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
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
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
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
My aduersarie therefore maintaining the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of faith * Suarez the Iesuit shames not to tell the king of England in his late writing against him that The authoritie of the Trent Councell which all the world knowes was mooued by the Pope in the same manner that Puppet motions are mooued by such as shew them is the authoritie of the vniuersall Catholicke Church Defens fid Cathol adu Angl. sect lib. 1. c. 9. nu 7. meanes nothing by the Church but THE POPE HIMSELFE and they that yeeld themselues to be led by the Romane Church must depend solely vpon his will and word 3 To the second this diuine doctrine of the Church which the Repliar saies is the rule of our faith is by himselfe expounded to include not onely the written Scripture but vnwritten traditions also and such decrees and interpretations both of Scripture and tradition as the Pope shall reueale and propound hence it followes that any Friars dreame may be thrust vpon vs as an article of faith necessary to saluation because these traditions and interpretations and this authoritie of the Pope containe many such dreames that is to say the Pope and his Church vnder pretence that they are diuine traditions and all power to propose matters of faith belongs to him may and doth require vs to beleeue lyes and errors and albeit the Iesuite affirme these traditions and interpretations of his Church to be reuealed by God to the Apostles and their successors the Doctors and Pastors of the Church as part of that diuine and Church doctrine which he would haue receaued o Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit veneratur Conc. Trid. sess 4. with the same obedience and affection wherewith we receaue the Scripture yet this is false For the whole obiect of our faith is contained in the Scripture alone as I shewed in the third Digression and because he denies that any such dreames can be contained in the doctrine of his Church thus I reason For whatsoeuer the Pope shall definitiuely propound to be beleeued that is the doctrine of the Church But he may definitiuely propound the very dreames of a Friar this I proue The bookes of i Baro. an 159. n 4. ind expurg Hispa p. 149. d. 15. Sanct. Romana Hermes and k Phot. Biblioth p. 156. edit Graec. Haschel Balâ—am respon p. 363 in Iure Graeco Rom. tom 1. Zâ—onar in Apost can vlt. Perer. Ioh. 13. disp 30. Clemens Constitutions are Apochryphall counterfet and vnsound writings but D. Stapleton l Hos similes libros in canoneÌ„ sacrae Scripturae si praesens Ecclesia referret nulla ratio obstat quin eos pro Canonicis admittere debeamus Relect. pag. 514. saies he may put these bookes into the Canon of the Bible and so binde men to beleeue them by diuine faith therefore he may define and make to be matter of faith that which is vnsound and no better then a dreame Againe Canus and Caietan m Refert Fra. Suar. tom 2. p. 30. a. affirme the opinion of the virgine Maries conception without sinne to be godly and probable in shew but false and vncertaine indeede Yet n Suar. ibi Vas qu. in 3. part Tho. to 2. p. 45. the Iesuits say the Pope may define it when he will Thirdly o Grego Val. analys fid pag. 325. they hold the authority of the Church in defining to be in the Pope who may determine the things of faith whether he vse care and diligence therin or not but he that defines without any care taking or diligeÌ„ce vsed may chance specially if he be a Friar p To the number of 52. Azor institut moral tom 2. l. 5. c 44. as many Popes are to thrust his Friars dreames vpon the Church Fourthly the Canon law q Gl Marg. c quanto de translatione sayes He may make something of nothing and make that a sentence which is none Lastly r Suar vbi sup the Iesuites hold that a supernaturall truth may be so implicitely contained in tradition or Scripture that * Canisius reports that in Paris in the Vniuersities of Spaine and elsewhere no man is admitted to any degree in diuinitie vnlesse he sweare that he will hold the Immaculate conception of the virgine Marial lib. 1. c. 7. Such trickes as this will make this consent swell and increase as fast as the mountaine the common consent of the Church increasing whereby oftentimes the Holy Ghost expounds traditions and Scriptures the Church may at last bring in her definition which shall haue the force of a reuelation The two doores of sleepe Å¿ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Odiss Ï„. mentioned so much in the Poets let not in more dreames then this doctrine doth lyes heresies into the world for whensoeuer the Church of Rome will bring in a new doctrine the implicite traditions and the increase of the Churches consent may be pretended 4 * Ad. 3. To the third he notes no more But what he said in his treatise and I granted in such sense as I layed downe in my answer And this noting it againe is needles and impertinent to the matter in hand which is not touching the quality but the quiddity of the rule 5 * Ad. 4. To the fourth we know well enough that the Church and the doctrine go together but it is false that the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule For the doctrine is the rule and the Church that which teaches both vs and it selfe according to it as the Iudge expounding and executing the law is not the rule together with the law but the law is the rule it selfe and the iudge is the kings officer to apply it but hauing no authority ouer or beside it And yet allowing the contrary and all that the Repliar sayes still in his conceite the Pope with his definitions shall be this Church and this doctrine which he thus conioynes to be the rule 6 To the fift to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of saith in such sort as the Repliar hath said Ad. 5. it is not sufficieÌ„t to shew that at least once or in some one age there hath bene a company of men called the Church in one sense or other ordained by God and furnisht with conditions to teach men the faith for the Repliar hath said that the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith in such sort as it includes not onely the written Scriptures but vnwritten traditions and the interpretation of them both by Church authority Where two things are affirmed first that vnwritten traditions are part of the doctrine that is the rule Secondly that our faith is built t Non quid dicatur sed quis dicat attendendum Staplet Princ. pag. 364. Relect. p. 429. on the authority of the Church Neither of these is proued by shewing that which is
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
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
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
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
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
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
faith but the illumination of Gods Spirit whereof faith is an effect 2. Himselfe in those words the Spirit of God must assist and concur with mans vnderstanding not onely in generall to preserue the faculty thereof but in a speciall manner to enable it to apprehend and yeeld confesses as much as I said or could meane taking my words in all their latitude 3. If faith be taken in one particular sence as sometimes it is for the receiuing of diuine illumination into the heart as a darke roome when the window is opened or a candle is brought in receiues light then it is true * â—rgo ante fidem absque fide intelligi Scripturas posse affirmas Hoc si tibi absurdum non videtur plus quam Pelagia nus es D. Stapl. de author script c. 8. §. 16. that the heart must be endued with faith before any man can vnderstand the rule and yeeld his assent to it vnlesse he will hold Pelagianisme neither doth my Aduersaries argument conclude any thing against this for the vsing of the rule and this faith go together as the opening of the eye and light concur to seeing Therefore as he that seekes a thing in a blind roome first opens the window and lets in light and then applies his eye with the helpe of that meanes to the obiect so though it be supposed that faith cannot be had before the rule instruct vs yet this light of Gods Spirit which is the beginning of faith as the medium whereby the rule is vnderstood goes in order before it As in all our sences * Nihil agit in distans nisi primo agat in medium Allias â—â—â—ct de anim c. 8. part 3. the way from the sence to the obiect is disposed by the medium But if faith be taken in the whole extent for the knowledge and assent of all that which is reuealed then I grant the rule must go before 2 Thirdly touching illumination of the Spirit which we both agree is necessary for the vsing and vnderstanding of the Rule he will haue 2. things noted First that this is not the Protestants spirit Whereunto I answer it is neither the Protestant nor Romish nor any priuate spirit much lesse the Popes spirit a Shewed Ch. 35. whereby alone they breathe that thus charge others with priuate spirits but the Spirit of God that is b 1 Cor. 12.6 giuen to euery man to profit withal Secondly that this Spirit of God is ready to assist all men at least sufficiently to the attaining of the truth and that no maÌ„ whoÌ„ grace hath excited to vse the rule need feare any want thereof but all men rather had need feare least themselues be wanting to concurre with this Spirit and least in stead of following the Spirit of God they suffer themselues as all they do that follow the Church of Rome to be misled by the spirit of Satan transfiguring himselfe into an Angell of light c. The which I am also well pleased to note and commend backe againe to himselfe and all of his sect who refusing the light of the Scripture that so euidently detects their errors haue suffered themselues to be seduced by the spirit of Antichrist * Apoc. 13.13 who hath transfigured himselfe into an Angell of light and broaching his owne priuate conceits yet colours all with the stile of S. Peters successour and seeming authority and spirit of the Church when the Primum mobile of all Papistry is now become the Iesuited Popes sole instinct 3 Fourthly he mislikes that besides these 3. properties of the Rule I would haue other two Vnpartiality that it be addicted to no side and Authority to conuince that there might be no appeale from it But these conditions I added for the better explication of the rest and to exclude the Church of Rome which is so partiall that it begges to be it owne iudge and so vnable to support the cause since that the clearest definitions thereof are still called in question by themselues as c Digr 36. I made demonstration The which being the true reasons of his mislike he dissembles and onely replies that these conditions are either not necessary or else included in the other 3. the former of which is not true the latter that they be included in the condition of infalliblenesse I will not contend about onely I noted them for the more distinct and particular explication of that which must belong to the Rule And so in this point there shall be no variance CHAP. XXVII 1. The Repliers terginersation 2. 3. The state of the question touching the sufficiency of the Scripture alone and the necessity of the Church Ministrie 3. The speeches of diuers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture 4. In what sence Scripture alone is not sufficient Pag. 177. A. D. Concerning the seuenth Chapter if my aduersaries did not ignorantly or wilfully peruert the state of the question they could not haue had colour to make so long discourse about this Chapter as they do both make My question was not whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether it alone be the rule and meanes ordained by God to breed in men that one infallible entire Faith which is necessary to saluation This my question my aduersaries peruert FIRST in that they would gladly as it seemeth make men beleeue that we exclude Scripture from being in any sort the rule of faith and thereupon * Pag. 10 11. M. Wootton maketh speciall opposition betwixt the Scripture which they assigne and the doctrine of the Church which we assigne for the rule of faith whereas we make no such opposition at all but hold the Scripture as propounded to vs by the Church to be part of that which in the tenth Chapter I call the rule of faith For by the doctrine of the Church which there I cal the rule of faith I do not meane any humane doctrine as humane is distinguished from Diuine but do account the same doctrine whether written or vnwritten which is called diuine because it was first immediatly reuealed by God to the Prophets and Apostles to be also Church doctrine because it is propounded interpreted and applyed in particular to vs by the Pastours of the Church This my aduersary might haue vnderstood euen by the very title of this Chapter in regard I said not the Scripture is not the rule of faith but Scripture ALONE is not the rule of faith SECONDLY they peruert the state of the question in that they take the rule of faith otherwise then I do and otherwise then according to the drift of the precedent Chapters wherupon this present Chapter doth depend they ought to do For whereas there may be distinguished in this matter First that which is a rule of faith but not the ordinary sufficient meanes ordained by God to breed faith in men viz the diuine reuealed verities as they are in themselues Secondly that which is so an
faith or needfull to be followed And so from that place to pag. 57 I disputed that the Scripture ALONE is the rule of faith that is to say That rule which my Aduersary in his fourth ground had said God had prouided whereby euery man learned and vnlearned may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for the true faith Now he complaines that the State is peruerted the question not being whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether Scripture alone be the rule and meane ordained of God to breed all faith And he notes two points wherein it is peruerted First in that I so affirme and defend the Scripture to be the rule as if he and his sectaries excluded it from being the rule in any sort which he sayes they do not For they hold the Scripture as propounded by the Church to be part of it I answer that I knew well enough they confessed the Scripture to be part of the rule and the Diuine doctrine which is the whole rule to be some of it written But I knew also that they denied it to be the whole rule ioyning therewith vnwritten traditions and the Popes Decretals which they call Church authority I knew also they allowed it to be no part of the rule but as and in such sence as the Church of Rome should please to propound it and I saw his conclusion in termes denying the Scripture alone to be the rule whereby men may sufficiently be instructed WHAT the faith is therefore I disputed directly opposite to all this that the Scripture alone without traditions is the whole rule to shew vs WHAT is to be holden for faith and nothing but the Scripture this is close to the question For albeit he yeelds it to be the rule in a sort because as his Church propounds it it containes part of the rule yet he denies it to be that whole and entire rule that his conclusion inquires of and so is to be disputed against as well as if he denied it to be any part of the rule at all Againe he holds two things First affirmatiuely that the Scripture is one part of the rule then negatiuely that the Scripture alone is not all the rule Both these are contradictory to my assertion The Scripture alone is the rule My assertion therefore affirming what he denies and denying what he affirmes containes the true state of the question and his inuoluing the matter with all this cauilling tends onely to the couering of his doctrine the loathsome visage whereof he is ashamed should be seene 3 The second point wherein he sayes the question is peruerted is in that I take the rule of faith otherwise then he doth For whereas he by that word rule meanes such a rule as not onely is sufficient to REVEALE all diuine truths that are to be beleeued but also to BREED or produce in vs the faith whereby we beleeue them I he sayes vnderstand such a rule onely as is sufficient to reueale the diuine verities though it be not sufficient to breed in vs faith and assent thereunto And it is true that I vnderstand such a rule indeed the Church wherein I liue onely beleeuing the sufficiency of the Scripture to containe all the obiect of faith but not to enable vs to beleeue it or vnderstand it ordinarily without the ministry of the Church and other meanes But this peruerts not the question * The state of the question touching Scripture ALONâ— for about the meanes there is no question but the question is whether Scripture alone excluding all Church traditions and authority comprehend the whole obiect or matter of faith that is to say All that we are bound to know beleeue and doe for our saluation though it be granted that to breed or produce faith and knowledge of that which is in the Scripture the Ministry of the Church and the helpe of Gods Spirit and our owne industry must concurre For our Aduersaries deny this and hold their runagate traditions and Church authority to be necessary not onely for the expounding and confirming to vs that which is in the Scripture if any one chance to deny it or not to see it but for the supplying of infinite articles of faith which are no waies at all comprised in the Scripture but vpon the said authority are to be receiued as well as that which is reuealed in the Scripture The Iesuite speakes as if he thought his Church authority to consist more in breeding faith and leading men to beleeue what is written then in adding any thing to the measure of the diuine verities contained in the Scripture and indeed sometime there be of his side that will plainely say so He that writ the defence of the Censure a Def. of the Cens pag. 141. NOTE THIS and inquire whether all Papists will stand to it sayes it is to be noted that the question betweene vs and the Protestants is of EXPRESSE SCRIPTVRE ONELY and not of any far fet place which by interpretation may be applied to a controuersie For this contention began betweene vs vpon this occasion that when we alledged diuers weighty places and reasons out of the Scripture for proofe of inuocation of Saints praier for the dead Purgatory and some other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they did not plainely and expresly decide the matter Whereupon came this question whether all matters of beleefe are plainely and expresly in Scripture or not which they affirme and we deny And this he sayes is is the true state of the question Gretser b Defens Bellar tom 1. l. 4. c. 4. p. 1598. sayes These things may be proued by Scripture but not sufficiently not effectually by Scripture alone without tradition but onely probably The which if my aduersary and his Church did hold constantly and in good earnest I would confesse I had peruerted the state of the question But they do not but hold many things belonging to faith to be wanting and no way at all neither openly nor expresly nor consequently contained in the Scripture Dominicus Bannes c D. Dann 22. Tho. p. 302. All things which pertaine to Catholicke faith are not contained in the Canonicall books either manifestly or obscurely nor all those things which Christ and his Apostles taught and ordained for the instructing of his Church and confirming of the faith were committed to the holy Scriptures and the contrary is open heresie Melchior Canus d Can. loc p. 151 There are many things belonging to the doctrine and faith of Christians which are contained in the sacred Scriptures neither manifestly nor obscurely Cardinall Hosius e Hos confess Polon p. 383. The greater part of the Gospell by a great deale is come to vs by tradition very little of it being written in the Scripture Peresius f Peres de tradit p. 4. Tradition is taken so that it is distinguisht against the doctrine which is found in the Canonicall bookes of the
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
follow that the Scripture ALONE euen in those plaine places is the rule because no man without some other meanes besides the plainenesse of the words can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands them right the which he proues first because some places seeming plaine are vnderstood otherwise then they seeme Secondly because the plainest places that are may be wrested to a wrong sense as that plaine place This is my body is wrested by the Caluinists to a figuratiue sense I answer his reason why Scripture alone could not be the rule of faith was because it is not plaine the which obscurity I denied to be in that which is necessary to be knowne affirming the Scripture in such places to be plaine now he replies that though such places be plaine yet still it cannot be the rule Thus first he denies the Scripture to be the rule because it is not plaine and then allowing it againe to be plaine yet still he denies it to be the rule What will this man stand to I maruell But they be not plaine enough because without some other infallible meanes besides the seeming plainenes of the words no man can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands aright euen those plaine places This absurd cauill I haue answered twenty times first that the meanes whereby this is done are the helpe of Gods Spirit our owne diligence the Church-teaching the light of nature and these meanes are infallible And these meanes I admit either coniunctim or diuisim to be necessary as a condition and medium for the full assurance of vnderstanding these places but this condition takes not away the true motion and reasons of plainenesse from them for as I answered in my booke to this argument that is not obscure which by ordinary and easie meanes may be vnderstood but which either hath no meanes at all to open it or onely such as are not ordinary to his confirmation d THE WAY p. 36. n. 2. I answered likewise But to his instances of the Caluinists wresting a plaine place This is my body to a figuratiue sense I reply first it is plaine and euident that it is a figure by the circumstances of the place when he that said the words This is my body that is giuen for you at the same instant held nothing but bread in his hand and liued and was neither yet glorified nor crucified and spake of a sacrament wherein it is ordinary to speake figuratiuely Secondly the Papists do the same in the next words This cup is the new Testament and yet they hold them to be plaine words if my aduersary will be smattering about the exposition of these words let him giue a reall answer to the place of my booke e Digr 49. n. 8. where they are handled of purpose for him 6 Next he sayes though the letter of the Scripture be neuer so plaine yet to haue infallible assuraÌ„ce of the sence there is required some other rule and meanes the which rule is not in the bare letter of the Scripture but is to be learned of the Church as Vincentius saith The which being the same he said before without difference or augmentation let it briefly receiue the same answer That the requisite coÌ„dition of vsing ordinary easie meanes wherof the ministry of the Church truly expounded is one I neuer denied but this proues not the Scriptures to be obscure nor remoues infallible assurance froÌ„ the Scripture to the Church but onely shewes that the Scripture infallibly out of it selfe giues vs this assurance by this meanes and VinceÌ„tius his words affirme no more for by the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence according to the which he requires the line of propheticall and apostolicall interpretation to be directed he meanes no vnwritten Church-tradition or doctrine that is wanting in the Scripture for he holds the Scripture it selfe to be sufficient for euery thing but onely that that which is in the Scripture be so vnderstood as agrees with the rule of faith which the true Church hath alwaies holden now that which the Church hath alwaies holden is contained in the Scripture alone that the Reader may see the Iesuites treachery in alledging Vincentius against the sufficiency of the Scripture who in that very place which belike he neuer saw with his owne eyes begins thus Here possible one may demand when the rule of the Scripture is perfect and in it selfe more then enough sufficient vnto all things Note here whether he thinks as the Iesuite doth that many substantiall points of doctrine needfull to saluation are not contained in them and that it is but a part of the rule what need is there to ioyne vnto it the authority of the Churches sence and he answers as the Iesuite hath alledged that this is because all men do not take it in one sence therefore it is necessary that the line of interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence In which manner he speakes also in f Diximus in superioribus hanc suisse semper esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem vt fidem veram duoâ—us his modis approbent Primum diuini canonis authoritate Deinde â—cclesiae catholicae traditione Non quia canon solus non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina pro suo plerique arburatis interpetantur cap. 41. another place not supposing any thing to be wanting in the Scripture so much as to giue infallible assurance of it owne sence much lesse any articles of faith needfull to saluation but onely supposing that some heretikes would not yeeld to that it gaue or possible through their owne default did not see it and thereupon aduises to oppose against them the rule and practise of the Church as a man by witnesses would conuince him that denies the truth the which practise as it hinders not the Scriptures to containe the perfect rule of faith so we will allow it and require no sence or exposition of the Scripture nor no point of religion to be receiued vnles it be thus directed 7 It is therefore vntrue that he concludes with one cannot infallibly be assured when the words of the Scripture are to be vnderstood properly and when not without the authority of the Church vnlesse it be by reuelation I say this is false vpon two points first because this assurance may be had as from the externall meanes by the Scripture it selfe though the Church say nothing Next because this Church authority he vnderstands to be the externall testimony of the Church reuealing if not making the said sence out of tradition which is not written and not out of the Scripture it selfe so that the vnderstanding which I haue of the sence and my perswasion that it is the true sence shall not be founded on the Scripture but on the authority of the Church of Rome that sayes it which g THE WAY §. 8. n. 7. digr 11. I confuted affirming that this
Scripture D. Stapleton a Relect. p. 462. sayes The Church is the ground and pillar of truth in a higher kind then the Scripture namely in the kind of the efficient cause And b Pag. 494. in explicat qu. the authority of the Church may be vnderstood to be greater then the authority of the Scripture because it is not simply subiect or bound to it but may by it authority teach decerne something which the Scripture hath neither determined nor taught The things which the Church teaches do as much binde the faithfull as those things which the Scripture teacheth we Catholickes affirme that the Church is to be heard more certainely then the Scriptures because the doctrine thereof is more manifest and euident then the doctrine of the Scriptures or at the least equally with the Scriptures because the authority thereof is no lesse irrefragable and infallible The Scripture is the booke of the Church the testimonie of truth which the Church testifies the law of God which the Church hath publisht the rule of faith which the Church hath deliuered We had wont to maruell at the blasphemies c Illyric clau script p. 541. Hos de express verb. Dei of Cusanus Verratus Hosius That the Church hath authoritie aboue the Scripture The Scripture as it is produced by heretikes is the word of the Diuell A Councell is the highest tribunall and hath the same power to determine any thing that the Councell of the Apostles and Disciples had The things written in the Gospell haue no soundnesse but through the determination of the Church c. But now you see the same renewed in that Church to this day and the Iesuits in the midst of their learned subtilties to be as grosse as the grossest Friars preferring their Church authority farre aboue the Scriptures or any vse that a Candlesticke can haue in shewing the candle Note FOVRTHLY what it is that the Protestants say touching the authority of the Scripture and the Church so much as belongs to the present occasion First that the Scriptures haue in them a light and an authoritie of their owne sufficient to prooue themselues to be the word of God and to giue infallible assurance to all men of the true sense and this light and authority is not added increased or multiplied by the Ministry of the Church or any thing that it doth about the Scripture Secondly this light and authoritie of the Scripture shines in vs and takes effect in vs then onely when the Spirit of God opens our hearts to see it The defect of which heauenly illumination is the reason why some neuer and the elect themselues at all times do not see it but it argues no defect of light in the Scriptures Thirdly the means whereby God opens our eies and hearts to see this light and authoritie in the Scripture is the Ministry of the Church I expound my selfe it is the ordinary and publike meanes wherto he referres men And this Ministry is by preaching and expounding the Scripture out of it selfe and perswading and conuincing the consciences of men yet priuately and extraordinarily when and wheresoeuer this Ministry failes or ceasses the light and sense of the Scripture is obtained by the Scripture alone without this Church Ministry and the Scripture alone in this sort immediately at sundry times by it selfe giues full assurance and workes all other effects in our consciences that it doth when the Church propounds it Fourthly the Scripture is so sufficient of it selfe both to reueale whatsoeuer is needfull to be knowne and to establish and assure our heart in the infallible faith of that it reueales that the Church hath nether authority to adde so much as one article more then is contained therein nor power to giue this assurance from any thing but from the Scripture it selfe So farre forth that THE WHOLE TEACHING AND DOCTRINE AND AVTHORITIE OF THE CHVRCH IS TO BE ADMITTED AND YEELDED TO OR REFVSED ACCORDING AS IT CONSENTS OR DISAGREES WITH THE SCRIPTVRE the fountaine of truth the rule of faith Note FIFTLY what our aduersaries meane by the Church and the meanes whereby the Church executes her authority what the things are which by her authority she may do and what the proper effect is that this authority workes in vs. First by this Church d This is shewed c. 35. nu 1. c. 36. nu 1. they vnderstand the Church of Rome for the present time being and therein the Pope in whom they say the whole power and vertue of the Church abideth Secondly the meanes whereby it executeth her authority is vnwritten Tradition out of the which it supplies all things pretended to be needfull for the exposition of the Scripture or the defining of matters that must be beleeued Thirdly the things that she may do by her authoritie are all things that appertaine to the questions of religion 1 Cus epi. 2. 3. 7. to expound the Scripture after her owne iudgement 2 Conc. Trid. sess 24. can 3. to dispense against the Scripture 3 Stapl. princip l. 9. c. 14. relect pag. 514. to canonize new Scripture that before was none 4 Stapl. ibi relect p. 494. inde to giue authority to the Scripture 5 August de Ancon qu. 59. art 1. 2. to make new articles of faith 6 Gl. de transl episc Quanto §. veri to make that to be the sence of the Scripture that is not Lastly the effect of this power is the same that the Scripture breeds and more 7 Grets defens Bel. tom 1. pag. 1218. c. obedience in all that will be saued so that the world is bound as much to the Popes definitiue sentence as to the Scripture or the voice of God himselfe 8 The speech of all the canonists for Christ and the Pope make but one tribunal 9 Capistran de author Pap. pag 130. He is aboue al like him that came downe from heaueÌ„ 10 Capist ibi For with God and the Pope his will is sufficient reason and that which pleases him hath the vigor of a law 11 Palaeot de consist part 5. q 9. after his sentence pronounced no man must doubt or delay to yeeld 12 Petrisedes in Romano solâ—o collocata libertate plena in suis agendis per omnia poteri debet nec vlli subesse homini Gl. ibid. vbi sup yea all the CouÌ„cels and Doctors and Churches in the world must stoop to his determination 5 These fiue things thus obserued it is easie to se that our aduersaries attribute more to the Church then to be onely a meanes for the communicating of that which is in the Scripture to vs expounding the authority thereof that it exceedes the latitude of a Candlesticke and is turned into the Candle it selfe And so to returne to my aduersaries answer and to conclude I thus reason The Ministery and authority of the Church is required either
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
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
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
Churches that should either refuse or examine the publike faith of the Church of Rome which he meanes by the Catholicke Church as Wickliffe Hus Luther and the Churches of England Scotland and Germany haue done the which his intent the rather because the Diuines of his Church are so a Proh nefaÌ„dum hominem Caluinus poeta Cynadus stigmaticus errare non potest Ecclesia tamen Christi sponsa errori est obnoxia Vna Geneua euibrato è sole radio coruscat Ecclesia autem in tenebris squalet conticescit West de tripl offic l. 3. pag. 337. violent therein I confuted by answering all his arguments which marching against priuate spirits I easily perceiued to be meant against the Protestant Churches casting off the papacy Now let vs see what heresies first he sayes that I seeme to disclaime from immediate teaching of priuate spirits and to grant the substance of his conclusion in that sense wherin it was principally intended He affirmes two things of me First that I seeme to disclaime the immediate teaching of priuate spirits This I grant and wish that himselfe and his sectaries by our example would likewise disclaime the priuate spirit of the Pope b Sicut coelum generat corrumpit ista inferiora alterat variat ipsa nihil tamen istorum inferiorum insurgit contra coeluÌ„ vel appellat contra ipsum sed patienter tolerat quicquid coelum operatur in eâ—s siue per generationem siue corruptionem siue alterationem sic potest as Papalis tanquam celestis ita potest omnes inferiores potestates tam Clericorum quam Laicorum generare cerrumpere alterare quia nulli licet insurgere vel appellare contra ipsum August Triumph sum de eccl pot q 6. â—â—t 5. Sententia Papae est praeferenda sententiae omnium aliorum Ioh de Turrecrem sum de eccleâ— l. 3. c. 64. concl 1. Sententiae Papae standuÌ„ est quando contradicit sententiae totius Concilii Ioh. Andrae quem refert Syluest sum v. Concil n. 3. Papa absque Concilio reuocat gesta in Concilio Si Papa Concilium diuersas constitutiones edant praefertur constitutio Papae tanquam maioris authoritatis Ioh. Capistran de author Pap. pag. 105. Jn pontifice totam esse Monarchiam spiritualem ipsius potestatem ab omni regula quae coarctet absolutam esse Hieâ—on Alban de potest Pap. pag. 125. n. 122. Summus pontifex tanquam agens vniuersale ecclesiasticas omnes potestates veluti agentia particularia sua authoritate continet Palaeot de consist pag. 61. Probatione non indiget Cardinalium aut aliorum consensum in rebus consistorialibus definiendis nullatenus necessarium esse pag. 25. Ad ostendendum Papae primatum super omnia potestatem dicitur corporalis in orbe Deus Dominic Iacobat de concil p. 653. edit Rom. per Anto. Blad 1538. who determines aboue beside and against the publike spirit of the whole Church Next that consequently I seeme to grant the substance of his conclusion as it was principally intended by him this is false for though I allow the conclusion yet not his principall intent which c In the WAY § 58. inde afterward he discouers to be against our Diuines Church that resisted the Papacy d §. 60 , 57. alledging this reason against them that they were but priuate men and a few of them lately sprong vp against the vniuersall Church Which was the cause why I distinguisht 2 senses of the conclusion the one seeming in the words the other lurking in the intent and this latter I confuted 2 Secondly he sayes notwithstanding we seeme to disclaime priuate spirits yet we are finally forced to flie to them againe No maruell when he sayes it but say on how are we inforced and by what necessity Because whensoeuer they be vrged How they know there be any Scripture How they know these bookes to be Scripture How they know this or that to be the sense of the Scripture they are forced finally to flie for infallibly assurance to the immediate teaching of their priuate spirit or else to run the round betwixt Scripture priuate spirit This is vntrue For we ground not our faith of these things or any thing vpon our owne spirit but vpon the Spirit of God bearing witnesse with our spirit and speaking vnto vs out of the Scripture it selfe in the middest of the Catholicke Church in this manner that euery one which is inlightned of God no other can haue assurance any way but remaines in vnbeleefe as Gentiles Atheists and Heretikes doe feels the holy Ghost testifying these things to his heart and infallibly assuring him by the Scripture it selfe which light of the Spirit of God shining to our spirit is the formall reason of beleeuing the which spirit if my Aduersary will deny or call a mans owne priuate spirit or measure whether it be Gods Spirit or noe by the agreement thereof with the Church of Rome and the Popes will when themselues are part of that that must be tried by the Spirit of God let him go for an Atheist and one that renounces the habit of infused faith which is not resolued into any thing e Actus sidei infusae est credere Diuinae veritati propter se Aquar in Capreol p. 43. e. but the authority of this spirit or if he distast that let him looke vpon two principles holden by his owne Diuines f Staplet princi doctr fid pag. 274. Triplicat pag. 183. The first that the internall perswasion of the Holy Ghost or the alone habite of faith infused is so effectuall that thereby ALONE WITHOVT THE TESTIMONY AND TEACHING OF THE CHVRCH a man may beleeue that is to say be infallibly assured of any thing that must be beleeued The second that g Greg. de Valent tom 3. p. 32. AlexaÌ„d Pesant in Thom. p. 479. the propositioÌ„ of the Church is beleeued to be infallible for the reuelation of Scripture giuing testimony to the Church which reuelation of the Scripture is beleeued FOR IT SELFE These principles affirming that without any authority of the Church by the Spirit of God alone a priuate man may be infallibly assured and that the Scripture prouing to vs the infallible authority of the Church is lastly beleeued for it selfe let him shew if he can so that we may vnderstand him that it must needs be a priuate spirit of a mans owne whensoeuer by the Scripture alone without and beyond the authority of the Church we rest contented and assured of that we beleeue For before the Church authority and after it and without it men may be infallibly assured by Gods Spirit in their hearts by meanes of the Scriptures beleeued therefore knowne and vnderstood in themselues Againe they hold the Pope to be the supreme Pastour yet thinke h Occh. op 90. dierum cap. 1. that in case of heresie one may appeale from him to a superior
iudge and i Gi. d. 19 Auast §. in concilio in a difficult cause whether of faith or right he must call a Councel where if the Councel he cannot agree in deciding but are contrary k AntoÌ„ de â—â—o â—eâ—â— Mon â—â—h â—â—ct de concil p 47. â—urtâ—â—eÌ„ d. 19. Sâ—cundum E câ— n. 6. then they of the two must be followed which haue the best reasoÌ„ l â—urâ—ecrem d. 40. Si â—â—pa n. 4. Simaâ—ch Cathol instit tit 12 n. 13. when the faith lies in danger the Cardinals or a CouÌ„cell may resist the Pope in all which cases how shall a priuate man or a whole nation be infallibly assured of truth the Pope may erre he may erre definitiuely against a CouÌ„cell he may be an hereticke he may be resisted the Councell also may erre the faith may be indangered therefore men must try their reasons all this is confessed Where now is this iudge that my aduersary talkes of neither the Pope nor a Councell is it for men must follow them of the two that had the best reasons who shall iudge of their reasons the Christian people whom the cause concernes And by what can they iudge but by some thing distinct from both Councell and Pope and aboue them both which is the m So Occham GersoÌ„ Panorm The Diuines now of Venice and Paris in their tractats of this matter Scripture or nothing And for so much as no man can vnderstand the Scripture without Gods Spirit therefore in the case propounded our aduersaries must allow both Pope and Councell to be tried by priuate spirits as much as we do the teaching of the Church Let the most zealous and learned Papist that liues consider this and he shall perceiue that what we meane when we say The Scripture is the supreme rule and the true sense thereof is assured vnto vs lastly and authoratiuely by the Spirit of God themselues are driuen to hold as well as we Therefore whatsoeuer my aduersary hath rabbled together in his Introduct it is no more a circle in vs to proue our spirit by the Scripture and againe to be assured of the Scripture by the Spirit then it is in discourse to go too and fro betweene causes and effects But * See D. R. Field 2. part Append. p. 12. § 5. 6. where this point is shewed effectually it is himselfe and his owne Diuines that runne the round 3 Thirdly he saies that I needed not haue answered the reasons of his conclusion if the conclusion had not bene against our doctrine but this is idle for I answered the reasons because of that which the conclusion intended Good wordes especially with equiuocators may haue a bad purpose in which case the sense must be distinguisht and that which is false confuted 4 Fourthly he saies 2. things about my distinguishing of the word priuate For the vnderstanding whereof note that his conclusion being No priuate man perswading himselfe to be instructed by the Spirit can be the Rule of faith I answered that if he meant priuate when he sayes so often in the proces of his argument priuate spirits as it is opposed to diuine and spirituall he said well but vsing it in another sense as it is opposed to common and vsuall his conclusion was vntrue To this he replies first ô strange opposition but this he doth onely by the way because he would not loose a Parenthesis His head being so full of mentall reseruations that it makes his booke breake out all ouer into Parentheses as if it were full of the Measels for when particular men and priuate spirits do not erre by reason of their small number but by holding against that which is diuine and spirituall what such strange opposition is it to oppose the priuate spirit against the diuine Spirit of God and a priuate man against him that is spirituall In this sense No priuate mans spirit can be the rule if by priuate he meane not that which is not so common but that which is not diuine and spirituall But this is not worth the standing on his second exception is against the matter of the distinction For I said a priuate man may be so assisted by the holy Ghost that he may interpret Scripture truely and infallibly against a company as bigge as the Romane Church To this he replies denying my supposition that it is not to be thought the holy Ghost assists any that expoundes the Scripture contrary to the vniuersall Catholicke Church the which I thinke too and therefore this is not the point in question when we both agree but the point is whether these priuate men and spirits being expounded to be Luther such as he was with the Churches that cast off the Papacy this Catholicke and vniuersall Christian Church being expounded as it is by our aduersary to be the Papacy or Roman Church theÌ„ whether the priuate coÌ„pany may not haue Gods Spirit and the great company want it and so consequently the said priuate company be able to haue the truth against that which A. D. calles the Catholicke vniuersall Church for we affirme it Not by saying that Luther or any of our side had Gods Spirit or saw any truth which the true Church did not see but that they had and saw the the truth in the middest of the Church against the Papacy which now ridiculously is stiled the Catholicke vniuersall Church And therefore my aduersay and all of his side do but trifle away time in opposing the vniuersall Church against M. Luther vntill they haue proued the Papacy to be it and Luther with such as followed him no part of it For he resisted not the Catholicke Church but the Papacy in the Catholicke Church A. D. I do not deny but that a priuate man Pag. 196. supposing he were indeede assisted by the holy Ghost might interpret Scripture truely and infallibly against a company as bigge as the Romane Church supposing this company were not so assisted But herein consisteth the chiefe point of the question whether it be to be thought that the holy Ghost doth indeed or not assist one or some few priuate men who presuming that they are so assisted do interpret the holy Scripture in such sense as is contrary to the sense of the holy Catholike or vniuersall Christian Church whether it be Romane or not I do not now dispute this we shall see hereafter which as I shall proue is vndoubtedly knowne by the promises of Christ to haue the assistance of the holy Ghost This being the point in question my conclusion in this Chapter is that no priuate man pretending neuer so much to be spiritual or specially inspired is to be thought indeede inspired by the holy Ghost when he interpreteth Scripture as Luther and his like did in a sense contrary to the vnanime interpretation of the precedent and then liuing Pastours of the Catholicke Church and consequently it is not to be thought that the priuate spirit
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
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
Next that the Church of Rome is this vniuersall Church Thirdly that all the authority and efficacy of the Church is in the Pope alone And this to be the meaning I shewed in the 16. Digression whereto the Repiar hath wisely holden his tongue For it is the truth I said though he deny it for the odiousnesse and abhomination thereof For the question being What is the rule whereby all men at all times may be resolued in matters of faith he answers that the Church is it aske him againe what and which Church and he will answer The Romane Church in all ages past present and to come For a The WAY pag. 68. I shewed out of the Rhemists Bristo Posseuin and Baron that they admit no Catholicke Church but the Romane onely then aske him finally how a man may know which is the doctrine and teaching faith and beleefe of the Church and he will say againe as I shewed fully that WHAT THE POPE IVDICIALLY DETERMINES AND PROPOVNDS TO THE CHVRCH is it Did I therefore mistake when he said that by the Church he meant onely the Pope or was not himselfe rather vnable to defend the matter and therefore would auoid the very point of the question Did I not alleadge 9. Papists that all say the whole power and faculty of the Church is in the Pope Are not Gregory of Valenzaes b Pag. 24. tom 3. edit Venet. per Zal er an 1598 words plaine In this question by the Church we meant the Romane Bishops In whom resides the full authoritie of the Church when heple ases to determine matters of faith whether he do it with a Councell er without c Albertine a Iesuite sayes it expressely and in Terminis termâ—nantibus I say that besides the first verity there is an infallible rule liuing and indued with reason such as is the Church and this rule liuing and indued with reason is the chiefe Bishop of Rome this is no place to proue but you may see Valence Bell. Medina I say thirdly all the articles of our faith are lastly resolued into this rule tanquamin formalem rationem qua in proponendo Coral p. 251. edit Lugdun an 1610. apud Horat. Cardon Desiniendo arctat nos ad credendum prout ipse definiuerit Coquae exam p. 305. edit Friburg 1610. I say therefore againe that the Repliars Conclusion hath no other meaning then this The infallible rule which we ought obediently to follow is the doctrine and faith of THE POPE ALONE So himselfe writ in his d In the WAY §. 36. Treatise All Catholicke men must necessarily submit their iudgements and opinions either in expounding the Scripture or otherwise to the censure of the Apostolicke seate and God hath bound his Church to heare the chiefe Pastors in all things And all the places of Scripture that are vsed for the authoritie of the Church they applie and expound of the Pope To thee I will giue the keyes on this rock I will build Feede my sheepe c. Let vs see therefore in his next Reply how he will releeue himselfe That is meant by the Church whereto the chiefe promises made to the Church belong wherein the whole power of the Church resides whereby the Church it selfe is directed where the Church determinations begin But the Pope is he whereto the chiefe c. Ergo the Pope is meant by the Church 2 Neuerthelesse not answering these things when I obiected them he notes fiue things for the vnderstanding of his conclusion Which I answer in order To the first I grant our aduersaries distinguish the name of the Church into diuers senses by that distinguishing to gull the world but in this question when they say the teaching of the Church is the Rule they alway meane it of the Pope And the Repliar speakes vntruely that in his conclusion be meanes not the Pope but a company of men For either the company must first be taught by the Pope or else the Pope must be the mouth of that company Besides e Pag. 75. in his Introduction whither he referres himselfe hauing said that the name Church may be taken 4 waies either for the whole company of Christian professors consisting of sheepe and Pastors or for the more principall part to wit the whole company of Pastors either gathered together in a Councell or dispersed through the world or for Christs Vicar the Pope as he hath most ample authority either alone or with a Councell to propound the doctrine of faith or for euery particular Pastor as he is authorized vnder the Pope to feede the flocke committed to him he concludes that when he saies Church proposition is necessary it is not needfull for him to distinguish which of these waies he takes it because we the Protestants deny any such infallible authority to be in the Church at all in which sense soeuer he take it whereby it is plaine that he was ashamed to name in which sense he takes the Church For albeit we deny that which he cals the infallible authoritie of his Church all supreme and vnerring authoritie being in the Scripture alone yet the constant and certaine doctrine of the Church taken in the two first senses we allow to be the rule of faith because it is onely the contents of the Scripture as f The WAY § 13. n. 1. I answered to his conclusion but that he means the Church in the third sense alone appeares by this also that it is a principle among the Iesuits that the Church in the first second and fourth sense may erre and if at any time it do not it is through the guiding of the Pope who is the Church in the third sense Gregory of Valenza g In Tho. 22. tom 3. p. 247. d saies we must not distinguish betweene the Romane Church and the Romane Bishop so as if the iudgement of the Roman Church were infallible but not the iudgement of the Romane Bishop but rather these two are one and the same For THEREFORE THE APOSTOLICKE OR ROMANE CHVRCH IS SAID TO BE INFALLIBLE BECAVSE HE IS OVER IT WHO BY HIMSELFE HATH INFALLIBLE AVTHORITY Canus saies h Loc l. 6. c. 8. sub init when we come to the Apostolicke Sea to enquire the oracles of faith we do not enquire of all the faithfull in the Romane Church nor yet of the same Church assembled in a Councell see here the Church reiected in the first second and fourth senses but the Popes iudgement and sentence is it we exspect This is that I said that by the Church they meane THE POPE then he addes a reason which according to their former principles conuinces this that the firmenesse and certainety of truth must be auouched in Peter and his successors and then after in the Church whose head and foundation Peter is and therefore the more do I reprehend those which as the Repliar here by distinguishing the Apostolicke seate from the Pope thinke to ende the controuersie
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
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
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
should fall on the Inquisitors as the diuell had promised him we felt no fire touch vs but himselfe was soone burnt and consumed to ashes TO THE READER HItherto my aduersarie hath prosecuted the defence of the twelue first Chapters of his Treatise where he giues ouer and proceeds no further Now followes the SECOND PART of his Booke Pag. 251. which he entitles AN APPENDIX TO THIS FIRST PART OF REPLY wherein an issue or triall is made whereby may be seene whether Catholicks or Protestants be the true VISIBLE CHVRCH wherein he first sets downe as he entitles it A CATALOGVE OF THE NAMES OF SOME CATHOLICK PROFESSORS to shew that the Romane Church hath bin as the true Church must be continually visible in all ages since Christ And then after the Catalogue A CHALLENGE TO PROTESTANTS Pag. 265. requiring them to make a like Catalogue of the Professors of their faith in all ages since Christ as he hath it downe a catalogue of his Church His Catalogue is nothing else but a chronologicall Table containing and representing the names of all the POPES and the most DOCTORS and ancient Fathers and some GENERAL COVNCELS and many PROFESSORS as he cals them of the Romane faith which in euery age haue bin in the Church to this day distinguishing the ages by centuries of yeares and vnder euery centurie placing the Popes Fathers Councels and Professors that liued were therein In the first centurie he names our blessed Sauiour Christ with his Apostles and Euangelists and the Churches of Rome Corinth Galatia with the rest of the Apostolick Churches In the second and so forward be sets downe the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church with the Martyrs Councels holy men and nations conuerted that were in euery age successiuely till he come to the yeare 1600. The folly and error of this his Table stands in fiue things first that he assumes these persons Councels and nations to himselfe as professing his Popish faith who were indeed eminent members of the Church in their times but neuer either professed or saw that part of his Romane faith which we haue cast off For how ridiculous is it to say that our Sauiour and his Apostles and the rest that follow for a thousand yeares beleeued and professed as the Iesuites now do or as the Trent Councell hath decreed in the Canons and new Creed thereof The second is that the persons named in the first ages till 800 or a 1000 yeares after Christ not onely professed not the Papacie but beleeued professed that which directly destroyes it They held that which the Church of Rome holds according to the Scriptures and wherein the Papists and we consent but the things in time and by peece-meale added to the truth wherein we differ from them they held not but the contrary Let the Iesuite therefore shew a catalogue of such as in those times professed and beleeued not onely what the Church of Rome beleeues aright but what it holds against vs in the seuerall articles of our difference The third is that diuers Councels especially latterward which resisted the Papacie comming on are omitted as those of Constantinople Frankford Pisa Constance Basil c. and many famous eminent Doctors omitted that professed directly against diuers articles of the now Church of Rome The fourth is that many false and fabulous Saints are named and things set downe out of Legends that can never be proued as the tale of the Iewes of Berytum conuerted by a bleeding Crucifixe and such like The last is that divers Popes for many yeares together namely in the ninth age succeeded not but entred violently and disorderly and very many especially in the latter ages are excepted against vpon diuers points purposely let downe in * Digr 53. my former writing His Catalogue therefore is to no purpose as shall fully appeare in that which follower for euen we our selues lay claime to so much of it as is true and if he will giue vs leaue to adde the names of some others that liued after the 800 yeares we will exhibite this very Catalogue our selues and no other saue that the Legend Saints and the Friars and apostaticall Popes and Iesuites with such traitors as Allen was we need not Next after the Catalogue ensues the CHALLENGE TO PROTESTANTS that they shew the like Catalogue But this is idle For we shew the same if he will permit vs to supply some wants in the latter ages professing the Church of Rome it selfe in all ages to haue bin the visible Church of God as I haue shewed in * From ch 36. forward that which goes before though the Papacie therein were not the Church After his challenge containing onely one leafe the whole matter whereof is the same that I haue answered in the sixe last chapters he propounds certaine obiections which he thought might be made against his Catalogue thereby to give colour to the succession of his Poperie The which obiections with his answers to them I will set downe and handle as I haue done the rest of his Reply and so proceed CHAP. XLII An obiection against the Repliers 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 A. D. My aduersaries will obiect Pag. 267. that all there which I set downe in my Catalogue especially those of the Primitiue age were not professors of our religion in regard as they will say there be diuers points held by vs now adayes whereof no mention is made in the writings of the Fathers of that age To this I answer first retorting more strongly the argument against Protestants who falsly and absurdly challenge as M. Iewell did the Fathers of the first sixe hundred yeares or as M. White doth the whole Christian Church of the first eight hundred yeares to be Protestants And I say that Protestants do hold diuers points now adayes whereof either no mention is made in the writings of the Fathers of those ages or if any mention be made it is expresly contrary to Protestants and for vs and this sometimes with vnanime consent whereas Protestants are neuer able to shew for themselues and against vs in any point such an vnanime consent of those Fathers BEfore he retort the obiection or be too busie with B. Iewels 600 yeares and M. Whites 800 I would haue him to be better aduised what they obiect For touching the Fathers of those times three things will be granted him First that diuers maine articles of the now Romish faith which we reiect are mentioned most amply and frequently in their writings For example the Popes PRIMACIE and being vniuersall Bishop aboue all other Bishops is mentioned by Gregorie himselfe a Pope in the first age and a Per elationem pompatici sermonis Christâ— sibi studet membra subiugare lib. 4. ep 36. Quis rogo in hoc tam peruerso vocabulo
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
writings confesses c Grets defens Bellar. de verb. Dei l. 2. c. 16. pag. 850. c. pag 918. A. If you speake of the whole Chapter Bellarmine acknowledges the Apostle to speake not onely of spirituall songs and preaching and exhortations but of the reading the Scripture likewise and publicke Seruice Hence it followes that the Apostle condemnes the reading of the Scripture or prayer and Church-seruice in a language not vnderstood as well as he doth preaching collations and hymnes for vers 26. he requires all things that he speakes of be done to edifying and vers 6. he sayes If I come vnto you speaking with tongues that is in a language you vnderstand not what shall I profit you And vers 9. Except ye vtter words that can be vnderstood you shall speake in the aire And vers 11. If I know not the meaning of the voice he that speakes shall be a Barbarian vnto me And vers 14. For if I pray in an vnknowne tongue my vnderstanding is vnfruitfull And vers 16. How shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say AMEN at thy giuing of thanks when he vnderstands not what thou sayst Thou giuest thankes well but the other is not edified Hence I thus reason The Apostle condemnes euery thing in the Church whatsoeuer it be that edifies not But prayer reading the Scripture and Seruice in the Church as well as preaching and spirituall songs in a language that the people present vnderstand not edifie not Ergo he condemnes prayer reading the Scripture and Seruice in the Church in a language that the people present vnderstand not as well as preaching and spirituall songs The first proposition is in vers 12.19.26 the second in vers 6.14.16.17 the conclusion therefore is the Apostles And indeed if our aduersaries could haue shewed that the prayers mentioned ver 15 had bin such spirituall songs or preaching onely as they expound and then that the Apostle in all his discourse had onely spoke of such songs and preaching and not of prayer reading the Scripture or Seruice in the Church also they had had some colour for themselues though not enough to auoid our argument but when he speaks of these things also by their owne confession and the whole intent of his doctrine is that ALL THE THINGS HE SPEAKES OF be done with edification it is desperate peruersnesse to say the text proues nothing against them 3 In the second place therefore when Bellarmine cannot auoide it but it is manifest the Apostle at least in some part of his discourse speakes of singing and prayers and reading of the Scripture which belong to Church-seruice he fals to answering and layes downe foure answers whereof he casts off three and betakes himselfe to the fourth The first is that by singing and praying mentioned verse 19. where the Apostle sayes I will pray and sing with the spirit and I will pray and sing with vnderstanding also else how shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say AMEN when he vnderstands not what thou sayst is meant preaching and exhorting not praying a hard exposition when the common notion of the words is against it and the Apostle manifestly distinguishes the one from the other and men vse not to say Amen to preaching yet most vntruly and dishonestly he fathers it on Basil Theodoret and Sedulius a For Basil reg contract q 278. Theodor 1. Cor. 14. v. Quid ergo est expound the place of prayer as well as of exhortation Sedulius onely expounds it of exhortation alone being deceiued through ignorance of the Greeke word who neither all of them expound it so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil qu. cont q. 178. nor allow prayer in an vnknowne tongue His second exposition is that the Apostle requires not all the people to vnderstand what is prayed and sung but onely that he vnderstand who supplies the roome of the people in answering meaning the Parish clark b Quidam ex Catholicis ita hunc locum intellexerunt Grets p 971. B. But Seâ—ulius sayes Jdiotae id est nuper baptizati qui nullam praeter propriam intelligit linguam p. 237. Theodoret says Qui in laicorum ordine constitutus est This answer is made by some Papists and went for good till necessitie draue the Iesuites to find a better For it was too grosse to bring the pedegree of a Parish clarke vp to the Church of Corinth in S. Pauls dayes His third is that by him that occupies the roome of the vnlearned is meant he that answers for the people belike some that vnderstands the tongue but not a Parish clarke by office and takes vpon him to answer for the rest that vnderstand it not These three answers he casts off and deuises a fourth whereto the Replier in this place referres me 4 Fourthly therefore c §. Vera igitur he sayes The Apostle in this place speakes neither of diuine Seruice nor of the publicke reading of the Scriptures in the Church but of certaine spirituall songs which the Christians composed for the praising of God and giuing him thankes and for their owne and others comfort and edification This answer allowes the Apostle to condemne the vse of such hymnes and canticles in an vnknowne tongue and the like vse of preaching and collations but it denies the vse of prayer and Seruice and the rest of the publicke Liturgie in an vnknowne tongue to be condemned because the Apostle in these words of the 15 and 16 verses speakes nothing concerning them d Antid Apostolic in 1. Cor. 24. v. 16.17 D. Stapleton and e On 1. Cor 14. §. It is as certain the Rhemists also affirme it to be certaine that he meanes not nor writes any word in this place of the Churches publicke Seruice Prayers or ministration of the holy Sacrament but onely of a certaine exercise of mutuall conference wherein one did open to another and to the assembly miraculous gifts and graces of the holy Ghost and such Canticles Psalmes secret mysteries sorts of languages and other reuelations as it pleased God to giue to certaine both men and women This answer containes two parts an affirmatiue and a negatiue The affirmatiue is that he meanes such spirituall songs and exercises of conference I will not sticke with the Iesuite for the vse of such exercises in the Church at that time it being agreed of all hands that there was such a custome and the Apostles owne words report it in the 26 v. When you come together euery one of you hath a Psalme hath a doctrine hath a tongue hath a reuelation hath an interpretation But that he so meanes such hymnes and such extraordinarie exercises alone that he meanes not praier also I vtterly denie For that which he brings out of Eusebius Dionysius and Tertullian will serue to proue that the custome of those times was to sing in the congregation but it proues not that S. Paul here speakes of
those songs nor determines what kinde of songs they were whether such as they vttered by miracle or ordinarie Psalms ordinarily vsed in all assemblies without miracle much lesse doth it proue that the custome was so to sing that there was no praier vsed besides whereas the Text is plaine I will sing and I will pray distinguishing two seuerall actions singing and praying And because Gretser answers that singing is praying therefore the saying Amen is mentioned which was not so properly vsed when they sang but when they prayed without singing For who vsed to say AMEN at a Psalme Besides he wills them to vnderstand what they do that vnderstanding they may be able to say AMEN now that which he would haue vnderstood is not the songs onely but the praiers also First because the reason why songs should be vnderstood holds in praiers also Secondly because Bellarmine confesses that in some part of this Chapter the Apostle speakes of praier and Church Seruice But whatsoeuer he speakes of he requires to be vnderstood for the reason why he speakes of all that he mentions is because the Corinthians vsed them when the people vnderstood not which abuse he reproues admonishing them to ioine vnderstanding with their gifts Their songs therefore their reading Scripture their collations their praiers and all must be vnderstood Therefore in this place of the v. 15.16 not spirituall songs alone are meant but the Church praiers and Seruice also because in other places it is meant If Bellarmine replie that S. Paul speakes in other parts of the Chapter of praier and Church Seruice but no where in the Chapter that they should be vnderstood who sees not the falsehood when the reason that drew him on to speake of them was the abuse that they were not vnderstood which abuse he corrects by willing them to vse them that they may be vnderstood a Antidot apost in 1. Co p. 723. 727. inde D. Stapleton therefore answers that the Apostle in this place speakes of prayer but not such praier as we ordinarily vse in our Church but such as they vsed by miracle and the gift of tongues and admits that he rebukes this but not that This is follie for giue a reason why he rebukes this It was because the people vnderstood them not The same reason holds in that For the people vnderstand not If the Apostle would take this reason to condemne the vse of a miraculous gift when vnderstanding went not with it of necessitie he must also condemne ordinarie praiers when they offend against the same reason b P. 724. D. Stapleton answers that praying by gift was ordained for the profit of others therefore it was meet it should be vnderstood but the Church Seruice he saith is not to teach the people but to inuocate God for the people which may sufficiently be done when they vnderstand it not I replie that the praiers in the Church Seruice are not onely to inuocate God for the people but for the people to inuocate God for themselues as appeares first because God hath appointed not onely the Priest to pray for them but with them and themselues to ioine with him in the praiers and with one mind and heart to vtter with him that which he pronounces which cannot be when they vnderstand not what he saies Againe the Church praiers are conceiued and pronounced not onely in the name of the Priest for the people but also in the name of the people for themselues Heare thy people that calls vpon thee ô Lord open our lips and our mouth shall set foorth thy praise and such like therefore there is the same reason why the people should vnderstand them that there is why the Priest should do it Thirdly its false that the Church praiers are not to teach the people For their end is not onely to intreate God a Ro. 8.26 but to teach how to do it with what affection with what contrition with what faith with what vnderstanding and to forme in the minde the signes of the things framed that their being may shine in the vnderstanding Which is not done when the praier is conceiued in a language they know not They may say AMEN with a kind of brutish deuotion * Carent tamen eo fructu quem perciperent si orationes eas quas ore proferunt etiam intelligerent nam speciatim intenderent animum mentem in Deum ab eo impetrarent speciatim ea quae ore petunt magis aedificarentur ex sensu suo earum orationum quas ore proferunt Carent ergo hoc fructu Contaren Christ Instruct interr vlt. but these sighs and gronings which ought to accompanie all praier they feele not the mind meditates not the sense of the words that are vttered nor contemplates nor penetrates the things that are necessarie in all praier by reason of which defect Card. Caietan b In 1. Cor. 14. §. Sed alter non aedificatur p. 158. sayes that by the doctrine of Paule It is much better for the edification of the Church that the publicke praiers in the hearing of the people be said in a common language then in Latine 5 Gretser the Iesuite to this point c Def. Bell. de verb. Dei l. 2. c. 16. saies that the Church praiers in Latine profite two waies First in that the Priest praies for the people Secondly in that they stir vp deuotion and affection in the people though they vnderstand them not and he seemes to affirme that other profit then this is not needfull to be sought in praier But this is false for neither do they stir vp the deuotion mentioned which being an act of the will cannot be formally exercised without knowledge in the vnderstanding going before nor is such deuotion as the profite that God hath ordained praier for taking this profite in the true latitude thereof For the end and vse of praier is not onely to kindle some kinde of deuotion but to bewaile and vtter our wants to him we praie to vnfold our sinnes with particular feeling to breed in our hearts remorse compunction repentance by opening our miserable state To informe our vnderstanding by frequent meditations To increase our faith c. in which regard we are required to be attentiue and diligent in the time of praier The Emperor Iustinians law was d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Varin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nouell Justin pag. 181. that all B B. and Priests should celebrate the Seruice and praiers vsed in Baptisme not with a low but a loud voice which the people might heare whereby their minds might the better be stirred vp to vtter the praises of God Therefore diligent attention and eleuation of the minde being to bee brought by all that come to Church it is manifestly intended that they shall vnderstand what is said The Repliar I presume e Cum enim aliquis venit
audire sacrum poste◠raptus alijs cogitationibus parum aut nihil aduertit dicitur quidem praeceptum missam audiendi implere nec tenetur audire aliam dummodo non sit affectata diuagatio Tol. sum l. c. 6. c. 6. vide Nauarr man c. 21. n. 8. de orat p. 431. concl 16. n. 2. if he hold him to the doctrine of his owne side will require no such attention but that must not greatly mooue vs when f Quae autem segnitia est alienari capi ineptis cogitationibus profanis cum dominū deprecaris quasi aliud sit quod magis debeas cogitare quam quod cum Deo loqueris◠Cypr. de orat Dom. sub fi◠it were the most barbarous thing in the world for the people in time of Gods Seruice not to ioine heart and tongue and countenance and all with the Minister Secondly that the Priests praying for the people is that profite which is sufficient for the people in publike praiers or any profit at all when it is in an vnknowne language is likewise false as I haue said And there can no reason be assigned why then S. Paule should condemne the praiers vsed in the Church of Corinth in a strange tongue when they also were conceiued for the people as well as ours 6 The negatiue part of Bellarmines answer is that the Apostle speakes not of Diuine Seruice nor the publicke reading of the Scripture I grant he speakes not of such Diuine Seruice as is now vsed because I suppose there was either no set forme of Seruice at all the Church being yet vngrowne and in persecution or no such forme as now is vsed But of that forme that was then vsed he speakes that is to say whatsoeuer forme of Seruice and manner of praiers was vsed in the congregation he commands euen in those words be done in a knowne language The which if the Repliar denie I must put him in mind of that I haue said before out of Gretser that in this Chapter he speakes of reading the Scripture and the publicke Seruice But it is certaine that whersoeuer he speakes of it he requires they be done to edification and expounds the edification by vnderstanding the language wherein they are done in the same manner that here he speakes of singing and praying For therefore he mentions them wheresoeuer it be because they were abused and that abuse was the vsing them in an vnknowne tongue and this abuse he condemnes wishing them to speake with edification which is al one whether he speake of them in this place or in another But let vs heare how Bellarmine proues the Apostle not to speake of diuine seruice or publike reading the Scripture in this place it is proued saith he by this that the Scriptures were read and the seruice done in Greeke because it was a Greeke Church But the Apostle speakes of something that was done not in the Greeke but in some other vnknowne tongue This auoids not our argument for he cannot proue they had any set forme of liturgy at all g Mos Apostolorum fuit vt ad ipsam solummodo orationem dominicam oblationis hostiam consecratent Greg. l. 7. ep 64. see Amulat Fortun. l. 3. Pref. Cusan ep 7. All writers consenting that in those daies they vsed to consecrate the Sacrament by saying the Lords prayer it is as likely they would haue had a set forme for the Sacrament as for any other part of the seruice But whether they had a set forme or no we grant they had a forme of seruice at least praier and reading and Sacraments formed at the choise and liberty of the Pastors But how doth the Iesuite proue that de facto it was done in the Greeke that all vnderstood we graunt de iure it ought but this is that we say that when these men indued with the gifts of tongues came into the congregation they would do it in strange tongues and not in Greeke which is part of the abuse that the Apostle speakes against requiring that if such would omit the ordinary common language and do the Church seruice such as it was in a strange language as the spirituall songs mentioned were done then let him speake and another interpret Besides the singing mentioned cannot be shewed to haue bene other then a part of the Church seruice For whatsoeuer shew Bellarmine make with the names of Eusebius Dionysius and Tertullian yet as I haue said h Yea Tertull. in the place cited apol c. 39 mentions nothing else but the Hymnes which Christians sang altogether in their assēblies instituted by the Apostles whereof we reade so much in antiquitie that the Christians in their meetings vsed to sing Psalmes together Ephes 5.19 Col. 316 Epiph. l 3 sub fin Plin l. 10. ep 2. Nicep l 3 c. 17. Euseb hist l. 3 c. 33. Tert apol c. 2. Aug. conf l. 9. c. 6. 7. Jgnat Ep ad Rom. sub init Basil ep 63. Dionys de diuin nom c. 3. 4. pag. 281. mentions nothing but singing of all together and in another place eccl Hier. c. 3. reports the custome of singing Psalmes by all the cleargy mē together at the Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 132. the which to haue bene such spirituall songs as the Iesuite here conceites that were no part of the Church seruice he can neuer proue but the place looked into will shew the contrary that they were part of such Church seruice as they vsed they do not distinguish the singing they speake of frō that which belongs to the liturgie or was of the same order and albeit it were granted that such as the Apostle mētions sang by miracle as they praied and prophecied by miracle yet why might not this singing praying and reading be part of the Church seruice that at such times was vsed Thirdly let it be granted that he speakes not of the seruice but onely of that which was done extraordinarily by miracle then haue our aduersaries to shew how the Apostles argument against preaching and singing in a strange tongue holds not likewise against Church seruice in a strange tongue Bellarmine and Gretser say the principall end of those spirituall and miraculous songs was the instruction and consolation of the people and therefore it was meete they should vnderstand them but the principall end of Church seruice being to worship God and the Priest hauing in charge to teach the people what they vnderstand not it is not needfull the said seruice should be in a knowne tongue But this latter that the Priest had in charge to teach the people what they vnderstood not is vntrue for the Apostle will haue both Priest and people ioyned together Thou verily giuest thankes well but thy brother is not edified Neither would I require any better argument for my assertion then this For if the end of Church seruice be Gods worship therefore the people must vnderstand it that they may worshippe God For this
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
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
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
ours are prohibited in popish countreys that if any ignorant or malicious Minister would falsely report what the Church of Rome holds yet they may heare the aduersaries tell their owne tales hauing partly through their policie partly through the conniuencie of the Superiour that libertie to publish their writings that our selues haue not much more Next the Ministers of England both in their preaching writing and conference report the doctrine of Papists as truly as it is deliuered in their owne bookes and obserued out of their conuersation but many of them are so foule and vile that they may not endure the reporting and therefore when we mention them they denie them and are ashamed of them as many are of their bastards an euident example whereof the Iesuite giues in this place for the points here mentioned are truly related and are neither shamelesse nor slanderous not yet vntruths but the sincere and faithfull report of that execrable doctrine that Papists and none but Papists haue taught and practised and because the Iesuite is somewhat peremptorie in denying this I must put him in minde that I shewed in THE WAY euery one of these points out of their bookes and for the clearer discharge of my selfe and all others that obiect these things to them I will yet againe shew them one by one 6 First they hold the Popes Lordship ouer the Scripture Cardinall Cusanus b Ep. 2. writes 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 sence of the Scripture is also changed c Ep. 3. Againe When the Church changeth her iudgement God also changeth his And d Ep. 7. no maruell seeing the letter of the Scripture is not of the essence of the Church if the practise of the Church at one time interprete the Scripture of this fashion and another time on that The Councell of Trent hath anathematized him that shall denie this his Lordship a Sess 24. can 3 If anie man say that onely those degrees of consanguinitie and affinitie which are expressed in Leuiticus can hinder mariage to be contracted and dissolue that which is contracted and that his Lordship the Church cannot dispense in many of them or ordaine more degrees to hinder and dissolue let him be anathema D. Stapleton b Princip fid pag. 351. Relect pag. 514. affirmes that the Church his Lordship may adde other bookes to the Canon of the Scripture which yet belong not thereunto Cardinall Hosius c De autor sac Script lib. 3. pag. 169. defendeth that the Scriptures were of no more authoritie then Aesops Fables but that the Church and Popes approoued it Augustinus Anconitanus d Qu. 60. art ◠sayes that his Lordshippe may dispence in the Law of Moses Delgado e De auth scrip pag. 47 48. writes that the assertions of the Pope in matters of Faith reach as farre as the teaching of the Apostles or the holy Scripture and he sayes There are who allow them to appertaine to the diuine Scripture f Trac de iurisd pag. 64. part 1. Idem Capistrā de auth Papae concil p. 95. D. Marta sayes The Pope in his administration is greater then Paul and may dispense against him in things not concerning the articles of faith Secondly they hold his Lordship ouer the Fathers D. Marta sayes g De iurisdict par 4. pag. 273. The common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when another contrarie opinion fauours the power of the keyes or a pious cause Thirdly touching Councels h Azor. instit tom 2. pag. 574. Bellar. de conc l. 2. c. 13. 17. Antonin sum mor. par 2. tit 3. c. 11. §. 10. Turrecr sum de eccl l. 3 c. 63. concl 1. l. 2. c. 104. Caiet tract de autho Pap. concil c. 6. 7. 10. 11. apol eius tract par 2. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. Capist p. 104. b. Allan de potest dup n. 74. the Iesuites hold that the Popes iudgement is to be preferred before a whole Councell Dominicus Iacobatius a Cardinall i Tract de concil l. 6. art 2. pag 337. B. Romae per Ant. Blad an 1538. in fol. sayes that in causes of faith if the Pope haue the iudgement of his Cardinals concurring with him then without doubt albeit the doubt arising were most difficult yet the Popes opinion were to be preferred before a generall Councell And that no man thinke the Cardinals haue power to ouer-rule or sway him so that he should not Lord it ouer them also Palaeotus himselfe a Cardinall and practised in the Consistorie many yeares k De consist part 5. q. 4. pag. 295. iude tels vs that when the Pope hath once determined a thing and is come to the end of his consultations the Cardinals must be so farre from dissenting that as obedient sonnes they must giue example to others of obedience yea subscribe to his Bull though it be against their conscience For the Popes authoritie depends not on the counsell giuen by Cardinals but rests on his owne will who of diuers opinions propounded to him may choose that which serueth rightest to himselfe Fourthly touching Scriptures Fathers Councels Church and all the world together Suarez the Iesuite l Tō 1. disp 44. sect 1. p. 677. B. sayes I grant therefore the Popes determination is the truth and were it contrarie to the sayings of all the Saints yet were it to be preferrrd afore them Nay if an Angell from heauen were opposed against him the Popes determination were to be preferred Fiftly they maintaine him to be aboue the Church as appeares by that hath bene said of his eminencie aboue and against Councels Palaeotus m De consist par 1. q. 2. p. 61. sayes that as a vniuersall agent he contains vnder his authoritie all Ecclesiasticall powers as particular agents and without exception he alone may forgive all mens sinnes and exercise iurisdidiction over all Sixtly he Lords it over Kings Iacobatius n Tract de Concil in fin vlt. c pag. 778. sayes The Emperor holds his Empire of the Church of Rome and may be called the Popes Vicar or Officiall Capistranus o De Authors Pap. concil pag 94. that to him as to Christ let euery knee be bowed and Emperors the greatest Princes submit their heads Bozius p De temporal Monarch pag. 52. hath written a booke to defend that the supreme temporall iurisdiction belongs to the Pope so that he is vniuersall Monarch of all the world D. Marta q Part. 1. pag. 45. de iurisdict sayes The Pope hath the same power that Christ had to rule ouer all nations and kingdomes Seuenthly that to Pay no debts to such as they count heretickes is the doctrine of our aduersaries r The way pag. 317. I shewed in the expresse words of
Hallens Psalt Bonauent and yet to the Turkes they will deny this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ricold cont sect Mahum p. 122. 10. that manner that I set downe and the doctrine published touching her merits and mediation out of Dodechin Bozius Galatine and others whereby she is equalled with Christ and the monstrous impieties about friar Francis out of Bencius and Tursellin Iesuites the which stuffe and infinite other of the like nature is it we say giues example to the vulgar and which we thinke so odious that the Iesuite durst neither set it downe nor mention it in his booke least the world should see and abhorre it but onely occupying himselfe in defending the lawfulnesse of praying to the Virgin Mary as if I had obiected no more but that so he leaues in a manner euery thing vnanswered and touches not those fouler imputations that lie against him Neuertheles come we to that he sayes First he denies not but it were a grieuous accusation if it were true that in the Church of Rome the Saints are serued with the same seruice they giue to Christ the B. virgin Mary made an intercessour for sinne as if Christ were not the sole Mediatour and therefore he answers that in confuting M. Wottons vntruths he hath shewed that the making of Saints our intercessours hinders not Christ to be sole Mediatour a Pag. 14. of his Reply Because we do not hold Saints to be mediators of redemption but of intercession onely Meaning the ordinary distinction that is b Alexan. part 4. q. 92. in 1. art 4. Bellar. de Sancto beatit p. 718. 732. Grego à Valent tom 3 p. 1273. E. Rhem. on 1. Tim. 2.5 among them that Christ onely by nature being God and man and by office and merits reconciling God to man and needing no other to procure him grace with his Father is the first author of all the good we receiue from God but so that the Saints neuertheles pray for vs and as persons nearer God and more familiar with him then we commend our cause to him and so are mediators of intercession Whereto I reply two things First that more then this is ascribed to Saints in the formes that I alledge First God is inuocated by their merits and for them desired to giue eternall life yea the Mas booke hath a prayer c Breular Sarisbu fest S. Tho. Cantuar. that God by the blood of Tho. Becket would saue vs and bring vs to heauen When all effusion of blood and merit of worke whereby eternall life is obtained belongs to Redemption as well as to intercession and to no intercession but onely to Christs Next the holy Virgin is called our Life our Hope our Aduocate the mother of Grace our Sauiour our Redeemer Viega d Comment in apocal 12. pag. 584. ex Arnold Carnot sayes she is set aboue euery creature that whosoeuer bowes the knee to Christ should make supplication to his Mother also And I am of mind saith he alledging the words of another that the glory of the Sonne is not so much common with the glory of the Mother as it is the same and God hath in a sort giuen his mercy to his Mother and Spouse that reignes and so the B. Virgin hath the kingdome of God diuided betweene God and her These words import more then intercession Thirdly they say of her e These speeches are alledged in the praeface of the way that with her Sonne she disposes of rights With her Sonne she redeemed the world Her death was for the redemption of the world For her loue God made the world She is aboue Christ to command They are saued by her that cannot by Christ Francis the Friar is made equall to Christ All this is shewed at large in their words whereto the Iesuite replies nothing and it is * Macte Hyacinthe animo quicquid petiueris vnquam Me tribuente feres caelica virgo canit These verses are written in a medall of that sort that are drawne in papers and are common among Recusāts where Hyacinthus a Saint of Poland is portraied praying on his knees to the Virgin Mary and receiuing the answer from her that is contained in these two verses more then can be contained in simple intercession abstracting from redemption 2 If our aduersaries to these things would reply that they are the foolish deuotion of priuate persons which they maintaine not it were an end and we would charge them no longer herewith but they neither can nor will They cannot for the obiections are the practise of the whole Church set foorth in their publike Seruice bookes and open writings of the Iesuites and our ancestors in former times were trained vp in this deuotion Neither will they do it For first this Iesuite smoothes it vp and falls a distinguishing to defend it in generall which in particular for shame he durst not looke in the face Next all the bookes of their Church are full of these things f Printed at Venice Paris and Lipsia and now lately at Paris by Nicol. du Fosse ad insigne vasis aurei See Chemnit exam p. 595. inde Tilen syn tagm tom 2. p. 565. n. 24. Cassand cōsult pag. 156. and among other practises they haue transformed the whole Psalter of Dauid to the inuocation of Mary where euery thing that Dauid attributes to God is ascribed to her by putting his name out and hers in the roome In the end whereof all the other ordinary hymnes and readings of the Church are turned to her likewise And this booke was publikely vsed throughout the Church of Rome and beare this inscription The Psalter of the B. Virgin compiled by the Seraphicall Doctor S. Bonau the B. of Alba and Cardinall Priest of the Church of Rome 3 Secondly I answer that the mediation of intercession whereby our prayers are offered vp to God belongs to Christ alone And therefore the Church of Rome calling vpon Saints to pray for them and to commend their praiers to God if it did no more robs Iesus Christ of his office The antecedent that it belongs to Christ alone to make intercession offer our prayers to God is prooued for the Scripture sayes g Heb. 7.24 13.15 Let vs BY HIM offer the Sacrifice of praise ALWAIES to God Who hath an euerlasting Priesthood and therefore is able perfitly to saue them that come to God by him seeing he euer liues to make intercession for them h 1. Ioh. 2.1 If any man sin we haue an Aduocate with the Father Iesus Christ the iust and he is the propitiation for our sinnes in which words we see that all authority and power of intercession is immediately attributed to him that is the High Prist of the Church and that intercession is founded vpon the Priesthood and those merites that he cannot be intercessour to mediate betweene God and vs in any sort that is not such a priest Againe touching the offering
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
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
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
of all this vehemencie against the authoritie of the Scripture it selfe is but vnder the name of Church-authoritie to make roome for their Antichristian tyrannie and by outfacing vs from that which we sensibly feele wrought in our conscience by the holy Ghost to abandon our selues ouer to the most hereticall and damnable authoritie of whatsoeuer the Pope and his creatures shall thrust vpon vs. 7 But that which my aduersarie infers vpon my speech that hence because we say the children of God and particular men are assured of the Scriptures and sense thereof by the Spirit of God for I said no more nor any way denie the iust authoritie of the true Church proceeds our audacious and impudent neglect of the authoritie of ancient Fathers generall Councels and whatsoeuer stands against vs I can scarce paste ouer with any reasonable patience for the Fathers and Councels in things that they held certainly and determinately with consent a THE WAY §. 44 p. 3. ibi D gr 47. I purposely shewed we allow and follow and in euery question will stand to but when our aduersaries themselues cannot denie that there is not onely the diuine truth but a heauenly light also whereby to see iâ— in the Scriptures themselues that is not put into them by any testimonie of the Church whereby a simple man may be able to discerne an error in any Father or Councell what fault is it in vs by this light to iudge of Fathers and Councels Occham b Dial. pag. 18â— sayes Catholicke men may learne many truths not knowne before by the sacred Scriptures although the Pope and Cardinals haue not formerly attempted to declare them And whereas possible some may say that the simple people are to beleeue nothing but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer to be beleeued expresly nor ought to search the mysteries of the Scriptures but be content with common things not presuming of their owne vnderstanding to beleeue any thing expresly but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer BVT HE THAT SHOVLD SAY THVS WERE AN INVENTER OF NEW ERRORS for though the simple people be not ordinarily bound to beleeue expresly any thing but that which by the Cleargie is already declared to be beleeued expresly yet these simple people BY READING THE SCRIPTVRES and THE SHARPNESSE OF THEIR REASON which simple people do not altogether want may finde something EVIDENTLY to follow of the diuine Scriptures which the Pope and Cardinals haue not declared in which case they may and must expresly beleeue it and are not bound to enquire of the Pope and Cardinals because they are bound to preferre the Scripture before them And the reason of this is for THE POPE AND CARDINALS ARE NOT THE RVLE OF OVR FAITH The Diuines of Venice in their late writing against the present Pope lay downe these conclusions c Tract de in terdict prop. 8. The law of God is the rule of the Popes power d Prop. 12. Christian men may not obey the Popes command vnlesse they first examine it and he that inconsiderately obeyes before such examination sinnes e Prop. 13. It excuses not a Christian man though the Pope constantly affirme his commandement to be iust but it behoues him to examine it and to direct himselfe according to the rule giuen aboue Gerson f Part. 2. recom licent pag. 832. sayes The spirit of a iust man now and then giues warning of the truth better then seuen watch-men set in a high place to watch Do not g Quis enim sant capitis diceret sententiam amplectendam solius Papae quae potest errori subesse postponendam sententiam Ecclesiae Anton. de Rosell monarch pag 67. Dico quod postqâ—am Concilium est congregatum Papae authoritas in teruenit authoritas Papae postea confundi tur cum Concilio remanet forma Concilij authoritas Papae congregantis finitur facta congregatione Iacobat de Conc. l. 10. art 6. pag. 614. D. Cum agitur de fide Synodus est maior quà m Papa Zabarell de schism pag. 701. A. The same is directly holden by Almain de author eccles cap. 7. pag. 725. F. Occham compend erro cap. vlt. sub fin And the Diuines of France at this day Lib. de eccl polit Pet. de Alliaco de eccles author part 3 cap. 2. pag. 924. Mariana sayes Multi viri prudentes graues eruditione maxima Pontifices Romanos Ecclesiae vniuersae subiecerunt de Reg. l. 1. cap. 8. pag. 74. Note the speech of Almain Determinatis per summum Pontificem non est necessario credendum quamuis non sit oppositum publicè dogmatisandum nisi manifestum sit ea sacris literis c. Quest in Vesperg pag. 133. the strongest champions the Church of Rome hath limit the Popes authoritie making it subiect to the Church and allowing men to examine it afore they obey it which shewes vnanswerably that in the Scripture it selfe for that also is granted at the last to be the the rule whereby to trie him is a light which may be seene by a priuate person against the Popes commandement and vnlesse they assume an vnlimited authoritie and such as is subiect to no triall to their Church and Pope which the violentest aduersary we haue dare not do they shall though they be wrangled till dooms day be enforced to grant the same authoritie and light in the Scripture that we affirme 8 Againe before my aduersary had charged vs with audacious and impudent neglect of Fathers and Councels he should haue answered the 47 Digression of my booke where I haue related those practises of Papists in contemning reiecting eluding purging abusing both Fathers and Councels that if they had any sparke of grace in them they would be ashamed to charge others with that impudency and audaciousnesse which none are guilty of so much as themselues I will rehearse nothing of that which there I writ but adde something to it whereby the Reader shall iudge who they be that most impudently and audaciously neglect antiquity D. Marta in a booke dedicated to the present Pope h D. Marta de iurisdict part 4. pag. 273. sayes the common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when the other opinion contrary to them fauours the power of the Keyes or the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or a pious cause This man speakes plaine that one may vnderstand him the Fathers all of them must crouch to the Keyes and pious cause of the Pope which Keyes and cause when they come to scanning will prooue as partiall as any priuate spirit in the world And touching the interpretation of the Scripture Baron i An. 34. n. 213 sayes the Bishops all of them who succeeded in the roome of the Apostles attained not the sence and vnderstanding of the Scriptures for the Catholicke Church now turned Protestant and priuate doth not alway and in all things follow them How then I am no lesse delighted k
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
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
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
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
vbi sup Fourthly the Feast of the Conception which imports she was without sinne is celebrated 5 Vasq vbi sup In which regard sayes Vasquez it would seeme verie strange to me if the Church should euer define she was conceiued in sinne when by her authoritie she hath alreadie commaunded the Feast of the Conception in token she was not conceiued in sinne and the common consent of Catholicks both vulgar and Diuines contending for the immaculate conception without sinne Suarez q Vbi sup prop. 4. sayes Sixtus Quartus did much fauour it whose decree the Councell of Trent approues and the whole Church doth vehemently leane to it that now the contrarie can haue either none at all or no firme or euident foundation But the truth is it is fully defined in the Councell of Basill Hitherto r Sess 36. sayes the Councell a difficult question hath bene made touching the Conception of the glorious Virgin We hauing diligently seene and examined the reasons define and declare that the doctrine which teaches her neuer to haue bene actually subiect to sinne but alwayes free from it and from all actuall sinne to be consonant to the religion OF THE CHVRCH AND CATHOLICKE DOCTRINE and that it shall be lawfull for no man hereafter to teach the contrarie moreouer we renew the ordinance made for the celebrating of this holy conception on the 6. of the Ides of December Whereby we see how false it is that it is not held as a point of faith For building themselues vpon this decree and vpon Å¿ Cum Praeexcelsa Graue nimis in extrau comm another of Sixtus Quartus whereto the t Sess 5. §. Declarat tamen Councell of Trent manifestly giues way by confirming the conceit u Almain Clictouae Titlem reported by Vasq Suar. vbi sup the forwarder sort of our aduersaries affirme it resolutely to be a point of faith defined by the Church But whether it be true or no that the faith of their Church is nothing but what this froward generation will confesse to be defined by the Pope by this it is plaine that touching this point the Pastors and Doctors and people of the Romane church differ from antiquitie Vasquez w Communis consensus Catholicorum non solùm imperiti vulgi sed etiam Doctorum Theolâ—gorum pro immaculata conceptione pugnat Vasq vbi sup sayes expresly Not onely that vnskilfull vulgar but the Doctors and Diuines and all Catholickes with one consent fight for the immaculate conception What immodestie is it now to denie that to be the Churches faith which is thus holden and to say it is not diligently digested that is thus concocted in the conceits not onely of the vulgar but of the Doctors and Diuines and all Catholickes with one consent in the Church of Rome CHAP. L. 1. Touching Seruice and Prayer in an vnknowne language 2. The Text of 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine 7. The ancient Church vsed prayer in a knowne language A. D. Secondly touching Latin Seruice although M. White say as it is easie to say that all antiquitie is against vs in this point Pag. 279. White p. 343. yet he will neuer be able to proue solidely that the ancient Church did condemne this our practise The words of the Apostle which he alledgeth proue nothing to the purpose as is shewed by Bellarmine and as for other authors which he citeth they do not disallow this this our practise Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Del. c 16. or account it vnlawfull whereas both by reason and authoritie our authors shew it to be both lawfull and laudable See Bellarmine lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 15. 1 THe vse of the Church of Rome to haue the publicke Seruice and Prayers and ministration of Sacraments in an vnknowne tongue is well enough knowne This I affirmed to be against antiquitie and a point wherein they haue altered the faith of the ancient Church And first I alledged the words of Saint Paul then the testimonie and confession of other Ecclesiasticall writers to all which he answers nothing but referres me to Bellarmine In which absurd course if I would imitate him I might also referre him to such as haue answered Bellarmine and the reader that expected to see the thing tried betweene vs should be deluded Neuerthelesse I will doe my best to bring this broode of darknesse to the light and euery thing that I haue said to the triall that the truth may appeare and the shame be theirs that turne their backes 2 First he sayes I will neuer be able soundly to proue that the auncient Church condemned this their practise I answer the Apostle condemnes it in the words a 1. Cor. 14.7 alledged If an instrument of musicke make no distinction in the sound how shall it be knowne what is piped or harped So likewise you vnlesse by the language you vtter words that haue signification how shall it be vnderstood what is spoken for you shall speake in the aire I will pray and sing with the spirit and I will pray and sing with the vnderstanding also Else when thou blessest with the Spirit how shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at thy giuing of thankes seeing he knowes not what thou sayest I had rather in the Church to speake fiue words with my vnderstanding that I might also instruct others then a thousand words in a strange tongue No enemie that the Church of Rome hath can more fully condemne Seruice in an vnknowne language nor in more effectuall termes speake against it For be requires all that which is done in the Church be it Exhortation Prophecie Singing Expounding or Praying to be done in a language that the people present vnderstands and rebukes the contrary All that the Replier sayes hereto is that Bellarmine hath shewed these words proue nothing Which is his policie to auoide the scanning of them for he knowes all the learned of his side be so deuided in their answer to these words that whatsoeuer he should say would fall out to be contrary to that which others affirme For the auoiding of which inconuenience he referres vs to Bellarmine as if in him we should find a iust answer and full satisfaction But he abuses the Reader as shall plainly appeare by propounding the summe and substance of all that Bellarmine sayes to the place First he sayeth It is certaine the Apostle in a great part of this chapter speakes not of the reading of the Scripture nor concerning the Seruice of the Church but of certaine spirituall exhortations and conferences then vsed Touching this point how true or false soeuer it be I will not greatly stand with him but then it is as certaine that in a great part of this Chapter he speakes of Church-seruice and prayers and of reading the Scripture as well as of spirituall conferences and collations So his patron Gretser that hath lately vndertaken to defend all his
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
moraliter id fieri sine magnus incommodis periculis contra reuereÌ„tiam huit sacramento debitam quae vel propter multitudinem comunicantiuÌ„ vel propter eorum varietatem tam in conditionibus affectibus corporu quà m in animi prudentia circumspectione vel denique propter ministraÌ„tiuÌ„ incuriaÌ„ nullatenus possent iuxta humanaÌ„ conditionem euitarâ— Suar. defens fid cathol l. 2. c. 5. n. 20. giues First for the reuerence and decencie of the Sacrament that the cup be not spilled and the wine shed in so great and confused a companie Next for vniformitie that all people euery where might receiue alike which should not be if the cup were ministred for some people loue no wine Thirdly to auoid their error that hold it may not be ministred in one kind Fourthly for the preseruation of the Sacrament and that it might be carried to the sicke which in wine it could not for sowring and spilling Lastly for the instruction of the ignorant that they may know Christ by Thomas his concomitancie is perfectly vnder either kind It were no hard matter throughly to shew the vanitie of these reasons and merrily to whip them but the Cardinall had forgot that all these reasons in his owne opinion held in the primitiue Church and yet then they moued not the Church to take away the cup. I haue read of words vttered in a great frost which freezed in the venting as they were spoken and were not hard till a thaw came a long time after so belike our aduersaries will answer These reasons might be vttered in the ancient Church but they could not be conceiued till d Praeterea nosse debueras quod fecit Deus duo magna luminaria c. de maiorit obed Solitae in decr l. 1. tit 33. the great light in the firmament of the Church had shewed them with his beames now of late within these three hundred yeares CHAP. LVI Touching Transubstantiation 1. It was made an article of faith by the Lateran Councell 1200 yeares after Christ 2. How it came in by degrees 3. The Fathers neuer beleeued nor knew it Pag. 286. A. D. Lastly concerning Transubstantiation 1 White pag. 343. 350. M. White setteth down some coniectures whereby he endeuoureth to perswade his Reader that the beliefe of Transubstantiation came into the Church of late to wit at the Lateran Councell But 2 See the Prot. Apol. tract 1. §. 3 n. 2. where it is shewed that eueÌ„ ProtestaÌ„ts far better learned then M. White will be in haste doe grant the Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councel See Bellar. l. 3. de sacram euchar c. 19.20 21. Gre. de Val. tom 4. disp 6. q. 3. p. 2. §. 2. 3. this is false For although the name Transubstantiation was not perhaps vsed before the Councell of Lateran yet the thing signified by this name to wit the reall presence of Christs body succeeding in the place of the substance of bread was held and beleeued from the beginning as appeareth by plaine and sound authorities of Scriptures and Fathers set downe by Bellarmine and others And although the Church had no necessary occasion to make expresse determination what was to be held in that point before contrary heresies arose which might be one cause that some men did not or were not bound to know it so expresly as after the matter was explaned and determined by full authoritie from the Church yet at least implicitè all did were bound from the beginning to beleeue it And although some in their ignorance did before this declaratioÌ„ of the Church doubt or hold opinion to the contrary yet this hindreth not that they might beleeue this by implicite faith in regard priuate doubts and opinions so long as they are in ignorance without obstinacie especially with resolution and readinesse to yeeld to the Church do not take away implicite faith infolded in the generall assent which euery Catholicke giueth to that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church 1 TO shew the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be contrary to the faith of the Primitiue Church and to be brought in afterward and neuer to haue bin an article of faith before the Lateran Councell I set not downe coniectures but direct full testimonies first * Another like hereticall and most daÌ„gerous aâ—sertion of theirs the Iesuites is that the ancient Fathers Rem transubstantiationis ne attigerunt Quodl p. 31. of the Fathers expounding the words of Christ touching the Sacrament and auouching the substance of bread and wine to remaine as we do then of diuers great Papists Schoole-men and others who confesse the same I say either in expresse words or in effect that not only the NAME of Transubstantiation but the DOCTRINE and thing it selfe was made a matter of faith by the Lateran Councell no man being bound to beleeue it before Their words are reported in the Digression and will giue testimonie to themselues without my contending about them The Reply sayes though the name Transubstantiation were not perhaps vsed before the Councell of Lateran yet the thing to wit the reall presence of Christs bodie succeeding in the place of the substance of bread was held from the beginning as Bellarmine and others haue shewed and euen Protestants farre better learned then M. White will be in hast do grant But the authorities alledged in the Digress shew the contrary not onely the name but the thing it selfe to be new as will appeare by viewing them And though Bellarmine take vpon him to proue Transubstantiation by the Scripture and Fathers yet he confesses it is not improbable that Scotus said There is not extant any place of Scripture so expresse that without the Church declaration can euidently constraine vs to admit it For though the Scripture which I haue brought seeme to vs so cleare that it may constraine a man not froward yet whether it be so or not IT MAY WORTHILY BE DOVBTED when men MOST LEARNED AND ACVTE doe thinke the contrarie Let this be noted he bring a De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. §. Non dissimili Scripture to proue that which may worthily be doubted whether it be so or no and such Scripture as cannot conuince without his Churches declaration b Decernit Synodus vt nemo sacraÌ„ ScripturaÌ„ contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet sancta mater Ecclesia cuius est iudicare de vero sensiâ— interpretari audeat Con. Trid. sess 4. that is to say vnlesse it be expounded so as shall agree with the doctrine of the Church of Rome The Reply therefore must not call them sound authorities of Scripture which without this wresting proue nothing and with all this wresting proue not so much but a man may still worthily doubt and most learned and acute men do doubt and the reader may see in what case he is that shall follow Bellarmine and the Reply in this opinion of Transubstantiation