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
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
HOC NOBIS SIT SATIS INDVBIVM APVD LITERATOS HABERI NVLLVM ESSE IN TERRIS IVDICIVM QVOD ERRARE LABI DECIPI NON POSSIT Pic. Mirand apolog pro Sauanarol l. 1. c. 1. infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance and so easie to be knowne and vnderstood of all sorts that all may ordinarily direct themselues thereby onely by diligent attending and assenting to it and this is the rule of faith that in this place he meanes wherein if he meane good earnest this question is at an end and the Scripture is granted to be the rule for he will allow that to be the rule which by the helpe of grace supposed is sufficient to direct all sorts onely by diligent attending and yeelding assent to it now such is the Scripture alone that the grace of God supposed onely by diligent attendance and assent vnto it it is sufficient and therefore also you see the necessitie and requisite condition of vsing diligence by my aduersaries owne words hinders not the Scriptures from being the rule of faith euen in his owne sence as himself vnderstands the rule of faith for such as is both infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance in vs and so easie to be knowne and vnderstood that all sorts of men may direct themselues in all points of faith onely by diligent attending and assenting to it because onely diligent attention and assenting being added on our behalfe to the helpe of Gods grace it may thereby be determinately vnderstood of all sorts in all things needfull to be knowne 3 But he sayes that as in a common wealth besides the written lawes there are vnwritten customes which interprete the written law and liuing magistrates that haue authoritie to interprete both written and vnwritten lawes and to compell men to his sence without which the written lawes were not a sufficient rule and meanes to preserue good order in the state because through the peruersnesse of men they would be misvnderstood so in the Church beside the written Scriptures there must be admitted some vnwritten traditions to interprete the Scriptures and some liuing magistrate the Pope to propound and expound the Scriptures and to compell men to take the sence that he giues because the Scriptures are not so plaine but they may be misvnderstood c. This comparison and the conclusion of it I denie for albeit meanes must be ioyned with the Scripture yet this Church-authoritie and these vnwritten traditions are none of the meanes but onely that which I haue named for there needs no meanes to supply any matter of faith that is wanting in the Scripture but onely to open our eyes that we may see what is therein whereas these traditions and this Church-magistracie are supposed to be necessarie for the adding of innumerable things to be beleeued that are not contained in the Scripture as I haue * Ch. 27. n. 3. shewed My aduersarie therefore plainly shewes the difference that is betweene vs and discouers what he meanes when he pretends the Church and her authoritie for this rule of faith he expounds transparently to be the Pope with his traditions and to him giues that which is denied in the Scriptures plenarie power partly out of the Scripture partly out of his Decretals to propound to all men the matter of their faith and compell them to take his sence be it true or false This is the Antichristian bondage whereinto the man of Rome will bring all the world and the hellish pride wherin he aduanceth himself to sit as God in the Church exalting his owne will lawes aboue the wil and lawes of the eternall God and subiecting Gods blessed word to his cursed will which his base a Coâ—ceruauâ—runt sibi magistros ad desideria sua non vâ— ab eu discerent quod facere deberent sed vt eorum studio calliditate iâ—â—â—niretâ—r ratio qua licereâ— id quod liberes Spoken of the Popes clawbacks by Concil delect Card. sub init Parasites for their backes and bellies so much striue for which we execrate as hell and leaue to the Diuell from whence it first appeared vnto the world ciuill states and the commonwealths of this world may haue such vnwritten customes and allow this authority to magistrates but God hath left no such traditions to his Church nor set any such head ouer it thus to expound the Scriptures or to determinate the sense thereof but all his whole will is written and out of the Scripture it selfe is to be reuealed imparted to particular men when any doubt arises by the ministry of the Church either in ordinary preaching or in the Councels of godly orthodoxall Bishops b That a Councel is the highest tribunall vpon earth and aboue the Pope affirmed by Iustinian in praetermiss per Anto. Cont. p. 11. Phot. Nomocan tit 9 c 1 6. The Councels of Pisa Const Basil and the Vniuersity of Paris to this day See to this purpose Card Florent tract de Scism Anto. de Rosell monarch tract de concil Mich. Cezen lit ad imperat part 12. sub sin Ioh. Fran. Pic. Mirand apol pro Sauanaro l. 1. c. 1. to the which the Pope and his rabble if they will know the truth and be saued ought to subiect themselues as well as the poorest Christian that liues and the written word is so absolute and sufficient to direct them herein and his spirit so infallibly ready to guide them if they will vse the meanes that there is no more to be required for the full manifestation of any thing needfull for any man whatsoeuer and c CertuÌ„ est quod possit errare etiam in ijs quae tangum fidem haeresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo Hadrian 4. de sacra consit p. 26. see below this authority of the Pope it selfe when all is done is faine to be reiected 4 Thirdly whereas I said out of Chrysostome that howsoeuer some part of the Scripture be obscure yet some places are so plaine and easie to vnderstand that euery man by reading may know the meaning which speech I extend to so many places as are sufficient to teach vs all things needfull to saluation in this sense that the whole rule of faith is set downe in plaine places of Scripture which any man of himselfe by reading may vnderstand requiring still the grace of God and diligence in searching he replies three things The which afore I answer the Reader must note that the words he opposes are Chrysostomes and what I said I proued by many arguments the last whereof was the testimonie of the ancient Fathers who say in expresse words as much as I. The which arguments he answers not a word to and therefore replying vpon my conclusion he opposes through me the plaine Scripture the ancient Church and his owne writers by all which I confirmed that I said 5 First he sayes that albeit some places are plaine yet it doth not
follow that the Scripture ALONE euen in those plaine places is the rule because no man without some other meanes besides the plainenesse of the words can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands them right the which he proues first because some places seeming plaine are vnderstood otherwise then they seeme Secondly because the plainest places that are may be wrested to a wrong sense as that plaine place This is my body is wrested by the Caluinists to a figuratiue sense I answer his reason why Scripture alone could not be the rule of faith was because it is not plaine the which obscurity I denied to be in that which is necessary to be knowne affirming the Scripture in such places to be plaine now he replies that though such places be plaine yet still it cannot be the rule Thus first he denies the Scripture to be the rule because it is not plaine and then allowing it againe to be plaine yet still he denies it to be the rule What will this man stand to I maruell But they be not plaine enough because without some other infallible meanes besides the seeming plainenes of the words no man can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands aright euen those plaine places This absurd cauill I haue answered twenty times first that the meanes whereby this is done are the helpe of Gods Spirit our owne diligence the Church-teaching the light of nature and these meanes are infallible And these meanes I admit either coniunctim or diuisim to be necessary as a condition and medium for the full assurance of vnderstanding these places but this condition takes not away the true motion and reasons of plainenesse from them for as I answered in my booke to this argument that is not obscure which by ordinary and easie meanes may be vnderstood but which either hath no meanes at all to open it or onely such as are not ordinary to his confirmation d THE WAY p. 36. n. 2. I answered likewise But to his instances of the Caluinists wresting a plaine place This is my body to a figuratiue sense I reply first it is plaine and euident that it is a figure by the circumstances of the place when he that said the words This is my body that is giuen for you at the same instant held nothing but bread in his hand and liued and was neither yet glorified nor crucified and spake of a sacrament wherein it is ordinary to speake figuratiuely Secondly the Papists do the same in the next words This cup is the new Testament and yet they hold them to be plaine words if my aduersary will be smattering about the exposition of these words let him giue a reall answer to the place of my booke e Digr 49. n. 8. where they are handled of purpose for him 6 Next he sayes though the letter of the Scripture be neuer so plaine yet to haue infallible assuraÌ„ce of the sence there is required some other rule and meanes the which rule is not in the bare letter of the Scripture but is to be learned of the Church as Vincentius saith The which being the same he said before without difference or augmentation let it briefly receiue the same answer That the requisite coÌ„dition of vsing ordinary easie meanes wherof the ministry of the Church truly expounded is one I neuer denied but this proues not the Scriptures to be obscure nor remoues infallible assurance froÌ„ the Scripture to the Church but onely shewes that the Scripture infallibly out of it selfe giues vs this assurance by this meanes and VinceÌ„tius his words affirme no more for by the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence according to the which he requires the line of propheticall and apostolicall interpretation to be directed he meanes no vnwritten Church-tradition or doctrine that is wanting in the Scripture for he holds the Scripture it selfe to be sufficient for euery thing but onely that that which is in the Scripture be so vnderstood as agrees with the rule of faith which the true Church hath alwaies holden now that which the Church hath alwaies holden is contained in the Scripture alone that the Reader may see the Iesuites treachery in alledging Vincentius against the sufficiency of the Scripture who in that very place which belike he neuer saw with his owne eyes begins thus Here possible one may demand when the rule of the Scripture is perfect and in it selfe more then enough sufficient vnto all things Note here whether he thinks as the Iesuite doth that many substantiall points of doctrine needfull to saluation are not contained in them and that it is but a part of the rule what need is there to ioyne vnto it the authority of the Churches sence and he answers as the Iesuite hath alledged that this is because all men do not take it in one sence therefore it is necessary that the line of interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence In which manner he speakes also in f Diximus in superioribus hanc suisse semper esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem vt fidem veram duoâ—us his modis approbent Primum diuini canonis authoritate Deinde â—cclesiae catholicae traditione Non quia canon solus non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina pro suo plerique arburatis interpetantur cap. 41. another place not supposing any thing to be wanting in the Scripture so much as to giue infallible assurance of it owne sence much lesse any articles of faith needfull to saluation but onely supposing that some heretikes would not yeeld to that it gaue or possible through their owne default did not see it and thereupon aduises to oppose against them the rule and practise of the Church as a man by witnesses would conuince him that denies the truth the which practise as it hinders not the Scriptures to containe the perfect rule of faith so we will allow it and require no sence or exposition of the Scripture nor no point of religion to be receiued vnles it be thus directed 7 It is therefore vntrue that he concludes with one cannot infallibly be assured when the words of the Scripture are to be vnderstood properly and when not without the authority of the Church vnlesse it be by reuelation I say this is false vpon two points first because this assurance may be had as from the externall meanes by the Scripture it selfe though the Church say nothing Next because this Church authority he vnderstands to be the externall testimony of the Church reuealing if not making the said sence out of tradition which is not written and not out of the Scripture it selfe so that the vnderstanding which I haue of the sence and my perswasion that it is the true sence shall not be founded on the Scripture but on the authority of the Church of Rome that sayes it which g THE WAY §. 8. n. 7. digr 11. I confuted affirming that this
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
Papists in the world euer proue it yet without it thâ—â—rott aboue ground a 2. Sa. 13. as Amnon would die if he lay not with his sister Thamar A. D. That we may therefore be incouraged to seeke in such sort Pag. 235. as we may finde that finding we may duely follow the teaching of the true Church in this Chapter I inquire in generall whether the Church whose teaching we ought to follow in all matters of faith be alwaies visible that is such as may be seene or by seeking found or sometimes inuisible that is such as cannot be seene nor by seeking found Before I proceede to relate my aduersaries answer I must cleare the state of the question M. Wootton first would make the question to be whether the Church spoken of in the Creed be visible or invisible M. White saies that this is not the question in this place but saith he the question of the Church militant which containeth as part of it euen euill men and hypocrites The truth is that to speake precisely I make not the question either of these waies For although it be true that the same Church which I speake of be the Church or part of the Church spoken of in the Creed although also it be the Church militant or part of the Church militant containing as part of it all professours good and bad in regard I hold as all good Christians should that there is but one Church yet that I may cut off occasions of cauill I will not now dispute what is meant by the word Church as it is in the Creed or whether the Church militant be that Church which I say is visible I onely aske whether the Church of which I spake in the two precedent Chapters whose doctrine is there proued by diuers places of Scriptures to be in all ages the Rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men in all matters of faith whether I say this Church be in all ages visible or sometimes inuisible Now taking the Church in this sense yet my aduersary M. White White p. 86. Pag. 9. peruerteth the state of my question for he will needes haue me meane by a visible Church a company alwayes so illustrious as it not onely may be but actually is knowne to all men liuing at all times But so I did not here make my question for I know well enough that the Church hath not alwaies especially in time of persecutions such outward worldly prosperous estate I know also that sometimes the Church is obscured as S. Augustine saith with multitude of scandals and therefore it is not alwaies alike famous and illustrious especially so as to shine actually through the whole world My question therefore onely is whether the true Church WHOSE DOCTRINE IS THE RVLE and meanes ordained by God to instruct men of all ages in faith be sometimes quite inuisible in such sort that no member thereof can be seene nor assigned or that it is alwaies visible that is to say such as containeth in it alwaies euen in the times of greatest obscurity at least some eminent professors who either are actually knowne or may in particular be assigned to all such as 〈◊〉 to know theÌ„ that they may learne of them the true doctrine of faith as grace sufficient being presupposed all men in potentia proxima vel remota may and ought to learne 2 For the better vnderstanding of that which insues from this place forward to the ende touching the visiblenesse of the Church the Reader must note that my aduersary hauing in his Treatise concluded that not the Scripture but the teaching of the Church is the rule of faith now proceeded to enquire which this Church is and where it is to be found And first he answered categorically that it is visible and may be found then afterward he shewed where and how and by what markes it may be found In the 17. § he began to intreate of the visiblenesse of the Church affirming that it must needes alwaies be from Christs time to the ende of the world and being it must needes be alwaies visible vrging such reasons as he had to proue it and among the rest this was his last a §. 22. in the WAIE The onely reason and ground by which heretickes hold the Church to be inuisible is because they imagine the Church to consist onely of the elect or at least of the good but this is a false ground for it is euident that the Church militant consisteth of good and bad c. Whereto b Ibi. I answered that this was not our reason nor indeed could be for that in this question we speake not of the vniuersall Church comprehending none but the elect of all times and ages but of the Church for the time being wherin the true faith is remaining which Church containes hypocrites also and euill men as well as good Wherein I spake effectually for his owne words are that the question is of the militant Church And when our doctrine is that the militant Church consists of wicked reprobates as well as elect how can we make it a ground to proue it inuisible sometime because it consists onely of the elect Neuerthelesse in this place you see he complaines of my peruerting the state of the question and denies that he meant it as I tooke it Let vs therefore see what he requires and if his meaning be mistaken good reason he explaine himselfe and the difference betweene vs be agreed vpon 3 First he saies that he enquires in generall not whether the Church mentioned in the Creed or whether the militant Church be visible but whether that Church whose teaching we ought to follow be alwaies visible that is such as may be seene or by seeking found And I also said * In what sense the militant Church is by the Protestant Diuines said to be sometime inuisible the question is onely of the outward state of the Church whether it be alway visible to the world or not that in euery age those congregations may euidently be discerned and pointed too which are the true Church Not affirming the true outward militant Church at any time hitherto to haue bin inuisible for the visible Churches of Greece Ethiope Armenia and Rome with the nations contained therein haue in them the true Church of God wherein men may be saued but onely intending that there is not alway in this Church a visible company and state of people deuided from the rest that professe the true faith and exercize Church gouernement in all things free from the corruptions and abuses of such as haue defiled the Church And thus I neuer denied the Church of Rome to be the visible Church of God wherein our Auncestors possessed the true faith and were saued but I constantly deny the PAPACY to be it or the ARTICLES wherein we refuse the Church of Rome to be the faith thereof and affirme the same to be a Leprosie breeding in the
from the poison of that most pestilent opinion which Caluine holdeth concerning Praedestination I will first declare the foresaid exposition therewithall prouing it to be good Secondly I wil relate Caluines opinion about Praedestination and will shew it to be erronious in it selfe pernitious to men and impious towards God It seemeth that my aduersaries in their ignorance haue a strange conceit of the Antecedent will by which according to this exposition God will haue all men saued For M. White saith that this Antecedent will is not Simply White pag. 95. Properly Wootton p. 59. and Formally the will of God and M. Wootton although he do not expresly say yet he seemeth to thinke the same when he saith this exposition of S. Damascen cannot be enforced out of the text nor is so warrantable for truth as some other exposition is How false this their saying is will appeare by the example of an earthly king which I will vse to declare and explaine this point 1 IF the Reader will vnderstand how and vpon what occasion this text and the matter thereof comes in question betweene vs in this place he must obserue that my aduersary to shew that God hath prouided and left sufficient me◠〈◊〉 for the instructing of all men whatsoeuer in the true faith a In THE WAY §. 3. alledged this text of 1. Tim. 2.4 God will all men to be saued c. concluding from it that seeing his will is a true will it must needs follow that he hath left such a meanes Then againe to prooue not onely that God hath promised such a meanes of saluation which is the visible Church but that he hath also made it manifest and visible to all men whereby they might be directed to the faith he alledges the same text b In THE WAY §. 18. againe God would haue all men to be saued as if this will of God affirmed in the text could not stand vnles the Church which is the meanes were alway visible because he cannot be said to will that which he allowes no meanes to effect It was not therefore brought in against me in any dispute about praedestination but as you see vpon the By to proue the visibility of the Church in all ages for the reuealing of the faith to the world Neuerthelesse knowing how grosly the Papists vse to expound it and seeing how absurdly my aduersary applies it to proue such a visibility of the Church as he imagined affirming that if the Church were at any time not visible in his sence the world should want the necessary meanes of saluation so it should not be vniuersally true that God would haue all men to be saued therefore I briefly expounded it c THE WAY §. 3. n. 2. first only in the words of Gregorius Ariminensis a schoole Doctor of his owne but in d §. 18. n. 6. the second place more at large confirming the sence I gaue out of the Fathers and diuerse principall Papists where I briefly touched an obscure distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will inuented as e Damascenus hanc distinctionem introduxit Capreol 1. d. 45 q. 1. ar 2. coÌ„cl 4. Videtur primus hoc modo diuinam voluntatem distinxisse Valentia to 1. pag 360. A. they say by Damascen first noting out of Durand a popish Schoole-man the distinction not to be reall and then shewing that if it were yet the visiblenesse of the Church was not prooued thereby which I concluded in a Syllogisme set in the margent and so held me wholly to the point we had in hand All which discourse my aduersarie passeth ouer answerlesse perceiuing well enough the exposition I gaue of the words to be such as cannot be denied and the application that himselfe made of them to be false and vnsound and therefore in this place pretending to inquire out the true sence of the words hee leaues that which we had directly in hand inuerts the purpose whereto the text was mentioned forsakes his question how the necessitie of a visible rule is proued by it and runnes into an impertinent discourse about predestinationâ— wherein if hee would haue dealt hee had faire opportunitie offered him in f Digress 41. it owne place Neuerthelesse so farre as he meddles with that I said touching the meaning of the Apostles words I wil go with him and examine what he sayes 2 First hee grants it to be certaine that the meaning is not God hath an absolute or effectuall will to saue all men Which I say too For whatsoeuer God wills and decrees absolutely shall be effected which the saluation of some neuer is 3 Next he sayes that by this I may see how much I mistooke him when I thought him to meane that the rule of faith is not onely such as may be knowne but such as actually is knowne to all places ages and persons But he mistakes himselfe For whatsoeuer his meaning be it followes necessarily vpon his words For albeit he say God haue no absolute or effectuall will to saue all men yet maintaining that he reprobates none but for the fore-sight of their vnbeliefe he must consequently suppose the rule of faith to be actually manifested to all because God cannot reprobate for vnbeliefe fore-seene those to whom he neuer reuealed the rule of faith because it was neuer in the power of such to beleeue Or if he say they are reprobated because they finde not the rule of faith or because it is not manifested to them then the visible Church cannot be the rule for that according to the doctrine of the Papist is alway and actually manifest in euerie age to all sorts of people as himselfe defends in the twelfth Chapter of his Treatise I might therefore mistake his meaning but the consequence of his words I mistooke not THE DIVERS EXPOSITIONS OF THE PLACE OF 1. TIM 2.4 4 Secondly he grants there are diuers expositions of those words of the Apostle giuen by good authors and this is likewise true but yet himselelfe gaue no exposition at all but barely alledged the text and therefore he might the better giue me leaue briefly to touch an exposition or two vsed by the Fathers and the learned of his owne side and suspect the issue of his owne discourse wherein he knowes he maintaines that exposition which the Fathers g See Sixt. Senens biblioth lib. 6 annot 251. where hauing set downe the words of Chrysostome and certaine other Fathers affirming predestination to be for workes foâ—eseene he sâ—veâ— Haec Patrum dicta ex quibus colligi videtur praescientiam meritorum esse causam diuina praedestinationis quae quidem sententia in Pelagio damnata est after the rising of Pelagius heresie especially condemned and the Papists whom I quoted that knew it well enough thought not so probable or likely as the exposition that I gaue h Tho. 1. p. qu. 19 art 6. ad 1. Dionys 1. d. 46. qu. 1. sub sin Dom. Bann
apparant I yeelded not his conclusion in the whole sence but onely in a part For view my words The Ministerie of the Church is the ordinary meanes whereby we may learne the faith of Christ And no man can of himselfe attaine to the knowledge thereof but as the Church teaches him except it be in some extraordinary cases How will my Iesuite conclude froÌ„ hence that therefore I yeeld his conclusion as it is vnderstood the second way which way I haue shewed immediately before both his Church and himselfe vnderstand it Doth he that saies the kings Iustices are tâ—â— ordinary meanes whereby to learne the matter of ciuill obedience and that no subiect can ordinarily attaine to the knowledge of the law vnlesse some body publish it yeeld therfore that the law alone is not the rule of the said obedience and subiection prescribing the measure and qualitie thereof but the Iustices also and such as acquaint vs with the law are part of the rule yea the greater and more certaine part No man will say so when all men see the Magistrate to be but the executioner and minister of the law to teach publish and execute that which is in the law it selfe and the Booke of the law to containe the whole and entire obiect of obedience that no subiect is bound to any obedience or to the doing of any thing whatsoeuer the Magistrate might happen to impose vpon him but that onely which is contained in the law either expressely or thence to be gathered by true consequence And so my Iesuits vaunt of our yeelding and impertinent discourses relishes but of the Souldier that created him and his vaunting Order though his putting vs ouer to his other Catholicke Authors be scarse souldier-like but tastes more of the Creeple He vses this often and I confesse it is a good short cutte home-wardes if a man be empty but it sinkes him that vses it into the lowest bottome of contempt to giue the onset with conclusions and principles and then to maintaine them with boasting and ignorance If we were not well acquainted with this transparent cowardlinesse in our busiest Aduersaries it would leauen the most setled patience that is among vs. CHAP. XXVIII Touching our English translations of the Bible Their sinceritie and infalliblenesse 2. How the vnlearned know them to be sincere The new Translation lately set foorth by the Kings authority defended Momus in his humor 4. The subordination of means Pag. 179. A. D. § 1. That English translations of Scripture are not infallible concerning my first reason it is to be obserued that I do not deny the true Scriptures either in the originall or in the translation to be infallible but onely I proue the ordinary English translations which ordinarily Protestants call the Scriptures not to be infallible nor consequently to be Wootton pag. 68. as some make them the onely sufficient rule and means to breed faith M. Wootton asketh what English Protestant euer affirmed that they were infallible or tooke them for the rule To this I reply first that I could wish these his questions could not be answered with affirming that many thousand poore soules that haue and can onely reade English Bibles think the texts which they reade in theÌ„ to be Gods word and consequently the infallible truth and so take them for a rule of their faith that wbat they finde written there they most firmly beleeue what they finde not there they will not beleeue Secondly if the English translation be not accounted infallible nor the rule of faith by some Protestants I aske first what M. White meaneth to say White pag. 25. the Scripture translated into English is infallibly true in respect of the matter Secondly I aske what infallible rule and meanes haue at least vnlearned Protestants whereupon to build their faith It cannot be said that the truth of the reuealed doctrine in it selfe is their rule For this is the thing that should be beleeued and is not the rule and meanes whereby men are to be directed to attain beliefe The first Hebrew or Greeke originall text immediatly written by the holy writers cannot be their rule For first where is this to be found or how shall they be sure if they find it that it is the very authenticall or originall and not a transumpt Or if a transumpt may also serue so that it be incorrupt how shall they know infallibly secluding Church-authoritie that that copie which they haue is incorrupt when they neuer saw the first authenticall nor euer did or are able to compare them together Finally suppose they had a copie well agreeing with the originall what nearer were they attaining faith by it since they cannot vnderstand it White pag. 25. M White is so farre from disclaiming from English translations as M. Wotton doth that he will needs defend them to be infallible in the matter contained in them in so much that with a bold brazen face he saith Martin cannot giue one instance of the sence corrupted Pag. 26. And although he seeme to leaue himselfe a starting hole by saying that he doth not defend tbis or that mans edition but the Scriptures wel and faithfully translated accounting it sufficient that there be some translations faithfull and agreeing with the originall in the Church Ibid. yet presently after he taketh vpon him to defend the varieties of translations saying that this varietie hath bene in words and stile and not in any materiall point of the sence Now how false this bold and blind answer is the Reader may easily perceiue if he will reade not onely M. Gregory Martins discouerie but also M. Reynolds refutation of M. Whitaker and the Grounds of the new Religion which bookes neither are or can so be answered by M. Fulke and his fellow Protestants to helpe him but still it wil be iustified and made plaine that not onely one but many instances may be giuen of the sence corrupted The which is not onely proued by our Diuines but also confessed by Protestants themselues One of which said Broughtons epistle to the Lords of the Councell Carlile in his booke that Christ went not downe into hell that the English Bible was full of errors And what errors Onely in stile or words Nay M. Carlile saith that our English Translators in many places detort the Scriptures from the right sence and that they haue corrupted and depraued the sence obscured the truth deceiued the ignorant Which their confession if it were not also acknowledged for truth by others what need were there after so many varieties of translations that with so much cost care and scandal to the Protestant cause they must needs haue order by publik authority to coine a new translatioÌ„ of the Bible different froÌ„ all English translatioÌ„s that haue bin before the which also when it cometh forth will not be of infallible authoritie more then the former neither can at least vnlearned men be infallibly assured that it
containeth no materiall error For I would faine know how they who neither haue the authenticall originall or if they had cannot reade and much lesse vnderstand and compare the translation with it neither do admit infallible authoritie in the Church to assure them can be infallibly assured that the translation doth not containe any substantiall error To this M. White answereth White pag. 25. that we know this by the same infallible meanes wherby we know other articles of beliefe namely by the light of the doctrine translated the testimony of the Spirit the ministery of the word the rules of are the knowledge of tongues and such like Here is a faire flourish of words but answer me good M. White directly to the point Are all of these ioyntly or euery one seuerally or onely some of these necessary sufficient to breed in vs infallible assurance of an article of faith All are not necessary For else how shall poore vnlearned men do who want rules of art knowledge of tongues and such like Euery one seuerally is not sufficient For neither knowledge of tongues rules of art nor the Protestant ministery are of themselues infallible and consequently cannot be of themselues sufficient to breed such infallible assurance in vs as is requisite in an article of faith Well then it remaineth that onely some of these to wit the light of doctrine translated and the testimonie of the Spirit are euen according to the ordinary course the only necessary and of themselues the sole sufficient meanes to breed this assurance but this not For then it wold follow that euery one learned and vnlearned that had the Spirit of God by the onely light of the doctrine it self without any other help should infallibly vnderstand the Greeke and Hebrew text either read by themselues or pronounced by a Minister which is most false and yet that it followeth wel is apparent because true doctrine shineth as wel yea better if M. White say true in the Originall White pag. 26. then in the English Translations We saith M. White know the diuine doctrine to be one and the same Pag. 27. immediatly in the Originall more obscurely in the Translations and God as the same M. White saith directeth the children of light by the holy Ghost who openeth their hearts that they know his voice from all others and that the light of his truth may shine vnto them Now if the light of the diuine doctrine do shine as well and better in the Hebrew and Greeke text then in the English translations and that all which be children of light haue the eies of their heart so opened as they can discerne Gods voice froÌ„ all others and that the light of his truth shineth vnto theÌ„ what need is there then of any other either priuate or publick meanes to open their eies to see this light when the holy Ghost doth sufficiently open them Or if he say the holy Ghost doth not open them sufficiently without othâ—r meanes then the light of the doctrine and the testimony of the Spirit are not the onely necessary and alone sufficient meanes to assure vs infallibly of any article of faith namely that this or that means must be assigned sufficient to breed in vs infallible assuraÌ„ce which it self cannot do vnles it selfe be and be knowne or at least may be knowne to be infallible in it selfe and infallibly to open and direct our eyes to the seeing of the infallible truth which fallible ministery of meÌ„ fallible rules of art fallible knowledge of tongs or such like infallibly do not 1 HIs reason why the Scriptures traÌ„slated into English caÌ„not be the rule of faith is because our translations are full of errors Wherby he says his mind is not to deny the true Scripture in the originall or in the translation to be infallible but only the ordinary English translations My a THE WAY §. 5. nu 2 §. 6. nu 2. 4. 8. answer was the same that D. Stapleton b Relect. pag. 525. makes for the vulgar Latin that in respect of the words onely there might be some error but in respect of the sence there is none For if the words of the traÌ„slation be not so perfect as they might yet that hinders not the truth of the matter nor the integritie of the sence For the vulgar Latin canonized by c Sess 4. the Trent Councell and d In those words J do not denie the true Scripture either in the Originall or in the Translation to be infallible granted by the Iesuite himselfe to be infallible is not free from error and corruption in words Mariana e Tract pro edit vulg Multa superius in Hebraicis Graecis codicibus vtti esse ostendimus multae mendacia in rebus minutis eorum pars aliquae non exigua in nostra editione vulgata extat c. 21. pag. 103. says There be many corruptions in the Hebrew and Greeke bookes which are the originall and many lies in small matters no small part whereof is also in the vulgar It may safely therfore be yeelded that our English translations as all other translations in the world whatsoeuer are not infallible nor free from all errors in words and yet the sence and matter of the Scripture translated which is the rule be stil maintained to be infallible This my answer yeelding such a kind of erroniousnes in words my aduersary obiects to M. Wotton who belike in his answer to this argument demanding what English Protestant euer affirmed that our translations were infallible or tooke them for the rule He replies secondly what means M. White then to say the Scripture translated into English is infallibly true in respect of the matter M. White answers that his meaning in so saying was to accord with M. Wotton by distinguishing betweene the words and the contents of the translations M. Wotton denying the words to be the rule and I affirming the matter contained in the words so to be What contradiction is this when he grants our translatioÌ„s as al humane means are to be subiect to error in one sence and I deny them to be subiect in another 2 This my assertion that our English translations as touching the matter contained in them are infallible howsoeuer there be varietie among them in words stile he entertaines after his accustomed maner with some passioÌ„ For expouÌ„ding my self that I wold not maintain this or that mans editioÌ„ but the Scriptures wel and faithfully translated in such maner as our Church allows them he cals this a starting hole neuer remeÌ„bring how himself wil not defend this or that edition in his own Church but wil retire to those editions that are approued as also the primitiue Church permitted varietie of translations and yet followed the purest as neare as it could iudge of theÌ„ for the time being I wil therfore say it again that OVR ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS AS TOVCHING THE MATTER CONTAINED THEREIN ARE INFALLIBLE AND
sufficient for the vnderstanding of Latin because it is not sufficient vnlesse the learner go to schoole and heare his master teach him And though it be granted that the ministery of men and rules of art and knowledge of tongues be all subiect to error yet doth it not follow that by them we cannot attaine infallible assurance of our translations as I haue shewed in * THE WAY §. 6. n. 3. my answer to this argument where it was first propounded whither I referre my aduersary that if he would haue dealt really should not haue here repeated his old argument but haue ingenuously replied what he had to say to it but that had bene labour CHAP. XXIX 1. Touching the obscuritie of the Scripture 2. The necessitie of meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures proues not their obscuritie 3. Traditions debarred A Councell is aboue the Pope 4. 5. The Scripture of it selfe easie to all that vse it as they should 6. 7. The certen sence of the Scripture and the assurance thereof is not by Traditiō Pag. 183. A. D. § 2. That Scripture alone is obscure Concerning the second reason about the obscuritie of Scripture it is to be vnderstood that I do not speake of the obscuritie of Scripture as though I meant that it could not by any meanes be vnderstood Wottō pag. 74. as M. Wotton seemeth willing to mis-vnderstand me neither do I charge the Scripture it selfe with any fault or imperfection when I say it is obscure but do acknowledge rather that it is the perfection of Scripture the highnesse and maiestie of the matter and the strangenesse of the stile on the one side and the weaknesse and ignorance and sometimes peruersnesse of mens wits on the other side which maketh it obscure But whence soeuer the cause of obscuritie proceedeth which is impertinent to my purpose the onely thing which I am to proue is that de facto it is obscure or at least not so easie as the rule and meanes that should ordinarily breed infallible faith in all sorts ought to be And this my second reason conuinceth it being most euident that Scripture alone is not so easie neither to vnlearned nor learned men The which White pag. 25. 39. 36. M. White seemeth to grant when he requireth so many other euen outward meanes and helpes besides the inward spirit to the vnderstanding of the Scripture Among which outward meanes and helpes I enquire for one which is on the one side infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance and on the other side so easie to be determinately knowne and vnderstood of all sorts as that all men may grace supposed ordinarily direct themselues in matters of faith onely by diligent attending and yeelding assent vnto it For such is that which for the present I call the rule of faith or the rule and meanes by which all sorts may without other meanes ne detur processus in infinitum be sufficiently instructed in all matters of faith If M. Wotton and M White impertinently to this our purpose wil needs striue to haue the Scripture called in some other sence the rule of faith I will not striue with them but do freely grant it may be so called as good written lawes are or may be called the rule of manners in a commonwealth But as besides good written lawes in a commonwealth there are required ordinarily both good vnwritten customes and a good liuing Magistrate hauing authoritie to propound and interprete both written lawes and vnwritten customes without which the written lawes alone were not a sufficient rule and means to preserue good manners in a commonwealth in regard the lawes cannot be so plaine but that considering the weaknesse ignorance and peruersitie of men they may and would be misunderstood and wrested to a wrong sence which inconuenience is remedied partly by vnwritten customes which do best interprete the written lawes partly by the authoritie of the liuing magistrate who may by authoritie declare which is the right sence and may compell men to execute written lawes according to that sence Euen so in the Church besides the diuine infallible written Scriptures there must be admitted some diuine infallible vnwritten traditions and some alwayes liuing magistrate hauing infallible authoritie to propound and expound the Scriptures without which the written Scriptures alone were not a sufficient rule and meanes to preserue infallible faith in the Church because the Scriptures are not so plaine but that considering the weaknesse ignorance and peruersnes of men they may be and as experience ordinarily teacheth are misunderstood and wrested to a wrong sence which inconuenience without miracle cannot be remedied vnlesse we admit vnwritten traditions which are the best ordinary interpreters of Scripture and some liuing magistrate hauing infallible authoritie who may when controuersies arise infallibly declare which is the right sence and who by that authoritie may compell men to take them in that sence M. Wotton and M. White both grant the obscuritie of Scriptures in some places but they both affirme that in some other places the Scripture is perspicuous and plaine Wotton pa 70. White pag. 33. 36. in so much that M Wotton saith Many places of Scripture are so euident that a child cannot mistake the meaning of them And M. White saith citing S. Chrysost euery man of himself by reading may vnderstand To this I reply first that although some places of Scripture be more plaine then others and are and may be called absolutely plain partly for that they be set downe in proper and not figuratiue speech partly in that to them who haue once learned the true interpretation of the Church they seeme so plaine as they need nothing but reading or hearing to make them plaine partly for that some places are so plaine as they need nothing to make them plainly vnderstood of a very child but this generall rule told vs by the Church that the words in such places are to be plainly vnderstood as they sound yet this notwithstanding it doth not follow that the Scripture alone euen in those most plaine places is the rule and meanes which should instruct men in faith because sith some places seeming proper and plaine are not to be taken as the words sound but are oftentimes to be vnderstood by a figure what man without some infallible meanes besides seeming plainnesse of the words can be infalliby assured euen in most plaine places that he vnderstandeth the right sence especially when the most plaine places that are may be and ordinarily are either by weaknesse ignorance or peruersnesse of men wrested to a wrong sence as we see that most plaine place where our Sauiour pronounceth This is my bodie to be by Caluinists wrested to a figuratiue sence Besides therefore the bare letter of Scripture though neuer so plaine to haue infallible assurance of the sence there is required some other infallible rule and meanes to assure vs when and where the
words seeming plaine are to be vnderstood properly as they sound and when they are to be taken in a figuratiue or improper sence This say I is not to be learned sufficiently in the bare letter of Scripture alone but is to be learned of the Church according to that worthy saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyr. cont haeres c. 2. Because all men do not take the holy Scripture for the height of it in one and the same sence but diuers men interpret the sayings of it diuersly in so much that almost so many different sences may seeme possible to be drawne from it as there are diuers men c. Therefore it is very necessarie that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence True it is that by other probable meanes viz. rules of art knowledge of tongues obseruation of circumstances conference of places c. one but not euery lay-man woman and childe euen of M Wotton and M. Whites owne parish may probably finde out when the words are and when they are not to be vnderstood properly but infallibly in such sort as to build thereupon infallible assent of faith one cannot without infallible interpretation had either immediatly by reuelation of the Spirit which is not ordinarily to be expected or by infallible authoritie of the Church True it is also that ordinarily Diuines hold it for a certaine rule that words of Scripture are to be vnderstood properly as they sound vnlesse to auoide some absurditie we be compelled to interprete by a figure But when such an absurditie occurreth that ought to compell vs to interprete plaine words of Scripture by a figure and when not although reason it selfe may probably know which probable knowledge may suffice for direction of manners yet infallibly in such sort as is required to the assent of faith reason alone not assisted by Church authoritie cannot at the least alwayes tell sith many things may seeme absurd to our priuate sence and reason which in truth are not absurd as in the mystery of the blessed Trinitie may plainly appeare and contrariwise many things may seeme in reason not absurd which in true Diuinitie are absurd and most false 1 HIs second reason against the Scriptures being the rule of faith was their obscuritie because they faile in the second condition of the rule being of themselues alone so obscure and vnknowne both to the vnlearned and learned that no man can thereby alone be sufficiently directed This reason was handled § 7 and 8. where I answered the argument whereby he prosecuted it and euery word also that he replies here which makes me to wonder with what conscience he followes his cause when that he sayes here being answered he shrinks from replying and onely repeates his old argument againe and yet intitles his booke a Reply when he replies nothing but conceales all from his Reader that I answered neuerthelesse that he sayes I will answer againe 2 First he tels in what sence he holds the Scripture to be obscure and how farre forth Not that it cannot by any meanes be vnderstood or that it is any imperfection in the Scripture to be obscure but the perfection rather the onely thing he goes about to proue being that de facto it is obscure or at the least not so easie as the ordinary rule of faith ought to be which is denied and confuted not denying some parts to be obscure as many prophecies and mysteries therein nor affirming any of it to be so effectuall to our vnderstanding that without the motion of Gods Spirit and vse of the meanes euery man can effectually vse it to his saluation for I neuer denied the requisite condition of Gods grace and the Churches teaching and our owne endeuour to open our vnderstanding euen in the plainest Scripture that is but I onely affirme all things concerning faith and good life needfull to be knowne to be so plainly set downe therein that the vnlearnedst man aliue vsing the meanes which is not the Church-authoritie intended by my aduersary and being enlightned with Gods Spirit may sufficiently vnderstand them to his saluation which is enough to make it a rule perfect entire and as easie as is possible for a rule to be for the finding out and deciding whatsoeuer matter belongs to faith For howsoeuer some things in the Scripture the knowledge whereof is not simply necessary to saluation be very obscure and doubtfull yet the whole rule of our faith needfull to all men is set downe so plainly that it may be vnderstood of all men allowing them some eleuation and onely supposing them to haue the light of grace and to take that paines in searching that is ordinarily required in the vse of any rule and in the execution of any meanes whatsoeuer It seemes my aduersarie would conclude from hence that therefore I grant Scripture alone not to be so easie as the rule of faith ought to be because I require so many euen outward meanes and helpes for the vnderstanding thereof beside the helpe of Gods Spirit within vs. But he is deceiued and deceiues his Reader for I expounded my selfe that it is not necessarie the rule be so easie and effectuall that no helpe shall be needfull for the applying it to our conscience but the perfection and easinesse of it stands in this that a man vsing diligence and eleuated by grace from his naturall ignorance shall finde therein absolutely and plainly all things whatsoeuer he is bound to know and beleeue and needs not that the Church by her authoritie and traditions should adde any thing to it that is not contained in it And that this condition of vsing meanes and outward helpes takes not away the reason of a rule he must confesse by his owne principles for let his Church-teaching and authoritie his owne Helena be the rule yet afore any man can determinately know it or vnderstand and yeeld to it he must I hope haue the grace of the Spirit and seeke it out and diligently attend what it teaches him which is as much as we require for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures This therefore is a vaste partialitie in my Iesuite that he will conclude a thing cannot be a sufficient rule or meanes that requires the helpe of grace and a mans owne industrie in the applying it when themselues holding their Church to be the rule yet confesse that no man can heare the voice thereof not vnderstand nor yeeld assent to it without the very same meanes that we require for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures What voice what complaint what querimonie shall we vtter against this peruersnesse against this spirit of contradiction But my aduersarie sayes that among these outward meanes and helpes which M. White requires to the vnderstanding of the Scripture besides the Spirit of God there must be one an outward meanes which is * There is no such outward infalible means in this life
nos certos faciat Grego de Valent tom 3. pag. 117. c. Verus Scripturae sensus inest Scripturae sicut signatum signo sed media certa explorata infallibilia quibus sensus iste eruitur non est ipsa Scriptura sed traditio Ecclesiastica vox definitio Ecclesiae seu eius qui Ecclesiae vice Christi praesidet Grets defens Bellar. tom 1. p. 1970. c. This is the finall euasion that the Iesuites vse against this argument in defence of their traditions and Popes authority against the sufficiency of the Scripture that the Scriptures haue in them a shining light and are as the Protestants say able to proue themselues to be the word of God and containe their true sense in themselues but this light we see not and this true sense we know not and this assurance that they are Gods word or that this is the true sense we cannot haue in the Scripture it selfe but by the meanes of Traditions and the Popes authoritie shewing and propounding these things to vs. As a candle though hauing light in it selfe yet shewes light to none when it is hid vnder a bushell but when it is set vpon a Candlesticke I answer 2. things First as I haue often said this authority and teaching of the Church is not alway nor simply necessary to shew all men the light of the Scripture or so much as to point to it for either by the immediate light of Gods Spirit or by the light of nature it may be knowne to be Gods word as by the light of nature it is knowne that God is whereupon it followes plainely that the Scripture alone as the Rule hath this light in it selfe and from it selfe shewes it else it could not in this manner without Church proposition shine to any Secondly I grant that ordinarily for the seeing and discerning of the euidēce perfection purity power sence all this light that is in the Scripture the proposition of the Church is necessary as a candlesticke to hold it forth but then this proposition may be expounded two waies one way to signifie such authority as by and from it selfe induces me to beleeue afore I see any authority in the Scripture and together with the authority of the Scripture the twofold authority of the Church and Scripture concurring to the moouing of my vnderstanding as when two men concurre as one formall beginning to the carrying and moouing of a blocke This Church proposition thus expounded I vtterly deny to be either needfull or possible Secondly it may be expounded for the Ministry of the Church by her Pastors and people reuealing the Scriptures to them that know them not and teaching the nature sense and meaning thereof But this ministry is but a bare condition adding no light sense authority or matter to the Scripture but onely leading vs to see it Of which Ministery there is no question betweene vs for all Protestants grant The authority or ministery of the Church supposes no want of light in the Scripture and vse it but the question is whether all the articles and whole nature of faith be contained in Scripture alone excluding vnwritten traditions though the Ministery of the Church be needfull as an instrument to shew teach and expound the Scripture as a candlesticke is needfull to shew the candle For the vse of this Ministry and requisite condition of all other meanes that are to be vsed supposes no want or defect in the obiect whereabout they are applied but onely produces it to his operation as the setting of a candle vpon the socket addes no light to it that was wanting in it selfe but onely remoues some impediments that hinder the standers by from seeing and the opening of a window to let in light makes not the Sunne imperfect or but a partiall light And if our aduersaries intended no more but this there were an end of the controuersie for no Protestant euer denied the necessity of Church ministry in this sense but freely confesse it although the authority * See it expounded Chap. 35. n. 1. inde and here immediatly after in nu 4. mentioned we renounce 4 For the better explication of this my answer and that the Reader may see how impertinent it is that my Aduersary sayes Note FIRST that o The quest betweene vs the Papists about the Churches authority the question is not whether some meanes be ordinarily required to the vnderstanding of the Scripture and the producing of faith in such as reade and vse it nor whether the Scripture worke infallible assurance immediatly in all men for in some it doth without the operation and coming betweene of the Church ministery For we hold it doth not But the point is whether this authority of the Church supply any article of faith or matter needfull to saluation that is wanting in the Scripture so that it may be said as my Aduersary alway speaketh the Scripture alone is but a part of the rule of faith which God hath left to instruct men what is to be holden for faith and there be many substantiall points belonging to faith which are contained in Scripture alone nether expresly nor thence to be deduced by consequence but to be supplied by tradition and Church authority and so the question is not about the expediency or condition of the meanes but about the perfection and sufficiency of the thing it selfe Note SECONDLY that my aduersary from the necessity of the means concludes the insufficiency of the thing thus The light of the Scripture shines not to vs the true sense of the Scripture is not infallibly assured vnto vs without the meanes of the Church The Scripture therefore is vnsufficient not containing all things needfull not instructing vs WHAT is to be holden for matter of faith as if a man should say the light of the candle appeares not to vs but when it is set on a candlesticke therefore there is much light that is wanting in the candle and is supplied by the candlesticke Note THIRDLY what the things properly are which our aduersaries attribute to the Church in comparing it with the Scripture They are there first to be a meanes to reueale and expound the Scripture to vs and to breed the faith thereof in our consciences Secondly to be the Foundation of our faith in this sense that we do beleeue this to be Scripture and this to be the true sense of the Scripture and this to be the matter of faith onely because the Church expounds the Scripture so Thirdly to supply vnto vs many articles of faith absolutely needfull to saluation that are wanting in the Scripture out of tradition and by the said tradition to expound the Scripture These two latter points they infer on of the first which is the incroching consequence that I except against in that the authority wherein God hath placed his Church is not in respect of the Scripture but in respect of vs being a bare Minister to the
onely as a condition to instruct vs and leade vs to the knowledge and assurance of that which is contained in the Scripture it selfe or else as a meanes to reueale vnto vs some thing that is not conceiued in the Scripture But not of the latter for all articles of faith are in the Scripture Therefore the former Therefore the Scripture alone is the rule of faith 6 My aduersarie saies it troubles vs that he sayes there be diues questions of faith which are not expressely set downe nor determined in the Scripture Whereto I answered that this was not the question for if by expressely he meant written word for word in so many syllables then the rule is not bound to containe all things thus expressely it being sufficient if all things needefull were contained therein in respect of the sense so that it might be gathered from thence by consequence the question not being in what manner but whether any way at all the whole and entire obiect of our faith be reuealed in the Scripture though some part thereof be gathered but by Consequence from that which is written expressely in so many syllables To this my aduersary replyes that it troubles vs sore to be thus conuinced with the euidence of the matter that we cannot deny it but are driuen to confesse diuers sustantiall points not to be expressely set downe But he is deceaued it troubles vs not a whit would this hatefull guise of bragging and talking of Conuincing when nothing is graunted but that which belongs not to the question troubled vs no more For no Protestant affirms all things to be written expressely but onely that All things belonging to faith are written in such sort that we haue in the Canonicall bookes either expresse wordes as plaine as any man can speake or infallible sense which any man by vsing the meanes may vnderstand for euery article of faith whatsoeuer Neither did D. M. Luther or any of the learned Diuines of our Church whom my aduersary in his canting language calles his new Masters euer hold otherwise He sayes by our leaues this was the question first when our Grandfather Luther was so hoate to haue expresse Scripture that he would haue all expressed euen in words c. And biddes me see Gretser in his defence of Bellarmine But by his leaue Gretser and he both speake vntruly and he absurdly For he so quotes Gretser that a man would thinke Gretser had shewed out of Luthers writings some places wherein Luther required expresse Scripture euen in wordes which he doth not nor Bellarmine whō he defends could do but be reports in English what Gretser lied in Latine and then biddes see Gretser when there is as little in Gretser to this purpose as in himselfe If M. Luther and the Diuines of our Church confesse many things not to be written verbatim in expresse syllables as it is not thus written that infants must be baptized or that Christ is consubstantiall with his Father do they therefore confesse they are not written at all or will himselfe conclude the Scripture wants that which is not written in so many words Is the true sense and meaning of the words nothing are they not as well conclusions of Scripture which are deduced by true discourse as which are expressed verbatim doth not Picus e Theorem 5. sub sin say such are most properly conclusions of faith which are drawne out of the old and new Testament or by good connexion depend on those that are drawne doth not the Cardinall of Cambrey f 1. q. 1. art 3. p. 50 h. say They are conclusions of diuinity not onely which formally are contained in Scripture but also which necessarily follow of that which is so contained And before him g Prolog sent qu. 1. art 2 pag. 10. f. Rom. edit Aureolus another Cardinall In the second manner of proceeding when we goe forward from one proposition beleeued and another necessary or from both beleeued to inquire of any one that is doubtfull no other habite is obtained but the habite of faith the contrary whereof are heresies in which wordes we see he affirmes a going forward from that which is certainely beleeued because it is expresly written to that which is gathered by discourse and makes this latter also to belong to faith I know few of the schoolemen deny this whereupon it followeth manifestly that it is reputed to be within the contents of the Scripture not onely which is expressed in words but also which is so in sense and good consequence In which manner I haue prooued vnanswerably that all the whole obiect of faith is expressed CHAP. XXXI Wherein the place of 2. Tim. 3.15 alledged to proue the fulnes and sufficiencie of the Scripture alone is expounded and vrged against the Iesuites cauills A. D. To my answer of the Protestant obiection whereas I say Pag. 190. the Apostle affirming the Scripture to be profitable doth not auouch the alone sufficiency of it Whereas also secondly I say it is rather profitable in that it commendeth the authority of the Church which is sufficient M. White replieth against the first part of this my answer White pag. 55. that when the Apostle saith the Scripture is profitable c. he meaneth that it is so profitable that a man by vsing it may be made perfect to euery worke and thereupon thus he reasoneth We do not say Scripture is profitable Ergo sufficient but it is profitable to euery thing Ergo sufficient I answer that this consequence is not good Piety is by S. Paul said to be profitatable to euery thing doth it therefore follow that it is sufficient in such sort that there need no other helpe or meanes to be ioyned with it to attaine whatsoeuer thing M. Wootton and M. White seeme to reason more strongly yet weakely enough to this effect That is sufficient which is able to make a man wise to saluation and which is profitable taking the word profitable as expounded by the word able to make one absolute and perfect c. But the Apostle affirmeth Scripture to be able and profitable to the foresaid purposes Ergo. To this I answer that if they had put into the argument the word alone of which all the question is it would more plainly appeare how it proueth nothing Secondly I might say that the Apostle speaketh of the old Testament Wootton p. 97 as M. Wootton granteth yea of euery parcell thereof as the word Omnis signifieth yet I hope that neither M. Wootton nor M. White will say that now the old Testament without the new and much lesse euery parcell of the old is of it selfe alone sufficient for all the foresaid purposes For if so what need were there of the new Testament or of the other parts besides any one parcell of the old Thirdly I say that the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word able and if it were the word able doth not signifie that the Scripture
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
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
vpon their authorities of Scripture prouing it no otherwise then thus 2 The same is to be said of his Fathers who will proue as little vnlesse as the Scripture is allowed the Church declaration so they also be allowed their c Ind. Exp. Belg c. vt liber Bertrami pious and commodious and deuised expositions so that for all the Replies confidence the ground that Transubstantiation hath either in the Scripture or antiquitie shall be this in the end There is for it sound authoritie both of Scripture and Fathers if you will allow the church of Rome who is a partie to declare the sence of the Scripture and her Diuines the Iesuites a facultie to giue the Fathers a sence if not true yet fit and pious and to deuise tricks which they neuer meant thus it may be proued soundly though when all is done it may still be doubted whether it be so or no as the learnedst and acutest in the Church it selfe still do doubt it Which being the case then the coniectures will no longer be M. Whites but his aduersaries and the best ground he can yeeld for his doctrine And whereas he addes in his margent that Briarly hath shewed in his Prot. Apolog. that euen Protestants far better learned then M. White will be in hast grant Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councel M. White answers that the parenthesis touching his learning is true neither can he refuse the comparison but he renders to God his most humble thankes that he so farre inferiour to so many yet hath done that which is sufficient for the maintenance of the truth against Romish heresies and the Replier finds himself so galled with it that it may be he will say to his fellowes as b Iud. 9.54 Abimelec wounded by a woman did to his page Draw thy sword and slay me that it be not said a woman slue Abimelec But yet the rest is false as c Prot. ap p. 94. n. 3. inde ad 22. the Deane of Winchester hath fully shewed in his answer and the vttermost that either the Centuries or the other Protestants alledged say is not that Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councell but that before that time in the writings of some particular Doctors there are some formes of speech which possible they like not so well as seeming to giue courage aâ—â—â— boldnesse to them who afterward abusing euery thing to their owne errors would vse them to confirme their Transubstantiation but that they grant the doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation was beleeued is a base vntruth no way to be gathered from their words For Transubstantiation had his growth by degrees First the Fathers without so much as dreaming of it onely to increase the reuerence and to suppresse the prophanation thereof vsed vehement and hyperbolicall speeches of the Sacrament Secondly in time a kinde of reall presence began to be conceited Thirdly then what these men could finde in antiquity that sounded that way they wrested to their opinion Fourthly till at the last in the Councell of Lateran it was confirmed as an article that must be receiued and had a name giuen it in token it was new borne 3 The reason assigned in the Replie for that which Lateran did containes matter worth the marking First before contrary heresies rose the Church had no occasion to make expresse determination This fully ouerthrowes himselfe For if no determination were made then was it no article necessary to be beleeued if no article nor necessary how could there be any heresie against it when a Dico hactenus nihil esse in hac controuersia ab Ecclesia definitum ideoque sententiam non esse de fide Suar. 2. to p. 30 e. nothing is an article that is not defined nor b Postquam autem propositio aliqua patefacta est per determinationem Ecclesiae esse contratia fidei secundum se quoad nos haeretica denominatur Caict. 22. q. 11. art 1. See Silu. v. haec 1. n. 4 can loc l. 12. c. 12. nothing heresie but what is against a definition Secondly men were not bound to know it so expresly as they were after the determination Therefore it was not determined till the Lateran Councell therefore it was no article of the ancient Church faith therefore it is not expresly or manifestly conceiued in the Scripture or Fathers Therefore they do but trifle that alledge them for it These consequences proceed in the thing as well as the name cannot be auoided But all did and all were bound euen from the beginning to beleeue it at least implicite But this is a beggarly shift for if it was beleeued but in the vertue of that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church then the Church was but with child of it for 1200 yeares till the Pope her midwife brought her abed of it and so the Fathers had neither faith nor knowledge of it then but beleeued whatsoeuer the Church should hereafter define this they neuer beleeued but held constantly the Church of Rome and a generall Councell might define an error and if they beleeued no more what treachery is it to proue by their writing what they neuer knew and what they could not mention but lay hidden in the bosome of the Church to be reuealed at the Councell of Lateran But what will not this man say that auouches such as held contrary to Transubstantiation as indeed the ancient Church did yet did also beleeue it by implicite faith How doth a man belieue that which he beleeues not he answers by resolution and readinesse to yeeld to the church they might beleeue that which in their ignorance they erred in Let vs make an end then the Reply hath got the victory The Fathers and the Church her selfe might for 1200 yeares be ignorant of Transubstantiation yea hold contrary to it or not expresse it in their writings and yet beleeue it too and their writings be full of testimonies for it in euery age because they were not obstinate but had implicite faith infolded in the generall assent that euery Catholicke giues to that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church By which faith they beleeued contrary to that they writte This Reader is our Aduersaries case and the last end of their antiquity not in this point of Transubstantiation alone but in all the rest they boast of succession and Doctors and Councels and Antiquity and Catalogues and yet these D D. and Councels in the Catalogue held these things but implicite and that must be enough to stop the Protestants mouth Sure this is one of the wittiest and acutest distinctions that euer I read For thereby I can proue all the ancient D D. to haue taught and beleeued flat contrary to all they writ For first I will make the present Church of Rome the Catholicke Church Then I will say they beleeued that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church Now the Church of Rome
side and checks the Pope and all his counsels thereby to inuite them to peace and vnity they know that we inuocate one God and beleeue all the articles of the Creed and rule of faith and preach and presse godlinesse of life without partiality punishing sinne and rewarding well doing as much as can be done in any kingdome or state that themselues allow they haue seene within the memory of man innumerable soules giuing their life for the testimony of that we beleeue onely we differ in diuers articles which potent and skilfull aduersaries at seuerall times in ages past brought into the Church let our writings be vnpartially weighed and the Scriptures be diligently read and the first Antiquity well considered and it will appeare they are in an error and kept in bondage thereto onely through the subtilty and cunning of their masse Priests God of his goodnesse open their eyes and eares that they may embrace the truth and come forth of Babylon and shaking off their superstition content themselues with the Testament of Iesus Christ to whom be all honour and power ascribed for euer Amen xij Maij 1614. A Table of the Questions and Controuersies either purposely and largely handled or by occasion briefly falling out betweene my Aduersary and me in this Defence A ANtichrist and his persecution with the time of his Reigne as the Papists hold it pag. 361. and 378. Apocrypha not Canonicall Scripture pag. 61. and 62. in the marg Assurance of grace and saluation Chap. 16. Antecedent and Consequent will of God pag. 212. Authoritie of the Church and Scripture Chap. 30. nu 4. B Baptisme of infants by Scripture pag. 151. nu 3. The Bull against Mich. Baius pag. 48. nu 5. C Catholicke discipline what pag. 5. Church defined and distinguished pag. 365. nu 2. The visiblenesse of the Church at large Chap. 37.38.39 In what sense the Church Militant is sometime inuisible pag. 355. 360. 373. Hypocrites not true members of the Church pag. 369. Where the Church was before Luther 386. 390. 394. How the Church is subiect to error pag. 421. nu 2. Councels subiect to error Chap. 47. Charles the Emperor his booke against Images pag. 458. nu 5. Conception of the B. Virgin in sin Chap. 49. Communion in one kinde Chap. 55. E Celebration of Easter pag. 150. nu 2. Erre the Church may erre pag. 421. nu 2. And how Councels Chap. 47. Errors came in by degrees into the Church pag. 519. nu 1. F Fathers their consent with Protestants pag. 410. and Chap. 45. They professed not Papistrie Chap. 43. The Papists manner of reiecting them pag. 177. Fundamentall and not Fundamentall points of faith Chap. 17. Frankford Councell against images Chap. 48. G Grace assurance of grace Chap. 16. Gregory what faith he taught pag. 433. H Hypocrites no true members of the Church pag. 369. Hildebrands doctrine touching the Popes power ouer Princes pag. 27. nu 2. inde I Iesuites when and to what purpose ordained pag. 13. The maintainers of turbulencie and treasons pag. 25. and 81. Charged with purging bookes pag. 56. and 72. with inhumanitie pag. 87. with training vp their people in ignorance pag. 54. and 92. Inuocation of Saints by praier Chap. 13. and 14 Implicite faith and all the doctrine of the Papists touching the same Chap. 23. Image worship and the doctrine of Rome touching the same pag. 453. and 528. and Chap. 53. Iustification of the Gentiles Chap. 22. nu 1. L The Laitie forbidden the Scripture pag. 479. Permitted in ancient time to reade them Chap. 51. Luther whence he had his assurance and who taught him pag. 320. nu 8. His reiecting the Fathers pag. 310. nu 2. He sought reformation with all humility pag. 317. Where the Church was afore his time pag. 386. and 390. and 394. M Marriage of Priests Chap. 52. and Chap. 58. nu 2. Masse Priests see Iesuites Masse pag. 74. and Chap. 58. nu 5. Merits Chap. 7. and Chap. 58. nu 4. N The second Nicen Councell Chap. 48. O Originall sin pag. 530. nu 6. P Peters being at Rome and being Bishop of Rome pag. 534. nu 2. Pope how many Princes he hath bin Traitor to pag. 34. nu 3. The Papists make him the rule of faith and iudge of all pag. 67. and 79. and 299. and Chap. 34. and 35. His supremacy chap. 54. and pag. 525. His succeeding of Peter pag. 537. nu 2. and 3. He hath erred and bene an Hereticke euen in Cathedra pag. 543. nu 7. Purging of bookes pag. 56. and 72. Praier to Saints Chap. 13. and 14. For the dead Chap. 57. nu 3. Protestant religion whether it bring men to desperation p. 401. nu 8. Pardons Chap. 57. nu 2. Purgatory Chap. 57. nu 2. Priests mariage Chap. 52. and Chap. 58. nu 2. Predestination whether for grace foreseene pag. 220. nu 10. inde Predetermination of mans will by Gods will pag. 236. nu 21. Papists cast off the Fathers pag. 177. maintaine saluation without the knowledge of Christ pag. 162. haue changed the ancient faith pag. 339. purged the ancient writings pag. 56. and 72. R Rome a whore pag. 11. n. 2. Romane Clergy their couetousnesse Ch. 4. nu 1. and Ch. 5. Their charity pag. 23. nu 3. Reall presence pag. 76. Rule of Faith and the properties thereof Ch. 26. and Ch. 35 nu 6. S Scripture put downe pag. 9. and 65. and 79. and 250. Translation thereof into the vulgar tongue pag. 63. and Ch. 51. Such translations forbidden the laity pag. 479. nu 2. Scripture proues and expounds it selfe Ch. 19. and 20. and 32. The sufficiency thereof against Traditions Ch. 27. and 30. and 31. and pag. 274. Obscurity and perspicuity of it Ch. 29. The light of it pag. 280. What certainty or infallibility there is in translations Ch. 28. How particular men are assured of the sense of the Scripture pag. 314. Spirits priuate Ch. 32. and pag. 315. Saints their inuocation Ch. 13. and 14. How they are supposed to heare vs. pag. 105. Sufficient grace whether giuen to all pag. 231. nu 15. Succession of the true Faith in the Church how it was Ch. 44. Succession of the Romish faith set forth in Catalogues how answered pag. 406. Seruice in an vnknowne language Ch. 50. T Transubstantiation Ch. 56. Traditions preferred and Scripture put downe pag. 9. 65. 79. 250. Treasonable doctrine and traiterous practises defended by Papists pag. 27. inde Translation of the Scripture into the mother tongues pag. 63. See Scripture V Vacancy in the Sea of Rome pag. 541. nu 5. Virginity of the B. virgine Mary pag. 149. nu 1. Woman Pope pag. 542. nu 6. Scripture expounded at large 1. Tim. 2.4 God will all men to be saued pag. 210. nu 4. 2. Tim. 3.15 All Scripture is inspired of God c. Chap. 31. 1. Cor. 14. Ch. 50. THE CONTENTS OF THE SEuerall Chapters of this Booke CHAP. 1. THe title of A. D. his Reply
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
more clearely declared and more strongly confirmed by A.D. student in Diuinitie Wherein I mislike diuers things First that he stiles it A REPLY which is nothing lesse when he replies neither to all nor in forme to any thing but onely repeating the conclusions and arguments of some part of the Treatise mentioned and without any order making choise of what he lists in my booke to confute he sets downe my answers imperfectly and skipping from one thing to another and dissembling or quite omitting the strength and substance of that I writ he replies to few things in comparison and most an end occupies himselfe in rehearsing things that he should haue defended This is a sorie kind of Replying and a We hold it VNWORTHY the title of an Answer wherein all the authors best reasons are dissembled and quite omitted Bâ—â—arl protest apol p 61 vnworthy the Title especially in these dayes when our Seminaries haue challenged to themselues such an opinion of substantiall dealing and going through-stitch with euery thing they take in hand and the poore Booke hauing bene so terribly threatned They haue had it now foure yeares to blow vpon and many heauie imputations haue bene layed vpon it by no meane persons of their sect that would seeme to haue skill and courage and is all now resolued into this poore REPLY If they thought it vnworthy the answering why would they meddle with it If they would needs be medling why haue they not done it sincerely and in forme I haue b Onus eccl p. 30. n. 13. read how not farre from Rome there hath bene heard in the aire as it were the noise of an armie and blowing of trumpets and going off of gunnes as if there had bene some great businesse towards and yet when men haue come neare to view they haue seene nothing but a heard of swine and the footings of certaine strange beasts vpon the ground this be like was to warne the Pope that the noise of his champions and clamouâ—s of his people was but a meteore that would end in a little gruntling and trampling 2 Next I mislike the concealing of his name and shrouding of himselfe vnder a couple of letters yet because the ordinary practise thereof seemes to haue legitimated it I will forbeare all other kinde of censuring and onely in the words of three of his owne side let him see what I might say of it The first is c Search p. 16. Walsingham When I came to view and peruse the booke and finding it to be without name of author hauing onely a most bitter intitulation I began first to maruell at that because I did see no reason why any Protestant writer should conceale his name in so worthy a matter as is the defence of his religion for which his labour and learned trauell he might assuredly hope for so great praise and commendation not onely from men but reward from God also whose truth and Gospell he should acquit from such and so great blemishes of falshood and vntruth as were by the aduersaries thereof obiected against it So he The second is Cardinall Bellarmine d Tract de potest sum Pont. adu Baâ—cl praefat Hee that set foorth Barklies booke neither put to his name nor the name of the Printer or place where it was printed he was afraid belike and not without cause either that he should be punished or discommended for it These are no signes of a good worke For he that euill doth hateth the light lest his workes be reproued whereas he that doth the truth comes to the light that his workes may be knowne to be of God Ioh. 3. The third is Iesuite Becane e Quaest Batav opusc tom 3. p. 140. Yea but you haue another name which you dissemble What 's the reason Your Hollanders will thinke one thing but I thinke another MY OPINION IS YOV DO IT THAT YOV MAY THE MORE SECVRELY LIE AND PLAY THE IMPOSTOR It is not said for nothing in the Gospell He that euill doth hateth the light and in the Epistle to the Thessalonians They that are drunke are drunke in the night And certainly IF YOV WERE A GOOD MAN YOV WOVLD NOT BE ASHAMED OF YOVR NAME to confesse who you are now when you do otherwise how can any man chuse but suspect you When you flie the light WHO WILL NOT TAKE YOV FOR A NIGHT-BIRD But Papists may do that which is not permitted vs. For f Poggh faceâ— the Pope was wont to haue his iester when he told him tales to make him sport to do it standing behind a cloth in a corner for being outfaced And it should seeme our Seminary-priests haue obtained the same fauour that standing out of fight behind the shreene they may be the bolder to vtter that which being bashfull they would be loath to speake bare faced If this be so I am satisfied good reason euery Order enioy his priuiledge 3 In the Title also hee calls vs Ministers g Such is the ordinarie and common ignominie and dishonor to be reputed a MINISTER in the English Church that I suppose very few or no Catholike Priests of that nation would change their HONOVR euen in England with so base and infamous a generation R. B. resolut relig p 54. Of which HONOVR of Popish Priests in the times past one writes Nam homines Ecclesiastics sua culâ—a ita profanarunt sâ— ordinem suum quod iam planè à magnis à paruâ—s in toto mundo habeantur despectui Ioh. Mar. Belg. de schism concil pag. 467. ex Alan Chartier in contempt But we haue the vantage of him for whereas he cannot shew one place in all the new Testament where the Preachers of the Gospell and Pastors of the Church are intitled Priests as he is albeit the name may be vsed well enough in his due sense by those that are the Ministers of Iesus Christ and not the vassals of Antichrist we can shew where they h Act. 13.2 20 24. 1. Cor. 4 1. 2. Cor. 3 6. 5.18 Eph. 3.7 4.12 6.21 Col. 1.7.23.27 4.7 1. Thess 3 2.1 Tim. 4.6 2. Tim 4.5.11 are called Ministers and their worke Ministerie and our contentment is that being called to the worke of this Ministerie we carie a Name that imports no more Whereas Masse-priests and Soulepriests Friars Iesuites and Seminaries not onely are the titles of those that weare Christs liuerie and do seruice to Antichrist but are become the names of the vnnaturallest monsters and wickedst persons that liue in the world as all the Churches and States thereof this day feele by experience and this kingdome can well testifie 4 Vnder the Title he writes this sentence of Scripture Ecclesia est columna firmamentum veritatis The Church is the pillar and firmament of truth 1. Tim. 3. He had read belike in i Rat. 3. Campian that the name of the Church would terrifie the Protestants and
56. hereticall and temerarious or further then as he held it with violence and passion Let him reade the Bull and he shall finde therein many propositions that himselfe will not condemne The second is that as an euill worke of his nature merits eternall death so a good worke of it owne nature merits eternall life yet t Sicut se habet culpa ad poenam ita opus virtutis ad gloriam Sed culpa ex condigno meretur poenam ergo actus virtutis ex condigno meretur vitaem aeternam Tho. 2. d. 27. art 3. Quae quidem satis indicant non minus sempiternam foelicitatem iustorum esse praeclaris operibus debitam quà m aeternos cruciatus eorum sceleribus qui nō nouerunt Deum Andrad orthod expl pag. 517. God giues as wel euerlasting life and glory to men for and according to their good workes as he giues damnation for the contrary workes Rhem annot Rom. 2. n. 6. this is generally holden among all their Diuines The eight proposition is that in such as are redeemed by the grace of Christ there can be found no good merit which is not freely giuen to him that is vnworthy yet the Iesuite sayes here that all our workes merit by the grace of Christ which is false if the Bull censure truly for to haue no merit but such as is freely giuen to him that is vnworthy and to haue merits that are not freely giuen but the partie is worthy are contrary The 14 is that our workes at the last iudgement shall receiue no ampler reward then by the iust iudgement of God they deserue yet Vega u De Iustificat q. 5. holds this opinion The 30 is that no tentation can be resisted without the grace of Christ yet x Abulens in Matth 19. q. 178. Gregor Arimin 2. d. 28. Cassal quadrip instit par 1. l 1 c. 25. Bellarm. grat lib. arb l. 5. c. 7. many Schoole men hold it The like may be shewed in other propositions there censured and yet commonly holden by the learned in the Church of Rome whereupon I conclude that the Bull is no sufficient argument to proue the place I cited out of Baius not to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome but the Iesuite would vse the name thereof to serue the present turne when he had no true vnderstanding of the drift and purpose of it CHAP. VIII 1. The Papacie brought in by Satan 2. The Iesuites spirit of contradiction 3. The Church of Rome reuolted The fiue Patriarchs were equall at the first 4. Plaine Scripture against the Papacie 5. The ignorance of popish laitie 6. Corruption of writings by the Papists 7. Reformation desired long afore it came 8 9. Aduice giuen to A.D. A. D. In the same Preface I finde many other notable vntruths Pag. 27. as § 3. where he affirmeth that the Papacie was brought in by Satan at the first and is still continued onely to seduce the world 1 BY the Papacie I meane all that masse of innumerable errours in doctrine and Church-gouernement wherein they differ from vs and of it I do confidently affirme as a §. 48. n. 1. I expound in THE WAY that in processe of time it grew as a scabbe or a disease in the Church which in the beginning knew no such faith and forsomuch as b Mat. 13.25 all innouations are tares the enemy that sowes tares among the wheate is the diuell therefore I affirmed and yet doe that the Papacie was brought in by the diuell as all other heresies were And forsomuch as c Parum enim interest an cum daemone quis habitet an cum viro Apostata Effrem test pag 793. Mihi certe ille nunquam aliud quà m diabolus erit quia Arianus est Hilar cont Auxe sub fin there is little or no difference betweene the Diuell and an Apostata or an hereticke therefore I adde that to communicate with the Papacie is to follow d 1. Tim. 4.1 the doctrine of diuels A. D. And againe Pag 28. that Catholickes seeke nothing but to be contrary to Protestants and euen hate the name of peace 2 I did not onely say this but I shewed it also first by relating the paines that in vaine and to no purpose hath bin taken with them to bring them to reconciliation and namely at the conference at Regenspurge where diuers points being agreed it is well knowne how Ecchius a man of an vnquiet spirit e See his Apol. adu Bucer sup act colloq Ratispon laboured to dissolue the agreement and discredit all that was done with the Emperour and States that had taken so much paines therein Then by the froward words of two Iesuites Bellarmine and Maldonate whereto I adde a third as refractary as they Lorin a Iesuite hauing related the iudgement of sixe great learned men against the vulgar Translation in a certaine place f Comment in 2. Pet. 1. pa. 62◠sayes They please him not for this cause because he would haue Catholickes more fauourable to the vulgar Translation and more to abhorre the sence of heretickes That is to say rather then they shall agree with vs in the truth he would haue them follow the old Mumpsimus in a lie This is the malepart spirit in our aduersaries that I speake of whereby the Reader may guesse what loue they haue to peace when vpon hatred against vs because they will not be said to yeeld they will not accept of that which themselues thinke may be truth Pag. 28. A.D. Also § 6. where he affirmeth that the present Romane Church in wholy departed in the questions controuerted from the ancient and retaineth nothing but the title and that the ancient Church of Rome professed the same faith which Protestants now professe 3 This matter is purposely shewed in g Digr 49. 51 THE WAY and handled at large in this Defence and it is not onely true but so easie also to be shewed that the Iesuite durst not so much as looke in the face that which I here added to demonstrate it He thinkes his deniall is confutation enough and so it is possible with his followers that reade his Reply but list not to heare what I added to make my word good First out of Pelusiot how a Church may lose the faith and yet retaine her name still As Lais many a day after she was turned curtizan yet was called Lais still and then out of Balsamon and Nicephorus two Patriarkes in the Greeke Church That in ancient time the Pope had not this primacie nor Rome the royaltie that now they haue To them I adde another testimonie out of Theodore Stuclites h Lib. 2. ep 129. ad Leo. Sacell The diuine and heauenly points of faith are committed to none but those to whom Christ said Whatsoeuer you binde vpon earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer you shall loose vpon earth shall be loosed in heauen But who are
his lawes equall to the Kings is as much as if they thrust the King out of the throne For a wife to yeeld those duties to a neighbour that are proper to her husband makes her an adulteresse though otherwise she denie him nothing And it is vntrue that the Iesuite sayes the Apocrypha was esteemed canonicall Scripture in the ancient Church for a Legit quidem Ecclesia sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit c. Iero praef in Prou. Non sunt in Canone Praef. in 1. Reg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Laodic e vlt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. synops p. 63. Athanasius reckoned the bookes of Scripture according to the mind of the Nicen Councell says Bâ—ron an 63. n. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melito apud Euseb hist pag. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen apud Euseb pag 65. Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt Sciendum tamen est quod alij libri sunt qui non Canonici sed Ecclesiastici à maioribus appellati sunt quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis voluerunt non tamen proferri ad authoritatem ex his fiâ—ei confirmandam Cypr. exp symb n. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Epiph. pag. 534. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Ierosol pag. 30. Catech. Hic verissimus diuinitus datarum est Scripturarum Canon Amphiloch Icon. Iamb pag. 730. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Carm. p. 36. In viginti duo libros Lex Testamenti veteru deputetur Hilar. in Psal pag 615. Sunt autem libri veteris Testamenti 24. Victorin apocal pag. 718. Hij sunt libri qui in Ecclesia pro Canonicis habentur Veteris Scripturae libri sunt viginti duo Leont de sect pag. 1848. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damasc orth fid l. 4. c. 18. pag. 348. all Antiquitie shewes the contrary that it was vsed but not to ground faith vpon and therefore the Papists putting it into the Canon abuse the Scripture and antiquitie and Protestants iudging it not to be Scripture follow not their priuate spirit but the publicke spirit of the ancient Church in the purest times And b Liber Judith Tobia Macchabaeorum Ecclesiasticus atque liber Sapientiae non sunt recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fide Occham dial p. 212. Non sunt in Canone sanctorum librorum reputata siue confirmata nec inter libros Legis Prophetarum nic inter Hagiographos computantur sicut liber Sapientiae liber Judith liber Tobiae liber Maccabaor Turrecr c. Sancta Rom. d. 15. n. 19. d. 16. c. Apostolor n. 5. The Apocrypha denied to be Canonicall Scripture by Antonin sum mor. part 3. tit 18. c. 6. §. 2. Lyra Praef. in Tob. Hugo Cardin. praef in Ios Caietan in Hest c. vlt. Picus Mirandul de fid ordin cred theor 5. And many others the learnedst also of our aduersaries are of the same iudgement the Church of Rome neuer wanting those in it that in all ages gaue testimonie to the truth that it is not Canonicall Scripture whereby the Reader may see the Iesuites rashnesse and ignorance when he sayes the Protestants of their priuate spirit thrust the Apocrypha by the head and shoulders out of the Canon For the other bookes as Ierome saith the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine say * Art 6. idem R. Iacob praef monitor pag. 39. the articles of our Church 2 His second reason to proue that the Church of Rome reuerences the Scripture more then we do is because they presume not to translate them or interprete them according to their owne priuate iudgement but conformably according to the spirit of the vniuersall Church whereas Protestants permit euery man to rush into the Text to translate or interprete it Both the parts of this reason are false First the Papists out of the reuerend regard to the diuine truth contained in theÌ„ presume not either to translate or interprete the Scripture according to their priuate iudgement but according to the iudgement of the vniuersall Church Here are three vntruths First that in their expositions and interpretations they follow the vniuersall Church for therein they follow onely the Popes will and practise of the present Romane Church which are not the vniuersall Church this is shewed in THE WAY Digr 16. And c Si quando occurrerit aliquis sensus textui consoâ—us quamuis à torrente doctorum alienus loctor aequum se prebeat censorem nullusque detestetur illum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus Non enim alligauit Deus expositionem Scripturae priscorum Doctorum sensibus alioquin spes nobis tolleretur exponendi ScripturaruÌ„ Caietan pâ—â—oem in Gen defended and followed herein by Andrad pro concil l. 2. Communu opinio Doctorum non est attendenda quando altera contraria opinio fauet potestati clauium aut iurisdictioni Ecclesiae aut pâ—ae causae D. Marta de iurisd part 4 pag. 273. their learned men professe to follow new expositions that the ancient Fathers neuer vsed Secondly that in their Translations they follow the vniuersall Church For the vulgar Latin is not the Translation of the vniuersall Church neither was any man bound to it till the Councell of Trent and their translations into the mother tongues when they are inforced thereunto following the vulgar follow the vniuersall Church no more then it doth The corruption of that Translation I haue shewed in THE WAY Digr 7. Thirdly that they translate not the Scripture but according to the iudgement of the vniuersall Church as if they vsed translations into the mother tongue which is vntrue thus far that they vse them not but being inforced thereto by some extremitie but vtterly forbid them and crie out against them as I haue shewed elsewhere 3 The second part of his second reason is likewise false that Protestants permit euery man to rush without reuerence into the sacred Text to translate it if he haue skill in the learned tongues or to interprete it by his priuate spirit although he haue no skill in any besides the vulgar tongue for we mislike priuate spirits and expositions more then our aduersaries do who tie all to the Popes sole will when we allow no exposition afore it be squared to the rule of faith and the sence of the true Church And touching translating there is as much regard with vs as was when the Church was purest no mans priuate translation is canonized but that which is publickly vsed is done by publicke authoritie an example whereof we had these last yeares in the new Translation * The comparison will scarce please those that absurdly hold the Septuagint and the author of the Latin vulgar were Prophets infallibly guided in translating by Gods Spirit as the Apostles and Prophets them selues were
Papists to explicate proue their transubstantiation that it is confessed to be too grosse and meerly false if the words be vnderstood as they sound of the bodie of Christ So the Glosse Nisi sanc intelligas verba Berengarij in maiorem incides haeresim quà m ipse habuit §. Dentibus Turrecremata Nec iste modus loquendi est tenendus Ibi. nu 1. §. Respondeo Hervaeus Quod quidem vocabulum vt sc à dentibus tereatur non est extendendum sed exponendum restringendum vt sit sensus non quod corpus verum Christi teratur dentibus sed quod illae species sub quibus realiter est tereantur dentibus Et ideo est alia opinio communior verior c. 4. d. 10. qu. 1. pag. 17. But this Glosse is proued vntrue by this that the words thus expounded containe nothing against Berengarius opinion who had denied onely the grosse and reall presence of Christs flesh it was sometime therefore beleeued by some bodie in the Church of Rome belike that his blessed bodie touching the place and maner of presence was as far from them that receiue the Sacrament as heauen is from earth This for the reall and spirituall presence If the Iesuite dare put his Transubstantiation to the triall let him looke into m Digress 49. nu 9. THE WAY and hearken what many of his owne learned men say of it and when he hath done let him take a view of the poore answer that in this his Reply he hath made vnto them Pag. 32. A.D. The fourth marke is set downe by M. White in these words The most points of Papistrie are directly and at the first sight absurd and against common sence and the law of nature If he meane that they seeme at the first sight absurd c. to the seduced people of his sect who neither beleeue nor rightly vnderstand either the things by vs beleeued or the reason or authoritie for which we beleeue them then it may be he saith true but nothing to the purpose For if this were a sufficient marke to make vs misdoubt our religion by the like reason other heretickes or infidels who do not beleeue the mysteries of the blessed Trinitie the Incarnation c. might thinke to make vs misdoubt the truth of these mysteries because they who neither beleeue these mysteries nor rightly vnderstand them nor the reasons and motiues which make vs beleeue them will say that these mysteries are directly and at first sight absurd c. yet in truth they are not absurd nor against but aboue our reason and sense so I say to M. White although other points of our religion seeme to him absurd yet in truth they are not absurd neither are they contrary to but at most aboue the reach of naturall reason 4 I do not obiect against the religion of the Papacie that it is but aboue the reach of reason For many mysteries of the true faith are so the which we must beleeue and n Nec quisquam potest intelligentiam Dei apprehendere nisi qui toto se despecto conuersus ad sapientiam Dei omnem quaerendi ratiocinationem transtuleriâ— ad credendi fideÌ„ Oros l. 6. c. 1. not examine by sence but that many points thereof are absurd and directly against sence and the light of nature which no peece of true religion is as for example that a man endued with reason should fall downe and adore and inuocate an image o Shewed in THE WAY §. 50. n. â—6 51. n 7. and below chap. 54. the which in the Church of Rome is taught and practised As many other points are as absurd as it But if it be true which the Iesuite sayes that they are mysteries which we vnderstand not being a seduced people not acquainted with the authority whereupon they are beleeued that is another matter that I knew not before for they are to blame that will demand reason for the mysteries of Rome that haue authoritie beyond reason p Apoc. 17.5 whose forehead hath the word Mysterie written in it and I had forgotten q Quia in his quae vult ei est pro ratione voluntas Nec est qui ei dicat cur ita facis Gloss §. Veri c. Quanto de transl ep Sacrilegij instaâ— esset disputare de facto suo Glos §. Quis enim d. 40. Non nos Jta nos ad iudices reuocas ac si nescires omnia iura in scrinio pectoris nostri collecata esse sic flat sententia Loco cedant omnes Pontifex sum Paul 2. Platin. p. 304. a rule in his law that forbids men to aske any reason of his doings But in the mean time where are the Iesuites r Introd q. 4. p. 100. prudentiall motiues without which nothing ought to be beleeued because the vnderstanding cannot assent to the thing propounded without some probable motiue For religion bids not men be stockes A. D. And one cause why the common sort of Protestants do at the first sight thinke them absurd is because they haue not heard points of our doctrine truly related and declared as our Authors declare them nor the reasons and authorities set downe for which we beleeue them but haue heard such ignorant or malicious Ministers as M White make false relation of points of absurd doctrine to be held by vs which we do not hold but abhorre As to go no further M. White falsely relateth in this very place that we hold the Pope to haue right to Lord it ouer the Scriptures Fathers Councels Church and all the world That we teach also men to murther the King to pay no debts to blow vp the Parliament to dispense with murther and whoredome c. These and such like be not points of our doctrine but shamelesse and slanderous vntruths by which simple people are drawne by ignorant or malicious Ministers to mislike our doctrine in generall and to be apt to haue a worse conceit of euery point of it in particular especially at the first sight then by due examination they shall finde it to deserue 5 Not Protestants onely thinke Poperie absurd but many Papists also censuring the points I haue named and misliking them shew plainly that I spake true yet the Reply sayes the cause why the common sort of Protestants thinke Poperie absurd is because they heare not the points of Papistrie truly related but their ignorant and malicious Ministers charge them to hold what they hold not This is false for first these Protestants that thus condemne Papistrie do dayly reade the Papists owne bookes which are not restrained and prohibited with a The reading and vse of Lutheran bookes forbidden not onely the vulgar but all others of what state degree order or condition soeuer they be though Bishops Archbishops or greater onely the Jnquisitors are excepted by a Decretall of Iulius the 3. See Sept. Decr. l. 5. tit 4. de lib. prohib c. 2. that seueritie wherewith
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
nothing 2 That which he sayes is two things First he repeates and expounds his conclusion Next he touches some small portion of that I said concerning it In repeating his conclusion first he sayes he meant it against such as thinke it sufficient to beleeue some few articles onely though they deny or doubt of others which yet the Church beleeues yea rashly and obstinately denies them who these men are he names not but he meanes the Protestants Because they deny such points as the Church of Rome which he meanes by his Catholicke Church vntruly propounds vnto them For they must be the persons intended that deny any thing which the Roman Church holds for an article of faith as the Popes primacy Purgatory Images and the rest which in b Commonly printed with the Trent Councell inserted in the WAY praef n. 15. the new Creed of the Trent Councell are made articles of faith But the Protestants answer readily that they confesse no point at all may be denied or doubted of either obstinately or rashly or at all that is a point of faith reuealed in the word of God but the things holden and propounded by the Church of Rome against them are the false doctrines and heresies of Antichrist ridiculously called the faith of the Catholicke Church Then expounding his conclusion he shewes in what manner faith must beleeue all things that it may be entire and he sayes either expresly or implicitely wherein he bewrayes that which I suspected and signified in my answer for his conclusion being that faith must be entire and sound stedfastly beleeuing all things reuealed I c The WAY pag. 5. answered that this might be granted in a true sense But peraduenture his mind ran vpon a further matter which his Church teaches about infolded faith meaning thereby that howsoeuer he affirmed that we are bound to beleeue all points of faith as well one as other yet that might be done sufficiently by beleeuing as the Church beleeues without knowledge of any thing that is beleeued the which my suspition he grants in this place to be true and so his conclusion which at the first carried so good a semblance of binding men to the knowledge of particular verities and made so honest a proffer against ignorance is now resolued into this sense that by an intire faith you are bound to beleeue all things the which is done by knowing nothing but onely beleeuing implicitely as the Church of Rome beleeues Let a man neuer trouble himselfe with inquiring into the mysteries of Christian religion or controuersies of faith but onely say d Rhem. annot Luc. 12.11 he will liue and die in that faith which the Catholicke Church teaches and this Church can giue a reason of the things beleeued This is the equiuocating tongue of the Church of Rome that can ambush it selfe in words and vnder faire speeches conceale no small wickednes 3 His arguments in maintenance of this implicite faith are fiue First the authority of M. Wootton who seemes to speake against me next because to get expresse knowledge of all points contained in Scripture which are points necessary to be beleeued is impossible at least for vnlearned men Thirdly faith and knowledge are two distinct things faith being of things not knowne captiuating the vnderstanding therefore this distinct knowledge is not presupposed before Fourthly reason and experience teach that beleefe and knowledge are distinct beleefe not presupposing knowledge but going before it Fiftly the Fathers Irenaeus Hilary Austin affirme faith to be sufficient without knowledge Afore I answer his arguments note fiue things First what our aduersaries meane hy implicite or infolded faith and it is nothing else but a blind assent of the mind to whatsoeuer the Church of Rome beleeues without any knowledge at all of the things themselues e Occh. dialog part 1. l. 3. c. 1. p. 18. Dur. 3. d. 25. q. 1. â—abr ibi Notab 2. Do. Bann 22. pag. 349. The Schoolemen deliuer it in finer termes that it is the assent of the minde to some generall or vniuersall thing wherein many particulars are included with will to beleeue nothing that is contrary thereunto but the meaning is that to the essence and nature of this entire faith the distinct knowledge or apprehension of any particular truth or article is not required but onely resolution and profession to be of the Churches beleefe whatsoeuer it be in the same manner that I reported the Colliars faith Thus any man by an implicite faith beleeues the articles of Religion and particular mysteries of our faith touching the Vnity and Trinity of the Godhead the Incarnation and Office of Christ the nature of Faith the practise of Repentance the Resurrection the Sacraments Redemption of mankinde state of sinne and the last Iudgement when he will beleeue and hold touching these things as the Church of Rome doth and yet in the meane time his vnderstanding in no measure penetrates into these articles nor can distinctly explicate or conceiue them Altisiodorensis f Sum. l. 3. tract 3. c. 1. qu. 5. saies To beleeue implicitely is to beleeue in this generall that whatsoeuer the Church beleeues is true Dionysius g 3. de 25. qu. vnic p. 215. This is infolded faith to beleeue in generall all that our Holy mother the Church beleeues Summa Rosella h V. Fides n. 1. quem refert Bann vbi sup To beleue all that which our mother the Church beleeues and holds as when a Christian man is asked whether Christ were borne of the virgine Marie or whether there be one God and three Persons and he answers that he cannot tell but beleeues touching these matters as the Church holdeth This is the definition of entire faith which the Iesuite saies extends it selfe vniuersally to all points at least implicitely Note Secondly what the things are and which be the points that our aduersaries teach to be sufficiently beleeued by this infolded faith The Reply seemes to affirme that it is allowed onely in some points which a man for want of sufficient meanes cannot know I grant saith he and neuer did deny but that there are some points necessary to be particularly knowne of all sorts Necessitate medij and some necessary to be knowne Necessitate praecepti In which points implicite beleefe doth not suffice but expresse particular knowledge is required by Catholicke Diuines to be ioyned to the assent of our faith in other points so farre as we neither know nor haue sufficient meanes to know them we may well commend the Colliars faith in beleeuing in generall as the Church beleeueth In which wordes my aduersarie seemes to allow implicite faith only in some few cases and charges me with two grosse vntruthes because I say the Papists vtterly refuse knowledge and Canonize the Colliars implicite faith for their Creed But he should haue obserued that which was vnder his eyes and affixed to my words alledged whereby I proued what I said I alledged Iacobus
presume to attaine faith without vsing the meanes Secondly to helpe such as despaire when they either know not that there is such a meanes or vnderstand not what in particular it is To take away presumption and desperation he layes downe this conclusion touching the rule of faith the which when he afterward defines to be his Romane Church speaking by the mouth of the Pope you may perceaue what a ready way he takes to keepe men from Presumption and Desperation 2 But whatsoeuer his intent were he sayes I grant him 4. things which is in a manner as much as he desires First that there is such a rule left Secondly that by this rule we may be infallibly instructed what is to be holden for true faith Thirdly that the cause why men misse the truth is because they either finde it not or obey it not Fourthly this rule is of such nature that it is able to direct al men yea the simplest and vnlearnedst aliue The which I granted him then and by these presents do grant againe vpon condition he will not be proud of that I giue him without any vantage to his purpose as if he had obtained some great boone but hold him to my grant mannerly and incroach no further For I gaue him warning that if he meant such a rule as all men at all times may haue accesse vnto as being concealed from none but visible and reuealed or manifest to all places ages and persons I would not grant it him for the reasons there expressed the which my exception in this place he calles vnorderly running before the Hare and in his next Section answers by expounding himselfe that he did not meane it should be actually manifest but onely such as * Doth he meane I maâ—uell in his Potentia remota whereof pag. 165. below c. 26. might be knowne but I ranne not before the Hare for I hunted a Foxe that was closely stealing to the wood in which game good Fox-hunters say it is not against the law to crosse the way and marke his headding For his head is to the wood in euery conclusion aiming at nothing but to traine by degrees such as follow him into his visible Church and the Popes authority ruling therein and therefore I distinguisht the diuers sences of his words being acquainted before with old Reinard Gregory of Valence in whose steppes I saw the Reply to tread and shewed which was true and which false that there might be no ambiguity And although he answer that I mistake him when I thought his meaning was this rule should be manifest and actually knowne to all yet I am not satisfied for though I giue him leaue to expound himselfe and accept his exposition yet what I suspected necessarily followes still of that he saies afterward as I then obserued for g Treat c. 10. in the WAIE §. 13. he defines the teaching of the Church to be the rule and this Church he maintaines to be such as not onely is of it nature visible and such as may be seene but h Treat c. 12. in the WAIE §. 18. inde manifest and actually knowne to all places ages and persons in the world And it followes manifestly of that if you say that sometime the Church could not be knowne nor be a meanes whereby the true faith might be knowne then men liuing at such time should want the meanes and so it were not vniuersally true that God would haue all men saued and come to the knowledge of his truth He that saies the Church is the Rule and such a rule as all men vniuersally may at all times know meanes that the rule is manifest and actually knowne to all this meaning he disclaimes and I am satisfied with it yet it followes violently vpon his owne wordes 3 Thirdly from the 4. things I graunt he gathers 3. things more First that No man must presume or once hope to attaine to true faith without finding and following the rule thereof ordained by God Secondly that No man neede to despaire though he be neuer so vnlearned or simple but by seeking finding and follwing this rule he may be sufficiently instructed in faith Thirdly that it concernes euery one careful of his saluation to seek follow this rule for his instruction in the faith which is necessary to saluation These three I likewise yeeld him though they be not that which he principally almes at to encourage him because it will be some little honesty for him when his friends reade his booke to shew them what materiall points he hath extorted from M. White but the gift is not great my aduersary will returne the whole 7. backe againe in exchange for one single one that I can name him CHAP. XXV The text of 1. Tim. 2.4 God willes all men to be saued c. expounded The diuers expositions that are giuen of those wordes Gods antecedent will as they call it is not his will formally The antecedent consequent will of God expounded diuers wayes A.D. § 1. Concerning the meaning of the Apostles wordes Pag. 145. GOD WIL ALL MEN TO BE SAVED c. First it is certaine that the meaning of the Apostles words is not that God hath an absolute effectuall will and decree to saue euery man or to bring euery man in particular to the knowledge of the truth or to the knowledge of that â—â—â—diate rule and meanes which he hath ordained to instruct men in faith This is euident because if there were any such absolute and effectuall will and decree in God then since his will is alwaies fulfilled all should effectually be saued or should actually come to the knowledge of the truth or at least to the knowledge of that Rule and meanes which God hath ordained to instruct men in faith which euident experience telleth vs not to be true By which my assertion M. White may see how much he mistaketh when he thinkes me to meane that the Rule and Meanes ordained by God is not onely as I speake visible that is such as may be assigned and knowne White pag. 9. but also manifested as M. White speaketh that is such as is actually knowne to all places ages and persons in the world Secondly whereas there are diuers expositions of these wordes of the Apostle giuen by good authors the chiefe question betwixt me and my aduersaries is about the exposition of S. Damascen S. Thomas and many other learned Diuines who hold that the Apostle saying that God will all men to be saued meaneth that God hath an Antecedent will to saue euery man although considering the sinnes of men he he hath a consequent will to condemne some This exposition my Aduersaries mislike either in their ignorance because they do not vnderstand it aright or for that they adhere to some part of Caluines error about Praedestination with which it cannot stand Wherefore to instruct their ignorance in this point and to deliuer them or at least others
in 1. p. qu 19. pag. 544. Soto Maior in 1. Tim. 2. 4 Magalia op Hierarch ib. annot 2. pag. 249. Our aduersaries are priuie to eight seuerall interpretations at the least and yet to this day they doe not consent in any one of them but one followes this and another that as he perceiues it will best serue his turne for the present occasion the chiefest whereof are these The first that Christ as he was man and by his humane will would that all men should be saued The second that God would all men to be saued and come to the knowledge of his truth in that he makes vs to wish and desire this our selues by stirring vs vp to seeke and pray for it because the will that God workes in vs is said to be Gods will This exposition Saint Austin i De Ciuit. l. 22. c. 1. 2. de corrept grat cap. penult seemes though something obscurely to imply Syluius a professor at Doway now liuing k Fra. Sylv. explicat part 4. art 1. ad 3. holdeth him to it And Dominicus Bannes l Dom. Bann vbi sup sayes it is a most elegant exposition and verie literall The third is that such onely are meant as are saued by restraining the vniuersall signe to the elect alone and meaning that God wils all to be saued that are saued by the vertue of which will they are saued as a schoole-master is said to teach all the children in the towne when hee onely teaches all that are taught m Aug. ep 107. Enchirid. c. 103. de Praedest c. 8. Thus Saint Austin expounds it wherein n Sedul Beda Haymo Anselm in 1. Tim. 2. Magist d. 46. others also follow him and our aduersaries o Arimin 1. d. 40. art 2. Camerac 1. q. 14. art 1. Durand 1. d. 46. q. 1 ad 2 Gabr. in Cano. lect 68. vse it and allow it The fourth is that God by * Voluntate signi the signification of his will reuealed in his word would all men to be saued in as much as he offers to all men either the doctrine of the Gospell or some other signe whereby hee inuites them to saluation And this exposition denies that there is any will of good pleasure in God referred and determined to the saluation of all but onely to the meanes propounded which of themselues are sufficient and able to leade to saluation inasmuch as thereby he carries himselfe like one that hath a purpose to saue them Thus p Thom. lect in 1. Tim. 2. Caietan ibi Alexand. Bonauent Marsil Scot. Maio. Dried quos refert Vasqu 1. q 19. disp 83. n. 2. diuers Papists expound it The fift is that God would all men to be saued by sauing some in all states and degrees of men in as much as there is no difference of men rich or poore or old or yong or Iewes or Greekes or Barbarians wherein God saues not some Thus Saint Austin q August Enchir c. 103. de corrept grat c. 14. Fulgent de incarn c 31 Beda Sedul Anselm vbi supr and other Fathers expound it and diuers of our r Tho 1. p. q. 19. art 6. Gregor Arim 1. d. 46. qu. 1. Alliac 1. qu. 14. art 1. Eman. Sà annot 1. Tim 2.4 aduersaries Magalian ſ Op. Hierarch vbi sup sayes The purpose of the text fauours this sence And Soto Maior t Comment in 1 Tim 2. pag. 273. Aquinas counted this the best of all the interpretations that are giuen And himselfe affirmes it to be true and solid The sixt is this that we haue in hand touching Gods antecedent will that by a true and formall will it is antecedently his good pleasure that all men should be saued * Ergo necesse est quod in illo instanti velit indifferenter gloriam ita Juda sicut Petro. Auteol 1. d. 41. pag. 940. c. euen Iudas as well as Peter touching the which antecedent will as hee expounds it the question is betweene my aduersarie and me in this place 5 And first he sayes that albeit there be * And al of them good and true say the Rhem. ann 1. Tim. 2.4 diuers expositions of those words giuen by good Authors yet this of Damascen and Thomas may also stand which he faith because I had u THE WAY pag. 94. in the letter c. written that the Schoole distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will would not salue the matter intended by the text alledged as if this were the onely exposition allowed and followed by his Thomas Whereto I answer that Thomas vses the distinction indeed and expounds the place of Saint Paul by it but Soto Maior w Vbi sup sayes that he preferres the fift interpretation before it or any other namely that the will of God here meant is his good pleasure that is alway fulfilled and that in his elect onely chosen out of all sorts and states of people Which being so my aduersarie must be chidden for calling that Thomas his exposition which Thomas held to be inferiour to that which I gaue For if Soto say the truth that is and must be deemed Thomas his proper exposition that I gaue because hee best liked it And whether it were Damascens or no in that fence that my aduersarie expounds it may be a probleme as I will shew by and by 6 Next it must be noted how peremptorily he chargeth me with ignorance for saying this antecedent will is not SIMPLY PROPERLY and FORMALLY in God But hee should haue considered that when I said so I spake in the words of x Dur. 1. d. 46. q. 1. Durand one of his owne side whom I alledged in the margent that if it were false I said yet the ignorance should not be fathered on mee but on them that begot it For I said the truth and himselfe is ignorant of the doctrine of his owne Church For Thomas y 1. p. q. 19 ar 6. ad 1. handling this antecedent wil saith We do not simply will what we will antecedently and therefore this antecedent wil may rather be called a * Magis dici potest velleitas quà m absoluta voluntas VELLEITIE then an absolute will A VELLEITIE that is to say as Gregorie of Valence expounds him z Comment in Tho. 1. disp 1. q. 19. punct 2. a certaine conditionated will when that onely can be said simply to be willed that is willed consequently Where we see that Thomas reduces this antecedent will to an imperfect kinde of willing which he calls a VELLEITIE which is not a simple proper or formall will and the most Schoole-men follow him vpon this ground because there cannot be a formall will in God which is not fulfilled as the saluation of all men is not Hence it is a Tract de praedest lib. 4. c. 2. nu 2. saith Suarez that some haue inferred that this of God whereby he would the saluation of
might liue in all happinesse and yet this notwithstanding moued with the consideration of the offences of his subiects should determine with a secondary and consequent will to execute iustice by taking away life from some of them In this case it might truly be said that the King would haue all his subiects liue the true and proper meaning of which saying were that the King of his owne part had a will to wit an antecedent will to saue euery subiect from death although by a consequent will occasioned by the offences of his subiects he decreed to put some to death The which his antecedent will were formally and properly the Kings will as well as the consequent And although in one sense this antecedent were not simply his will that is his finall absolute resolution as the consequent will is yet in another sense it were simply his will that is that will which simply and onely proceedeth from the Kings owne naturall inclination in which sense the will consequent were not to be accounted simply the Kings will in regard it proceedeth not onely and simply out of his owne naturall inclination but was in a manner contrary to his inclination inforced or occasioned by the ill desert of his subiects Now as all this is true in such an earthly prince as I haue described so in a proportionable manner it is as much or more true in God who is not onely most milde gracious and good but infinite goodnesse it selfe whose naturall good disposition far more inclineth him to desire the saluation of all soules then any earthly King can by his milde and gracious disposition desire the life and happinesse of all his subiects and consequently like as that gracious King which I haue described hath a true inward primarie or antecedent will proceeding from his owne onely good disposition by which he desireth that all his subiects should liue notwithstanding he haue also a secondary or consequent will occasioned by the offences of his subiects by which he determineth to put some to death euen so God hath a true inward primary or antecedent will proceeding from the naturall inclination of his owne diuine goodnes by which he desireth that al shold be saued notwithstanding that he hath also according to our manner of vnderstanding a secondarie and consequent will to condemne some whereunto he is moued by the iust desert of mens sinnes And as it may be truly said of that King that he would haue all his subiects liue the true and proper meaning of which words is that he hath such a true inward primarie or antecedent will which is properly formally and in some sense simply the Kings will so it may be and is truly said of God that he would haue all men be saued the true and proper meaning of which words is that God hath a true inward primarie or antecedent will whereby he desireth of his owne part to saue all men which will is properly formally and in some sense simply the will of God 10 Hitherto I haue onely stood to shew how vncertain and variable our aduersaries in the Church of Rome are in expounding the distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will and that it is true I said this antecedent will is not simply properly and formally the will of God which being so the place of Saint Paul cannot be expounded by that distinction My aduersarie therefore proceeds by an example to shew both what this antecedent will in his opinion is and how thereby God may be truly said to will all men to be saued euen by a formall and proper wil. The summe is this that like as a King out of the graciousnesse and good disposition of his nature toward his subiects desires to haue them all and euery one of them liue happily and yet moued with their offences against his lawes determines to put some of them to death â— so God of his naturall goodnesse inclines to the saluation of all much more then any King can desire the life of his subiects notwithstanding he be determined to condemne some for the iust desert of their sinnes In which case the Kings will to saue the life of his subiects were a true antecedent will and though it were not his finall resolution yet were it formally and properly the Kings will and his determination notwithstanding to put such to death as breake his lawes were his consequent will whereto hee were not naturally inclined but occasioned by the ill deserts of his subiects so is it in God whose desire that all men should be saued arising from his owne goodnesse is his primarie and antecedent will which is properly formally and in some sence simply his will but his purpose to condemne some arising from his iustice against such as deserue it by their sinnes is his secondary and consequent wil not proceeding out of his owne naturall inclination but the ill desert of the wicked In which example he makes the order of Gods predestination and willing men some to be saued some to be condemned to be this that God in the first instant of his counsell propounded equally to himselfe Iacob and Esau the elect and the reprobate and loued the one no more then the other but had an equall will indifferently to saue them both this is his antecedent will In the second instant he wils and purposes to saue him of the two that shall in his life time well deserue it and to damne him of the two that shall sinne this is his consequent will In neither of these two instances doth he yet make any discretion betweene Iacob and Esau by either electing the one or refusing the other but onely hath an intention and formall will to saue him that shall deserue it In the third instant he decrees and wils to giue them both though not equall yet sufficient meanes of saluation and helpes of grace whereby Esau may as well come to saluation as Iacob and this not onely in Adam but also in themselues considered in the state of sinne In the fourth instant he decrees to leaue them both to the libertie and free choise of their owne will to vse these meanes of saluation or not to vse them Iacob as well as Esau the elect as well as the reprobate In the fift instant he foresees Iacob will vse the meanes and liue and die well but Esau will not Hereupon in the last instant by his consequent will arising from the foresight of their good and ill deserts in his eternall counsell he pronounces the decree of election to Iacob and of reprobation to Esau This as neare as I can vnderstand is and must consequently be the contents of his example which he also sets downe more fully * Pag. 163. inde in the sixt section against Caluin And I presume I haue truly expressed his minde because I finde a Enchirid. pag 77. his Becanus whom he followes and b Hack. disp de praed n. 119 Less de
no such antecedent will at all 19 He replies secondly that they haue the meanes yea all aswell infants as others r Pag. 165. 171. at least in potentia remota Å¿ Pag. 170. 171. and mediatly whereby he might come to that which is sufficient Which I take to be the same that some say how God giues euen these sufficient helpe in actu primo which is some inspiration as a beginning which if men would obey they might successiuely and by degrees rise vp to faith and iustification as t THE WAY pag. 95. in the marg I noted out of Paul Windeck But this will hardly be maintained for I demand first touching these inspirations or motions that are said to be thus offered and stirred vp in the Gentiles are they supernaturall or naturall If supernaturall by what meanes are they wrought for the word of God to produce them they haue not and Gods Spirit doth neuer sufficiently inspire when it doth not sufficiently reueale it selfe to be his spirit Are they narurall arising onely from naturall knowledge then I demand againe whether being harkened vnto and pursued they may be able to bring him that hath them to iustifying grace if they be not they are insufficient if they be then this is u CoÌ„cil Diospol nu 10. 11. Pelagianisme that a man by naturall strength may eleuate himselfe and obtaine the grace of God Secondly I demand what he meanes by his potentia remota media for if the meaning be God giues meanes sufficient of themselues but no meanes to vse them * â—es in esse potentiali in causis secundis antequam sit in proprio genere est simpliciter non esse then he giues no sufficient meanes as I noted out of Vasquez If the meaning be that God prepares them for some no otherwise then the Physition * In the Reply vbi sup mentioned doth his physicke so as he neuer offers it them nor discouers himselfe or his arte to them what is this but to mocke the world with Sophistrie If the meaning be that God offers at the least such motions of nature and of grace that by degrees he may arise from knowledge to knowledge till he come to sufficient knowledge this is confuted before for motions of nature are not sufficient and motions of grace cannot be proued to be giuen infants and Barbarians as appeares by the difficulty of conuerting the wisest and ciuillest Philosopher or Barbarian that euer was or if they be yet they are not of that eleuation that they can fulfill the iust measure of sufficiency 20 Thus I haue shewed three sorts of people to be perpetually destitute of sufficient helpe in regard of all outward and ordinary meanes so far as we can perceiue yet it is certaine that some of these are saued and some reprobated their saluation therefore and reprobation neither beginnes in nor arises from the foresight of their good or ill vse of the meanes but from some higher will and purpose in God vnknowne to vs but iust and holy in himselfe else were there no such mysterie in the doctrine of predestination that the Apostle should neede to crie x Rom. 11.33 O altitudo O the depth of the riches wisedome and knowledge of God how vnsearchable are his iudgements and his waies past finding out nor say y Rom. 9.20 what art thou that pleadest with God z Rom. 9.18 he will haue mercie on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth a Rom. 9.11 before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill it was said I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau For my Aduersaries distinction of Gods willing euen the reprobate to be saued by his antecedent will and the rest of his doctrine of predestination leaue no rome for these sayings They say b Aug. ep 105. saith S. Austin that therefore God loued Iacob and hated Esau being yet vnborne because he foresaw their workes to come but who would not wonder that this sence so acute should be wanting to the Apostle for he saw not so much when the question being obiected to him he had not readie this so briefe so plaine so true and absolute answer as these men thinke this to be For when he had propounded a profound matter touching those that were not yet borne and had done neither good nor euill how it could rightly bee said that God loued the one and hated the other he obiects to himselfe a question What shall we say then saith he is their iniustice with God God forbid THIS THEREFORE WAS A PLACE WHERE HE SHOVLD SAY WHAT THESE MEN THINKE THAT GOD FORESAW THEIR FVTVRE WORKES when he said The greater shall serue the lesser but the Apostle sayes no such thing but rather least any man should glory in the merit of his workes he would haue that which he said to bee of force that the grace and glory of God might be commended for hauing said God forbid that there should be iniquity with God as if we should say how shew you this that there is no iniquity with God when you auouch that not of workes but of him that calleth it was said The elder shall serue the yonger He answereth because Moses saith I will haue mercy on whom I will haue mercy and will shew compassion on whom I will shew compassion therefore it is not in him that wills nor in him that runs but in God that shewes mercy WHERE NOW ARE MERITS * He excludes not onely the works of nature but of grace also WHERE ARE THESE WORKES EITHER PAST OR TO COME PERFORMED OR TO BE PERFORMED AS IT WERE BY THE STRENGTH OF FREEWILL Doth not the Apostle pronounce a plaine sentence touching the commendation of free grace that is to say of true grace Hath not God made the wisedome of Heretiques foolish 21 Lastly this exposition of Gods antecedent and consequent will is destroyed by the doctrine of Gods Predetermination which teacheth that the will of God as the highest and effectuallest cause predefines and determines the will of man to that it wills and applies it to the worke for whose will in all things God predetermines vnto one thing though not by way of necessitation by the influxe of his will their will is no condition or motiue of Gods will for then Gods will were passiue But mans will in all things God predetermines to one thing by the influxe of his owne will Ergo mans will is no condition or motiue of Gods will Therefore God predestinates none vpon the foresight of the good or ill vse of their free-will therefore there is no such antecedent and consequent will in God as my Aduersary maintaines The second proposition is denied by c Martinez de Auxil p. 134. inde Bellar. de Grat lib. arb l. 1 c. 12. §. Est igitur alia Quicquid electuri sumus vidit Deus intuitu aeterno cognitio necessitatem non affert
seemeth to yeeld me for he saith that the rule must be easie White pag. 10. and plaine to all sorts of men learned and vnlearned to wit which vse the meanes and are diligent in attending to it and be enlightened with the Spirit of God to all such saith he it is plaine be they neuer so vnlearned to the rest it is not Neither is it saith he a necessary condition of the rule so to be not because it is obscure at any time but for that sometimes men haue not eyes to see into it c. This which he hath said of being enlightened with the spirit had need to be declared If he meane that one must be first endued with faith and in that sence lightned with the Spirit before he can vnderstand the determinate sence and meaning of that which is appointed by God to be the ordinary rule and meanes to instruct men in faith then it is false that to be enlightened with the Spirit is required as a necessary condition for so one must be supposed to haue faith before he can by the ordinary meanes be first instructed in faith so the ordinary meanes were needlesse for the end to which it was appointed For what need were there of an outward ordinary meanes to instruct men first in faith when they are already supposed to be by the spirit sufficiently enlightned with faith If he meane onely that the Spirit of God must assist and concur with mans vnderstanding in a speciall manner to enable the vnderstanding to apprehend the instruction propounded by the meanes and to make it yeeld assent of faith so I shall not striue with him as hauing in * Introd q. 6. the Introduction affirmed as much Onely I would haue him note FIRST that it is not the Protestants spirit whose illumination is required to true faith as o Ibid. there I haue shewed SECONDLY that the true Spirit of God whose assistance is necessary is ready through the merits of our Sauiour Christ to assist all men sufficiently to the attaining of the truth and that no man who hath receiued exciting grace to moue him to seeke find and attend vnto the ordinary rule and meanes appointed by God for mens instruction in matters of faith need feare want of necessary assistance of Gods Spirit to concurre with him but rather had need to feare least himselfe be wanting to the gracious assistance of Gods Spirit in being negligent to concurre with it so much as he may and ought and least in steed of following Gods Spirit he suffers himselfe to be misled with the spirit of Sathan transfiguring himselfe into an Angell of light whose propertie is to withdraw men from the secure ordinary meanes of the doctrine of the Church to follow priuate instincts so coloured with seeming sentences of Scripture as though they were the very instincts of the holy Ghost The third propertie to wit vniuersality is meant that the rule and meanes doth extend it selfe to all points of faith so far as it is or may be necessary to saluation In which sence I do not perceiue my Aduersaries to gainesay Onely the question is WHETHER and HOW all points of faith be necessary to saluation The which question I haue resolued in the Introduction and in the fourth Chapter where I do determine all points of faith to be necessary to be beleeued explicitè or implicitè of all sorts and that none is indifferent or such as may be lawfully misbeleeued especially obstinately at any time by any persons and that although all be not necessary to be knowne at all times expresly by all persons yet they are or may be necessary so to be knowne at least at sometimes and by some persons in the Church and consequently there must be an vniuersall ordinary rule and meanes sufficient to instruct and to resolue all sorts of men in all points of faith at such times and in such sort as need shall require thereby to hinder men from misbeleeuing any and which may tell them determinately when controuersies arise whether this or that point be necessary to be knowne and beleeued expresly by all or onely some of the Church and by whom Besides these three properties of the rule and meanes White pag. 10. M. White would haue other two But either they are not necessary or else they be sufficiently included in these which I haue set downe For if the rule bee knowne to be infallible it little skilleth to our present purpose whether there be any higher rule whereupon it doth depend or no or whether the case which is to be ruled by it concerne the thing it selfe which is assigned for the rule or some other thing for where infallibility is partiality need not be feared neither need one seeke a higher rule when he knoweth the rule which he hath to be infallible 1 MY Aduersaries last conclusion was that the rule of faith must haue three properties 1 To be infallible that shall not deceiue vs. 2 Easie to be vnderstood of all sorts of men learned and vnlearned 3 Vniuersall to shew what is the truth in all points Touching my answer hereto he sayes foure thing FIRST that I grant these three properties to be required in the Rule in some sence The first that it must be infallible and the last that it must be vniuersall I grant simply without any limitation and this is true SECONDLY touching the second condition of being easie he expounds himselfe that he meanes so easie that without miraculous illumination or extraordinary and excessiue difficulty any sort of men may vnderstand the meaning of it and sayes M. White seemes also to yeeld him this The which I did in these words The rule is easie and plaine to all sorts of men learned and vnlearned that vse the meanes and are diligent in attending it and be inlightned by the Spirit of God to such it is plaine be they neuer so vnlearned to the rest it is not nether is it a necessary condition of the rule so to be not because it selfe is obscure at any time but for that sometimes men haue not eyes for want of diligence or Gods illumination to see into it for all meanes and rules are vaine vnles God giue eyes to see This exposition wherby I declared in what sence the rule must be vnderstood to be easie he distinguishes and sayes If I meane no more but that the Spirit of God must helpe our vnderstanding in a speciall manner to enable it to apprehend and yeeld to that which the rule propounds he will not contend with me But if my meaning be that a man must first haue faith and in that sence be inlightned before he can vnderstand the meaning of the rule then he sayes my saying is false and sets downe a proposition against it that to be endued with faith is not required as a necessary condition to the easines of the rule which is a needlesse limitation For first I mentioned not
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
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
such a rule say againe whether it be not something distinct from the teaching and authority of the teachers for so much as that wherby the teaching and authority is discerned and tried cannot be confounded with the teaching and if there be such a distinct rule what can it be but the Scripture which onely is the thing that all Church teaching must agree with Thus therefore I reason ad hominem In the doctrine taught by the Pastours of the Church it sufficeth that I can distinguish the priuate from the publicke that which is taught with authority from that which is without authority Therefore I MAY yea must thus distinguish I may DISTINGVISH therefore I may EXAMINE for by examining things we distinguish them We may examine therefore we must haue a RVLE whereby we do it we must haue a rule therefore it must either be the Scripture or the teaching it selfe of the Church that is examined for a third cannot be giuen But it cannot be the teaching of the Church for that is the thing it selfe examined It must of necessity therefore be the SCRIPTVRE ALONE And for so much as it belongs to euery priuate man thus to distinguish therefore it is true also that I said Euery priuate man inlightned with Gods grace which must alway be supposed and our aduersaries necessarily require it may be able to guide himselfe and to discerne of the Church teaching by the SCRIPTVRE Pag. 223. 1 Tim. 3. v 15. Wootton pag. 154. White p. 80. A. D. Wherefore it is not without cause that S. Paule called the Church the pillar and ground of truth not onely as my aduersaries expound that truth is found in it or fastened to it as a paper is fastened to Pasquin in Rome which is M. Whites grosse similitude but also in that it selfe is free from all error in faith and Religion and is to vs a sure although a secondary foundation of faith in that it doth truely yea infallibly propound to vs what is and what is not to be beleeued by faith it being therefore vnto vs a pillar and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine and an assured ground or establishment of verity whereupon we may securely stand against all heresies and errors It is not also without cause that S. Augustine said whosoeuer is afraid to be deceaued with the obscuritie of this question let him require the iudgement of the Church signifying that to require the iudgement of the Church is a good meanes to preserue one from being deceaued not onely as M. Wootton expoundeth in that particular question which there S. Augustine mentioneth and such like of lesser moment and much lesse doth he meane as M. White minceth the matter to wit in that particular question at this time but also and that à fortiori in other questions of greatest weight and most concerning saluation and at other times c. 8 I find 2. faults in this place with the Repliar 1. that he doth not report the whole expositions that I gaue to these places but onely part of them and yet tels me of mincing Next that hauing confirmed my exposition of the wordes of the Apostle by foure reasons and my exposition of Saint Austine by as many and hauing confuted his sense that here he repeates by manifest arguments he stands dumbe to all and onely repeates the places againe no otherwise then when I answered them I need not therefore trouble my selfe with confuting him here but referre * THE WAY §. 15. me to that I writ much accusing my selfe for medling with so base a trifler that hath neither heart nor strength to go forward in the argument nor wit nor grace to hold his tongue this one passage is the liuely image not onely of all this his Reply but of all his fellowes writings now in request to bring in authority of Scripture and Fathers as a Bride is led into the Church with state and ceremony and some grauity and furniture of words but when they should reply to that we answer and maintaine their expositions then to tergiuerfate and onely repeate that which is confuted CHAP. XXXVI An entrance into the question touching the visibility of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was A. D. Concerning the eleuenth Chapter Hauing proued in the precedent Chapter that the doctrine of the Church is the rule Pag. 227. and meanes to instruct all men in faith in this Chapter I vndertake to shew that the Church whose doctrine is the rule and meanes White pag. 86. Wootton p. 104 White pag. 86. continueth in all ages Both my Aduersaries grant that the Church continueth in all ages M. White saith We confesse the Church neuer coased to be but continueth alwaies without interruption to the worlds end M. Wootton saith the truth of your assertion needeth no proofe and findeth great fault with me for making such a question as though Protestants did deny the Church to continue As concerning this their granting the continuance of the Church I gratefully accept it especially with M. Whites addition who yeeldeth that if we can proue that the very faith which Protestants now confesse hath not * If Protestants faith so far as they differ from vs continued alwaies I aske whether in the aire or in some faithfull men if in men who be those men successiuely continued in all ages since Christ or that it was interrupted so much as one yeare moneth or day it is sufficient to proue them no part of Gods Church For which he citeth in the Margent Dan. 7. ver 27. Psal 102. v. 26. Mat. 16.18 Luk. 1 v. 33. 1 AS no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Church to be the rule taking the Church for a So Waldens doctrinal tom 1. l. 2. c. 19. Haec est Ecclesia Symbolica Ecclesia Christi Catholica Apostolica mater credentiū per totum mundum dispersae à Baptismo Christi per Apostolos ceteros successores eorum ad haec tempora deuoluta quae vtique veram fidem continent c. pag. 99. the whole company of beleeuers which haue bene from Christ to this day so neither do they deny this Church to continue in all ages the which because I granted the Repliar in my answer to his booke you see how he ioyes in himselfe as if he had wonne the cause touching his visiblenesse of the Church But as I noted to him the question is not whether the Church continue in all ages to the worlds end for that we grant but whether the outward state thereof free from all corruption be alway so visible as the Papists say I shewed the Negatiue and in the 17. Digression made it plaine that our Aduersaries themselues cannot deny it the Repliar therefore in this place was to quit his owne D. D. whom I alledged and not to stand gratefully accepting that which no man denies The marginall question is
Church so vniuersally that there was no visible companie of people appearing to the world free from it and whether any company at all knowne or vnknowne were free from it wholy or not I neither determine nor greatly care All that I hold touching the inuisible Church being that the true Church being ouergrowne with heresie and corruption there hath not at all times bene therein a distinct company to be seene which in all points were free from the corruption though there may be shewed a company that held all the substantiall points simply necessary to saluation Had the Iesuite vnderstood my words in this sense which I often declared all ouer my Booke he would neuer haue trifled away time in prouing the Church whose doctrine is the rule to be visible which I deny not but he would haue gone roundly to worke in shewing the visible Church to be neuer so corrupted but there is some one or more speciall companies therein visibly to be seene by all and separated from the rest that is not defiled with the corruption For the Church is visible to be seene at all time more or lesse whose teaching in the sound part thereof is to be followed to the worlds ende Neuerthelesse first he excepts that I say the question is of the Church militant containing as part of it euill men and hypocrites whereas to speake precisely he makes not the Question that way but to cut off occasions of cauill he saies he desputes whether the Church whereof he spake in the precedent Chapters whose doctrin in all ages is the rule of faith whether I say this Church be in all ages visible or sometimes inuisible as if the Church whose doctrine is the rule in all ages were any other then the militant His conclusions whereby he taught his friend how to resolue himselfe in religion were these That there is a rule left by God whereby all men may be instructed This rule is not the Scripture but the doctrin of the true Church which Church is alway visible that all men at all times may see it wherein he affirmes as I do the militant Church to be visible because that onely is it that mortall men can heare and haue accesse to and this I shew distinctly to be the question For first his owne expresse words are c In THE WAY pag 99. It is euident that the Church militant consists of good and bad but this Church consisting of good and bad is the same that before in his conclusion he affirmed to be visible confuting our supposed ground wherupon we held it inuisible Secondly in this very passage he sayes it is true that the same Church he speakes of is the Church militant or part of it Thirdly he expounds himselfe to meane that Church whose doctrine is the rule to teach vs. But the doctrine of no Church teaches vs but that of the Militant liuing here vpon earth where they that liue are taught Fourthly he meanes that Church whereto euery one may haue accesse and repaire for instruction whereto also they may ioine themselues and wherein they may admonish their brethren and therefore precisely he speakes of the Militant church vpon earth and his words that to speake precisely he makes not the question this way but onely askes whether the Church whose doctrine is the rule be visible are so precise that a man would think his head-peece were not wel seasoned when either he must grant this his visible Church to be militant or confesse it to be none of Gods Church for so much as all the Church of God whose doctrine is the rule of faith is for the time being militant here on earth and part of that which is mentioned in the Creed where we say credo Ecclesiam Therefore the question betweene vs is whether the companie of those that professe and teach the true faith of Christ without mixture of corruption among whom possible many hypocrites and wicked men liue which companie is called the Militant-church be at all times visible The Reply sayes it is and must no more denie his assertion to be meant euen precisely of this companie 4 His second exception is about the words visible and inuisible where he sayes fiue things First that by a visible Church I make him to mean a company alway so illustrious that it may be knowne to all men liuing at all times Secondly that I make him to meane this companie also to be so illustrious that actually it is thus knowne Thirdly that he meanes not the word visible in this second sence Fouthly that he knowes the Church is sometime obscured and shines not actually through the whole world Fiftly that the Church is alway visible in this sence that alway euen in the greatest obscuritie it hath some eminent professors which either are actually knowne or may in particular be assigned The first is true for he sayes it expresly in the last And I suppose he will not denie it when so many of his owne Diuines hold it Dom. Bannes d Tom. 3. pag. 103. sayes the Church is so visible that it is palpable Bellarmine e De Eccl. l. 3. c. 13. God hath at all times a Church consisting not of a few people but of a great multitude as conspicuous as any earthly kingdome Greg. of Valence f Tom. 3 p. 143. Our assertion is that in all ages there may euidently be seene and discerned and as it were pointed out with the finger a companie of men whereof euery one may beleeue that it is the true Church The second is false For though it follow manifestly vpon his words and that which the Diuines of his church teach of the visâ—â—â—lenesse of their church yet I charged him not so farre but contented my selfe with confuting that which is contained in his first and last assertion Neuerthelesse it is true that he and all Papists must by their owne principles hold the Church to be euen actually visible to all men For he sayes g Repl. p. 170. God hath giuen sufficient meanes to all men for their saluation h In THE WAY §. 13. and the teaching of this his church is the meanes But no meanes is sufficient that is not actually reuealed as i Ch. 25. n. 15.16 I haue shewed heretofore out of the Repliers owne authors Therefore if sufficient meanes be onely that which is actually reuealed and the Church be the meanes it followes the Church must be actually visible or else let vs see how the Replier will quit himselfe The third is also false as I haue said but yet allowing it to be true I haue not peruerted the question because I affirme and dispute against the visiblenesse of the Church in that sâ—nce which he holds in the first and last assertion The fourth I accept as the truth and haue shewed in k Digr 17. THE WAY that as his owne Diuines expound it it vtterly destroyes his first and last assertions and yeelds as much as
we say that the Church free from grosse and foule corruptions is not alway to be seene where or in whom it is Whereto if you adde that which l Epist de pacif Venet. ad Reg. Franc. 1607. April 5. Cardinall Perone lately writ to the French King that it is vncertaine whether God will suffer the Catholicke religion to be oppressed in Italie and driuen out of all Europe into another Hemisphere the case will be clearer For if the Pope and his drudgerie may be expulsed Italy and twentie Geneuahs planted there as the Cardinall speaks beleeue me that would bring the Romane faith to as low a size as euer the Protestants was and our aduersaries would be as inuisible as their fellowes The last is enough to shew that I peruert not the question For I denie and shewed in my answers to all his arguments that howsoeuer the Church consists of men that may be seene and these men know one another where they liue yet there is no such eminencie in any of them that the world can tell who or where they be that in the Church hold the true faith without corruption but they may be so hidden by persecutions heresies increasing in the church that no man shall discerne them and that they can haue no open or vncorrupted exercise of religion wherein I haue shewed our aduersaries themselues driuen by the necessitie of the truth to come home to vs. Digress 17. A. D. Now taking the question in this sence Pag. 236. my conclusion of this chapter was that the Church is neuer quite inuisible but alwaies visible This I proued by diuers reasons which stand still in force against my aduersaries supposing the state of the question be rightly vnderstood as first I meant it and as now I haue declared it The truth of which my conclusion I further confirme by the authoritie of Saint Augustine who * Ep. 48. hauing said as euen now I cited that the Church is sometimes obscured with multitude of scandals he addeth but euen then she is eminent in her most firme members Secondly I confirme the same by experience of ancient and present times because euen in times of greatest persecution vnder the heathen Emperors euen when the Church hath seemed to be ouerwhelmed with heresies euen when it was said that the world did maruell to see it selfe become Arian euen when it seemed to be rent in peeces with schismes euen when it hath bene most blemished with ill liues of the true professors themselues euen in the most obscure and ignorant ages wherein there was least number of teachers and writers there was alwayes a companie of true professing Christians so visible as that at least some in all ages whom God stirred vp to be eminent men opposing themselues by word or example or both as a wall for the house of God were actually apparent euen to the world or at least being knowne to Christians themselues as my aduersaries seeme to grant that the true Professors alwaies are they or some of them might and may be assigned by Christians to such as desire to know them as after I shall shew which sufficeth to proue the Church visible in such sence as I here make the question In what sence the Church militant is said to be sometime inuisible 5 The question is not of the visiblenesse of the church taking the word Church for the Militant church of God wherein the true faith is preserued and whose sound doctrine is the rule of all faith for we denie it not but onely as it signifies such therein as are free from the generall apostacie and corruptions which now and then preuaile in and all ouer the church For in the first sence we say the Church is visible because the companies of those which professe and hold the substance of faith howsoeuer many errors besides may be added thereto are alway manifest but in the second sence we say it may be inuisible inasmuch as at some times yea for a long time together no part thereof nor any companie therein can be discerned to be free from the corruption preuailing but a time may come when things are so reformed and the doctrine of the Church so reduced to the first Apostolicke veritie by putting away the apostacie and innouations that for some ages before there hath not bene knowne in all the Church any companie enioying or practising the said doctrine thus purged and reformed This being all that I hold touching the inuisiblenesse of the Church his reason concludes nothing against me as will appeare by viewing a In THE WAY §. 18. inde my answers To the place of Saint Austine I answer that it makes for me in the first words expresly The Church is sometimes obscured with multitudes of scandals and in the latter words the firme members wherein the Church is eminent are not such as are totally free from all abuses and corruptions belonging to apostacie but such as in the middest of corruption still retaine the principall points of Christian faith and among many errors yet eminently hold the substance of sauing doctrine and such we grant alway were in the middest of the Papacie which is OVR VISIBLE CHVRCH THAT WAS BEFORE LVTHERS TIME To his other reason of experience of ancient and present times I haue answered also in my booke and here answer againe that it is false meaning by those true professing Christians stirred vp of God and eminent men opposing themselues such as opposed themselues against all error For there neuer wanted in any persecution schisme or heresie those which professed the true faith euen visibly in that which substantially belonged to the faith and was sufficient to saluation but there haue not alway bene visibly to be seene those that eminently opposed or refused euery corruption or were preserued from such error as was afterward lawfully reformed and done away For the church of Rome being made the seate of Antichrist b 2. Thess 2 6. Apoc. 17. Valde verisimile est Irenae l. 5. c 30. as the holy Ghost foretold it was impossible there should be any visible companie so eminent or perfect that the generall contagion should not though not mortally in some measure touch them as c Act. 1.6 the Iudaisme of the times wherein Christ liued generally corrupted all the Apostles who yet for all that remained eminent members of the Church And if my aduersary thinke his Pope not to be Antichrist or the persecution of Antichrist whosoeuer he be not able thus far to preuaile against the Church let him descend when he will into that question and he will find himselfe as weake there as here the rather because I know no learned man of his side but confesses the same inuisiblenesse of the Church in Antichrists time that I maintaine Telesphorus the Hermite d Lib. de magn tribul pag. 32. edit Venet. per Soard an 1516. sayes The sacrifice and oblation shall faile the Ecclesiasticall
Orders shall be destroyed that there shall not be any in all the multitude of the people that dares freely inuocate God Vbertine e Vbertin de Casal lib. de 7. Stat. de eccl c. 8 edit Venet. per Soard an 1516. refert Oaus Eccl. pag 31. nu 19. sayes That concerning the binding of the Diuell for a thousand yeares is to be vnderstood from the time of the first state of the Church to the time that the Romane Empire was translated to the Almaines when Gregorie the fift made a new decree concerning the chusing of the Emperor whose successor Syluester the second by simonie and nigromancy got the Popedome for then the little Church which beleeued in Christ began to fall into scandals This touching the Popes being Antichrist f R. Iaco. praef monit pag. 56. inde D. Whit â—k ad demonst Sander controu de Pont. Rom. q. 5. c. 3. Sohn tract de Antichrist D. Abb. demonstrat D. Down of Antichr D. Fulk in 2. Th. 2. Apoc. 13. c. our writings haue sufficienly demonstrated and all stories make it plaine that the most violent persecutions and the greatest heresies schismes and scandals that euer were haue bene vnder the Pope and by his working since he came to his greatnesse which makes him relish so strong of Antichrist that the Iesuite with all his fellowes to helpe him cannot sweeten him And I can tell him a thing in his eare that will discourage him for euer vndertaking that matter For as learned men as euer were in the Church of Rome haue g De Antichristo dicit idem Joachim quod tam natus est in ciuitate Romana in sede Apostolica sublimabitur Rog. Houed annal pag. 681. Sedes Bestiae id est Ecclesiae peruersae est in Curia Romana Onus Eccl. c 19. n. 6. See the oration of Euerardus Abusin in Auent pag. 546. And Chaucers plow mans tale mistrusted it and h The Turke holden to be the great Antichrist by Clicton commen in Damasc de sid orth l. 4. pag. 391. Prateol Elench v. Mahom. pag 302. Henten indic de Apoc. pag. 182. Genebr chronol an 590. pag. 477. Feuardent in Irenae l. 5. c. 30. n. 10. who sayes other most learned men are of the same opinion they that will not confesse it haue yet to turne it off him made him Antichrist that cannot so be by i The common opinion holden by the Iesuites is that Antichrist shall be one singular person a Iew of the tribe of Dan c. See Acost de temp nouiss l. 2. c. 5. Bellar. de Pont. Rom. l. 3. c. 2.10 inde Suar. tom 2. disp 54. Henriq de fin hom c. 23. the doctrine now maintained among the Iesuites CHAP. XXXVIII 1. The Papists cannot proue the Church to be alway visible in that sence wherein we denie it 2. The diuers considerations of the Church distinguished 3. His quarrels made to our doctrine touching the Churches seueral states answered 6. The faithfull onely are the true members of the Church 7. Vpon what occasion the question touching the visiblenesse of the Church first began A.D. This my conclusion thus declared and proued Pag. 237. doth fore pinch my aduersaries and putteth them to pitifull straits as after we shall see For on the one side to denie the Church in such sence as here I haue declared to be at all times visible without impudencie they cannot my proofes at least some of them are so apparent and plaine on the other side to grant it to be in this sence alwayes visible they will not for feare that people do thereby plainly see that Protestants who cannot assigne a continuall visible Church or a companie of professors of their faith nor so much as one professing Protestant in euery seuerall age since Christ cannot be the true Church of which onely as of the ordinarie rule and meanes all men must learne what is and what is not to be holden for the true sauing faith My aduersaries therefore not daring as it may seeme to make direct answer White p. 100. Wotton p. 210. and yet being willing at least to make shew of an answer do distinguish two seuerall Churches that when they are hunted out of one they may runne into the other and that being pursued thither they may for refuge flie into the former they call one Church the true Catholicke Church spoken of in the Creed which they affirme to containe onely the elect to whom as they say belong the promises of the Spirit which in Scripture were made to the Church This Church both my aduersaries do account simply inuisible And truly since no man can tell who be Gods elect if they could as well proue as they boldly affirme that the Church spoken of in the Creed or in those places of Scripture where the promises of the Spirit are made to the Church doth containe none but the elect it could not be denied that it were inuisible But this they will neuer be able sufficiently to proue The other Church which they distinguish from the Catholicke Church M. White calleth the Church militant White p. 100. Wotton p. 210. containing as part of it all professors of the true faith whether good or bad beleeuers or hypocrites elect or reprobate The necessitie which driueth them to admit such a Church is as I guesse because if no companie of men did in any sort pertaine to the Church but onely the elect whom none can know it would follow that since as hath bene proued no man can ordinarily attaine true faith but by instruction receiued from the true Church euery man ordinarily might despaire of attaining true faith and consequently of attaining saluation which is not had without true faith in regard he could neuer know the companie or Church to whom he must repaire for instruction in faith Besides therefore the companie of the elect my aduersaries hold that there is another Church White pag. 87. the which as M. White saith is alwaies vpon the earth holding the whole faith without change and containing a certaine number that constantly professe it This Church which other Protestants commonly call the visible Church M. White will needs defend to be sometimes inuisible 1 FIrst he sayes his conclusion pinches vs but he is deceiued we feele no paine nor vtter any voice that tastes of paine Because whatsoeuer he sayes and declares yet he proues nothing and nothing pinches that is not proued nay he is so farre from pinching that he and his fellowes make vs smile and yeeld vs good pastime to talke thus of the visiblenesse of the Church and yet when things come to scanning to doubt of it themselues as much as we I alledged the confessions of diuers Papists in the 17. Digr why hath he not answered thereto and shewed what or how they say lesse then we Next he shewes what the strait is we are put to For on the one side he sayes
the world and outwardly professes the faith of Christ whether they therein that do it be the elect or others for we onely speake of the place and companie where the truth is professed and may be found which may well be where the wicked and the elect are mingled together Note FIFTHLY that the Church is called Catholick or vniuersal in two sences first the Church taken in his full latitude Catholicke Church for the whole company of all that are called both in heauen and in earth visible and inuisible elect and hypocrites is called the Catholicke Church in as much as it comprehends all that haue bene called to the profession of the Catholick faith then againe for so much as any part may synecdochically be termed after the name of the whole it sometimes fals out that the Militant Church or any part of it iâ— called the Catholick as well as the Militant and Triumphant together But when the elect alone most perfectly haue the Catholicke faith and not onely vse the faith ministerie and Sacraments reuealed but also enioy the effectâ— and benefits thereof which the false Church neuer doth hence it comes that they principally and as the vniuersall members thereof are called the Catholicke Church mentioned in the Creed a Alià s omnes homines etiam infideles etiaÌ„ damnati dicerentur pertinere ad corpus Ecclesiae tanquam eius meÌ„bra quod est absurdum Turrecrem sum l. 4. part 2. c. 20. ad 6. idem l. 1. c. 57. the rest in very deed and truth not being of the Church at all for Bellarmine b De Eccl. l. 3. c. 10. pag. 13â— d sayes The Church chiefly and in her intention gathers together onely the faithfull but when dissemblers and such as beleeue not truly are mingled that fals out besides the intention of the Church for if she could know them she would neuer admit them or being admitted she would presently exclude them Againe c Ibi. pag 141. a Heretickes faining themselues to be Catholickes are not of the Church indeed but onely in reputation and outward appearance 3 This being the manner how we distinguish and hold touching the Church and the manner thereof now I answer that which the Rplier hath reported * Ad. 1. To the first it is false and malicious that we make two Churches for the Catholicke Church mentioned in the Creed and the Militant make but one Church which in one sence is called Catholick and Militant in another For the multiplication of diuers states degrees and relations belonging to a thing multiplies not the essence of the things as he that deuides the world into parts or distinguishes the climates or shews the diuersitie of the inhabitants doth not distinguish seuerall worlds but affirmes diuers states and conditions in one and the same world I am ashamed when I reade d See Staplet relect pag. 36. our aduersaries that should haue learning and shamefac'dnesse or at least ordinarie wit thus wrangling with vs as if we made two Churches * Ad 2. To the second it is likewise false and fitter for a parasite that sets himselfe onely to boast and reproach then for a diuine For our answer is plaine and direct that the Church considered in such state as it is ordained and fit to teach men the true faith and as mortall men can haue accesse to it which belongs onely to the Militant state is sometimes so ouerwhelmed with persecutions â—nd heresies that a true Church entirely teaching the faith of Christ without errors and freely vsing the word Sacraments and Ecclesiasticall discipline apart from the rest of the Church cannot be seene in all the world And our aduersaries arguments being applied to this neither hunt nor pursue vs so but we can answer them without flying into the Church of the elect for we do not say that the elect alone are thus obscured but euen all whether elect or reprobate that openly hold the state mentioned in this sence that not onely the elect are inuisible not to be discerned with mortall eye for they are alwaies so in this world but the whole Church Militant containing both elect and others is at some times so defaced and obscured that the world cannot see where the substance of faith is holden without errors mingled And so it is meerly vntrue that the Replier sayes touching our flying to the Church of the elect For as I answered in e Pag. 100. THE WAY though we hold the Catholicke Church mentioned in the Creed euery member whereof is saued to be inuisible because God alone sees who are elected yet the Church thus considered is not it that we speake of in this question but the Militant whereof we say it IS ALWAY manifest to the world but a companie therein that needs not reformation is NOT ALWAY manifest And whereas he sayes we will neuer be able sufficiently to proue the Church spoken of in the Creed and in the Scripture where the promises of the Spirit are made to the Church to containe none but the elect he is deceiued For though this be not materiall to the point in hand and without any disaduantage to our cause might be granted yet the best learned of his owne side say as we do that none are simply absolutely and vniuocally of the Church but the elect alone as I haue shewed immediatly before For f Eph. 5.23 Col. 1.18 the Church being nothing else but the bodie of Christ and Christ being the Sauiour of his bodie how shall hypocrites and other euill men whom he neuer saues be truly said to be his Church And when g Jtaque neque pro illu qui non saluantur obtulis suam passionem qui nunquam participauerunt ipsius merita neque pro eis qui iustificati non sunt Patrem orauit Christus Non pro mundo inquit rogo sed pro eis quos dedisti mihi Dicitur autem mortuus esse pro omnibus quia mors illius sufficiens fuit ad satisfaciendum pro omnibus Omnium delictis pro innumerabilibus alijs si essent ad perducendum omnes homines ad Dei gratiam And. Vega. pro concil l. 4 c. 10. pag 49. the effects and power of Gods calling and the benefits of his grace and the redemption of Christ reach no further then to the elect alone neuer touching the wicked that l ue among them how can the wicked either perfectly or properly be long to the Church But as I said this is not materiall to the point in hand and therefore I will not diuert into it our assertion being that not the elect alone are alway inuisible but sometimes also all the congregations of the world wherein they liue and professe Christ are so corrupted or oppressed that albeit the substance of sauing faith contained in the Creed and rule of faith be retained in them yet there is no congregation visible that hath not diuers corruptions needing reformation hanging on them
that obscured the Euangelicall light yea by this practise of mingling Aristotle with their treatises of Diuinity they had corrupted and reiected all the articles of faith beside the vnity of the Deity And touching their vehemency and industry in following their opinions he sayes that which is worth the noting The voice of their wings that is to say of their opinions which they presume to be high and lofty in wonderfull contentions outcries and raging is like the voice of wheeles or a tumultuous army running in war this was a Friars report long agoe and my owne knowledge of these things giues me assurance and resolution whatsoeuer any man sayes to the contrary whose ignorance and peruersenesse I will neuer suffer to preiudice my certaine and familiar knowledge Pag. 247. A. D. By this which now I haue noted appeareth that the true militant Church or company of the true professors of the Gospell which as M. White White p. 87. 337. 338. Wootton pag. 164. and M Wootton grant must continue alwaies cannot at any time be altogether inuisible especially in such sort and for so long a time as they would haue the Protestant professors which were onely two called Nullus and Nemo that is to say in truth not one at all before Martin Luther to haue inuisibly continued professing the whole faith without change in all Countries or at least in one or other corner they cannot for want of Histories forsooth tell where the truth is no where in the world And consequently by this appeareth that this idle conceite of an inuisible company of professing Protestants continuing in all ages is a plaine Platonicall Idaea or poeticall Chymaera in plaine English a meere imaginary fiction inuented by Protestants to serue as a shift to bleare the eye of the simple and to make a shew of saying something to the argument grounded vpon the authority of a continuall visible Church which presseth them so much when indeed they can say nothing to it Durum telum necessitas ignoscite Need hath no law you must pardon them 2 By that which he hath noted he sayes it appeares that the Militant Church or company of true Professors cannot at any time be altogether inuisible specially in such sort or so long a time as they say the Protestant Professors were The things he noted may be reduced to eight propositions in all First that the Church in the infancy or beginning thereof was very small like a graine of Mustardseed and toward the end also in Antichrists time shall be much decaied both in the number of professors and in the visiblenesse of the outward state Secondly that this notwithstanding yet in all ages betwixt the beginning and the end it is a great multitude spread ouer the world Thirdly that the Church is not actually seene at all times by all men Fourthly that yet it is visible that is such as may be seene and knowne by all if the impediments be not on their part that should see it and by prudent and diligent inquirie may be discerned at all times And in the greatest obscurity the world may see and distinguish some eminent members therein Fifthly that it cannot alwaie practise the rites of diuine worship publikely but is forced sometime to doe it in priuate Sixthly that yet it neuer wants ordinary Pastours nor the practise of rites appertaining to the Sacraments and diuine worshippe Seuenthly which practise and inward state of the Church shall neuer be so secret but notice shall be had of it euen by Infidels and enemies and the records thereof shall remaine in Histories Eightly that it is the nature of the Church to be in this manner visible for diuers considerations These propositions containe the substance of that he noted whereupon he inferres 2. things First that the militant Church cannot at any time be altogether inuisible Next that it cannot be inuisible in such sort or so long a time as M. White saies the professors of the Protestant religion were The first I graunt him to be true and he neede not so often haue inferred it when it is not our assertion that the Church at any time is simply absolutely or altogether inuisible but onely secundum quid and respectiuely in comparison of the reformed state thereof The second is false that it cannot be inuisible in such sort or so long as we say for we say it was inuisible in this sort that at some times there was no congregation of people in the world visibly professing the faith and visibly administring the Sacraments and Church discipline without much superstition and corruption or heresie practised therewith I say visibly in my aduersaries sense that is so as this congregation was a great multitude spread ouer the world whose faith and administration thus incorrupted infidels and enemies had knowledge of and Histories recorded and wherein some eminent men might be discerned euen by the world for the contrary is true that all publike assemblies thus entirely without superstition professing or holding the faith and Ecclesiasticall gouernement may be oppressed and extinguished And thus I graunt the true Churches whose sound and necessary faith we hold failed throughout the world nor do I here intend or affirme that there were no particular eminent persons that held or professed the faith entirely for substance all errors not being mortall or no singular professions of men that were of our religion and refused the Papacy for there were many such in all ages though Nullus and Nemo be left out but our assertion proceedes of such congregations as we call particular Churches and this is enough to excuse the qualitie and condition of our Church in former times and to refell the vaine bragges of our aduersaries touching the externall succession of the Church of Rome For if this proposition be true which it must be vntill the Repliar can refell it The Church militant here on earth may be so oppressed with persecution and infected with heresie that at sometimes there can no particular congregation thereof be seene in all the world either publikely or priuately professing the true faith entirely without heresie and exercizing the preaching of the Gospell and administration of the Sacraments and discipline without corruption hence it will follow that the Protestants graunting this of their Churches disaduantage not their religion and our aduersaries boasting of their multitude and glorious succession may be the Ministers of Antichrist 3 But the Iesuite saying that we conceit an inuisible company of professing Protestants is mistaken For I noted to him that we do not hold a definite number of persons distinct from the members of the Church of Rome and liuing apart in another society by themselues in secret as it were * Of whom Ioh. Paris tract de Antich p. 46. the 7. sleepers lying hid in a mountaine but we affirme this company liued in the middest of the Church of Rome it selfe and were the visible professours thereof First some that kept themselues
dayes Thirdly that diuerse particular points of our doctrine are acknowledged by learned Protestants to haue bene taught by the ancient Fathers namely Vowes Reall presence c. For all which the said Protestant Apology citeth the names and bookes and oftentimes the very words of the learned Protestants as may be seene and I wish the Reader for his more satisfaction to see Lastly that our Church holdeth the very same and no other faith in substance then that which was held by the ancient Church may appeare by the very nature as I may say of our Church whose property and condition is not to inuent of new or to alter any doctrine in any matter of faith but to receiue humbly and obediently at the hands of our present Pastours what they in like manner learned of their predecessors and still to hate and resist all innouation in any matter of faith no lesse then a deadly poison as knowing that the least infection of any new inuented heresie or alteration in matter of faith doth corrupt and adulterate the whole faith and taketh away infallible authoritie and credite from the Church Wherefore our Pastors haue bene like men appointed to watch very vigilant in noting reprehending resisting and condemning all innouation in faith and sometimes casting incorrigible members out of the Church euen for a word or two profanely innouated contrary to the custome and faith of the Church The which course being duly obserued as chiefely by Gods prouidence and partly by humane diligence it hath bene and shall be still obserued it is not possible that there should be such alteration in religion or difference betwixt the faith and doctrine of the ancient and present Pastours of the Church as our aduersaries ignorantly or maliciously obiect For as Vincencius Lyrinensis saith Vincent Lyr. l. aduersus haereses Vincentius Lyr. contra haereses c. 32. the Church of Christ is a carefull keeper of religion committed to her charge she neuer changeth or altereth in any thing she diminisheth nothing nothing she addeth to wit as a doctrine of faith True it is that by reason of heresies arising the Pastors and doctors of the Church in latter ages haue had occasion to write more largely and expressely about diuerse points then was done in former times when no such heresies were and that for confutatiō of those heresies and more explication of the formerly receiued faith these Pastours and Doctors haue vsed some kinde of more significant words then formerly were vsed in which sort the terme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was brought in against those who denied Christ our Sauiour to be true God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against those who denied our blessed Lady to be the mother of God and transubstantiation against those who denied the conuersion of the substance of bread into the substance of the body of our Lord. The which tearmes although they may seeme to smell of noueltie yet indeed are not of that prophane sort of nouelty of voices or wordes which the Apostle wisheth to be auoided because the sence of these wordes is not different from the faith and phrase vsed formerly by the Church but do onely explicate more plainely or signifie more fully and clearely that which was formerly beleeued and taught by the Church which kinde of explication of the ancient faith to be lawfull and allowable Vincent Lyrin cont haer c. 2. we may learne out of Vincentius Lyrinensis who although a most true louer of antiquitie alloweth such new explicatiō of the faith as we may see in his goldē Treatise where hauing declared excellently by that saying of the Apostle Cap. 28.29 30. O Timothy keepe the Depositum c. that nothing is to be innouated in faith he sheweth how this notwithstanding Cap. 32. the ancient faith may in processe of time be more explained and that for more easie vnderstanding of it to an old article of faith we may giue a new name 1 HEre are foure reasons to proue that the ancient Fathers held the same doctrine of faith that is now professed in the Church of Rome and one obiection answered that he thinkes will be made against him His first reason is the testimony of Coccius a Cum ab ineunte aetate incidisset in praeceptores Lutheranos adhuc inuenis in eiusmodi haereticorum Academijs versatus c. Posseuin ap v. Iod. Cocc an apostata who in his Thesaurus settes downe the Fathers point by point with vnanime consent testifying against the Protestants Wherein he much forgets himselfe for if Coccius set downe the Fathers point by point what needed the Repliar haue graunted b Ch. 44. a little before that there be diuers points held by his side now adaies whereof there is no mention in the writings of the Fathers yet they held them because either explicitely or implicitely they held many points that they haue not expressely mentioned let these two be reconciled They held some things onely implicitely by an infolded faith not mentioning them expressely and yet Coccius sets them downe point by point testifying against the Protestants For those points which they held onely infoldedly Coccius cannot set downe in their owne wordes point by point I answer therefore that Coccius with his * Spatio 24. annorū Posseu twenty foure yeares studie hath not done this that my Repliar reports he hath collected together the wordes of the Fathers and such places as his side vses for the confirmation of their hereticall opinions but the vnanime and certaine consent in the now current Romane faith he hath not shewen and the Reader shall know it by this that in the controuersies betweene vs they many times deny the authority of the Fathers and c Ind. expurg Belg pag. 12. professe so to do yea to excuse and extenuate their errors by deuising shifts and to fainesome fit sense for their owne purpose vnto them when they are opposed against them by vs in our disputations And why haue they thus purged and corrupted their writings and why do they allow nothing to be the sense of their wordes but what the Pope and his Clergy allowes to be the sense Is it not palpable hypocrisie to do all this and yet to bragge of their vnanime consent against vs Coccius therefore out of the Fathers whom they haue CORRVPTED PVRGED COVNTERFETTED and COINED may bring places which being fraudulently expounded and shuffled may giue colour to Papistrie but by the true writings of the true Fathers truely expounded as themselues meant the present faith of Rome in the articles which they hold against vs and as they expound them cannot be confirmed no not in one point and let no man hope the contrarie as may appeare by these examples following Of the sufficiency of the Scripture without traditions Saint Basil d De Fid. p. 394. graec Basil sayes It is a manifest falling from the faith and an argument of arrogancy either to abrogate any of
not the faith of the Romish Church at least for any thing that can be shewed as much as that which my aduersary will defend to be the faith And for confirmation hereof there is very little either defined by the Pope and his Councels or so defined that there remaines no ambiguity in the conclusion but some say this is the faith and some that expounding all things after their owne iudgement so that he which alleadges the opinion or assertion of a Popish authorized Doctor and I alledge no other alledges the Church opinion for any thing that can be shewed to the contrary Which if the Repliar will deny let him giue me a certaine rule whereby I may without error discerne which is the Church doctrine and which a priuate opinion For if he say that onely is the Church doctrine that is defined by the Pope I will produce his Doctors that expound the definition in that sense that I say cleane against the doctrine of the ancient Fathers If he deny or refuse the party whom I alleadge or bring other writers that expound otherwise let him deale sincerely and demonstrate why he and his author should be thought to report the true definition rather then I and my author being in all points equall to the chiefest in the Church of Rome As when I alledge Thomas for a THE WAY pag. 152. g. worshipping images with diuine honour b Pref. n. 1. g. Bayus for meriting without any eleuation c Bozius for the Popes Monarchy d Pag. 317 k. Mariana for killing kings e Pag. 250. h. Caietan for satisfaction let a certaine rule be giuen whereby it may be knowne that their sayings are their owne priuate opinions and not the doctrine of their Church especially when these and all the rest whom I alleadge are commended to the skies for the white children of the Catholicke Church whose condition it is not to adulterate their mothers faith 4 Next he sayes the things wherein the Doctors of his Church teach otherwise appertaine not to faith but to some circumstance thereof which may be held this or that way without preiudice This I answered f §. 35. n. 19. in THE WAY which my aduersary dissembles and it is false For it is a matter of faith and belongs to the vnity thereof to beleeue for example that Gods honour may not be giuen to another For it is a conclusion reuealed in g Exod. 20 5. Scripture and taught by h Idololatrae dicuntur qui simulacris eam seruitutem exhibent quae debetur Deo Aug. trin l. 1. c. 6 Si honos idem tribuitur alijs ipse omnino nō colitur Lact. de fals relig l. 1. c. 19 the Fathers yet the Romish authors alleadged hold that the crosse of Christ and the Crucifixe may be worshipt with diuine honour The ministration of the Communion to the laity in both kindes i Conc. Const sess 13. practised by the ancient Church is no circumstance yet our Popish DD. hold the contrary Finally their errors and discords from the ancient Church are in the same things wherein they dissent from vs that if we dissent from them in substance and not in circumstance onely it will easily appeare that they dissent in the same manner from the ancient Church And whereas he sayes that whether their opinion be in the substance or in the circumstance they submit it to the censure of the Church and so all is well againe this is impertinent for this submission is onely in points which they hold with the Protestants against the Papacy wherein they plainely shew the Protestant religion to haue bene maintained in the Church of Rome and in those opinions also I haue shewed they submit not themselues so humbly as is pretended but stand out against the Popes owne definitions k THE WAY digr 26. and determinations of his Councels And I admonish the reader that l Miratus sum vehementer post damnationem eius ab Anastasio Papa pontificia authoritate in flictam post eiusdem reprobationem in sexta Synodo pronuntiatam post tot antiquorum Patrū in id ipsum conspirantes sententias adhuc recentiores quosdam ausos esse pro eodem nouas edere Apologias authoritate totius Catholicae Ecclesiae iudicatas saepius controuersias denuo te mere excitare quod visus est fecisse haud pridem Sixtus Senensis Baro. an 256 nu 40. Speaking of such in the Church of Rome as defended Origen This point of our adersaries refusing the Pope and their owne Churches determinations is shewed in the WAIE Digr 26. no sort of professors in the world do more obstinately and cunningly contemne the decrees of their superiours then our aduersaries But in such things as I haue shewed they held against vs and where they expound and teach Popery most grossely I hope the Repliar will not say they needed any submission or if they did let him tell vs when and to whom they submitted themselues and how and when the point wherein they submitted themselues was reformed Which when he hath done I will grant thē to be flexibler thē those Protestant DD. which he reports most vntruly will submit their opinions neither actually nor virtually to the censure of any Church But if he cannot let him go like an hypocrite thus with a tale of actually or virtually submitting themselues to the Church to blanch the formallest obstinacy and hypocrisie that euer was 5 If therefore it were true that the sentence of such Popish Authors as I haue swept together were but the dust and not current doctrine practised in their Church I would easily grant him that it were of no more force against his vnity then the heape of filth and ordure of ill life obiected in the Digr 31. is against his holinesse And not so much for those heapes and ordures though Papists themselues were the Scauingers that raked them together and not M. White do substantially shew that the streets of Rome are not so cleane as is pretended that the faire pauements thereof should so proudly be made a note of the Church when the muck heapes stand so thicke therein that a man cannot walke for treading ouer shooes Yet how little or how much wit soeuer be in it I had not discouered those faults if my Repliars great wit and deepe conceite had not vrged me to it not for feare it would be returned againe nor any whit dreading what our aduersaries out of Luther whose words a §. 38. n. ◠I answered sincerely or Caluino-Turcismus or any other can boldly say but because I take no pleasure in such discourse But when my Aduersary so insolently dogged me b 2. Sam. 2.19 as Azahel did Abner what could I do lesse then strike him his speeches that drew me to it were intollerable and there was no way to make him see the vnholsomenesse of his house but by shewing him c Concert eccl cath in Angl. p. 146. in apolog