolued in this damned course of purging bookes when they thinke the authors in heauen reioyce to see their workes hereby made purer Verily Erasmus k Ep. ad Card. Mogunt said that many things are condemned in Luthers bookes as hereticall which in Austin and Bernard are read for good Diuinitie And our contentment is that daily experience shewes this to be true l Ph. Camerar medit hist to 2. pag. 39. Macro l. â— c. 8. They write how the Romanes at the siege of Carthage according to their maner first coniured the Dij tutelares out of it afore they proceeded Be thou a God he or she that protectest the people or citie of Carthage but specially thee the Patron thereof I worship thee first and then intreate thee to abandon Carthage the citie the places the temples euery thing thereof and to come away to vs and ours and dwell in our citie our places our temples and be our Patrons So do we vow you playes and sacrifices Thus play our aduersaries in printing the bookes of the ancient Fathers and Schoole-men If thou be a God or a Goddesse come forth if a doctrine or a period that protectest the Church of the Protestants come away we intreate thee forth of the Text forth of the Table forth of the Margent into our Indices expurgatorij and we vow to sacrifice you in the fire A D. Againe that Protestants haue done nothing against the Church of Rome but innumerable people in all ages wished it long ago 7 I said another thing immediatly before this that the Iesuite skips We haue the mercies of God to pleade for vs whereby our Church hath bin miraculously vpholden When they threatned God defended vs when they practised and expected our ruine God disappointed them when they wrought all manner of treasons yet God deliuered vs. The conscience of his owne guilt and the enuie of our well-doing would not let him mention this yet here againe I commend it to him that by considering the behauiour of his side towards vs he may the better discerne what they are And to that he hath obserued I answer that I shewed the truth thereof in the same place by the example of Gerson and testimony of Nauclere which the Iesuite dissembles because his occupation is not to obserue the grounds of my speeches but to raile me downe yet the m Reformationê autem generaleÌ„ ecclesiae extremè necessariam fore nostru temporibus mores corrupit totius orbis praenuntiant cum reuera penè omnis caro corrupit viam suaÌ„ Iac. de Parady Collect. de sept stat eccl willingnesse to accept reformation and the ioy of all nations when it came and the detestations they shewed of the Romish tyrannie that had oppressed them shewes I said the truth And if I had to do with an aduersary of any worth or that were fit for a discourse or saw it otherwise needfull to satisfie others I would in confirmation hereof repeate my words that I then vsed What ceremonie what doctrine what custome what one parcell of their superstition haue we refused but the world long since complained of it The tyrannie and oppression of old Babylon was neuer so complained of I will onely mention the speech of Gerson that was Chancellour of Paris almost a hundred yeares before Luther whose bookes from the beginning to the end containe almost nothing but complaints of the Churches state he n Tom. 1. pag. 241. E. sayes Let experience answer what hurt what danger what confusion the contempt of the sacred Scripture which yet is sufficient for the gouernment of the Church vnlesse Christ were an vnperfect law-giuer hath brought let the Cleargie be viewed which should haue married heauenly wisedome which is peaceable and chaste if it haue not committed fornication with that adulterous harlot earthly humane and diabolicall wisedome The state of the Church also is it not all become as it were brutish and monstrous That many doubt not to consult that this state of the Church were better to be gouerned by the inuentions of men then by the diuine Euangelicall law as if the soule were lesse then the bodie and spirituall food lesse then carnall This assertion on my faith is not onely false but blasphemous for the doctrine of the Gospell by the professors thereof hath enlarged the Church as farre as heauen which the sonnes of Agar seeking after earthly wisedome haue thrust into the mire and it is the mercie of God that it is not wholy fallen The which things because my conscience testifies I speake not for gaine or of ambition or for mine owne credit but for the maintenance of the truth and common good because this court of Diuines hath little promoted the truth if not contemned it which notwithstanding hath purchased to it selfe all the glorie it can Pag. 28. A. D. All these be very grosse vntruths and some of them such as not onely Catholickes but also learned Protestants will confesse to be false yea euen M White himselfe either must confesse himselfe to be blockishly ignorant or carelesly inconsiderate or else he must grant that he hath affirmed these things against his owne knowledge and conscience Which being so I might here make an end without saying any more as hauing giuen the Reader a taste of M. Whites want of truth and sinceritie sufficient to make any discreet man beware how he giueth credit to these his writings 8 Away with this intollerable bragging and let the pen be put into the hands of some if any such be
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
d Syllog Whatsoeuer he taught by word of mouth the same by his Epistles he reuoked to their memory But he taught al things belōging to faith by word of mouth Therefore by his Epistles he reuoked the same to memory But his Epistles are written therfore by writing he reuoked to their memorie all things belōging to faith Therefore all things belonging to faith are written is from the demonstration of holy inspired Scriptures b Iren. l. 3 c. 1. For the disposing of our saluation we haue not knowne by any other but those by whom the Gospell came vnto vs the which then they preached but afterward by Gods appointment they deliuered vnto vs in the Scriptures to be the foundatiō and pillar of our faith And c Ibid. c. 2. Whē hereticks are conuinced out of the Scriptures they fal to accusing them as if they were not right nor from authoritie because they are variably spoken and from them the truth cannot be found of those that know not Tradition inasmuch as this truth was not deliuered by writing but by word of mouth Thus speakes the ancient Church in expresse termes pointing to our aduersaries whereby the Reader may iudge which of vs beare most good will to the Church and Scriptures and if the Iesuite will yeeld to that Nicephorus q writes in his Ecclesiasticall historie that whatsoeuer S. Paul being present taught by word of mouth among the Corinths Ephesians Galatians Colossians Philippians Thessalonians Iewes Romanes and many other townes whereunto the holy Ghost sent him and whom he begat in the faith of Christ the same being absent by his Epistles sent to them he compendiously reuoketh into their memorie Then forasmuch as the Apostles preached nothing to any but what they set downe in the Epistles the Protestants haue good reason to admit onely Scripture because it containes all the preaching of the Apostles whatsoeuer Let the Iesuite in the course of his studies and all Papists in the heate of their zeale marke these and such like our grounds and well consider them Pag. 32. A.D. As concerning his second mark wherein he says the very face of our Church is cleane contrary to the first antiquitie if he mean that there is some accidentall difference either in personall qualities of particular men or in some point of outward estate and manner of gouernment betwixt the first primitiue age or infancie of the Church and that other estate which after it had and now hath when it is at full growth this is not an argument sufficient to make men doubt of our religion more then to see some accidental alteration betwixt the infancy elder age of a man is any argument sufficient to make one doubt whether he be substantially the same man or no but if he meane that there is any substantiall difference in any doctrine of faith his assertion is very false as I declare in the Appendix annexed to this my Reply where particular answer is made to the chiefe matters against which here he taketh exception 8 I meane and expresse so much that betweene the present Roman Church and the ancient there is a substantiall difference in many doctrines of faith and not such an accidentall difference onely as the Iesuite mentions And because I desire no man to credit my bare word I named the Hierarchie of the Church of Rome consisting in the state and iurisdiction of the Roman cleargie which is simply the substantiallest point that they count of and foure other points and my speech was of that latitude that it chargeth them with innouation in all the rest the booke it selfe afterward shewing it in particular so fully and directly that all the Iesuites in England dare not lay railing and cauilling aside and answer what I said temperately and ingeniously for that which the Iesuite sayes in the Appendix he hath made particular answer is vntrue he hath answered particularly to nothing nor can he But knowing his sectaries were either so slothfull that they would not reade his booke so far or so forgetfull that when they came to the Appendix this matter would be out of their head he was bold in this place to promise what he neuer meant there to pay though whatsoeuer he say there is sufficiently answered I am sorie at my heart for my countrimen that haue these tricks put vpon them to seduce and peruert them I beseech them by the mercies of Iesus Christ that as I penned my booke out of my loue to them and desire of their saluation for the which I would sacrifice my life and all the hopes I haue in this world so they will faithfully examine how the contents thereof are answered by this Reply who if I be not deceiued is farre vnable to meddle with these things CHAP. X. 1. The practise of the Papists in purging bookes 2. The sacrifice of the Masse and Reall presence denied 4. Points of Papistrie absurd 6. The Pope Lords it ouer all Papists need pay no debts May be traitors to murther Princes 7. Iesuites plotters in the Powder-treason The Popes dispensing with sinne 8. A meditation for all Papists A. D. M. Whites third marke is set downe by him in these words Pag. 31. There is no point of our faith but many learned in their owne Church hold it with vs. And no point of Papistrie that we haue reiected but some of themselues haue misliked as well as we And this saith he may be demonstrated in all the questions that are betweene vs and they know it c. Thus farre are M. Whites words The which containe in them so many blacke lies as there are instances which may be giuen of particular points both of Catholicke doctrine reiected by Protestants and not misliked by any of our selues and of Protestant doctrine not patronized nor held by any learned men of our Church And to omit other instances I aske M. White how many learned men of our Church haue denied the Masse to containe a Sacrifice in such sort as Protestants do denie How many also will he finde to affirme that Christ his blessed bodie is onely figuratiuely in the Sacrament or in such sort that the reall substance of it is no nearer them that receiue the Sacrament then heauen is to earth as by the Caluinists is held against the Romane Church Let M. White for his credit produce if he can many or any learned men of our Church which hold in these points with Caluinists against the Romane faith As for the Index expurgatorius which M. White mentioneth and the practise and vse of it our Authors haue sufficiently answered namely N.D. in his Warnword and the author of the booke called the Grounds of the old and new religion in his answer to M. Crashaw annexed to the said booke 1 THat which I said I shewed in my book where in euery controuersie that fell out betweene vs I haue produced popish writers one against another either iustifying our doctrine or crossing
in the point They haue raked together a See them in Serrar LitaneÌ„t p. 141. inde Bellar. de Sanct. beat â— c. 20. a number of waies whereby they thinke to expound themselues but still they are vncertaine And their waies vnsufficient to stablish their owne conscience as appeares by the multiplying of their questions b The knowledge of our prayers supposed to be brought them by Angels and other Saints is disclaimed by Bellar. vbi sup yet Serrar allowes it Horum decem moderum nullus omnino est qui adhiberi aliquando non possit pag. 154. Whether the soules of those that are prayed to be present or not If they be present then whether it be really so that they be in the place where the party praying to them is or virtually onely by I know not what vnderstanding the things vttered to them in our prayers Or whether they haue the vnderstanding of our prayers from others that giue them knowledge If this way then who they be that giue them this knowledge whether the Angels that are about vs know our actions or God If it be God that giues them this knowledge then how he doth it whether immediatly by himselfe or by the ministry of others if by others then who they be whether Angels that are about vs or the spirits of holy and iust men that go from hence and tells the Saints in heauen what our prayers are If immediatly by himselfe then how whether directly formally c Oratio relucet in diuina essentia Tho. Argentin p. 178. ad 2. Beati vident in verbo deuotiones mentales Aquar in Capreol 4. d. 45. concl 2. Beati in coelo cognoscunt orationes nostras in verbo Ouand 4. d. 45. pag. 94. see Mag. 4. d. 45. ibi scolast communiter Tho. 22 q. 83. art 4. ad 2. 3. qu. 10. art 2. This seeing of things in the word as in a glasse is denied by many Schoolemen Deus est speculum voluntarium Occham 4. q. 13. art 3. Si quaeratur an beati cognitione beata cognoscunt orationes nostras dicendum quod non Duran 4. d. 45. qu. 4. p. 463. Intellectus creatus videndo diuinam essentiam non videt in ipso omnia quae facit deus vel facere potest Tho. 1. q. 12. art 4. Nostra sententia affirmat nihil ex vi visionis sed aliqua peculiari reuelatione cognosci Vasqu disp 50. n. 51. tom 1. idem Aureol quodl Alliac 1. qu. 12. art 3. so that they see in him as in a glasse by reason of the Beatificall vision what is in the creature and so consequently the prayers of the creatures if they see them in God as in a glasse then whether it be d Beati qui vident in verbo vident à principio Pezant 1. Tho. pag. 72. concl 2. Caâ—et 3. q. 10. art 2. from the beginning of their blessednesse so that instantly vpon their glorification and so soone as they come into heauen and see God they see all things that we doe in him or e Serrar sayes this is the most vsuall and certaine opinion p. 155. successiuely one thing after another But if God reueale the knowledge of our prayers to his Saints not formally in this manner by force and vertue of his vision but onely accidentally then whether it be not by f Dicendum quod essentia diuina non est necessarium speculum in repraesentando creaturas imo voluntarium Communicat enim effectiue notitiam matutinam Deus autem est agens liberuÌ„ respectu omnis actionis ad extra Aureol quodli 10. in sine p. 107 Non est imagi nandum sicut multi credunt quod causa videndi creaturam in verbo sit quia verbum est imago vel idea ipsius eodem actu quo videtur idea videatur ideatum sed quia voluntariè causat visionem creaturae Alliac 1. q. 12. pag. 184. This is followed by Vasqu vbi sup and it necessarily destroyes the â—lasse See Albertin Corol. qu. 4. 5. ex primo princip immediate reuelation so far foorth as it please him by his peculiar will to let them see what we pray as in this life he reueals sometime things that are secret to his Prophets It is incredible such as cannot be presented in any reasonable compasse of words how the Diuines of the Church of Rome labour to shew these things and to make euery man his owne opinion seeme most reasonable But to no purpose for albeit we acknowledge nothing to be impossible to God yet it is not lawfull to beleeue any thing as his will which he hath not reuealed For we must iudge of his will by the Scriptures which touching these speculations sayes neuer a word and being in manifest places appointed to pray in Faith how shall we pray to them of whose hearing vs wee can haue no Faith For these things thus taught by the Schoolemen relish well of mans wit and learning but what is there in the word of God to assure g Note the words of a Iesuite Notandum est quod est de fide beatos cognoscere orationes quas ad eos fundimus sed quod illaâ— videant in verbo non est certum de fide sed credo tamen esse probabile Pesant 1. part qu. 12. pag. 77. my conscience they be true 9 And were not the Church of Rome disposed to subuert the whole order of Gods worship and to rob our most gracious Sauiour of the Glory which for his boundles mercy belongs vnto him they would neuer maintaine this inuocation and mediation of Saints There being by their owne confession no Scripture for it and the Scripture speaking so graciously of Christ himselfe that it could proceede from none but the Diuell and Antichrist thus to make Saint-mediators when no creature in heauen or earth is so propense to mercy as himselfe See what the Scripture h Es 54.6 sayes The Lord hath called thee being as a woman forsaken and afflicted in spirit and as a yoong wife when thou wast refused saith thy Ged For a little while haue I forsaken thee but with great compassion will I gather thee For a moment in mine anger I hid my face from thee for a little season but with euerlasting mercy haue I had compassion on thee saith the Lord thy Redeemer For this is vnto me as the waters of Noah for as I haue sworne that the waters of Noah should no more go ouer the earth so haue I sworne that I would not be angry with thee nor rebuke thee For the mountaines shall remooue and the hils shall fall downe but my mercy shall not depart from thee neither shall the couenant of my peace fall away saith the Lord that hath compassion on thee i Es 65.24 Yea before they call I will answer and whiles they spake I will heare And our Sauiour himselfe hath told vs k Ioh. 16.23 Verily verily
I say vnto you whatsoeuer you shall aske the Father in my name he will giue it you The Apostle also teaches that l Heb. 2.14.17 for so much as the children of God were partakers of flesh and blood he also himselfe the Mediator tooke part with them and in all things was made like to his brethren that he might be mercifull and a faithfull high priest in things concerning God that he might make reconciliation for the sinnes of the people These promises are such that it is the greatest ingratitude and impiety that can be to misdoubt them or by flying to any other to euacuate them m Pet. Crysolog One man trusts another vpon a bond or bill written in paper and a few lines of writing secure the greatest contracts that are yet the promises of Christ are still called in question and men mistrust his mercy so many bookes as there be in the Bible and so many lines as we haue written in the Scripture so many assurances we haue of his goodnes Euery word of the Gospell and euery Sacrament of the Church and euery drop of his blood shed vpon the crosse being our security to embolden vs to come vnto him 10 And whereas the pretence is n Alexan. 4. part qu. 92. in â— art 4. Bonau 4. d. 45. art 3. q. 3. n. 46. that it is for reuerence to God and to shew our Humility that * Gratias agimus Porphyri quod libris tuis Deorum tuorum substaÌ„tiam nobis prodidisti didicimus per te quatenus dij tui hominibus viuentibus serniant Iul Firmic error prof rel c. 14. like as men seeke to the King by the mediation of his seruants so we seeke to God by the mediation of his Saints This is expresly against the Scripture alledged that conclude our praiers are to be offered immediatly to and by Christ and when all things in this life are depraued with sin it is folly to make any thing therein the rule and example of our seruing God o Es 55.8 whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose waies are farre aboue ours Princes do not alway vnderstand who giue attendance and sometime pride or state or busines lets them but it is not so with God p Vopisc in Aurelia paulo ante sinem p. â—08 The Emperor Dioclesians speech in Vopiscus will a little open this matter He would say after he was retired from the Empire to a priuate life That there was nothing more difficult then to gouerne well Foure or fiue persons combine themselues and take one counsell to deceiue the Emperor He being shup vp at home knowes the truth of nothing but is constrained to vnderstand that onely which they tell him Thus the good and wary Emperor is bought and sold This ineuitable ignorance in Princes mentioned by Dioclesian which appertaines not vnto God is reason why we vse mediators to them Let the words of Chrysostome touching this point be noted speaking of the woman of Canaan that cried after our Sauiour to heale her daughter Marke q Chrysost hom 16. ex var. in Matth. Loc. tom 2. saith he r Pag. 1193. the wisedome of the woman she askes not Iames nor beseeches Iohn nor goes to Peter nor minds the company of the Apostels she seekes no Mediator but in steed of them all she takes repentance into her company which was insteed of her Aduocate and so she goes to the fountaine it selfe Therefore saith she he descended and therefore he was made man that I also might haue confidence to speake vnto him Å¿ Pag. 1199. for if thou wilt intreate man possible he sleepes or is not at leisure or his seruant will vouchsafe thee no answer but vnto God there is neede of none of these things but wheresoeuer thou be or wheresoeuer thou callest vpon him hee heares thee There is no neede either of a porter or a mediatour or a Minister onely say Haue mercy on me and presently God will be with thee u Comment in Rom. c. 1. §. reuelatur p. 177. t Tom. 3. p. 1047 Learne of this woman that praying BY OVR SELVES we more preuaile with God then when OTHERS pray for vs. Saint Ambrose u Comment in Rom. c. 1. §. Reuelatur p. 177. sayes There be that shaming to heauen neglected God vsed this miserable excuse that by these they may go to God as by officers we go to the king but is any man so mad or so vnmindfull of his saluation as to giue the kings honour to an officer yet these men thinke themselues not guiltie who giue the honour of Gods name to a creature and forsaking the Lord adore their fellow seruants as though there were any thing besides that can be reserued to God For therefore men go to the king by Tribunes and officers because the king is but a man and knowes not to whom he may commit the state but for the promeriting of God who knowes all things and the desertes of all men there needes no helper but a deuout minde and he will answer such a one whensoeuer he speakes vnto him This holy Fathers iudgement was that God must be sought to immediatly without the intercession of any whosoeuer And this is it that Saint Paule meant in those words to the Colossians * Col. 2.18 Let no man beare rule ouer you by humblenesse of minde and worshipping of Angels wherein he rebukes the customes of those x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost tom 7. in Coloss see Balsam in coÌ„c Laod. ca. 35. which made Angels their intercessors as Papists do whose pretence was that it was too much arrogancie to pray immediately to God and therefore it were the better way to vse the intercession of Angels Thus the Greeke Scholiast y pa. 697. veron expounds it There were diuers that under the pretence of modestie forbad them to go to Christ by themselues because they were not worthie but the Angels must be intreated to bring vs to God saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was a greater matter then to be brought by our selues through Christ thus bringing in the superstitious worship of Angels whom they neuer saw and Theodoret z On Col. 2. pag. 766. They who brought in the worshipping of Angels vsing the pretence of humility gaue counsell to pray to Angels saying that we could neither see nor comprehend nor come to God And therefore must winne vs his fauour by meanes of the Angels and thereupon he sayes that in the Councell of Laodicea it was ordained that no man should pray to Angels and reports as an abuse against this text that there were certaine oratories of Michael the Angel wherein they vsed to pray to him It is worth the marking to obserue how Baronius entertaines Theodoret for this exposition a Bellar. de beatit sanct c. 20. Rhem. Col. 2.18 Diuers before him labour to giue him a fauourable construction but marke how
if I had not he would neuer haue fallen to this vile and wretched shift whereto now he betakes himselfe 2 First he sayes many times ouer that though they vse the same words to the Saints they do to Christ yet they do not really and formally giue them the same worship and so thinkes he hath excused his Church from idolatrie whereof let the Reader iudge by that I haue said * Cha. 13. immediatly before Next he answers that whatsoeuer titles and formes of speech they vse in their seruice of the Saints or Friar Francis yet their meaning is not to attribute vnto them the same holinesse and merits that they ascribe to Christ but an inferiour and such as depends vpon his holinesse and merits thus as all idolaters do flying from the words to the meaning Whereto I answer that it becomes the true Church of Christ not onely to meane well but to speake well and such therein as will keepe the Catholick faith must also hold the Catholick forme of words The Apostle b 2. Tim. 1.13 charging Timothy to keepe the true patterne of wholesome words which he had heard of him Now let the Reply shew any one patterne of these inuocations and narrations in all the Scriptures Saint Austin hath a golden speech to this purpose c De ciuit l. 10 c. 23. Thus spake Plotinus as he was able or rather as he listed For Philosophers speake with freedome of words in the difficultest things that are to vnderstand neuer fearing the offence of religious eares but it is lawfull for vs to speake but after a certaine rule lest the licentiousnesse of words bring any wicked opinions as touching the things that are signified thereby Then I answer againe that this is but a shift to hide the odiousnesse of their blasphemie for albeit it be granted that by such words they meane not such merits and dignitie as belongs to Christ yet they meane more then of right appertaines to any mortall creature For there is no merit or dignitie in any creature capable of these speeches or of any other that are vsed in their Saint-inuocations but the least that is meant is more then belongs to any but the Lord Iesus Thirdly the words alledged and all other whereof any question is if we allow them that immediate grammaticall construction that belongs to all words can import no lesse then the same seruice that is giuen to Christ both really and formally Let the Iesuite take these for example part whereof d Pref. of THE WAY n. 14. I alledged e Hâ—t secund chor August de commem B. Virginis Reioyce O mother celestiall magnifie thy God that made thee singular thou wouldest call thy selfe the handmaid of Iesu Christ but as Gods law teaches thou art his Ladie mistris for right and reason will the mother be aboue her sonne therefore pray him humbly and command him from aboue that he leade vs to his kingdome at the worlds end Thou alone without example art shee whom God hath chosen to be the Mediator of God and men the repairer of the world the end of our exile the washing away of our sinne the ladder of heauen the gate of Paradise Such idolatrie as this were fitter to be purged with an humble confession then to be excufed with these vaine distinctions 3 But M. White he sayes vnderstands not wherein the formall reason of worship doth consist But he tels him the inward estimation of the minde is it Words as prayers and actions as adoring with the bodie be signes whereby this worship is outwardly yeelded and therefore they follow the inward estimation of the minde and import no more then he meanes that vses them and therefore though we vse the same words and actions to creatures that we do to God yet meaning them in one sense to the creature and in another to God this is no idolatrie This is the full summe of his barbarous and confused discourse but I answer again that thus all idolaters in the world may excuse themselues in the worship of their idols for when the Iew to his calfe and the Gentile to his image bended the knee and called it God they did not esteeme it in that degree that they did God himselfe but onely gaue it an inferiour honour such as they thought an image capable of and when they were put to it would answer as the Reply doth f For they did not think their idols to be God but resemblances of the true God Athenag Leg. pag. 20. Dio Chrysost p. 145 Peres de tradit pag. 225. Andr. orthod expl pag. 289. 294 Act. 17.23 though the word or action were one yet the honour was farre different but as I would answer them so I do the Iesuite that the inward estimation opinion of the mind determining the said words prayers and gestures to such an inferiour worship as is mentioned doth not remoue the reason of idolatrie thereby from the said words and prayers because such as it is it remaines diuine worship attributed to a creature For all religious inuocation of a creature in what opinion soeuer is diuine adoration and a part of Gods proper worship Besides our meaning and intention limiting our words cannot dispense with the commandement that forbids the vsing of g Abusus ille reprehensibilis est si praedicara quae secundùm vsum ecclesiae sâ—li Deo Patri Mediatori Christo attribuuntur vt Omnipotens Saluator c. etiam Sanctis applicantur Henr. de Hass quem refert sequitur Gabr. Lect. 32. lit 2. such words to a creature with any meaning whatsoeuer For Christ teaching vs how to pray bids vs pray Our Father which art in heauen Forgiue vs our trespasses Deliuer vs from euill For thine is the kingdome the power and the glorie We must pray to such a one as is our Father which is in heauen c. this is a commandement and Rom. 10. How shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued This is the doctrine of Saint Paul which commandement and doctrine are violated as well when we pray to a Saint with estimation that he is but an intercessor through Christs merits as when we call vpon him with an opinion that he can helpe vs without them The reason is because the commandement doctrine of the Scripture ties vs to God alone which being transgressed there is the reall and formall reason of superstition whatsoeuer the opinion and intent of the minde be 4 But the Iesuite replies that like as we kneele to God and call him our Father so do we the same things to our earthly parents and yet the honour we giue them hereby is farre different from that we yeeld to God therefore we may vse the same inuocations and words to the Saints that we doe to God when the minde acknowledges not that excellencie in them that it doth in him as children vse the same kneeling and words to their fathers
they do to God I answer two things first granting that words and outward gestures are qualified and conditioned by the meaning of him that vses them as he that called the Prophet h 2. Reg. 2.12 13.14 my Father my Father meant not that hie degree of Honor that he did when he called God his Father and therefore I will not deny but Papists vsing these inuocations mentioned to the Saints may meane them otherwise then they do to God as for example calling the virgin Mary their Aduocate their Hope their Sauiour they may meane she is so not of her selfe but vnder Christ and not principally by her owne merits but subordinarily by the merits and grace of her Sonne This I will easily grant may be the meaning of their wordes but then I answer secondly that it doth not follow that therefore we may with such reseruation of our meaning in the same wordes inuocate and worship the Saints departed first because the said inuocation is diuine honour from what minde soeuer it proceed whether the Saint be called vpon as the supreme and eternal beginning or whether onely as the friend of God that by reason of his nearnesse to him can sooner intreate him then my selfe If he be inuocated with the titles of Aduocate Sauiour Redeemer though the intent be but onely to vse him as a friend to intreate yet this is diuine honour belonging to Iesus Christ For all prayer is diuine honour and such titles as are giuen them in their worship Mediator Hope Aduocate Confidence Sauiour Redeemer Ladie Queene of heauen c. exceed the measure of all ciuill reuerence and adoration whatsoeuer and therefore are not like the calling of our earthly parent father or kneeling to him Secondly the worshipping of a creature is idolatrie though he that worship it acknowledge it to be but a creature subordinate to God a thousand times because the commandement is i Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue When the diuell tempted our Sauiour to fall downe before him he did not require him to perswade himselfe that he was Iehouah or that he had those things of himselfe for he confessed vnto him k Luc. 4.6 he had receiued them but onely that he would kneele vnto him and accept those things at his hands And our Sauiour refused it not onely because he was the diuell but also because the commandement forbids the giuing diuine honour to a creature with any opinion estimation or iudgement whatsoeuer l Apoc. 19.10 22.8 When S. Iohn would haue fallen downe and worshipped the Angell he was not so ignorant or stupid as to thinke he was God or to intend him that highest honour that belongs to God but onely by that office he wold present his loue to the Angell and possible procure some fauour at his hand yet the Angell forbad him by a reason that proceeds vnanswerably against the inuocation of all Saints See thou do it not for I am thy fellow seruant and one of thy brethren which haue the testimonie of Iesus Worship God For it is a generall rule in the Scripture that no creature may with any estimation be worshipped with diuine honour A.D. If M. White insist and vrge Pag. 43. that outward words and actions are signes of inward meaning therefore where words and outward actions are the same towards Christ and towards his Saints at least ignorant people haue cause giuen them to thinke we haue the same inward meaning and so by our example are encouraged to commit formall idolatrie I answer that inward meaning is indeed gathered by outward words and actions ordinarily but not alwayes nor ordinarily by the bare outward shew of the action or by that precise sound of one or other word or sentence but by the whole connexion and circumstance of the matter and person about which the speech and action is and by the presupposed and knowne conceit of the partie which speaketh the said words or doth the action Now although in some of our prayers one or other word or sentence may seeme harsh as it is considered precisely in the outward sound especially to those that are not acquainted with the like as also to those who neuer had seen men kneele to any but to God himselfe nor to call any Father besides him it would seeme very harsh to see one kneele to his earthly parent and to call him Father yet when we consider the whole connexion of the words of our prayers hauing respect also to the different circumstances of the persons and matters spoken of and to the commonly knowne conceit of the speaker the sense of our prayers are found neither to be idolatrous nor superstitious nor scandalous none being ordinarily among vs so simple or ill instructed but they know that there is a different inward conceit and more estimation had reuerence done when the words are applied to our Sauiour Christ being God and man then when they are applied to Saints who are knowne to be not Gods but onely men 5 That which the Iesuite still assumes for his defence is still false He presumes that intending their prayers to the Saints no otherwise then they do they are lawfull And as long as God is confessed to be the first beginning of mercie and goodnesse and Christ the Mediator of redemption and the Saints no more but aduocates and friends to present our prayers all is well and those Saints may be inuocated as they are but the answer is that euen this kind of inuocation with no further opinion touching them is vnlawfull as I haue shewed And let the Reader alwayes remember that it is m Mat 6.9 Luc 11.1 Nam quaÌ„libet alia veil a dicamus nihil aliud dicimus quaÌ„ quod in ista Dominica oratione positum est si rectè congruenter oramus Quisquis auteÌ„ id dicit quod ad istam preceÌ„pertinere non possit etiamsi non illicitè orat carnaliter orat c. Aug. op 121. c. 12. Neque ensm propria tantuÌ„ orationis officia complexa cit venerationem Dei aut hominis petitionem sed om nem pene sermoneÌ„ Domini omnem commemorationeÌ„ disciplinae â—t â—â—â—era in oratione Breuiarium totius Euangelij comprehendatur Tertul. de orat c 1. no lawfull prayer that is not according to Christs rule When ye pray do it after this maner Our Father which art in heaueÌ„ c. Let your praiers be made to him that you may say is your Father that is in heauen who forgiues vs our sinnes and to whom belongs the kingdome and power and glorie for euer 6 But that which he chiefly intends in this place is to excuse the harshnesse and scandalousnesse of the words of their prayers albeit if a man should view them well he might maruell what excuse could be deuised for them Yet the Reply not onely excuses them that they must not be measured by their sound and outward
aliquos viros spirituales tantopere in exercitus spiritualibus in familiaritate diuina proficere vt absque vlla temeritate possint rectè absque vlla haesitatione credere se inuenisse gratiam remissionem peccatorum apud Deum Andr. Vega. pro Concil p. 313. our aduersaries some few Iesuites excepted who are but one and an vpstart faction against the maior part in the Romane Church freely yeeld unto First that a iustified man may haue such certainty of the remission of his sinnes as is void of all feare and doubting in the same manner as any man may certainely know there is such a place as Rome Constantinople London Do. Bannes y In Tho. 22. q. 18. art 4. concl 3. The same sayes Tolet. in Rom. 5. v. 5. p. 225. sayes Our hope whereby we looke for Saluation is and is called simplie such as cannot deceiue vs and firme and safe both in the Scripture and in the doctrine of the Church because through the diuine promise and power of Gods mercy whereupon it leanes it can no more deceiue vs then faith in whose testimony it is founded Martin Isengren hath written a whole booke of purpose to shew this point in it he hath these words z Eisengren pro conc Trid. de certit grat p. 228. I haue many a time and often visited the sicke and bene with them that haue died and no man can report of me but that as soone as they had declared their repentance I exhorted them with all diligence to haue an VNDOVBTED AND CERTAINE CONFIDENCE that our most mercifull God would for the merit of his Sonne WITHOVT ALL DOVBT forgiue them their sinnes and after this life giue them his heauenly kingdome yea he sayes a Pag. 217. All the chiefest Diuines of the Church of Rome whose writings for that purpose he had read and searched though they did not allow a man to be altogether secure and free from all care and heedfulnesse yet * Vniuersi vno ore all of them with one voice teach that we must NOT TREMBLE OR MISTRVST BVT HAVE A FIRME HOPE AND CERTAINE CONFIDENCE b Omnes orthodoxi receptique theologi quotquot tam inde ab Apostolorum temporibus ad hunc vsque annum vixerint p. 254. and he adds that this is the doctrine of all the Schoolemen and Fathers that haue bene since the Apostles whose testimonies and words he alledges at large c Dionys Areo pagit Cypr. Ambr. Augusti Chrysost Cyril Basil Theodor. Leo. Gregor Roman Pius 5. Sixt. Senensis Mich. Medina Anselm Bernard Magist Thom. Scot. Altisiodor Reyner Alexand. Lyra. Bonauent Dionys Carthus Gabr. Pelbart Biga Gotshal Thesaur Hos Ruard Louaniens Caietan Roffens Ecch. Nausca Cassal Soto Canis Vega. Castro Torrēs Theses Cathol disput adu Wittemberg to the number of more then 40. Whereby the reader may iudge of my Aduersaries learning and religion that hauing derided such testimonies and signes of our being in Gods fauour as Isengren auerres to be infallible d Reply p. 58. concludes that the perswasion which any Protestant hath that their sinnes are forgiuen is a fond presumptuous fiction of their owne heart but Isengren e Vbi sup p. 217. answers that such fantasticall companions not vnderstanding the truth of things babble of that whereof they can giue no sufficient reason Secondly when it is demanded whence this certainty so free from doubting and feare arises they grant it arises from the light of the Scripture that is to say the promises of mercy and forgiuenes reuealed in the Scripture beget and produce it in the heart of man Ruard f Ruard att 9. pag. 121. sayes Though it be inferiour to the certainty of faith yet it DEPENDS VPON THE SENTENCES OF THE SCRIPTVRE and therefore faith infused mediatly inclines vnto it Casalius saies g Cassal quadrip inst p. 221. l. 2. c. 8. This confidence arises by hauing respect to the diuine conditionall promises and to the conditions that they require Vega following the doctrine of Bacon the Carmelite h Vega pro Cōcil l. 9 c. 47. pag. 321. Is credit cui aliquid sine vlla haesitatione certum persuasum est Catech Roman pag. 17. saies This assurāce is not the assurāce of faith but an assurance following faith yet saith he if that will serue the turne to call it the assurance of faith I WILL NOT GREATLY STRIVE but that there may be peace and we may all agree in one I will grant that you require and willingly yeeld my selfe These men as learned as euer liued in the Church of Rome you see deny not this certainty of faith or knowledge following faith howsoeuer the said faith be not so intent and strong in apprehending that obiect as it is in beleeuing that which is immediatly reuealed and expressely written For what habite or facultie is there in the soule whereby to receiue and apply the promises of the Gospell touching the benefits of Christ for our redemption but onely faith For although the holy Ghost not tying himselfe to termes do a 1. Ioh. 4.13 3.14 sometime call it knowledge yet calling it b Rom 6.8 1. Ioh. 4.16 againe beleeuing alone or beleeuing and knowing it is manifest that he intends such a knowledge as not onely flowes from the principles of faith but also is reduced to the same habite and this onely which the holy Ghost teaches in termes so expresse and formall might serue to stop the mouthes of all our aduersaries if they had not set themselues to resist euen Gods owne Spirit when it speakes against their corruptions For with what other eies can the soule behold the heauenly light of the Gospell How shall that confidence assurance certaintie which is created by the mixture of the light of the Scripture with light of a good conscience renued by the holy Ghost belong to any humane knowledge when the Scripture sayes expresly i Gal. 3.14 The promise of the Spirit is receiued by faith and wheresoeuer in all the Bible the Gospell is reuealed men are called vpon to beleeue I will not deny but faith hath his degrees and can beleeue some things more resolutely then other and one time is stronger then at another but this is it I vrge that if there be granted a certainety of a mans owne speciall standing in grace which certainty arises by the Scriptures it must needes also be granted that it is a worke or effect of faith this is confirmed by the courage and constancy of Martyrs and by the admirable resolution that we see in good men when they die Saint Ambrose k In Psal 118. serm 7. pag. 641. saies we see innocent persons in this world ioyfully to runne towards iudgement to hate delaies to hasten their triall whereas the guilty flie from it and he giues the reason Because the iust man knowes eternall life the fellowship of Angels the crowne of his good merits is laied vp
whereof all this question rises 5 Our Aduersaries holding many points of religion which we refuse we require them to shew vs the said points in the Scriptures if they will either haue vs to beleeue them or free themselues from heresie their Tradition their Purgatory their Masse their Latine seruice their Transubstantiation their Images their seuen Sacraments their Inuocation of Saints and all the rest wherein we differ * This is shewed c. 28. n. 3. Their answer is that many diuine truthes and articles of faith are not contained in the Scriptures but reuealed by Tradition and Church authoritie which are to be receiued and beleeued as well as that which is written * The original cause why the Papists set a foot the question touching the insufficiency of the Scripture This is the originall reason why they stand thus against the sufficiency of the written word for their Church authoritie and to proue this they vse the Argument here propounded by the Reply and descant with it as you see Which is an impertinent kinde of proceeding when this point whether the Bookes contained in holy writ be Gods word is no question betweene vs but agreed vpon of all hands but the question is touching other speciall articles Images adoration halfe communion and such like a number more whether not being contained in the Scripture men are bound to beleeue them For touching these things it is properly that we say Nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture And therefore this argument is impertinent For where we affirme all points of faith to be comprised within the body of the Scripture we distinguish first of the things which we say are comprised for albeit we firmely hold the diuine truth and authoritie of these Bookes to be euident in themselues yet the points that we meane in this question are touching other matters for neither they nor we deny the Scripture but both they and we deny many things to be contained in it Secondly then againe of the manner how things are comprised for all other things are comprised in Scripture as the duty obedience of subiects is in the kings lawes and as true speaking is contained in Grammar or the right forme of resoluing in Logicke but this one point is so contained as light is in the Sunne or sweete in hony and according to the same notion whereby the authoritie of the Law and truth of Principles is contained in themselues This is it which very briefly I answered in * THE WAIE § 9. 3. digr 11. n. 17. two seuerall places of my Booke Now let us see what the Iesuite replies to it To this saith he I reply that principles insciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of termes or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superiour science by some other principle more euident to vs. But that these Bookes which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other principle more euident to vs that these Bookes which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture The substance of his Reply is that all principles are either euident of themselues or not euident such principles as are euident he grants need no prouing but the Scriptures are principles of religiō not euident of themselues but such as need to be demonstrated to be Gods word by some other principle in a higher science more euident to vs both denying them to be euident and also to be made so by onely declaring the words wherein they are vttered And to proue this he saies in the margent if it were euident that these Bookes in the Bible are diuine Scripture how is it onely beleeued by faith for Saint Paule cals faith Argumentū non apparentium Heb. 11.1 1. My answer is that the Scriptures are principles euident of themselues to those that haue the Spirit of God and such as need not to be proued by Church authoritie but onely to be reuealed and expounded according to that which is in themselues This my answer to helpe the reader out of the Iesuits perplexed discourse I will lay downe and explicate in 3. propositions First the Scripture in diuinitie hath the same office that principles haue in sciences that as the rules and principles of Grammar teach all true speaking and as the elements of Arithmeticke teach all right numbring so the doctrine contained in the Scriptures teaches all true faith Secondly as they are the principles of religion and rule of faith so they enioy the same priuiledge that principles do in forren Professions that is to be receiued and assented to for themselues without discourse For e Atist Poster c. 1. no humane science proues it owne principles or disputes against him that denies them and although the principles of an inferiour science may be demonstrated in a superiour yet this befalles not that which is the highest as the Metaphysicks which hauing no superiour science neither stands to demonstrate it selfe nor to receiue demonstration from another but our vnderstanding assents immediatly to the principles thereof and so goes forward by them to discerne of other things In the same manner the Scripture hauing no superiour science or rule aboue it is like these principles receiued for it selfe and is not occupied in prouing it selfe and the principles therin contained but shewing other things by them it selfe must be assented to without discourse by faith before we can argue out of it Thirdly all demonstration and proofe of principles is onely voluntary not necessarie against him that denies them as in Musicke the Musitian demonstrates his precepts not thereby to teach his arte but to conuince him that denies it Hence appeares the insufficiency of my aduersaries reply First in that he saies principles are not euident but need demonstration that so the Scriptures being yeelded to be the principles of religion yet they should not be receiued vnlesse they proue themselues vntill the authoritie of the Church come There is no man acquainted with f Principia per seipsa nata sunt cognosci reliqua verò per principia Arist prio l. 2 c. 18. idem Procl in Euclid l. 2. c. 2. humane art will say so His owne Thomas g Tho. 1. part q. 1. art 8. sayes that like as other sciences do not argue to proue their owne principles but out of the principles argue to shew other things so the sacred doctrine doth not argue to proue the owne principles but from them proceeds to shew something The same is said by h Capreol prol in 1. part q. 1. pag. 24. Greg. Valent. tom 1. pag. 50. a. others Next it is false that the Scripture is like those principles which need
aduersarie will vrge me with this and stand vpon it that it is the doctrine of his Church I will not striue with him onely I will commend 2. things to his consideration First how he will pleade the saluation of innumerable lay people I will not say in Lancashire but in France Spaine and Italy euery where that haue no knowledge of these things but onely beleeue as the Church beleeues whom the Church of Rome hath hitherto trained vp in this implicite faith of the Colliar how will he excuse the Colliar whom Staphylus commends so that knew not these things and what if it should fall out that the Gentleman his friend whom he mentions z A person of good esteeme and place in that your country p. 39. Repl. before in this Reply being catechized by his ghostly father should be able to say no more then the Colliar Next that euen the Iesuites and these Diuines who make shew to maintaine this explicite faith yet vtter that besides that vnanswerably makes for the implicite in all articles Henriquex a De sin hom c. 17. n. 1. lit x. sayes A man may be iustified by the implicite faith of Christ * Si planè contritus cum plena satisfactione vel cum martyrio aut indulgentia plenaria decedat and if he die be saued also with a pardon b Relect. de Sacram. part 2. q. 2. concl 3. Canus and c In Tho. 22. q. 2. art 8. dub vlt. concl 1. Bannes affirme that the explicite faith or distinct knowledge of Christ is not necessary as a meanes to iustifie vs. And Bannes d Concl. 4. addes that it were neither heresie nor error nor rashnes nor scandall to auouch that a man may also in the same manner be saued because iustification being the last disposition to glory it is very probable that he which is iustified by an implicite faith may also by the same faith without alteration be saued Vasquez e In Tho. 12. q. 2. disp 121. c. 2. sayes He doubts not but many countrie people without fault are ignorant of some necessary mysteries Vega f Pro concil pag. 92. sayes as I alledged before It is to be affirmed that men are so iustified by the faith of the Mediator that yet the vnfolded faith neither of this article nor of any other must be thought requisite vnto iustice because the explicite faith of other articles belonging either to speculation or morall life suffices thereunto I could alledge many other such doctrines but these are enough to shew my aduersary that his Diuines deale but doubly in our point of implicite faith and such as make faire offer against it yet are fast friends to the Colliar 6 Note thirdly concerning the persons who they be that our aduersaries allow to beleeue implicitly who are bound to expresse knowledge Mediauillanus g 3. d. 25 p. 89. edit Venet. per Laz. Soard 1508. sayes that such as are superiors in the Church must haue a fuller knowledge concerning faith then inferiours So that I beleeue such superiours are bound to beleeue all the articles of faith expresly though euery one of thē be not bound to beleeue their number or artificiall distinction Syluester h Sum Syluest v. fides n. 6. sayes Euery one that hath cure of soules as Prelates Priests Prophets Doctors and Preachers are bound expresly to beleeue the whole distinction of the articles of faith according to their substance but others are not so bound i Direct Inquisit part 1. q. 4. n. 3. Eymericus out of k 22. q. 2. art 6. Thomas Prelats and Curats are bound to haue the expresse faith and knowledge of all the articles of faith wherefore the explication of things to be beleeued is not alike in respect of all sorts of men necessary to saluation because Superiors which haue the charge of instructing others are bound to beleeue expresly more things then others are l 22. q. 2. art 8. disp vnic sub sin Pezantius thinks thus of the matter that Bishops are bound * A hard taske for the Boy Bishops mentioned by Gerson and others see Vers sign ruin Eccl. sign 3. 8. Pic. Mirand orat ad Leo. and for some men Bishops too mentioned by Theod. Niem nemor Semita de scism p. 66. Cathar n. specul haeret p. 71. Clemang de stat Eccl. p. 15. 30. concil delect card Alliac reform Eccl. consid 3. and for some Popes also See specul Pontif. p. 110. and possible for our yong Iesuites and Seminaries to say nothing of the old Mas Priests in times past expresly to know the articles of Faith contained in the Creed and Scripture and in the definitions of the Church so that they can both expound teach and perswade them Simple Priests must know those things that belong to the making of the Sacrament and other things contained in the Creed Preachers such things as are necessary to teach the people how to beleeue and liue parish Priests are not bound to be so perfit in the knowledge of the articles of faith that they can assoile hard questions but it is sufficient if they can instruct their charge in such things as they are tied to beleeue and do and if they haue sufficient knowledge of the Cases of Conscience And so the implicite knowledge and faith is admitted onely in the vnlearned Laity and not in Clergie men of any sort if our aduersaries will hold them to their doctrine but they dubble and perseuere not in it as will appeare by viewing the places of the Archbishop and the Cardinal whom m The WAY §. 2. n. 6. I alledged in my booke 7 Note fourthly that the things which we mislike and speake against in this matter of implicite faith are these First that in teaching of it the Church of Rome seemes manifestly to seeke her owne soueraignty euen aboue the Scripture in the consciences of men rather then the true knowledge of God and his will To what purpose they do this n 2. Th. 2.4 apoc 18.7 I sit a Queene we are not ignorant but we see it tends to the stupifying of the word by blind and brutish obedience that there need be no trauell in religion it selfe but onely a religious care that the Church of Rome be not offended Whereunto whosoeuer will cleaue resolutely to obey all her drudgery and tyrannie that man by some fine distinction or other and that by the Iesuites themselues and such as talke most of explicite knowledge shall be iustified to be of an entire faith extending it selfe vniuersally to all points one as wel as another though he were as ignorāt as a sheepe or as mad as o Suid. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amphistides in Suidas that could not tell fiue nor whether his father or his mother bare him Secondly we mislike that ignorance so much condemned by the word of God should thus be bolstered out whereby true faith
is quenched the light and zeale and comfortable assurance thereof is taken away and all sorts of people are imboldened to security negligence in seeking that quantity of knowledge whereto God hath enabled them to attaine So that hereby the people of God in whom p Col. 3.16 his word ought to dwell plentifully with all manner of knowledge q Ro. 10.10 that should be able both to beleeue with the heart and confesse with their mouth to saluation r Heb. 5. vlt. that through long custome should haue their wits exercised to discerne both good and euill ſ 1 Pet. 3.15 that should be alway ready to giue an answer to euery one that asketh a reason of the hope that is in them are turned into sencelesse Idols that can neither heare nor see nor vnderstand the which kind of ignorance the ancient Church neuer allowed Thirdly we cōdemne the defining of faith yea entire Catholicke faith by this kind of beleeuing for albeit the faith knowledge of the best of Gods children be intangled as Caluin hath freely confessed with the relickes of much ignorance when many things beleeued necessary to saluation are not yet distinctly vnderstood yet there is a progres increase in knowledge wherby the dullest ignorantest of Gods children are inlightned more and more vntill they reach that quantity of apprehension that the commandement of faith requires In which sense we allow the faith of any man liuing specially the vnlearned to be implicite First when he knowes and apprehends in generall the substantiall articles belonging to faith which are contained in the Scriptures and rule of faith Secondly when the ignorance is only in the particulars whereby the said generall articles are demonstrated as a lay man beleeuing the Vnity and Trinity of Persons in God yet is not able to expresse or conceaue the difference betweene the essence and the Persons nor the different manner of persons proceeding 3. When withall he vses the meanes to increase in knowledge by searching the Scriptures and hearing the word preached and in the meane time obediently submits himselfe to the ministry and direction of the Church herein The implicite faith of such persons as haue this threefold disposition concurring in them we condemne not but this is not it which our aduersaries pleade for who defēd that it is enough to assent to the Church though all this be wanting that is to say to professe himselfe a Romane Catholicke beleeuing as the present Church holds without any knowledge of the things in themselues 8 Note lastly that the distinct knowledge of things beleeued which against this implicitie of faith we require is the knowledge of that which God hath reuealed not of the essence and reason of the things For the vnderstanding whereof we must consider that the Scriptures and Church by their proposition reueale the points of faith vnto vs and bid vs learne beleeue thē as that there is one God the maker of all things and one mediator Iesus Christ that was conceaued by the Holy Ghost borne of the virgine Marie and as followes in the Rule of Faith Which things thus mentioned vnto vs are profound mysteries and haue many abstruse and secret notions belonging to them as for example the deepe reasons of the Trinitie in the Godhead and the Vnion of the two natures in Christ Now when we require knowledge to be ioyned with the faith of these things we meane the knowledge of the Reuelation not of the reason and whole nature of the things reuealed for is any man so presumptuous as to imagine that a supernaturall obiect beleeued by faith reuealed by God can by discourse of reason be reduced to naturall vnderstanding the Apostle t 1. Cor. 2.14 saying The naturall man perceaues not the things of God neither can he know them Or do our aduersaries imagine the knowledge we require to be such as is in humane sciences where conclusions are demonstrated by their principles and things are comprehended in their causes and properties Haue they that power ouer their people to make them beleeue that we require for example men to be able to vnderstand and vtter the manner and reasons how God is one How 3. in Person How the dead shall be raised againe How our nature subsists in the word How the redemption of mankinde could be wrought by the sufferings and death of the Sonne of God How the Sacraments confer Grace How man could be predestinate before the world was made We do not require the world to know these things u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theodor. de prouid l. 10 sub fin which are reserued to the beatificall vision in the life to come but onely in such sort and measure as is reuealed which is by conceauing that God is one that the Persons are 3. that the dead shall be raised againe c. and such things concerning them as may without error be vnderstood * Deut. 29 29. For secret things belong to the Lord our God but things reuealed belong to vs and to our children for euer * The state of the question The true state of the question therefore touching implicite faith is whether the beleeuer besides his generall assenting to the Church and Scripture be also bound to haue in himselfe a distinct knowledge of things propounded him to beleeue so that he can according to any true notion of conceauing apprehend and conceaue that which is reuealed to him in which question the distinction of Necessary as the meanes and Necessary by the command is friuolous because whatsoeuer is omitted against Gods commandement is sinne and consequently damnable without repentance and therefore if knowledge be commanded it is also the meanes of Saluation so farre foorth as the obseruation of the commandements is the meanes But our aduersaries apply this distinction which in some question is of good vse in this place to lay their people a sleepe on their pillow when they shall heare knowledge to be commanded but yet not as a Necessary meanes Now there be twenty wayes to escape from a commandement 9 These things thus premised now I answer my aduersaries arguments made for implicite faith against distinct knowledge The first that I dispute so whotly against that which M. Wootton admits is false For M. Wootton admits no more then he insinuates in his conclusion that a generall beleefe of some points may suffice some persons without danger of damnation and this pleases me well enough for I haue shewed this not to be the question but let my aduersary deale sincerely and hold him to that which is taught in his Church and it will please himselfe neuer a whit When that doctrine allowes ignorance in all points and the other which is somewhat honester allowes it in more points and defines the ignorance otherwise then M. Wootton will do My aduersary therefor hath not M. Wootton on his side nor against me but directly with me
against himselfe To the second that my opinion for the knowledge of all points of faith one as well as another is intollerable because it is impossible for vnlearned men to get expresse knowledge of all points contained in Scripture I answer that my words alleadged do not affirme the necessity of knowing all things reuealed as that Iacob had a lame leg or Abraham two wiues but all points of our faith expounding faith not as he doth for euery thing that is reuealed but of the substantiall articles of faith which the vnlearnedst that are may learne and vnderstand if they will vse the Ministry of the Church and exercise their wits therin as the word requires x The story may be seene inâ— Acts and Monum of the Ch. The Church of Rome had experience of this at the sacking of Mirandula Chabriers where not the elder sort alone but the very children of lay men whom vnmercifully they assassinated and butchered were found in knowledge to parallel the Doctors that examined them And Iustine against Trypho y Dial. cum Tryph. sayes of his time that such as could no letter on the booke vnderstood all the mysteries of faith And this is manifest by the places of Chrysostome Theodorit and Eusebius following My aduersary therefore must hold him to that obiect of faith that I speake of and then shew it is impossible to be apprehended which he cannot do And whereas he sayes He graunts and neuer did deny but there are some points necessary to be particularly knowne of all sorts wherein implicite beleefe doth not suffice but expresse particular knowledge is required by Catholicke Diuines I answer that when I spake against implicite faith demanding To what purpose should God propound all the points of our faith one as well as another vnlesse his will were that we should learne them all I knew not what my aduersary would grant or deny but hauing shewed that the Colliars faith was canonized by no small fooles in his Church and commended for sufficient in all points I vsed this reason against it which I confirmed by a text of Scripture and a speech of Saint Austine And if my aduersary conuinced thereby relinquish that rude opinion requiring expresse particular knowledge at least in some points if not Necessitate medij yet Necessitate praecepti this to requite his kindnesse to M. Wootton I gratefully accept and wish him that when he writes againe he will ingenuously expresse what those his some points are and how far foorth the commandement of faith ties vs to know them For these things may be so expounded that what in words is granted in effect shall be denied and then the Pope may commend his towardlinesse z Nub. as the woman doth her daughter in Aristophanes * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A goodly sparke with a tongue that will strike on both sides 10 And whether he meane this or that yet my report that the Church of Rome vtterly refuses knowledge and that the Colliars faith is canonized for the Papists Creed should not haue bene called a grosse vntruth vntill my reasons whereuppon I grounded it had bene answered or at least mentioned but that it is a priuiledge and speciall indulgence that my aduersary hath obtained to reply without making any answer For is not the Colliars faith so reported and commended by the Authors whom I cited that any may fee they allowed it in all points whatsoeuer whether there were means to know them or no means doth not Staphylus a By this faith of the Colliar euery vnlearned man may try the spirits of men whether they be of God or no By this faith he may resist the Diuell and iudge the true interpretation from the false â—iscerne the Catholicke from the hereticall Minister the true doctrine from the forged Fred. Staphyl apol pag. 53. make it the best kind of faith that is and the rest whom I quoted in the margent propose it as the best forme of beleeuing any thing whatsoeuer and yet the Iesuite replies as if they allowed it onely in some few points so far as we nether know nor haue sufficient meanes to know them But his owne words immediately following in defence of this faith touching such things that in this generall action is infolded a particular or implicite beleefe of all points in asmuch as a generall includeth all particulars and beleeuing the Church disposes the minde c. bewraies that he holds the same thing that I obiected For this is the very reason that the grossest maintainers of implicite faith vse to defend it against them that require the knowledge questioned 11 To his third argument That faith and knowledge are 2. distinct things therefore there may be true faith without any distinct knowledge of the things beleeued I answer that the knowledge which I require is not of the essence and reason of the things beleeued but of their proposition and that concerning them which is reuealed as I haue distinguished and therefore I deny the consequence For though such knowledge be not faith but a habit distinct from it yet it concurres to the habit of faith in as much as no man can assent to that whereof he neuer heard for b Ro. 10.14 how shall they beleeue in him of whom they haue not heard The knowledge that hath no ingredience into faith is the knowledge of that which is not reuealed for faith not onely goes before such knowledge but also vtterly repels it neuer admitting any penetration into Gods secret mysteries for c 1. Cor. 2.9 the things which the eye hath not seene nor the eare heard nor can enter into the heart of man hath God prepared for them that loue him And in this sence all the texts of Scripture and places of the Fathers quoted by my aduersary against knowledge are vnderstood and so I answer his last argument For it was the constant and vniforme doctrine of the ancient Church that how soeuer faith apprehends mysteries not to be inquired into yet the proposition and doctrine of all the articles of faith must distinctly be conceaued that a man be able to vnderstand what they are Saint Chrysostome d Hom. 16. in Ioh. rebuking this ignorance proceedes into this discourse which plainely shewes that he was of this minde We beleeue saith he In the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost The resurrection of our bodies and euerlasting life If a Gentile aske you who is this Father who is this Sonne this holy Ghost are there 3. Gods what would you say to this what answer would you make how would you dissolue his obiections And when you should stand dumbe to these things suppose he should bring in another question touching the resurrection whether you should rise againe in this or in another bodie if he should demaund why Christ came in the flesh rather at this time then in the former ages what if he should pose vs in such and
the like things how great punishment is laid vp for vs that by being able to answer nothing nor to dissolue these questions should be the authors of error to them that walke in darkenesse for if they so trauell day and night to be able to speake against our religion how shall we escape vnlesse we haue skill to beate backe such assaults Thus 1 1. Pet. 3. Peter commands Be alwaie ready to satisfie euery one that demands a reason of your faith and hope and 2 Col. 3. Paule Let the word of Christ dwell plentifully in you But what will these foolish drones answer forsooth that euery simple soule is blessed and 3 Pro 10. This is one of the Papists reasons for the Colliars faith note Chrysostomes answer he that walkes simply walkes surely But this is the cause of all euill that not many know how to bring in the testimonies of the Scripture opportunely For in that place alleadged simple is not to be vnderstood for a foole that knowes nothing but for one that is not euill or crafty c. These wordes of Chrysostome shew against all exception that Gods words vpon paine of punishment requires a distinct knowledge of the points of our faith in such measure that if an ignorant man or a cauiller should question with vs about them we might be able to expound manifest them which by the Colliars and my aduersaries impicite faith we could not do Theodorit hath a narration which may fully satisfie any man what kinde of knowledge the Christian Church then practised Euery where e De curand affect l. 5. sub fin saith he you may see these points of our faith to be knowne not onely by them who are masters in the Church and teachers of the people but euen of Coblers Smithes and Weauers and all kinde of artificers and of women also which get their liuing with their hands yea maid seruants and waiting women husbandmen also do very well know them and Ditchers and Neat-heards and woodsetters All these may ye finde discoursing of the Trinitie and the Creation of things and as skilfull in the nature of man as Plato or Aristotle f Iustin Martyr requires the same distinct knowledge in all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. cum Tryph. p. 249. This Relation of Theodorit makes it cleare that in those dayes the doctrine of beleeuing as the Church beleeues by implicite faith was not receaued but the Christians generally euen the most vnlearned obtained and practised the same distinct knowledge that here my aduersary disputes against and impugnes with the names of the Fathers that onely speake against the curious and arrogant inquiring into mysteries CHAP. XXIIII Touching the necessitie and nature of the rule of faith 2. And how it is reuealed communicated to all men that none need to despaire A. D. Concerning the fift Chapter Pag. 143. the conclusion of this Chapter to wit that God hath prouided some ordinary rule and meanes by which all sorts as well vnlearned as learned may be instructed sufficiently in that one infallible entire faith which is necessary to saluation serueth chiefely for those who either presume to attaine this faith without vsing any endeuour in seeking or following some ordinary rule and meanes or else despaire in regard they know not what in particular this rule and meanes is nor perhaps in generall that there is at all any ordinarie rule and meanes at least accommodated to their capacitie prouided by God by which they may be sufficiently instructed in faith To take away therfore the foresaid presumption of some and despaire of others in this Chapter I onely intended to proue in generall that there is some certaine ordinary rule and meanes ordained by God which if one neglect to seeke finde and follow according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence he may not be he neuer so learned or wise presume or hope to attaine true faith and which whosoeuer doth diligently seeke happily finde and obediently follow be he neuer so vnlearned or simple he need not despaire or doubt but may rest assured that he shall attaine vnto it My aduersaries do not seeme to deny this my conclusion so farre as it doth properly belong to this Chapter but fearing what may follow of it they oppose against that sence which they imagine I intended afterward to draw out of it But this is vnorderly to runne before the hare Let vs now onely speake to the purpose of the present Chapter M. White expressely * White pag. 8. 9. graunteth and M. Wootton doth not deny that there is some certaine rule and meanes appointed by God and left in the world to instruct men in faith Secondly M. White granteth that by this rule and meanes we may be infallibly instructed what is to be holden for true faith Thirdly he yeeldeth that the onely cause why a man misseth of the truth is either because he doth not finde the rule or hauing found it he will not obey it Fourthly he saith that the rule is left indifferently to all in this sense that it is of such nature that it is able to direct any man be he neuer so simple and that the most vnlearned aliue may vnderstand and conceiue it sufficiently for his saluation Thus farre M. White granteth and this is in a manner as much as I need desire to be granted concerning the principall conclusion of this Chapter For hence followeth first that no man may presume to attaine faith without finding and following some certaine or ordinary rule and meanes ordained by God Secondly that no man for want of learning or by reason of his simplicity c. neede to despaire but that by seeking finding following some certain rule meanes appointed by God be shall be sufficiently instructed in faith Thirdly that euery one carefull of saluation may see how much it importeth to seeke finde and follow this rule and meanes as expecting by it only by it according to the ordinary course of Gods Prouidence to be sufficiently instructed what is to be holden for that one infallible entire true faith which is necessary to saluation 1 MY aduersaries fift conclusion was that as one entire faith is necessary to saluation so God who willes the saluation of all men hath prouided and left an ordinary rule and meanes whereby they may be informed which and what this faith is This conclusion he visites in this place to see how his aduersaries haue vsed it and first he repeates it then he telles his purpose in laying it downe next he reports what I said to it though scarse truly Fourthly he telles what followes of that which he findes I haue granted him and so lastly leaues the onely difficulty that I obiected against it vnassoiled and leaps into a wilde-goose chase nothing to the point about Praedestination whither M. White meanes not to follow him His purpose in propounding it he saies was first to admonish such as
all men is NO PROPER and FORMALL act of willing in God because he hath no imperfect act of willing as they call VELLEITIE but onely * Voluntatem signi a signification of will which onely is METAPHORICALL and INTERPRETATIVE in that he carries himselfe towards men as if he had that act of willing Thus thinke Caietan and Marsilius Others say the formall and proper will of God reaches not to the saluation of all men for that cause because it is not fulfilled but onely to the giuing of sufficient meanes which will onely to appoint sufficient meanes is formall in God and thereof God is said to will the saluation of all men and of this minde are many Schoole men This will of God b In 1. Tho. disp 83. nu 22. saith Vasquez whereby he would the saluation of all men euen of the reprobate verie many Schoole-men especially the newer thinke to be onely a CONDITIONATED will which they call a VELLEITIE whose act is not absolute and perfect but vnder condition Now the probabler opinion c 1. p. q. 19. ar 6 concl 2. comm saith Dominicus Bannes is that there is FORMALLY no will in God which is signified by the name of velleitie Whence it followes that since by the doctrine of Thomas and many others this Antecedent will is but a VELLEITIE it cannot be formally in God But to take downe this raw student yet a little more Soto Maior d Soto Maio. in Tim vbi sup pag. 274. saith This word God will the saluation of all men by the good leaue of so many ancient Authors we will not onely expound of will PROPERLY so called which is Gods good pleasure but of his antecedent will that is to say an IMAGINARY and METAPHORICALL will according to the which it is no inconuenience to say God will haue all men to be saued of which antecedent will or will IMPROPERLY so called Damascen speakes And e Pag. 276. againe Damascens antecedent will is but a GENERALL METAPHORICALL and IMPROPER will which they call a VELLEITIE Here you see that Damascen and Thomas his antecedent will is but a velleitie and this velleitie is no will simply or formally in God and therefore I spake not ignorantly but after the minde of the best Schoole men that write when I said out of Durand that this antecedent will is not simply properly and formally the will of God but knew well enough what I said and such as hold the contrary that this antecedent will whereby God is said to will the saluation of all men is simply properly or formally the wil of God f Opus est fateri non omnem voluntatem Beneplaciti semper impleri Magal in Tim. pag. 252. are driuen to hold a paradoxe that Gods absolute will which is defined to be the will of his good pleasure may be defeated and not accomplished which is a desperate shift and contrary to the doctrine of g Tho. 1. p. q. 19. art 6. Magist 1. d. 46. ibi Scot. Occham Dionys Capreol d. 45. q. vnic art 2. concl 5. Caiet in 1. Tim. 2.4 Dom. Ban. 1. p. q. 19. art 6. concl 2. in sum text Perer. select disp in Ioh 1. nu 73. the best ancient Diuines in the Church of Rome and directly against the Scripture which saith h Psal 135.6 Our God hath done whatsoeuer pleased him in heauen and earth i Rom. 9.19 Who hath resisted his will k Eph. 1.11 who worketh all things according to the counsell of his owne will 7 Thirdly he saith that in our ignorance possible we vnderstand not this distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will and that is the cause why we mislike the exposition of Saint Pauls words thereby which may be true and himselfe also as ignorant therein as we For be it spoken in good time Ludouicus Viues a man of his owne side hath l In August de ciuit lib. 22. c. 1. obserued that the late Diuines of the Church of Rome either to solue or cut asunder things obiected against them haue found out so many wils of Good pleasure of Signification Antecedent Consequent of simple Complacencie or Displicencie that it were to be wished they would better explane what they say in words suited to common sence and not with these absurd nouelties of words seeke for admiration Neuerthelesse because my aduersary is so peremptory in charging vs with ignorance that we vnderstand it not and so confident of his owne exposition that any iudicious wit by the very sound of words must needs grant it to be a good and a true exposition let the triall hereof proceed betweene vs and let it be obserued whether my confident Iesuite with his wit so iudicious hath hit the bird in the eye 8 The question therefore is whether we vnderstand the distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will touching the saluation of all men right because we mislike the exposition of Saint Pauls text made thereby or rather whether himselfe haue giuen the true exposition thereof For the deciding whereof note first that m Capreol 1. d. 45. qu. vnic art 2. concl 4. Molin concor qu. 19. art 6. disp 1. Vasquez 1 p. disp 83. c. 3. Rispol de praedifin lib. 1. q. 1. dub 2. the Schoole-men who are the principall Diuines that haue bene in the Church of Rome and labour most to fit it to the text yet differ and are contrary one to another in expounding it Ariminensis n 1. d. 46. qu. vnic ad 1. sayes This distinction is vnderstood by some one way and by some another Gregorie of Valence o Tom. 1. disp 1 q. 19. punct 2. sayes All Diuines do not declare after one manner what is to be vnderstood by the names of Antecedent and Consequent will but they expound it diuersly It is therefore an obscure and perplexed distinction conceiued in diuers sences that on our part the matter were not great whether we vnderstood it or no but on our aduersaries part it is ridiculous to tell vs we vnderstand it not when they vnderstand it not themselues and to expound the Scripture by it when all Scripture should be expounded in words plaine and manifest Note secondly that Damascen p Can. loc lib. 11. c. 2. Suar. 3. p. to 2. Suar. 3. p. to 2. disp 43 sect 3. Baron because some make him elder by almost 400 yeares who liued 750 yeares after Christ was the first that euer expounded Gods will to saue all men in these termes Capreolus q Capreol vbi sup sayes he brought in this distinction And r Valentian vbi sup Gregorie of Valence He seemes to be the first that thus distinguished the will of God Damascens words be these ſ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de orthod fid l. 2. c. 29. We must know that God ANTECEDENTLY will haue all men to be saued and obtaine his kingdome for he made vs not to punish vs but to partake
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
apparant I yeelded not his conclusion in the whole sence but onely in a part For view my words The Ministerie of the Church is the ordinary meanes whereby we may learne the faith of Christ And no man can of himselfe attaine to the knowledge thereof but as the Church teaches him except it be in some extraordinary cases How will my Iesuite conclude froÌ„ hence that therefore I yeeld his conclusion as it is vnderstood the second way which way I haue shewed immediately before both his Church and himselfe vnderstand it Doth he that saies the kings Iustices are tâ—â— ordinary meanes whereby to learne the matter of ciuill obedience and that no subiect can ordinarily attaine to the knowledge of the law vnlesse some body publish it yeeld therfore that the law alone is not the rule of the said obedience and subiection prescribing the measure and qualitie thereof but the Iustices also and such as acquaint vs with the law are part of the rule yea the greater and more certaine part No man will say so when all men see the Magistrate to be but the executioner and minister of the law to teach publish and execute that which is in the law it selfe and the Booke of the law to containe the whole and entire obiect of obedience that no subiect is bound to any obedience or to the doing of any thing whatsoeuer the Magistrate might happen to impose vpon him but that onely which is contained in the law either expressely or thence to be gathered by true consequence And so my Iesuits vaunt of our yeelding and impertinent discourses relishes but of the Souldier that created him and his vaunting Order though his putting vs ouer to his other Catholicke Authors be scarse souldier-like but tastes more of the Creeple He vses this often and I confesse it is a good short cutte home-wardes if a man be empty but it sinkes him that vses it into the lowest bottome of contempt to giue the onset with conclusions and principles and then to maintaine them with boasting and ignorance If we were not well acquainted with this transparent cowardlinesse in our busiest Aduersaries it would leauen the most setled patience that is among vs. CHAP. XXVIII Touching our English translations of the Bible Their sinceritie and infalliblenesse 2. How the vnlearned know them to be sincere The new Translation lately set foorth by the Kings authority defended Momus in his humor 4. The subordination of means Pag. 179. A. D. § 1. That English translations of Scripture are not infallible concerning my first reason it is to be obserued that I do not deny the true Scriptures either in the originall or in the translation to be infallible but onely I proue the ordinary English translations which ordinarily Protestants call the Scriptures not to be infallible nor consequently to be Wootton pag. 68. as some make them the onely sufficient rule and means to breed faith M. Wootton asketh what English Protestant euer affirmed that they were infallible or tooke them for the rule To this I reply first that I could wish these his questions could not be answered with affirming that many thousand poore soules that haue and can onely reade English Bibles think the texts which they reade in theÌ„ to be Gods word and consequently the infallible truth and so take them for a rule of their faith that wbat they finde written there they most firmly beleeue what they finde not there they will not beleeue Secondly if the English translation be not accounted infallible nor the rule of faith by some Protestants I aske first what M. White meaneth to say White pag. 25. the Scripture translated into English is infallibly true in respect of the matter Secondly I aske what infallible rule and meanes haue at least vnlearned Protestants whereupon to build their faith It cannot be said that the truth of the reuealed doctrine in it selfe is their rule For this is the thing that should be beleeued and is not the rule and meanes whereby men are to be directed to attain beliefe The first Hebrew or Greeke originall text immediatly written by the holy writers cannot be their rule For first where is this to be found or how shall they be sure if they find it that it is the very authenticall or originall and not a transumpt Or if a transumpt may also serue so that it be incorrupt how shall they know infallibly secluding Church-authoritie that that copie which they haue is incorrupt when they neuer saw the first authenticall nor euer did or are able to compare them together Finally suppose they had a copie well agreeing with the originall what nearer were they attaining faith by it since they cannot vnderstand it White pag. 25. M White is so farre from disclaiming from English translations as M. Wotton doth that he will needs defend them to be infallible in the matter contained in them in so much that with a bold brazen face he saith Martin cannot giue one instance of the sence corrupted Pag. 26. And although he seeme to leaue himselfe a starting hole by saying that he doth not defend tbis or that mans edition but the Scriptures wel and faithfully translated accounting it sufficient that there be some translations faithfull and agreeing with the originall in the Church Ibid. yet presently after he taketh vpon him to defend the varieties of translations saying that this varietie hath bene in words and stile and not in any materiall point of the sence Now how false this bold and blind answer is the Reader may easily perceiue if he will reade not onely M. Gregory Martins discouerie but also M. Reynolds refutation of M. Whitaker and the Grounds of the new Religion which bookes neither are or can so be answered by M. Fulke and his fellow Protestants to helpe him but still it wil be iustified and made plaine that not onely one but many instances may be giuen of the sence corrupted The which is not onely proued by our Diuines but also confessed by Protestants themselues One of which said Broughtons epistle to the Lords of the Councell Carlile in his booke that Christ went not downe into hell that the English Bible was full of errors And what errors Onely in stile or words Nay M. Carlile saith that our English Translators in many places detort the Scriptures from the right sence and that they haue corrupted and depraued the sence obscured the truth deceiued the ignorant Which their confession if it were not also acknowledged for truth by others what need were there after so many varieties of translations that with so much cost care and scandal to the Protestant cause they must needs haue order by publik authority to coine a new translatioÌ„ of the Bible different froÌ„ all English translatioÌ„s that haue bin before the which also when it cometh forth will not be of infallible authoritie more then the former neither can at least vnlearned men be infallibly assured that it
containeth no materiall error For I would faine know how they who neither haue the authenticall originall or if they had cannot reade and much lesse vnderstand and compare the translation with it neither do admit infallible authoritie in the Church to assure them can be infallibly assured that the translation doth not containe any substantiall error To this M. White answereth White pag. 25. that we know this by the same infallible meanes wherby we know other articles of beliefe namely by the light of the doctrine translated the testimony of the Spirit the ministery of the word the rules of are the knowledge of tongues and such like Here is a faire flourish of words but answer me good M. White directly to the point Are all of these ioyntly or euery one seuerally or onely some of these necessary sufficient to breed in vs infallible assurance of an article of faith All are not necessary For else how shall poore vnlearned men do who want rules of art knowledge of tongues and such like Euery one seuerally is not sufficient For neither knowledge of tongues rules of art nor the Protestant ministery are of themselues infallible and consequently cannot be of themselues sufficient to breed such infallible assurance in vs as is requisite in an article of faith Well then it remaineth that onely some of these to wit the light of doctrine translated and the testimonie of the Spirit are euen according to the ordinary course the only necessary and of themselues the sole sufficient meanes to breed this assurance but this not For then it wold follow that euery one learned and vnlearned that had the Spirit of God by the onely light of the doctrine it self without any other help should infallibly vnderstand the Greeke and Hebrew text either read by themselues or pronounced by a Minister which is most false and yet that it followeth wel is apparent because true doctrine shineth as wel yea better if M. White say true in the Originall White pag. 26. then in the English Translations We saith M. White know the diuine doctrine to be one and the same Pag. 27. immediatly in the Originall more obscurely in the Translations and God as the same M. White saith directeth the children of light by the holy Ghost who openeth their hearts that they know his voice from all others and that the light of his truth may shine vnto them Now if the light of the diuine doctrine do shine as well and better in the Hebrew and Greeke text then in the English translations and that all which be children of light haue the eies of their heart so opened as they can discerne Gods voice froÌ„ all others and that the light of his truth shineth vnto theÌ„ what need is there then of any other either priuate or publick meanes to open their eies to see this light when the holy Ghost doth sufficiently open them Or if he say the holy Ghost doth not open them sufficiently without othâ—r meanes then the light of the doctrine and the testimony of the Spirit are not the onely necessary and alone sufficient meanes to assure vs infallibly of any article of faith namely that this or that means must be assigned sufficient to breed in vs infallible assuraÌ„ce which it self cannot do vnles it selfe be and be knowne or at least may be knowne to be infallible in it selfe and infallibly to open and direct our eyes to the seeing of the infallible truth which fallible ministery of meÌ„ fallible rules of art fallible knowledge of tongs or such like infallibly do not 1 HIs reason why the Scriptures traÌ„slated into English caÌ„not be the rule of faith is because our translations are full of errors Wherby he says his mind is not to deny the true Scripture in the originall or in the translation to be infallible but only the ordinary English translations My a THE WAY §. 5. nu 2 §. 6. nu 2. 4. 8. answer was the same that D. Stapleton b Relect. pag. 525. makes for the vulgar Latin that in respect of the words onely there might be some error but in respect of the sence there is none For if the words of the traÌ„slation be not so perfect as they might yet that hinders not the truth of the matter nor the integritie of the sence For the vulgar Latin canonized by c Sess 4. the Trent Councell and d In those words J do not denie the true Scripture either in the Originall or in the Translation to be infallible granted by the Iesuite himselfe to be infallible is not free from error and corruption in words Mariana e Tract pro edit vulg Multa superius in Hebraicis Graecis codicibus vtti esse ostendimus multae mendacia in rebus minutis eorum pars aliquae non exigua in nostra editione vulgata extat c. 21. pag. 103. says There be many corruptions in the Hebrew and Greeke bookes which are the originall and many lies in small matters no small part whereof is also in the vulgar It may safely therfore be yeelded that our English translations as all other translations in the world whatsoeuer are not infallible nor free from all errors in words and yet the sence and matter of the Scripture translated which is the rule be stil maintained to be infallible This my answer yeelding such a kind of erroniousnes in words my aduersary obiects to M. Wotton who belike in his answer to this argument demanding what English Protestant euer affirmed that our translations were infallible or tooke them for the rule He replies secondly what means M. White then to say the Scripture translated into English is infallibly true in respect of the matter M. White answers that his meaning in so saying was to accord with M. Wotton by distinguishing betweene the words and the contents of the translations M. Wotton denying the words to be the rule and I affirming the matter contained in the words so to be What contradiction is this when he grants our translatioÌ„s as al humane means are to be subiect to error in one sence and I deny them to be subiect in another 2 This my assertion that our English translations as touching the matter contained in them are infallible howsoeuer there be varietie among them in words stile he entertaines after his accustomed maner with some passioÌ„ For expouÌ„ding my self that I wold not maintain this or that mans editioÌ„ but the Scriptures wel and faithfully translated in such maner as our Church allows them he cals this a starting hole neuer remeÌ„bring how himself wil not defend this or that edition in his own Church but wil retire to those editions that are approued as also the primitiue Church permitted varietie of translations and yet followed the purest as neare as it could iudge of theÌ„ for the time being I wil therfore say it again that OVR ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS AS TOVCHING THE MATTER CONTAINED THEREIN ARE INFALLIBLE AND
our Church vsed This shall be granted him in respect of the matter and doctrine contained which in all translations that varie but in character of speech is alike certaine But how shall the vnlearned which can neither vnderstand the originall nor compare translations nor so much as reade nor will admit infallible authoritie in the Church to assure them be infallibly certaine the translation containes no substantiall error euen in the matter this he would faine know My answer * My answer was not touing the vnlearned alone but of the vnlearned and learned together per commodam distributionem was that we know this by the same meanes whereby we know other truths and discerne other articles of Christian faith namely by the light of the doctrine translated the testimonie of the Spirit the ministerie of the word the rules of art and such like My aduersarie replies this is but a flourish of words and bids me answer directly to the point and thus he reasons If these be the meanes whereby we are assured our translations containe no substantiall error the light of the doctrine translated the testimonie of the Spirit the ministerie of the word the rules of art the knowledge of tongues and such like then they are so either ioyntly altogether or euery one seuerally by it selfe or onely some of them But neither are all of them ioyntly nor euery one seuerally nor onely some of them Ergo these be not the meanes ergo some other meanes must be assigned and that is the authoritie of the Church I will answer directly to the point granting the first proposition and distinguishing the second which hath three members first that all of them ioyntly together are not necessarie which he proues because so the vnlearned that want tongues and art could not haue this assurance I answer they are all of them ioyntly together necessary by concurring all of them in the Church some in the learned some in the vnlearned to the working of this assurance in the learned and vnlearned for they are not ioyntly the means so that they need all of them immediatly touch euery one that shal be assured but it is sufficient that art and tongues ioyned with Gods Spirit be in the learned and the ministerie of the Spirit and the Church and the light of the doctrine translated be in the vnlearned all concurring to produce * Viz. this clear assurance that the translation cōtains at least nothing contrary to the analogie and rule of faith one effect in both though not all alike existing in them both The second member is that euery one of these seuerally is not sufficient and this I grant for no other meanes is sufficient if Gods Spirit be wanting to giue effect to it The third member is that onely some of these are not a sufficient meanes to breed this assurance this is false for the light of the doctrine translated the testimony of Gods Spirit are sufficient to assure the vnlearned that what is translated to them is true at least touching the doctrine in the same maner that Gods Spirit and the light of the truth assure vs that the things taught by word of mouth in preaching are the truth which light and testimony of the Spirit neuer go with translations or preaching which contain false doctrine His D. Stapleton * Triplic in admonit says it ouer that by the internall perswasion of the Spirit of God alone any matter of faith may be beleeued though the Church say nothing at all but the Iesuits reason to the contrary is then it would follow that an vnlearned man hauing that Spirit of God by the onely light of the doctrine shining in it without any other help should vnderstand Greeke and Hebrew because the Scriptures are written in them but this followes neuer a whit for though I grant the doctrine shines in the Scripture and God by his Spirit giues a full assurance yet he doth not this to the vnlearned but by translations which assurance I vnderstand according to the state and condition of him that is to be assured the learned seeing the heauenly doctrine in the learned tongues and translated both the vnlearned vulgar people in the translation onely and not in the originall as a man sees light by the opening of a window because that is the meanes to let it in I do not say the light of the doctrine and the testimonie of Gods Spirit giue the vnlearned assurance in the Scripture it selfe euery way but in the Scripture truly translated into the language they vnderstand neither doth the contrary follow of my words We know the diuine doctrine to be one and the same in all translations immediatly in the originall and more obscurely in the translations and God directeth the children of light by the holy Ghost who openeth their hearts that they know his voice from all others and that the light of his truth may shine vnto them for this light shineth and this testimonie of the holy Ghost worketh first not immediatly but by meanes secondly not by the same meanes in all but diuersly whiles to such as haue the light of the holy Ghost being learned it shines in the originall tongues but being vnlearned onely in translations as the words that are printed in a booke are plaine and legible of themselues without any other meanes to him that hath light and a perfect eye but if a man be dim sighted then to him they are onely legible through his spectacles and as it is necessary though the light be cleare of it selfe yet to open the window in case a man be shut vp in a house so my saying the doctrine is one and the same in all translations and God directs the children of the light to discerne it and makes the light of it shine vnto them hinders not but I may well say also the window or translation must be opened to let in this light when men are shut vp in ignorance of the tongues and so still some of the meanes I named alone are sufficient where all cannot concurre 4 My aduersary in the knitting vp replies against this that if the holy Ghost doth not sufficiently assure vs without other meanes then the light of the doctrine and the testimonie of the Spirit are not the onely necessary nor alone sufficient meanes to assure vs that the translation we vse is not corrupted By which reason he may say also that when the opening of a window is a necessary meanes to shew the light this light is not the onely necessary nor alone sufficient meanes to enlighten me for there is sufficient in the Scripture to assure me but still the helpe of Church-ministery and industry are necessary to worke it in me or else my aduersarie must proue that the subordination of the meanes where by causes are applied to their effects take away the sufficiencie and perfection of the said causes that is to say the Grammar containes not all things necessary and
sufficient for the vnderstanding of Latin because it is not sufficient vnlesse the learner go to schoole and heare his master teach him And though it be granted that the ministery of men and rules of art and knowledge of tongues be all subiect to error yet doth it not follow that by them we cannot attaine infallible assurance of our translations as I haue shewed in * THE WAY §. 6. n. 3. my answer to this argument where it was first propounded whither I referre my aduersary that if he would haue dealt really should not haue here repeated his old argument but haue ingenuously replied what he had to say to it but that had bene labour CHAP. XXIX 1. Touching the obscuritie of the Scripture 2. The necessitie of meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures proues not their obscuritie 3. Traditions debarred A Councell is aboue the Pope 4. 5. The Scripture of it selfe easie to all that vse it as they should 6. 7. The certen sence of the Scripture and the assurance thereof is not by Traditiō Pag. 183. A. D. § 2. That Scripture alone is obscure Concerning the second reason about the obscuritie of Scripture it is to be vnderstood that I do not speake of the obscuritie of Scripture as though I meant that it could not by any meanes be vnderstood Wottō pag. 74. as M. Wotton seemeth willing to mis-vnderstand me neither do I charge the Scripture it selfe with any fault or imperfection when I say it is obscure but do acknowledge rather that it is the perfection of Scripture the highnesse and maiestie of the matter and the strangenesse of the stile on the one side and the weaknesse and ignorance and sometimes peruersnesse of mens wits on the other side which maketh it obscure But whence soeuer the cause of obscuritie proceedeth which is impertinent to my purpose the onely thing which I am to proue is that de facto it is obscure or at least not so easie as the rule and meanes that should ordinarily breed infallible faith in all sorts ought to be And this my second reason conuinceth it being most euident that Scripture alone is not so easie neither to vnlearned nor learned men The which White pag. 25. 39. 36. M. White seemeth to grant when he requireth so many other euen outward meanes and helpes besides the inward spirit to the vnderstanding of the Scripture Among which outward meanes and helpes I enquire for one which is on the one side infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance and on the other side so easie to be determinately knowne and vnderstood of all sorts as that all men may grace supposed ordinarily direct themselues in matters of faith onely by diligent attending and yeelding assent vnto it For such is that which for the present I call the rule of faith or the rule and meanes by which all sorts may without other meanes ne detur processus in infinitum be sufficiently instructed in all matters of faith If M. Wotton and M White impertinently to this our purpose wil needs striue to haue the Scripture called in some other sence the rule of faith I will not striue with them but do freely grant it may be so called as good written lawes are or may be called the rule of manners in a commonwealth But as besides good written lawes in a commonwealth there are required ordinarily both good vnwritten customes and a good liuing Magistrate hauing authoritie to propound and interprete both written lawes and vnwritten customes without which the written lawes alone were not a sufficient rule and means to preserue good manners in a commonwealth in regard the lawes cannot be so plaine but that considering the weaknesse ignorance and peruersitie of men they may and would be misunderstood and wrested to a wrong sence which inconuenience is remedied partly by vnwritten customes which do best interprete the written lawes partly by the authoritie of the liuing magistrate who may by authoritie declare which is the right sence and may compell men to execute written lawes according to that sence Euen so in the Church besides the diuine infallible written Scriptures there must be admitted some diuine infallible vnwritten traditions and some alwayes liuing magistrate hauing infallible authoritie to propound and expound the Scriptures without which the written Scriptures alone were not a sufficient rule and meanes to preserue infallible faith in the Church because the Scriptures are not so plaine but that considering the weaknesse ignorance and peruersnes of men they may be and as experience ordinarily teacheth are misunderstood and wrested to a wrong sence which inconuenience without miracle cannot be remedied vnlesse we admit vnwritten traditions which are the best ordinary interpreters of Scripture and some liuing magistrate hauing infallible authoritie who may when controuersies arise infallibly declare which is the right sence and who by that authoritie may compell men to take them in that sence M. Wotton and M. White both grant the obscuritie of Scriptures in some places but they both affirme that in some other places the Scripture is perspicuous and plaine Wotton pa 70. White pag. 33. 36. in so much that M Wotton saith Many places of Scripture are so euident that a child cannot mistake the meaning of them And M. White saith citing S. Chrysost euery man of himself by reading may vnderstand To this I reply first that although some places of Scripture be more plaine then others and are and may be called absolutely plain partly for that they be set downe in proper and not figuratiue speech partly in that to them who haue once learned the true interpretation of the Church they seeme so plaine as they need nothing but reading or hearing to make them plaine partly for that some places are so plaine as they need nothing to make them plainly vnderstood of a very child but this generall rule told vs by the Church that the words in such places are to be plainly vnderstood as they sound yet this notwithstanding it doth not follow that the Scripture alone euen in those most plaine places is the rule and meanes which should instruct men in faith because sith some places seeming proper and plaine are not to be taken as the words sound but are oftentimes to be vnderstood by a figure what man without some infallible meanes besides seeming plainnesse of the words can be infalliby assured euen in most plaine places that he vnderstandeth the right sence especially when the most plaine places that are may be and ordinarily are either by weaknesse ignorance or peruersnesse of men wrested to a wrong sence as we see that most plaine place where our Sauiour pronounceth This is my bodie to be by Caluinists wrested to a figuratiue sence Besides therefore the bare letter of Scripture though neuer so plaine to haue infallible assurance of the sence there is required some other infallible rule and meanes to assure vs when and where the
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
onely as a condition to instruct vs and leade vs to the knowledge and assurance of that which is contained in the Scripture it selfe or else as a meanes to reueale vnto vs some thing that is not conceiued in the Scripture But not of the latter for all articles of faith are in the Scripture Therefore the former Therefore the Scripture alone is the rule of faith 6 My aduersarie saies it troubles vs that he sayes there be diues questions of faith which are not expressely set downe nor determined in the Scripture Whereto I answered that this was not the question for if by expressely he meant written word for word in so many syllables then the rule is not bound to containe all things thus expressely it being sufficient if all things needefull were contained therein in respect of the sense so that it might be gathered from thence by consequence the question not being in what manner but whether any way at all the whole and entire obiect of our faith be reuealed in the Scripture though some part thereof be gathered but by Consequence from that which is written expressely in so many syllables To this my aduersary replyes that it troubles vs sore to be thus conuinced with the euidence of the matter that we cannot deny it but are driuen to confesse diuers sustantiall points not to be expressely set downe But he is deceaued it troubles vs not a whit would this hatefull guise of bragging and talking of Conuincing when nothing is graunted but that which belongs not to the question troubled vs no more For no Protestant affirms all things to be written expressely but onely that All things belonging to faith are written in such sort that we haue in the Canonicall bookes either expresse wordes as plaine as any man can speake or infallible sense which any man by vsing the meanes may vnderstand for euery article of faith whatsoeuer Neither did D. M. Luther or any of the learned Diuines of our Church whom my aduersary in his canting language calles his new Masters euer hold otherwise He sayes by our leaues this was the question first when our Grandfather Luther was so hoate to haue expresse Scripture that he would haue all expressed euen in words c. And biddes me see Gretser in his defence of Bellarmine But by his leaue Gretser and he both speake vntruly and he absurdly For he so quotes Gretser that a man would thinke Gretser had shewed out of Luthers writings some places wherein Luther required expresse Scripture euen in wordes which he doth not nor Bellarmine whō he defends could do but be reports in English what Gretser lied in Latine and then biddes see Gretser when there is as little in Gretser to this purpose as in himselfe If M. Luther and the Diuines of our Church confesse many things not to be written verbatim in expresse syllables as it is not thus written that infants must be baptized or that Christ is consubstantiall with his Father do they therefore confesse they are not written at all or will himselfe conclude the Scripture wants that which is not written in so many words Is the true sense and meaning of the words nothing are they not as well conclusions of Scripture which are deduced by true discourse as which are expressed verbatim doth not Picus e Theorem 5. sub sin say such are most properly conclusions of faith which are drawne out of the old and new Testament or by good connexion depend on those that are drawne doth not the Cardinall of Cambrey f 1. q. 1. art 3. p. 50 h. say They are conclusions of diuinity not onely which formally are contained in Scripture but also which necessarily follow of that which is so contained And before him g Prolog sent qu. 1. art 2 pag. 10. f. Rom. edit Aureolus another Cardinall In the second manner of proceeding when we goe forward from one proposition beleeued and another necessary or from both beleeued to inquire of any one that is doubtfull no other habite is obtained but the habite of faith the contrary whereof are heresies in which wordes we see he affirmes a going forward from that which is certainely beleeued because it is expresly written to that which is gathered by discourse and makes this latter also to belong to faith I know few of the schoolemen deny this whereupon it followeth manifestly that it is reputed to be within the contents of the Scripture not onely which is expressed in words but also which is so in sense and good consequence In which manner I haue prooued vnanswerably that all the whole obiect of faith is expressed CHAP. XXXI Wherein the place of 2. Tim. 3.15 alledged to proue the fulnes and sufficiencie of the Scripture alone is expounded and vrged against the Iesuites cauills A. D. To my answer of the Protestant obiection whereas I say Pag. 190. the Apostle affirming the Scripture to be profitable doth not auouch the alone sufficiency of it Whereas also secondly I say it is rather profitable in that it commendeth the authority of the Church which is sufficient M. White replieth against the first part of this my answer White pag. 55. that when the Apostle saith the Scripture is profitable c. he meaneth that it is so profitable that a man by vsing it may be made perfect to euery worke and thereupon thus he reasoneth We do not say Scripture is profitable Ergo sufficient but it is profitable to euery thing Ergo sufficient I answer that this consequence is not good Piety is by S. Paul said to be profitatable to euery thing doth it therefore follow that it is sufficient in such sort that there need no other helpe or meanes to be ioyned with it to attaine whatsoeuer thing M. Wootton and M. White seeme to reason more strongly yet weakely enough to this effect That is sufficient which is able to make a man wise to saluation and which is profitable taking the word profitable as expounded by the word able to make one absolute and perfect c. But the Apostle affirmeth Scripture to be able and profitable to the foresaid purposes Ergo. To this I answer that if they had put into the argument the word alone of which all the question is it would more plainly appeare how it proueth nothing Secondly I might say that the Apostle speaketh of the old Testament Wootton p. 97 as M. Wootton granteth yea of euery parcell thereof as the word Omnis signifieth yet I hope that neither M. Wootton nor M. White will say that now the old Testament without the new and much lesse euery parcell of the old is of it selfe alone sufficient for all the foresaid purposes For if so what need were there of the new Testament or of the other parts besides any one parcell of the old Thirdly I say that the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word able and if it were the word able doth not signifie that the Scripture
saluation Therefore it is sufficient How doth it now appeare so plainely that it proues nothing the first proposition is manifest of it selfe the second is as manifest for all that the Apostle affirmes is of the Scripture alone and of nothing else for of Scripture alone he saies it is able to make wise to saluation it is profitable to teach to reproue to instruct to correct that the man of God may be perfect the conclusion therfore must needs be true Secondly he saies the Apostle speakes of the old Testament yea of euery parcell of Scripture yet M. White will not say that now specially the old Testament without the New or euery parcell of the old it selfe is alone sufficient for all the said purposes whereto M. White answers that he neither speakes of the old Testament alone nor of any one parcell either of old or new separated from the rest but of the whole in this sense all the whole Scripture taken together is able c. And if the Iesuits and D. Stapleton whom this man traces had not renounced all truth they would not say it when that which the Apostle auouches of the Scripture cannot agree to euery parcel alone but to all together for what one parcell performes all these effects to make wise to saluation to teach to reproue to instruct to correct to make perfect the Scripture is so vnderstood as that all these things may truly be affirmed of it but these things cannot truely be affirmed of the parcels alone Ergo. 4 Thirdly he saies the word PROFITABLE must not expound the word ABLE or if it be the word ABLE doth not signifie that the Scripture is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most it imports a great degree of profitablenesse This is no answer to this argument But to another that he hath not expressed I said therefore thirdly though very briefly By the word able the other word profitable must be expounded Which I thus put into forme that which is PROFITABLE by being ABLE is sufficient the Scripture is so PROFITABLE that it is ABLE to make vs wise to saluation Ergo it is sufficient He first denies the Minor and saies the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word Able but he seemes to be dazeled For that which is able to make wise to saluation must needes be able to make absolute and perfect because perfection consists in being wife to saluation but the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation Ergo. Next he saies that supposing the word PROFITABLE be expounded by the word ABLE thus Scripture is able to make one absolute and perfect yet the meaning is not that it is able without other helpes and meanes concurring with it but at the most that it is very profitable and if it be sufficient yet this sufficiency is not that whereof our question is but in a certaine limited kinde to wit of written Scripture That is to say if by able to make vs wise to saluation be meant that the Scriptures are sufficient yet it is not meant that alone they are sufficient as the Protestants hold but with a limitation so far as Scripture can be sufficient In which his answer he plainely discouers himselfe to be foundred and spent For our question is not whether the Scripture alone without vsing the Ministery of the Church or our owne industry or such meanes as God hath appointed for the finding our and vnderstanding of that which is contained in it be sufficient for Bread and Drinke and all manner of food is not sufficient to sustaine mans life if he take no paines to get it or if he be not able to swallow and digest it and my aduersaries owne Church and traditions with all their royalties are not sufficient vnlesse men take paines to finde them and be so mad as to beleeue them and so blinde as to let them downe but the question is of their latitude and extent viz. whether the written Scripture containe in expresse words or sense the whole and entire doctrine of faith and good life so that the Church by her authoritie and traditions may adde no point of faith that is wanting in the Scripture This appeares to be the question by my aduersaries own words and the words of the Diuines in his Church Now the Apostle saying the Scripture is able to make one wise to saluation affirmes the sufficiency of it alone without any other helpe or meanes to supply any doctrine or matter of faith not contained therein because there is no more needfull but to be wise to saluation and that wisdome the Scripture is able to instruct vs in Which ability is not limited to certaine points but extended to all the whole obiect of faith by the word For thus I reason He speakes of the Scripture alone and nothing else therefore the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation therefore it is so profitable and in such sort to make absolute and perfect to euery good worke that it can do it For it is able Therefore it alone is sufficient Therefore this sufficiency is so limited to written Scripture that it is perfectly and wholy contained in it 5 The second part of my aduersaries answer in his discourse to the text alleadged was that the Scripture is said to be profitable because it commendes to vs the authority of the Church This his answer I opposed with 7. arguments But when I repeated it I put in the word sufficient thus He saies they be profitable and SVFFICIENT because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority the addition of which word you see he distasts and makes a vantage of thereby to put off the answer to sixe of my arguments That the Prouerbe might be true it s an ill winde but blowes some men profite for vnder that pretence he takes occasion to cauill and put off that he could not answer For first the word might well be put in without any preiudice to his sense For if their profitablenesse lie in commending to vs the Church authoritie then their sufficiency lyes there too and so I might well make him say they be profitable and sufficient because they cōmend vnto vs the Churches authority Secondly it is idle that he saies my obiections are ouerthrown Only by reading his words aright leauing out the word sufficient For let him looke vpon them againe and he shall finde they ourthrow his exposition of profitable as well as if he had expounded sufficient in the same manner But my aduersary will take a small occasion to shun an argument 6 Onely to the sixth he replies for whereas I said the meaning cannot be that they are profitable because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority because the Apostle saies they are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastor himselfe the Pope the Councell and all and it were absurd to say that the
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
the Papists must shew by some certaine and pregnant proofe that Luther and we that refuse the Papacie haue not this light and testimonie which is not done by saying it is a priuate spirit not common to the Church For all this is denied The Spirit that giues vs this assurance is the Spirit of God the same which is common to the true Church The Spirit which inclines to humilitie order and vnitie And the persons that lay claime to this Spirit did neither presume nor rush into the text The reformation that Luther began was sought with peace and order and euen with teares nor expound it as they listed but what they held they learned of the Church not of the Romish faction and contagion that ouerspread the Church but of the true Church of God that remained in the midst of the Papacie and in former ages followed the Scripture And of this I forewarne all Papists that when they please to leaue these emptie clamours and go roundly to the point enquiring what order and humilitie Luther vsed when he first dealt against the Papacie and what Church he followed it will be iustified against him that the pride and peruersnesse and disorder that was was on their owne side and themselues were departed from the true Church These priuate men whom the Replier meanes with all humilitie and good order by supplication disputation mediation both to the Pope and Christian Princes sought the redresse of abuses their complaints were laid open before all the Courts in Germanie France Spaine England Italy Denmarke and the Christian world all countries laid downe their grieuances against the Church of Rome and openly complained of the Papacie o The Pope in his businesse with the States of the Empire about the reformation of the Church could not denie this We know saith Pope Adrian that in this holy Sea of Rome there haue bene of late yeares many abhominable things many abuses in spirituall things and excesses and all things peruersly turned vpside downe And no maruell if the disease be gone downe from the head to the members and from the Popes to inferior Prelates All we the Prelates of the church haue turned aside euery one to his owne wayes of a long time therehath not bin one that did good no not one We took vpon vs the yoke of this great dignitie to be Pope onely that we might reforme the deformed Catholik Church Adrian 6. instr pro Fra. Cheregat pag 173. Fascic rer exp fug edit Colon. 1535. The abuses errors tyrannie and oppression preuailing in this Church of Rome noted complained of by many in all ages as they grew Bernard Agobard Occham Marsil de Rosate Clemangis Aluarus Gerson Alliaco Auentine c. See this point handled by D. Field l. 3. c. 7. and in his Append. added to that chapter as departed from the doctrine and canons of the ancient Church But particularly what order humilitie and respect of vnitie was in Luther when he opposed himselfe shall best appeare by p Tom. 7. Wittemb 22. pag â— his owne words All this time wherein the cause of Religion hath bene heard before the Emperour and in many great assemblies touching that which belongs to the Pope and his Bishops vpon desire of publicke peace and safetie as much as could stand with Gods truth we haue caried our selues lowly enough that they might if they would haue vnderstood long ago that we did not aime at the weakening of their power to change the present state of things or the Ecclesiasticall pollicie of the Church WE PLAINLY AND EXPRESLY PROFESSED AS OVR BOOKES BEARE WITNES THAT IF THEY WOVLD NOT CONSTRAINE VS TO ARTICLES OPENLY IMPIOVS AND BLASPHEMOVS WE WOVLD DEFEND THEM IN OTHER THINGS But when reuerently and suppliantly PROSTRATE at their feete we onely demanded MOST IVST THINGS IN THE GREATEST MATTERS and for the publicke good we were not counted worthy to obtaine any thing but wisedome is driuen away from among them and THINGS ARE CARIED WITH STRONG HAND They will constraine vs from the manifest truth against our wils to receiue their abominations WITH WHAT RIGHR OR WRONG THEY DEALE WITH VS THEY CARE NOT BVT THE VPSHOT IS THIS THEY WOVLD HAVE THE TRVTH AND VS BY ANY MEANES SVPPRESSED THIS THOV LORD IESVS CHRIST THE SONNE OF THE LIVING GOD WILT IVDGE For when as like Pharaoh they be hardened against THE TEARES of suppliants peraduenture their end presses vpon them c. Thus the Pope with his Cleargie proudly contemning all things and deluding the world with promises of reformation and persecuting with fire and sword such as complained the first reformers by this tyrannie and dissembling were driuen to leaue the Papacie as the seate of Antichrist and the neast of all heresie and abhominations The which is so true that our aduersaries haue purged and forbidden the bookes containing these complaints and raile vpon vs when wee produce or mention them as this Replier doth vpon mee throughout his booke and most impudently denie them and vse other the most dishonest shifts that euer were which makes it plaine that they dare not enter this triall but with noise and scurrilitie outface all things that leade that way I haue said it often in my writings and here I say it again * Nec moueor clamoribus Epicureorum aut hypocritarum qui aut rident aut damnanâ— manifestam veritatem sed verè statuo consensum perpetuum esse Catholicae Ecclesiae Dei hane ipsam doctrina vocem qua sâ—naâ— in Ecclesiis nostris Philip. Melancth praef in 2 tom Luth. THE ABVSES AND CORRVPTIONS OF THE COVRT AND CHVRCH OF ROME WERE SEEN MISLIKED AND COMPLAINED OF BY THE BEST MEN AND WISEST STATES THAT WERE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER LVTHER OPPOSED HIMSELFE AND THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION WHEREIN THE REFORMED CHVRCHES STAND AGAINST THE IESVITES ARE THE MANIFEST DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTVRES AND ANCIENT FATHERS AND WERE HELD BY DIVERS OF THE BEST LEARNED IN THE CHVRCH OF ROME EVEN IN THESE LAST 700 YEARES THE DOCTRINE LATELY DETERMINED BY THE TRENT COVNCELL AND NOW SO VIOLENTLY DEFENDED BY THE IESVITES BEING NEVER GENERALLY OR VNIFORMLY RECEIVED IN THE CHVRCH OF ROME BVT BROACHED AND PVT FORWARD BY THE FACTION OF SOME THEREIN AGAINST THE REST. 7 And whereas the Replier sayes we haue no ground to assure vs which may not in like maner and with as good colour be alledged by others whom our selues confesse to be deceiued I answer that we do not onely alledge the Scripture the Spirit of God the Church the Pastors therein which any hereticke may do but we alledge them truly q Varim quideÌ„ diuersus ex vno tamen fonto haereticâ— prauttatis error emersit cardo pessimus origo maloruÌ„ quae ex se cunctarum impâ—etatum occasioneÌ„ peperit haec estâ— dum celestium dictorum virtus vitio male intelligentium temerata non secundùm sui qualitateÌ„ sensus perpenditur sed in alias res pro
arbitrio legentis sic us quam veri ratio postulat deriuatur Vigil l. 2. pag. 553. contr â—utych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Clem. Alexan. Strom. l. 7. pag. 322. edit Commelin ann 1592. which no hereticke may do The Papists alledge the Church So do the Greekes theirs the Armenians and Ethiopians theirs The Papists alledge the successions of their Popes so do the Greeks the succession of their Patriarks Chrysostome sayes r Op. imperâ— hom 49. pag 1101. All those things that belong to Christ in truth heresies may haue in schisme and in shew Churches Scriptures Bishops the orders of Cleargie men Baptisme the Eucharist and all things else The diuell also alledged Scripture but did he therefore giue ouer the Scripture No. But as Ierome Å¿ Comment in Math. 4. sayes The false darts of the diuell which he tooke out of the Scripture our Sauiour breakes with the true shield of the Scripture A Scripture ill cited t Concord c. 14 saith Iansenius he beateth backe with another Scripture truly alledged as it were one naile with another The Replier must therefore proue that they which alledge the Scripture or the Church or the Spirit of God against vs do it in like manner with as probable colour as wee alledge it for our selues But this cauill I answered in the WAY on the same page that my aduersarie quotes whereto he replies onely by repeating that I answered and so comes to railing 8 For hauing obiected that it is not Gods manner to teach men immediatly by himselfe but by the meanes of his Church and the Pastors therein I answered that these whom he cals priuate men had their knowledge by meanes of the Scripture truly taught in the Church but the Papacie was not this Church nor the Priests thereof those Pastors whom God had put into his Church To this he replies as you see that I am impudent and it is maruell his owne blacke face blushes not to vtter such a shamelesse vntruth Let him name if he can what Pastors those were that taught Luther and Caluin vnlesse he will allow the Diuell to be a Pastor whom Luther confesses to haue taught him his doctrine against the Masse I answer that the Pastors which taught Luther and Caluin their doctrine were of foure sorts First the blessed Apostles whose ministerie extends it selfe to all ages Next the Doctors and Pastors of the Primitiue Church and long after whose doctrine also in all substantiall points and namely in that wherein they forsooke the Papacie they stedfastly embraced when the Papacie had cast it off Thirdly the learned men whom God in many ages afterward raised vp to preach against the Papacie as it grew Such as were Bernard Wickliffe Husse the Waldenses and diuers others Fourthly many ordinary Pastours of the Church of Rome it selfe who being defiled with much of the Romish corruption yet in many things were sound and taught soundly the truth which truth such as Luther was might learne euen among Heretickes as S. Austin did a good exposition of Tyconius the Hereticke by the Scripture might be able to iudge betweene that they taught truly and that they taught otherwise u Refert Gabr. lect in can 57. h There were in the Church of Rome that taught pardons to be of no force to helpe soules in Purgatory * Durand 4. d. 20. qu 3. Caiet tract de indulg c. 1. p 211. b. that their vse is by no authority of the Scripture or Fathers diuers taught x Occh. Lyr. Hug. Dionys Turrecrem Picus Caietan whom see before the Apocrypha not to be Canonicall Gerson y Declarat compend defect eccl n. 67. complained of the abuse of images The same z Serm. de Natiu Mar. consid 2. Gerson a 3. part q. 68. art 1. 2. 11. Caietan taught that Infants vnbaptised might be saued b Sacramental pag. 30. Waldensis against the merit of workes c 2. d. 26. per tot Ariminensis against the power of nature and freewill d Lect. 4. in rom 3. lect 4. in Gal. 3. Aquinas for iustification by faith onely e De vit spiritual anim concl vnic Coroll 1. in 3. part operum Gers Paris 1606. Gerson that all sinne is against the law of God and none is veniall of it nature f Almain Occh. Gers Maior others to this day famously knowne The Sorbonistes of Paris taught against the Popes Monarchy the Greeke Church also held many things against the Papacy touching Priests mariage Purgatory c. There is no article of Luthers or Caluins doctrine but it was taught in the Church of Rome before them g Praef. in tom 2. operum Luther Melancthon sayes that he often heard Luther make report how an old man among the Austine Friars at Erford confirmed him in that opinion which is so much obiected to him touching speciall faith and he adds that before he stirred there were many in the Church of Rome which did inuocate God aright and held the doctrine of the Gospell some more some lesse such as was that old man who shewed Luther the doctrine of faith 9 That Luther confesses the Diuell to haue taught him the doctrine against the Masse is vntrue He onely reports how the Diuell in a spirituall h That it was no more will appeare to him that reads the whole discourse especially toward the latter end temptation to bring him to despaire accused him for saying Masse and the more to terrifie him layed many true reasons against the Masse before him whereby to let him see the foulenes thereof that so he might driue him to desperation as to bring any man to despaire of Gods mercy he vses ordinarily by true and effectuall reasons to accuse the sinne whereof he is guilty Not to perswade him to hate or leaue the sinne but to bring him to say with Cain My sinne is greater then can be forgiuen i An easie thing it were to obiect as much to the Iesuites touching their fellowes and Ignatius himselfe their founder but let God be iudge of these things Hasenmuller who spent much time among the Iesuites and was of their religion makes this report Turrian the Jesuite hath often told me that Ignatius Loiola both at meat and Masse and in his recreations vsed to be vexed with the Diuel that he should sweate as cold as one that were ready to die Bobadilla told him that he would oftentimes complaine that he could neuer be quiet for the Diuel molesting him Turrian said the Diuel was his daily companion euen to the altar where he vsed to say Masse c. Hasenmull hist Iesuit c. 11 pag. 427. We can giue them a bead-role of Popes that haue had familiarity with the Diuel more then this commed to I know how scurrilously our aduersaries obiect this of Luther but their malice armed with all the wit and skill they haue can neuer euince it to be otherwise then I
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
here mentioned For though there be a Church in any sense that a true Church can be meant ordained to teach vs yet it followes not that it hath any such authority or any authority at all to propound vnwritten traditions and there may be a Church and yet the iudgement thereof not be the authority whereon our faith is grounded and the same Church may be ordained to teach vs yet not allowed to teach these vnwritten verities For God hath propounded all doctrine of faith in the Scriptures and appointed his Church to reueale and expound it to his people the which doctrine thus expounded inlightens the mind begets faith and is the rule of all mens iudgement through the worke of the Holy Ghost that confirmes it in the mind Granting therefore that which the Repliar so much desires that all his meaning is that once or in one age there was a company of men who in one sense or other may be called the Church whom God hath appointed and furnished to teach all men the things of faith yet it helps not his conclusion nor makes it true in that sense wherein he meanes it CHAP. XXXV 1 The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope 2. How and in what sense they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith 3 They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith 4 And that the Scripture receiues authority and credit from him 6Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not 7. And they may iudge of that they teach 8 The Iesuites dare not answer directly Pag. 204. White pag. 67. A. D. This being proued my Aduersaries may see how much they mistake when they thinke me to meane in this Chapter by the name Church onely the Pope or onely the present Pastours of the Church when as rather I meant to include these onely secondarily meaning here by the name Church principally the Apostles themselues who for the time they liued on earth were principall Doctours and Pastours of thâ— Church being by me therfore tearmed the Church which I said is the rule of faith not taking the verbe is so strictly as onely limited to this present time but â—â—ther indefinitely abstracting from all time or per ampliationem as it may extend it selfe to the by-past as well as to the present time This to be my meaning my Aduersaries might haue perceiued by the texts of Scripture which I bring for the proofe of my conclusion For those texts are by me here applied as they were by our Sauiour spoken and meant to wit principally to the Apostles being the primitiue Pastours and principall members of the Church and are onely secondarily or by consequence applied to other Pastours succeeding in their places Now taking my conclusion in this chiefly intended sense it cannot be denied to be true neither can the reason by which I proue it with any reason be denied to be good 1 IT is easie to see that he knownes not in what sense he should take his conclusion that it might be defended For if by the Church he meant no more but the Apostles and primitiue Pastours and by the doctrine of the Church no more but that which is the doctrine indeed contained in the Scripture no man would deny the doctrine and teaching faith and beleefe of the Apostles contained in the written word to be the rule of faith but he meant and still meanes otherwise that this Church which all men ought to follow is the B. of Rome alone for the time being wherein a See Chap. 34. nu 1. I mistooke him not For he meanes that which in all ages for the time being is the supreame iudge and hath subiectiuely in it all the Church authority But such is the Pope alone according to the principles of Papists Therefore he meanes the Pope alone againe he meanes that Church whereof he expounds the texts of Scripture alledged in that Chapter to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule but all those texts he expounds of the Pope alone for the time being Ergo. Thirdly I suppose the Repliar to be a Papist and in this place a maintainer of the Popish doctrine touching the rule of faith but that doctrine meanes the Church as I expound For the order which God hath left in his Church for the iudging and deciding of matters of faith according to the Iesuites doctrine b Staplet Princ. doctrin fid l. 6. praef 1 Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. 2 Staplet Princ. doctr l. 5. c. 1. 3 c. 2. 4 c. 5. 5 l. 6. c. 1. is this 1. That not the Scripture but the Church is this supreme iudgâ— of all controuersies and things of faith 2 Yet this Church as it is taken for the whole body iudges not 3. Nor lay priuate men therein 4. But the power of iudging belongs to the Bishops and Priests alone 5. And among them the B. of Rome alone as the successor of S. Peter is so the head of the whole Church and the primary and highest subiect of this Church iudgement that he hath power alone aboue all others whether Pastors or sheepe to pronounce 6 Grets def Bellar. tom 1 p. 1218. c. and determine touching the matters of faith 6. So that besides the Doctors and Pastors there must be in the Church some other supreme iudge and he is the B. of Rome either alone or with a Councell Here it is plaine that howsoeuer the name of the Church be pretended yet the whole power is limited and restrained to the Pope alone For they hold the gouernment and power of the Church not to be Aristocraticall placed in Councels or Bishops but Monarchicall where all the gouernment power and infalliblenesse is in the Pope alone Councels Bishops Priests and all other parts of the Church are but cyphers the power is eminently and infallibly and authoratiuely in the Pope alone either with them or without them Bellar. c De Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. §. sed nec sayes plainely Neither the Scripture nor secular princes nor priuate men are iudges of controuersies but Ecclesiasticall Prelates and Councels may iudge of the controuersies of religion but that iudgement is not firme or ratified till the Pope haue confirmed it and therefore the last iudgement belongs to him for either there must be no iudge among men at all or else he must be the iudge that is aboue the rest I haue alledged the words of Gregory of Valence diuers times d Tom. 3. in 22. pag. 24. When we say the Proposition of the Church is a condition necessary to the assent of faith by the name of Church we meane the head thereof that is to say the B. of Rome either alone by himselfe or with a Councell Syluester Prierias e In Luth. tom 1. pag. 159. fundam 1. The vniuersall Church essentially is the conuocation of all that beleeue in Christ but
virtually it is the Church of Rome and the Pope the Church of Rome representatiuely is the Colledge of Cardinals but virtually the Pope who is the head of the Church Pelaeottus f De consist part 1. qu. 3. pag. 19. The Pope alone may do not onely that which is granted to all and singular Prelates in the Church but also more then they all g Respons moral p. 44. n 4. Comitol The power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is not in the vniuersality of the Church as in the true subiect but in the Prelates thereof and in the Bishops of Rome as in the fountaine whence it flowes vnto all other Ministers of the new Testament Albertine h Coroll pag. 251. saies The Bishop of Rome is the rule of faith into which Rule all the articles of our faith are lastly resolued as into the formall reason whereby they are propounded to vs. Gretser i Defens Bell. to 1. p. 1450. B. saies when we affirme the Church to be the iudge of all controuersies of faith by the Church we vnderstand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being gouernes the ship of the militant Church and by liuely voice doth clearely and expressely expound his iudgement to them that seeke to him Zumel k Disput var. tom 3. p. 49 D. saies I beleeue that the chiefe Priest and Bishop of the Church the Pope who is the master of our faith cannot but attaine the truth of faith nor can be deceaued or erre if as chiefe Bishop and master of the faith he set downe his determination so that vnlesse a man be afraid of the truth there is no cause why he should feare the Popes determination It is idle therefore and sordid that the Repliar saies by the Church he meant the Pope but secondarily as it is ridiculous to say the Church is the rule indefinitely and abstracting from all time or per ampliationem which are termes deuised onely to besot the ignorant that they should not smell his heresie for if his Church be the rule he must needes meane such a Church as he thinkes in all ages and times successiuely to haue bene inuested with that authority and that Church is the Pope alone that miserable iudge of whom their owne men say h Do. Bann to 3. p. 106. b. It is no Catholicke faith but an opinion very probable that he is S. Peters successor and the most iudicious confesse i Alph. l. 1. c. 4. Hadrian pag. 26. ad 2. he may erre * August Anconit sum qu. 5. art 1 Iacobat de conc l. 4. art 1. Occh Dialog 1. part l. 6. 2. part c. 69. inde Cusan de concord cath l. 2. c. 17. Panorm de elect C. signif not 7. Zabarell tract de schismat Gerson de auferibil Pap. consid 10. inde and be deposed for heresie A.D. § 1. Pag. 205. That the doctrine of the Apostles was for their life time the rule and meanes First I say that my conclusion being vnderstood as in this Chapter I principally meant cannot be denied to be true for it cannot be denied but that the doctrine as deliuered by the Apostles themselues being for the time they liued the Church in such sense as here I take the name Church was such a rule and meanes as here we seeke for For first it is knowne to be infallible Secondly it was easie to be vnderstood c. Thirdly it was vniuersall c. Since therefore these 3. conditions requisite in the rule of faith are found in the doctrine and teaching of the Apostles it cannot be denied but that the diuine doctrine as deliuered by them in their life time either by word or writing was the rule and meanes which God ordained to instruct men in faith Taking therfore my conclusion in the chiefely intended sense I suppose that my aduersaries will neither deny it to be true nor the reason by which I proue it to be good 2 This discourse needed not for no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule either for their time or the time succeeding to the world ende I graunt therefore the Repliar his assertion and inferre thereupon that his Popes determinations and the doctrine of his Romish Church is not the rule of faith because they agree not with that which he here confesses was the rule in the Apostles time vnlesse he will maintaine when he replies againe that the rule is not one and the same at all times as k Cusan ep 2.7 his Cardinall writes that the Scripture is fitted to the time and variably vnderstood so that at one time it is expounded according to the fashion of the Church and when that fashion is changed the sense of the Scripture is also changed Againe Magalian a Iesuite I thinke yet liuing l Magal op Hierarch in tit p. 61. n. 6. saies Though it were granted that the wordes of Paule Tit. 1.6 containe a precept to marrie yet seeing Paule gaue it by his owne authority it were no diuine but an Ecclesiasticall precept which the Church may change yea abrogate and much more dispense with Marke what trickes heretickes haue to change the Apostles doctrine when it fits not their Church then the Apostles gaue it by their owne authority which I note that the Reader may perceaue there is no sincerity in the Repliars words For albeit he grants here the Apostles doctrine be the rule yet he meanes it to be the rule but for their owne time because the Pope may vnder colourable pretences expound it that is in plaine English change it when he will as his Cardinall and Iesuite here affirme A D. § 2. That the doctrine of the succeeding Pastours of the Church Pag. 207. is the rule and meanes The chiefe controuersie is about my conclusion as in a secondary sense it may be meant of the succeeding Pastors of the Church In which sense I affirme that like as the diuine doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture or as gathered thence by natural wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by the Apostles or the Apostles as deliuering this doctrine was the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in their daies in all matters of faith So the same doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture nor as gathered thence by naturall wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by Pastors of the succeeding Church or those Pastors as deliuering this doctrine is the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in succeding ages in all points of faith 3 This assertion I will grant as I did the former namely that the doctrine of the Pastors of the true Church such as succeed the Apostles is the rule and meanes of faith but the reader shall note two trickes that the Iesuite puts vpon him in the Proposition hereof First that affirming the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors of the Church to be the rule he saies not
Gospell where the Pope is ignorant or erres it is manifest whose iudgement is to be preferred and in this case such a learned man if he were present at a generall Councell should oppose himselfe against it if he perceiued the maior part through malice or ignorance to go against the Gospell Occham k Occh. Dial. p 180. affirmes that THE POPE AND CARDINALS ARE NOT THE RVLE OF OVR FAITH because though a Catholicke Pope and Catholicke Cardinals ought to be the teachers of faith so that the faithfull should firmely beleeue whatsoeuer they teach and define according to the rule of faith yet if they presume to teach or dâ—fine any thing contrary to the rule of faith which the holy Scripture teaches then Catholickes are not to follow but reproue them These men affirme all things that I say First that the Scripture is the rule of faith Secondly that the Pope with his Councels and Cardinals may erre Thirdly that they may erre in faith and teach erroniously Fourthly that their teaching may be examined Fifthly that euen by priuate men Sixthly the Scripture being the rule whereby Seuenthly vpon which examination their teaching may be refused This is the limitation that I mentioned Let the Repliar and all of his minde open their eyes and confesse we hold nothing but that which the learnedst in his owne Church allow and teach His second exception How shall they relieue themselues who cannot reade nor vnderstand the Scripture l §. 7. pag. 30. I answered in the WAY whereto my aduersary hauing nothing to reply according to his Methode onely repeates his cauill againe but it doth him no good For such as cannot reade yet may heare them read or preached and propounded by others it being sufficient that they haue the knowledge of the Scriptures any way which are so plaine and easie in all things belonging to the substance of faith that as I haue shewed m Gregory the B. of Rome speaking of an vnlearned man saies Nequaquam literas nouerat sed Scripturae sacrae sibi met codices emerat religioso quosque in hospitalitatem suscipiens hos coraÌ„ se studiose legere faciebat Factum est vt iuxta modum suum plene sacram Scripturum disceret cum siâ—ut dixi literas funditus ignoraret Dial. l. 4. c. 14. ibi Graec. Zachar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simplest that are hauing the assistance of Gods Spirit to enlighten them which assistance is not tyed to the presense of the Church as my aduersary cauilles may vnderstand them And to omit the words of the Scripture it selfe which the Repliar and his complices despise and reuile let him say directly whether the Ancient Church taught not thus S. Austine n Epist 3. The Scripture like a familiar friend speakes those plaine things which it containes to the heart of learned and vnlearned Chrysostome o Hom. 1 in Matth. The Scriptures are easie to vnderstand and exposed to the capacity of euery seruant Plowman widow boy and him that is most vnwise Cyrill Alexand p Contr. Iulian. pag. 160. The Scripture that it might be knowne to all men as well small as great are profitably commended to vs in a familiar speech so that they exceede the capacity of no man Isidore Pelusiota q l 2. ep 5. Forasmuch as God gaue lawes to weake men and such as need plaine words therefore he tempered his heauenly doctrine * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with rude words fit for the simple That euery woman and child and the vnlearnedst among mortall men by THE VERY HEARING IT SELFE might get some good r Sixt. Senens Biblioth l 6. annot 152. §. quod autem Grego Valent. 22. pag. 118. §. iam quae Diuers of the learnedst of our aduersaries grant this to be true in that part of the Scripture which containes the principles of faith and the things that all men generally are bound to beleeue which is sufficient to vphold that I say for I will easily allow great obscurity to be in much of the rest according to that which Å¿ Act. 8.31 2. Pet. 3.16 the Scripture and t Basil de fid p. 394. Iren. l. 2. c. 47. August ep 3. the Fathers oftentimes obserue but the rule of faith contained in euident places will preserue the vnlearned from erring therein perniciously A.D. By which explication is answered that which M. White saith is vnanswerable Pag. 220. White p 76. to wit If we must not accept euery doctrine taught by Pastours then there must be another rule by which we must be directed in hearing For it is not necessary to admit another rule distinct from the doctrine of Pastours but it sufficeth that we can distinguish in this rule two distinct manners of teaching the one priuate and without authoritie which we are not bound to accept the other publike and with authority which we may not reiect in any point 7 To the text of Mathew 23.2 The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire c. I answered u The WAY pag. 75. that our Sauiour bindes vs not to heare the Pastours of the Church further then they teach according to the truth This exposition I confirmed by the testimonies of * Fer. in Matth. l. 3 c. 23. Can. Loc. l. 5. c. 4 Iansen concord c. 120. Em. Sa. notat Mat. 23. 4. Papists to whom here I adde a fift Pope Adrian x Hadria quodl 6. art 2. p. 38. we are tyed to obey them in such things as they teach according to Moses chaire Hence I said it followes vnanswerably that there is another rule whereby I may be directed in hearing For else how should a man be able to distinguish those points wherein he must follow his teachers from those wherein he must not And indeed this reason is vnanswerable For if our Sauiour hath bound me to heare them that sit in Moses chaire no further then they teach true doctrine according to the chaire it must necessarily be said that there is some rule distinct from their teaching whereby I may infallibly discerne if they teach falsely against the chaire But the Reply sayes this needs not it being sufficient that we can distinguish two manners of teaching the one Priuate and without authority which we are not bound to accept the other publicke and with authoritie which we may not reiect in any point But for the making of this distinction it needes that there be a rule for though it be sufficient thus to distinguish that is to say by discerning and iudging betweene that which is taught by publicke and that which is taught by priuate authoritie a man may sufficiently guide himselfe in following his Pastors yet how shall I distinguish this which way shall I know the publicke teaching from the priuate without A RVLE Say plainely what is the RVLE to discerne that doctrine which is taught without authority from that which is taught with authoritie and if there be
such a rule say againe whether it be not something distinct from the teaching and authority of the teachers for so much as that wherby the teaching and authority is discerned and tried cannot be confounded with the teaching and if there be such a distinct rule what can it be but the Scripture which onely is the thing that all Church teaching must agree with Thus therefore I reason ad hominem In the doctrine taught by the Pastours of the Church it sufficeth that I can distinguish the priuate from the publicke that which is taught with authority from that which is without authority Therefore I MAY yea must thus distinguish I may DISTINGVISH therefore I may EXAMINE for by examining things we distinguish them We may examine therefore we must haue a RVLE whereby we do it we must haue a rule therefore it must either be the Scripture or the teaching it selfe of the Church that is examined for a third cannot be giuen But it cannot be the teaching of the Church for that is the thing it selfe examined It must of necessity therefore be the SCRIPTVRE ALONE And for so much as it belongs to euery priuate man thus to distinguish therefore it is true also that I said Euery priuate man inlightned with Gods grace which must alway be supposed and our aduersaries necessarily require it may be able to guide himselfe and to discerne of the Church teaching by the SCRIPTVRE Pag. 223. 1 Tim. 3. v 15. Wootton pag. 154. White p. 80. A. D. Wherefore it is not without cause that S. Paule called the Church the pillar and ground of truth not onely as my aduersaries expound that truth is found in it or fastened to it as a paper is fastened to Pasquin in Rome which is M. Whites grosse similitude but also in that it selfe is free from all error in faith and Religion and is to vs a sure although a secondary foundation of faith in that it doth truely yea infallibly propound to vs what is and what is not to be beleeued by faith it being therefore vnto vs a pillar and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine and an assured ground or establishment of verity whereupon we may securely stand against all heresies and errors It is not also without cause that S. Augustine said whosoeuer is afraid to be deceaued with the obscuritie of this question let him require the iudgement of the Church signifying that to require the iudgement of the Church is a good meanes to preserue one from being deceaued not onely as M. Wootton expoundeth in that particular question which there S. Augustine mentioneth and such like of lesser moment and much lesse doth he meane as M. White minceth the matter to wit in that particular question at this time but also and that à fortiori in other questions of greatest weight and most concerning saluation and at other times c. 8 I find 2. faults in this place with the Repliar 1. that he doth not report the whole expositions that I gaue to these places but onely part of them and yet tels me of mincing Next that hauing confirmed my exposition of the wordes of the Apostle by foure reasons and my exposition of Saint Austine by as many and hauing confuted his sense that here he repeates by manifest arguments he stands dumbe to all and onely repeates the places againe no otherwise then when I answered them I need not therefore trouble my selfe with confuting him here but referre * THE WAY §. 15. me to that I writ much accusing my selfe for medling with so base a trifler that hath neither heart nor strength to go forward in the argument nor wit nor grace to hold his tongue this one passage is the liuely image not onely of all this his Reply but of all his fellowes writings now in request to bring in authority of Scripture and Fathers as a Bride is led into the Church with state and ceremony and some grauity and furniture of words but when they should reply to that we answer and maintaine their expositions then to tergiuerfate and onely repeate that which is confuted CHAP. XXXVI An entrance into the question touching the visibility of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was A. D. Concerning the eleuenth Chapter Hauing proued in the precedent Chapter that the doctrine of the Church is the rule Pag. 227. and meanes to instruct all men in faith in this Chapter I vndertake to shew that the Church whose doctrine is the rule and meanes White pag. 86. Wootton p. 104 White pag. 86. continueth in all ages Both my Aduersaries grant that the Church continueth in all ages M. White saith We confesse the Church neuer coased to be but continueth alwaies without interruption to the worlds end M. Wootton saith the truth of your assertion needeth no proofe and findeth great fault with me for making such a question as though Protestants did deny the Church to continue As concerning this their granting the continuance of the Church I gratefully accept it especially with M. Whites addition who yeeldeth that if we can proue that the very faith which Protestants now confesse hath not * If Protestants faith so far as they differ from vs continued alwaies I aske whether in the aire or in some faithfull men if in men who be those men successiuely continued in all ages since Christ or that it was interrupted so much as one yeare moneth or day it is sufficient to proue them no part of Gods Church For which he citeth in the Margent Dan. 7. ver 27. Psal 102. v. 26. Mat. 16.18 Luk. 1 v. 33. 1 AS no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Church to be the rule taking the Church for a So Waldens doctrinal tom 1. l. 2. c. 19. Haec est Ecclesia Symbolica Ecclesia Christi Catholica Apostolica mater credentiū per totum mundum dispersae à Baptismo Christi per Apostolos ceteros successores eorum ad haec tempora deuoluta quae vtique veram fidem continent c. pag. 99. the whole company of beleeuers which haue bene from Christ to this day so neither do they deny this Church to continue in all ages the which because I granted the Repliar in my answer to his booke you see how he ioyes in himselfe as if he had wonne the cause touching his visiblenesse of the Church But as I noted to him the question is not whether the Church continue in all ages to the worlds end for that we grant but whether the outward state thereof free from all corruption be alway so visible as the Papists say I shewed the Negatiue and in the 17. Digression made it plaine that our Aduersaries themselues cannot deny it the Repliar therefore in this place was to quit his owne D. D. whom I alledged and not to stand gratefully accepting that which no man denies The marginall question is
from the damnable doctrines thereof albeit they were corrupted with some lesser errors whereof they repented at their death Secondly some openly refused those damnable doctrines and suffered for the same Thirdly some resisted the Papacy as it grew on and noted the abuses thereof and neuer ceased to complaine and call for reformation Fourthly many that were ordinary Pastors and Bishops in the Church of Rome though poysoned with damnable heresies yet still professed the substance of faith and repented them in diuers things and maintained the Scripture to be the word of God The which things do sufficiently vphold the succession of our doctrine though Lombard and Thomas and Gerson and Occham and such as they were be said to be some of the persons in whom it succeeded by reason the rest which they held against vs appeares by the Scriptures and writings of the Apostolicke Church to haue bene their owne inuentions This plainely shewes who were the Nullus and Nemoes that held the Protestants religion when they did all this some in a higher and some in a lower degree according to the measure of their knowledge and meanes that they had whom the Pope and his Clergy persecuted and condemned for heretickes though they were the best and soundest part of the Church in regard of which persecution restraining them that the truth might not be suffered openly in the congregations which were all surprised by Antichrist we call them the inuisible Church that was not seene to enioy religion and discipline in the liberty puritie and perspicuitie that we now do and whom the wicked vnbeleeuers of the world could not discerne or obserue by reason their eyes were blinded that they should not behold the truth I admonish the Replyar hereafter to take notice of this and not to reply vpon an opinion of his owne making least forging that which no man holds and then so Paedant like squirting at it his owne head proue a hiue for Platoes Ideas and the caue where Chymaera nestles himselfe Pag. 247. A. D. If they could make solide answer to this argument they would neuer seeke for such shifts but being not able soundly to answer it nor yet willing to acknowledge themselues to be conuinced by it desperate obstinacy and obstinate desperation hath driuen them to this bad miserable ridiculous and desperate shift the which if it were not a bad shift Aug. contra Gâ—udentium l. 3. c. 1. S. Augustine could not well haue vrged the Donatists as he did saying If yours be the Catholicke Church shew it to stretch out the boughs of it which abundance of plentifull increase ouer the whole earth For by this shift they might easily haue answered that it did not follow that their Church was not the true Church because they could not shew it to extend it selfe ouer the earth because it might be inuisible If this were not a miserable shift the same S. Augustine could not well haue assigned it as a note proper to heretickes as he did saying A cleare and manifest authority of the Church being appointed ouer the whole orbe of the earth Christ our Sauiour doth consequently admonish his Disciples and all the faithfull who will beleeue in him that they beleeue not scismaticks or heretickes for euery scisme and heresie either hath his particular place holding some place and corner of the earth or else deceiueth the curiositie of men in obscure and secret conuenticles if any say vnto you behold here is Christ and there which signifieth some parts of the earth or prouinces thereof or in secret places or in the desert which signifieth the obscure and secret inuisible conuenticles of heretikes c. If it were not also a ridiculous shift men of our time would not haue bene moued at the hearing of it to say as one did Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici and much lesse would S. Augustine onely imagining that some should say Siquis dixerit fortè sunt aliquae oues Dei nescio vbi quas curat Deus illas non noui absurdus est nimis humano sensui qui talia cogitat Aug. l. de ouibus cap. 16. conformably to it God hath perhaps other sheepe of whom himselfe taketh care but I know not where they be nor who they be haue saied of it as he did he to wit that saith or shall say thus is too too absurd to humane sense Lastly if it were not also a desperate shift the consideration of the falsehood and folly of it could neuer haue driuen as it seemeth it hath done diuers learned Protestants obstinately bent against the Catholicke profession either to doubt or deny or vtterly to cast off the truth of Christian profession neither could it be so apt to driue all other obstinate Protestants to the like desperate resolution as doubtlesse it is when on the one side they open their eies to consider the plaine Prophesies of Scripture foretelling the amplitude splendor glory and continuance of true Christian professors and on the other side may plainely see such predictions not to haue bene fulfilled in their inuisible imaginary congregation of Protestant professions For whilest these 2. considerations are ioyned with the obstinate hatred of the Catholicke Romane profession which will not let them consider that in it and onely in it these prophecies haue bene fulfilled it is most easie for them through desperation either with Castalion to fall into doubts in faith or with Dauid George flatly to deny the truth of Christian faith or with Bernardine Ochine to fall into the foule heresie of denying the Diuinity of our Sauiour Christ which is one of the most principall articles of our faith or with Neuserus to turne Turke or with Alemanus to become Iewes or with many in our owne miserable countrey to be made absolute Atheistes neither caring for God Christ nor any other thing which we beleeue by true Christian faith 4 In good time now I see land and my penance drawes towards an end I haue but this one blast more to endure He sayes If the Protestants could make solide answer to this argument they would neuer seeke for such shiftes but being not able soundly to answer it nor yet willing to acknowledge themselues to be conuinced by it desperate obstinacy and obstinate desperation haue driuen them to this bad miserable ridiculous and desperate shift This goes reasonable roundly for the spirit of boasting and veine of insulting must now and then sally or our Aduersaries should forfit their Charter But what is the question and what is the argument and what is the answer so desperate The question is about the visibility of the Militant Church the Repliar defending that it is alway visible in one state of purity as he hath expounded The argument he vses to proue it is because the Church must be a light set vpon a Candlesticke and the meanes which God hath appointed for the reuealing of his truth and a Citty built vpon a mount whereto God
whether it agree with the faith of the Apostolique Church and not oppresse vs with the name of their Councels And when we shew not onely particular Doctors in the Church of Rome to haue erred but their chiefest Councels also such as were those of Neece Lateran Florence Constance and Trent they are bound to quit them or not to deny our obiection 2 Therefore he grants that some kinde of Councell may erre and haue erred but he denies that Councels which haue bene generall and lawfully called and confirmed by the Pope can erre For this is the new distinction now in fashion Yet the meaning is not that a Councell either generall or called or lawfully called by the Pope himselfe or holden by his Legate is free from error vnlesse the Pope ratifie it vpon which ratification he thinkes all the authoritie of Councels must depend 1. Can. Loc l. 5. c. 4 concl 1. Staple relect controu 6. q. 3. art 4 2 Can. concl 2. Stapl. vbi sup The conclusions of his Doctors are these 1. A generall Councell not assembled nor confirmed by the Popes authoritie may erre in the faith 2. A generall Councell assembled by the Popes authoritie may erre in the faith 3. A generall Councell 3 Can. c. 5. Azor institut to 2. l. 5. c 12. Dom. Bann p. 135. concl 2. 4 Can c. 4. concl 3. Bellar. de Concil l. 2. c. 2. duely called and celebrated by the authority of the Popes Legates but yet not confirmed by the Popes authority may erre 4. A generall Councell confirmed by the Popes authority cannot erre My aduersarie answers by the last of these conclusions and biddes me proue the Councell whose errour is obiected to haue bene lawfully called continued and confirmed But this shall not need at this time because the Councels whose errors we most obiect he will confesse are such as the Pope hath confirmed And though I beleeue neither the calling continuance nor confirmation of Councels depends on the Pope yet will I be so farre from denying these Councels whose errours I obiect to be confirmed by him that I auouch their errours chiefely to haue sprong from his intermedling and vsurped authority ouer the Bishops therein who had lesse erred and more maintained the truth if he had lesse medled The Councels therefore charged with innouating the ancient faith are such as our aduersaries can take no exception to but whether they were generall or nationall called or not called continued or not continued by the Pope the Pope allowes them they being the soundest Councels that he least allowes 3 All the question will be whether the things obiected be errours for he thinkes it can be no errour that the Pope confirmes But he deceaues himselfe if he thinke the Popes authority can free Councels from erring e Papa in casu haeresis est ipso iute priuatuâ— Papatu Dom. Iacobat de Concil l. 10. art 7. p. 727 d. who himselfe may erre and be an hereticke the contrary whereof was neuer taught in the Church of Rome till of late time certaine parasites to gratifie the Pope and make their faction strong began to teach it For Waldensis f Wald. vbi sup saies None of these neither a Synod of Bishops nor a common decree in the Church of Rome nor peraduenture a generall Councell of the Fathers of the world is the Catholicke symbolicall Church mentioned in the Creed nor challengeth faith to be giuen vnto it Alphonsus g Adu Haer. l. 1. c. 4. calles them impudent flatterers that ascribe to the Pope the gift of not erring The Vniuersity of Paris alway hath maintained this against the Court of Rome whereof it seemes the prouerbe grew * Dici solet articulos ParisieÌ„ses non transire montes Alph. à . Caâ—t l. 1. c. 8. that the articles of Paris go not beyond the Alps. The Cardinall of Florence h Zabar de schism p. 703. edit Basil 1566 saies the Fulnesse of power is in the Pope but yet so that he erres not for if he erre then a Councell hath to do to conuert him wherein the fulnesse of power is as in the foundation Neither can the Pope by his constitution or by any other way make resistance in this point because so the Church should be subuerted And whatsoeuer our aduersaries hold or will graunt the thing it selfe is cleare that he and his Councels haue erred and of a Pastor is turned into an hereticke the greatest that euer was and this we prooue by the Scripture and doctrine of the Primitiue Church in all the controuersies depending betweene vs. Next whether the things obiected be errours or no must be tried by the word of God and iudged by the Catholicke Church and not by the peremptory censure of such as my Replyar is our assertion therefore is that the worship of images for example decreed by the Councell of Neece the communion in one kinde decreed by the Councell of Constance and the seuerall points which wee reiect in the Councels of Lateran Vienna Constance Trent Florence Colen Millan and the rest of that kinde are errours and damnable heresies contrary to the faith of the ancient Church Which assertion we proue by shewing the same points to be against the Scripture first and then repugnant to that which the ancient Fathers with vnanime consent taught and defended in their time Which the Repliar must not thinke to out-face with saying we ignorantly account that an errour which is none or corruptly cite the words or misinterpret the minde of the Councell for we both alleadge the wordes and minde of the Councels truly and challenge nothing in them to be erronious but what is contrary to the word of God and many learned in the Church of Rome confesse to be so as well as we as shall appeare in that which insues touching the second Nicen Councell approued by Pope Adrian and yet accused and refused as erronious in that which Adrian approued by all the Churches of these Westerne parts in another Councell vnder Charles the Great holden at Frankford CHAP. XLVIII Touching the Councels of Neece the Second and Frankeford 2. How the Nicene decreed images to be adored 3. What kinde of Councell it was 4. And what manner of one that of Frankeford was Frankeford condemned the Second Nicen 5. Touching the Booke of Charles the Great and of what credite it is A.D.M. White maketh his faire flourish about the Second Nicen Councell condemned as he endeauoureth to proue by the Councell of Frankeford Pag. 278. Wh. in his Praef to the reader for defining that the same adoration and seruice ought to be giuen to images of Saints which is giuen to the diuine Trinity But first the Nicene Councell which indeed was a generall Councell did not define that images were to be worshipped with honour onely due to God which supposeth that men must accompt images Gods This grosse conceite could neuer haue entred into any Christian mans minde who knoweth
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
may define contrary to that they all writ as the B. Virgin not to be conceiued in sin and so they shall beleeue iust that they beleeued not and the direct contrary CHAP. LVII 1 Touching the first coming in of errors into the Church with the persons Time and Place 2 Purgatory and pardons not knowne in the ancient Church nor in the Greeke Church to this day 3 The true reason why the ancient praied for the dead Pag. 287. A. D. To conclude it is not enough for M. White to name these eight or any other points of our doctrine and to say that we hold or practise contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church but I must require him to set downe the time place persons and other circumstances of this supposed innouation which circumstances are commonly noted in Histories when any such innouation against the vniuersall doctrine of the Church did arise This my demand 1 White Digr 5. pag. 374. M. White who will it seemeth sticke at nothing taketh vpon him to satisfie by naming seauen points of our religion offering to shew the time when and manner how they got into the Church And thereupon first he nameth pardons and purgatory the vse whereof he sayeth came lately into the Church To this I answer first that he nameth not the particular Time Place not Persons that first brought in the vse of pardons and purgatory and so he saieth nothing to the purpose Secondly I answer that our questions is not so much about the vse of pardons and purgatory as whether the doctrine which holdeth purgatory to be and pardons duely vsed to be lawfull came in of late contrary to the former doctrine of the Church Now M. White will neuer be able to shew that that Church did at any time vniuersally beleeue that 2 Concerning praier for the dead which supposeth the beleefe of Purgatory learned Protestants grant it to haue bene general in the Church long before S. Austins time as may be seene in the Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 2. nu 4. purgatory was not or that pardons duely vsed were vnlawfull or that the doctrine concerning the substance of these points was first brought in of late naming the first time place or persons which brought it in contrary to the former faith and shewing who resisted it as an heresie and who continued to resist it 1 HAuing no power to answer the examples I gaue of the Church of Romes now holding contrary to the ancient Church he concludes that it is not enough to name the points or to say they hold contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church vnlesse I set downe the Time Places Persons and other circumstances of the innouations as Histories vse to note them when any such innouations arises and therefore he must require me to set them downe I answer it is sufficient that I haue shewed the points not to haue bene holden by the ancient Church For if the ancient Church held them not what skills it when or by whom they were brought in when they were brought in since the times of the ancient Church for that which was not at the first is not Catholike but by some at some time was brought in contrary to that which is Catholicke And a THE WAY §. 50. n. 5 6. I haue shewed that there be many confessed changes wherein these circumstances cannot bee shewed Neuerthelesse for example b THE WAY Digr 51. I named him seauen points and the circumstances of Time Place and Persons of their getting in whereof the vse of PARDONS was the first He replies that I haue not named the particular time place nor persons that brought them in and therefore say nothing to the purpose Here let the Reader iudge whether hauing shewed out of the confession of his owne writers that they are not from the Apostles times not expressed in the Scripture or Fathers nor brought to our knowledge by their authority but lately come into the Church this be not enough for what is not from the Apostles times came in since there is the Time when What came in lately was not vsed in the Primitiue Church There is the Time againe what is not mentioned by the Scripture Fathers and ancient Church was deuised by innouators there is the Persons What the Scriptures and Pastors of the Church reueals not that growes vp as cockle and weed in the Church there is the place Let me adde to the rest whom I alledged in the Digression the words of B. Fisher c Art 28 p. 86. b. Pardons therefore began AFTER men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory I haue therefore brought euidence sufficient to proue pardons to be an innouation because it proues they were not vsed in the ancient Church nor reuealed by the Apostles 2 He replies that the question is not so much about the VSE of pardons and purgatory as whether the DOCTRINE that holds them came in of late CONTRARY to the doctrine of the Church And I answer againe affirmatiuely that it did For the vse is founded on the doctrine and the doctrine cannot be without vse There was no vse ergo there was no doctrine But M. White will neuer be able to shew that the Church beleeued there was no Purgatory or that pardons were not lawfull This is follie for how should M. White shew the Church condemned that which was not yet in rerum natura no man being able to speake of that which is not in being If pardons therefore were not M. White must be pardoned if he cannot shew how the Church condemned them And touching Purgatory though it be much ancienter yet neither did the Catholicke Church beleeue it There were some in the Church that conceited such a thing and the Fathers began in Saint Austines time but a Non redarguo quia forsitan verum est c. Aug ciuit l. 21. c. 26. see Enchirid. c. 69. and the Apol of the Gre. p. 132. waueringly and without any resolute certainety to mention it but it was not beleeued in their daies as a matter of faith that he which denied it should be an hereticke as it is now beleeued in the Church of Rome Besides the East Church beleeued it not to this day therefore the vniuersall Church beleeued it not Heare their owne words in an Apology written touching this matter b Apol. Graec. p. 119. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We haue not receaued from our Doctors that there is any such Purgatory or temporary punishment by fire and we know the East Church neuer thought so Heare also what the B. of Rochester c Art 18. p. 86. b. saies No true beleeuer NOW doubts of Purgatory whereof notwithstanding among the ancient there is very litle or no mention at all The Greekes also to this day do not beleeue there is a Purgatory Let whose will reade the commentaries of the ancient Greekes and so farre as I see he shall finde very rare
whereby vnanswerably it followes that there was no visible head of the Church infallibly knowne all that time but according to our Aduersaries owne principles the Church wanted meanes to instruct and confirme her people in the faith yea the liuing rule of faith ceased and was ouerthrowne in these schismes The Iesuite replies that in all these schismes either the true Pope was knowne or if he were not yet there was meanes to cleare the doubt by electing a new The first of these is false that in all the schismes the true Pope was knowne For in some of them there were so many learned men and Princes of the earth following each part deuided one against another that it was impossible there should be any certainety And my Aduersarie could not haue instanced with me in a worse then in Vrbanus whose reputation was so small by reason of a Whereof reade Theodor à Niem de schism l. 1. c. 2. the manner of his entrance and gouernment that he was generally nicknamed Turbanus and so odious to his Cardinals that in reuenge b Ibi. cap. 51. Pandulf Collenut hist Neapolit l. 5. p. 233. some he tormented vpon the racke in base and miserable fashion and afterward tied vp in sackes and so drowned them and others he baked in an ouen and carried them when he had done vpon mules before him when he trauelled with their Cardinal hats vpon them Now it is a rule among our c Petr. Cresper sum Cathol fid verb. Disciplinae pag. 180. Aduersaries themselues that a doubtfull Pope is to be accounted for no Pope The succession therefore failed all the time of these schismes And albeit as the Reply speaketh there was meanes by a Councell to elect a new Pope yet what successe these meanes had he may perceiue by the stories of the Councels of Pisa Constance and Basil whereof this last d Aen. Sylu. comment de Gest Basil Concil lib. 2. deposed Eugenius and elected the Duke of Sauoy calling him Faelix the fift and yet our aduersaries still hold the succession in Eugenius yea the Replier hath put him in his Catalogue and left Faelix out which by this his rule he should not haue done And besides though a Councell may depose the schismatickes and elect a new Pope yet who shall he that is thus elected succeed or how can a Councell or any other meanes that shall be vsed peece together the interruption past that it may truly be said the succession was neuer broken Martin was elected by the Councell of Constance but let the Iesuite and Gregory of Valence his master of whom he hath borrowed all that he sayes answer whom he succeeded whether Vrban and his successors or Clement and his which side soeuer he takes he cannot rid himselfe For Clement and they that followed him in his time are thrust out of the catalogue and Vrbane with those that followed him put in yet the said Vrban in his time was thought no right Pope and Eugenius that immediatly followed this Martin was deposed by the Councell of Basil 13 The Iesuites hope therefore that he hath answered the obiections will faile him things may wittily and cunningly be pretended but let euery man that will stablish his conscience in the truth enquire whether the reason of true succession can hold where such things as these fall out and whether it be possible or can stand with Gods prouidence that a succession planted for such purposes as our aduersaries pretend this of Rome to be shall be furnished and peeced out with boyes women hereticks ignorant and vnlettered dotards simoniacall intruders and so many times diuers of them at once Two things therefore touching this matter of succession are the truth First that the outward and personall succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome is not so entire as is pretended but hath bene defiled and poisoned with so many disorders that it is as lame a succession as any is wheresoeuer in the world Their catalogues assigned and drawne to exhibite to the vulgar people looke smooth on the outside and nothing but well is discerned in them but examine the particulars and enquire into the histories of their succession and there was neuer any thing so patched and peeced together as they Secondly the succession of doctrine is the true succession and is not tied to that which is in place and persons and therefore let not the Iesuites blaze out their catalogues of names vntill they can prooue the corruptions which they haue added to religion wherein onely we forsake the Church of Rome were holden and beleeued by the persons named For what foolery is it to make a catalogue of Iesus Christ Saint Peter all the Apostles and Euangelists the virgin Marie and the whole Church of the first six hundred yeares as if these had professed what the Pope and his rabble now teach did these adore images vse the Communion in one kind beleeue Purgatorie did these teach it lawfull for the Pope to excommunicate depose murder the Kings of the earth Are not all these things against their expresse doctrine Let our aduersaries retire backe to modestie and truth and giue ouer their courses There are two parts of their religion One wherein they and we agree as that there is one God three persons one redeemer Iesus Christ that the Scripture Canonicall is Gods word that the dead shall rise and all the rest wherein we consent Another part of their religion is it which we and all the reformed Churches haue cast off as Images Transubstantiation Purgatorie Traditions and a hundred such like points The Catalogue assigned sufficiently shewes the former part both for them and vs against all Iewes and Gentiles that denie it The latter part they cannot shew to haue bene holden by the persons named vntill many ages after Christ as they came in by degrees in all which time the truth maintained by the Protestants against them was holden still and the Papacie was but a faction in the Church opposing the sounder part thereof And so the visible Church of Rome it selfe is it wherein the Protestants faith in all ages hath bene professed for the substance thereof Vincat veritas I. Wh.