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
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
Baronius takes him vp b An. 60. n. 20. You may see for it must necessarily be spoken his words are so full against our inuocation of Angels Theodoret by his leaue hath nothing happily attained the sence of Pauls wordes when in his Commentaries vpon this Epistle he sayes these things were written by Paule because heretickes then came in who boasted that Angels should be worshipped For who these heretickes were let him say himselfe and being once fallen into an error he stumbled presently vpon a worse that he sayes the Canon of the Laodicen Councell is to be vnderstood of such hererickes as taught the worship of Angels and erected an oratory to Michael the Archangel too inconsiderately attributing that to heretickes which of ancient time was done by Catholikes 11 This opinion of vsing the mediation of Angels and Saints departed arose from the Gentiles and specially the followers of Plato c Alcino de doctri Platon c. 15. pag. 79. Porphyr de abstinent animal l. 2. pag. 40. Apul. de deo Socrat. pag. 91. August De ciuit l. 8. c. 18. 19. l. 9. c. 9. whose doctrine it was that the spirits of men departed and Angels imploy themselues in carrying our prayers to God and therefore it is a good way to inuocate them Eusebius d Praeparat Euang l. 12. c. 3. p. 338. graec reports the wordes of Plato Certainely the soules of the Dead departed haue a certaine power and are carefull about the businesse of men These things are true but the reasons containing them are long it is the best way therefore to credite that which others haue reported concerning them the reports being so manifold and ancient The which words of Plato e lac Ziglir quem refert Chemnit Iesuitism pag. 100. cited sometime by a Papist as Eusebius owne to proue the inuocation of the dead shew not onely the affinity of the opinions of the Papists and Gentiles touching this point but also the foundation whereupon they both stand the ancient tradition of their elders Afore I leaue the point I must according to my professed method shew the confession of some Papists touching this matter f In 2. Tim. digr 17. pag. 118. Espenceus a Sorbonist Are they well and godly brought vp which being children almost a hundred yeares old that is to say old and ancient Christians do no lesse attribute to the Saints and trust in them then to God himselfe and thinke God himselfe harder to be pleased and intreated then they Would God I lied and there were no such g Consult pag. 154. George Cassander This false and pernitious opinion is too well knowne to haue preuailed among the vulgar while wicked men perseuering in their naughtinesse are perswaded that onely by the intercession of the Saints whom they haue chose to be their patrons and worship with cold and prophane ceremonies they haue pardon and grace prepared them with God which pernitious opinion hath bene confirmed in them as much as was possible with lying miracles And there is another error that men not euill of themselues haue chosen certaine Saints to be their patrones and keepers and put confidence in their merits and intercession more then in the merite of Christ so farre that the onely office of Christs intercession being obscured they haue substituted into his place the Saints and specially the Virgine his mother c. h In Augu. De ciuit l. 8. c. 27. pag. 494. Lodouicus Viues There are many Christians which most an end sinne in a good matter when they worship Saints both men and women no otherwise then they worship God and I cannot see in many that there is any difference betweene the opinion they haue of the Saints and that which the Gentiles had of their gods A. D. The which is more easily seene Page 4â— when as all the intercession which we craue Saints departed or liuing men to make for vs doth depend wholy vpon Christs merits and mediation and so to depend as acknowledged by vs when in the ordinary Collects of the blessed Virgine and other Saints vsed by our Church there is added per Christum Dominum nostrum through Christ our Lord. So that for this part of M. Whites accusation I need say no more 12 This is his second reason whereby he excuses praying to Saints and would make it seeme to be nothing against the Mediatorship of our Sauiour because they acknowledge the intercession of Saints to depend vpon the merites and mediation of Christ and therefore in their praiers and Collects to them there is added Per Christum Dominum nostruÌ„ Through Iesus Christ our Lord so that for this part of M. Whites accusation he need say no more but this answer is vnsufficient For first per Christum Dominum nostrum is added in none of their praiers vsed by their Church that I alledged nor in any of that sort as wil appeare to him that will take the paines to searâ—h their Primers and Portuisses That clause being added to praiers made to God where the merits and mediation of a Saint are mentioned therein but not in such praiers as are directed to the Saints themselues for then the abomination were greater to make Christ their mediator to a creature Next the adding of per Christum Dominum nostrum hath no place in their idolatrous protestations touching the merits and excellency of Friar Frauncis Friar Dominicke the holy Virgine and others to whom I shewed what monsters of merits they attribute making them equall to Christ himselfe The which may yet more fully be seene in their doctrine touching Friar Frauncis wherein Christ in all things that are written in the Gospell of him is paralleled with him in his Birth in the Prophecies forerunning him in his life temptations Disciples doctrine Miracles Transfiguration Passion Ascension and what not as may be seene in the Booke of his Conformities a An. 1590. at Bonony lately printed that we may know the present Church of Rome and the Pastors thereof at this day stand in the same damnable idolatrie which we hoped had bene but the priuate superstitioÌ„ of some paltry Friars That booke doth containe the most blasphemies against Christ that euer did any since Iulian and Porphyry gaue ouer writing and I do verily thinke that as the Diuell stirred vp of old b Philostrat vita Apolon Tyanae him that writ the like of Apollonius Tyanaeus thereby to ouerthrow the Gospell by writing a story of a damned Necromancer that should in all things match Christ the Sonne of Marie so the same Diuell set the Friar a worke to write this Conformity that the merits of Christ might be suppressed and a stinking idoll set vp in his steed and yet the same is newly set foorth and at this day by open c Henr. Sedul apologet pro li. conform Antuerp 1607. Apologies iustified But to leaue this Romane Alcoran what do they talke of the Virgine Maries intercession depending on
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
is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most doth import a great degree of profitablenesse Or if it import sufficiency it is not meant that alone sufficiency of which our questiō is but at the most sufficiency in suo genere in a certaine limited kind to wit of written Scripture Against the second part of my answer first M. White either had a corrupt copie of my treatise or else himselfe his writer or printer corrupteth euen my words and sense For I do not say as he maketh me the Scripture is sufficient because c. But I say onely that it is profitable the rather because it commendeth the authority of the Church By which corruption he maketh himselfe matter to worke vpon but very idlely most of his obiections being ouerthrowne only by reading my words aright as I set them downe His chiefe obiection is this The Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastours the Pope Councell and all but it cannot send these to the Church because these be the Church I answer that it sendeth euen these also to the Church First in that it sendeth them to the interpretation of Councels and Fathers of the ancient Church Secondly it sendeth them as they are priuate men needing instruction to themselues as authorized Pastours who by the assistance of Gods Spirit shall be enabled as neede shall require for their owne and other mens instruction to define rightly which is the right doctrine of faith in any point wherein Controuersie shall arise The answer of his other obiections may without difficulty be gathered out of that which here I haue said already and which I am after to say when I do shew how Church authority is prooued out of Scripture Whence followeth not that other places of Scripture either are superfluous or not to be accounted part of the rule or that Church doctrine is to be opposed to Scripture or to be accounted humane traditions or doctrine of men The sentences of Fathers and others which M. White bringeth to proue alone sufficiency of Scripture either proue nothing against me to wit being explicated that the Scriptures with other meanes prouided by God namely the authority of the Church are able to instruct vs or else they proue against him and his fellow M. Wootton as well as against me if the Fathers words be taken without limitation that the Scriptures alone without any meanes ioyned to thē are able to instruct vs in all things And it is maruaile that these men haue so little iudgement to alledge such authorities which make no more againe Church-authority required by me then against Church-ministery which is required by themselues as the ordinary meanes to instruct men in faith 1 The Apostle 2. Tim. 3.15 hath these words The holy Scriptures are ABLE to make thee wise TO SALVATION through THE FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST IESVS For the whole Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable to TEACH to IMPROVE to CORRECT to INSTRVCT IN ALL RIGHTEOVSNESSE That the man of God may be ABSOLVTE and made PERFECT VNTO ALL GOOD WORKES This text we alledge to proue the sufficiency of the Scripture whereto my Aduersary in his discourse a In the WAY §. 11. answered two things First that the Apostle doth not say in these words that the Scripture is sufficient to instruct a man to perfection but that it is profitable but I shewed that he affirmes it to be SVFFICIENT by three reasons the first because the Apostle sayes They are able to make vs PERFECT and that to EVERY good worke now that which doth this is sufficient inasmuch as God requires no more at any mans hand but perfection to euery good worke My Aduersary in this his cōfused Reply wherin he durst not deale openly and distinctly that I might perfectly discerne which part of my argument his words properly concerne seemes to deny the consequence because S. Paul sayes also that Piety is profitable to euery thing and yet it is not sufficient in such sort that there needs no other helpe or meanes to be ioyned with it to attaine whatsoeuer thing Whereto I reply againe First that euen this Piety being the totall and whole effect that the study of the Scripture works in mē is sufficiēt without the ioyning of any thing else to it that is not Piety for it followes in the next words that this Piety hath the promises of this life and of the life to come that is to say whatsoeuer is promised vs in this world or in the next is obtained by Piety Therefore Piety is sufficient Therefore any thing in this example notwithstanding the Scriptures being affirmed to be profitable to euery thing are affirmed also to be sufficient Secondly we do not maintaine the Scripture to be sufficient in that sense that without all helpe and meanes to learne them they will suffice for who euer denied the ministery of the Church the illumination of Gods Spirit and a mans owne syncere indeuour to be also requisite But when we say they are sufficient we do it against the assertion that sayes they containe not the substāce of al things needful to be knowne but besides the meanes to vnderstand and learne them we need Church authority and vnwritten tradition to supply diuers articles of faith that they reueale not Thirdly my Aduersary may possibly finde some formes of speech where a thing is called profitable to all things yet other things are as necessary as it for the profitablenes of one thing excludes not the necessity of another thing But wheresoeuer it is said that any thing is profitable not simply to this or that purpose but to make persect to euery thing in the same kind there the sufficiency thereof is absolutely concluded and thus the Apostle speakes of the Scripture that it is profitable to make PERFECT to EVERY good worke The said perfection being an effect of their profitablenesse for that profitable thing is sufficient of it selfe that makes and produces the effect perfect 2 My second reason whereby I shewed the sufficiency of the Scripture was this All that we need to saluation is either to be taught or reproued or instructed or corrected but the Scripture alone doth all this Ergo they are sufficient to this he answers nothing 3 Thirdly I reasoned thus That is sufficient and containes all things needfull to be knowne which is able to make a man wise to saluation but the Scripture is able to doe this Ergo it is sufficient this argument he hath tumultuously repeated as he hath all the rest and answered I know not how First he sayes if the word alone had bene put in it would more plainely appeare how it proues nothing let the world therefore be put in That which alone is able to make a man wise to saluation is sufficient but such is the Scripture that alone it is able to make a man wise to
saluation Therefore it is sufficient How doth it now appeare so plainely that it proues nothing the first proposition is manifest of it selfe the second is as manifest for all that the Apostle affirmes is of the Scripture alone and of nothing else for of Scripture alone he saies it is able to make wise to saluation it is profitable to teach to reproue to instruct to correct that the man of God may be perfect the conclusion therfore must needs be true Secondly he saies the Apostle speakes of the old Testament yea of euery parcell of Scripture yet M. White will not say that now specially the old Testament without the New or euery parcell of the old it selfe is alone sufficient for all the said purposes whereto M. White answers that he neither speakes of the old Testament alone nor of any one parcell either of old or new separated from the rest but of the whole in this sense all the whole Scripture taken together is able c. And if the Iesuits and D. Stapleton whom this man traces had not renounced all truth they would not say it when that which the Apostle auouches of the Scripture cannot agree to euery parcel alone but to all together for what one parcell performes all these effects to make wise to saluation to teach to reproue to instruct to correct to make perfect the Scripture is so vnderstood as that all these things may truly be affirmed of it but these things cannot truely be affirmed of the parcels alone Ergo. 4 Thirdly he saies the word PROFITABLE must not expound the word ABLE or if it be the word ABLE doth not signifie that the Scripture is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most it imports a great degree of profitablenesse This is no answer to this argument But to another that he hath not expressed I said therefore thirdly though very briefly By the word able the other word profitable must be expounded Which I thus put into forme that which is PROFITABLE by being ABLE is sufficient the Scripture is so PROFITABLE that it is ABLE to make vs wise to saluation Ergo it is sufficient He first denies the Minor and saies the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word Able but he seemes to be dazeled For that which is able to make wise to saluation must needes be able to make absolute and perfect because perfection consists in being wife to saluation but the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation Ergo. Next he saies that supposing the word PROFITABLE be expounded by the word ABLE thus Scripture is able to make one absolute and perfect yet the meaning is not that it is able without other helpes and meanes concurring with it but at the most that it is very profitable and if it be sufficient yet this sufficiency is not that whereof our question is but in a certaine limited kinde to wit of written Scripture That is to say if by able to make vs wise to saluation be meant that the Scriptures are sufficient yet it is not meant that alone they are sufficient as the Protestants hold but with a limitation so far as Scripture can be sufficient In which his answer he plainely discouers himselfe to be foundred and spent For our question is not whether the Scripture alone without vsing the Ministery of the Church or our owne industry or such meanes as God hath appointed for the finding our and vnderstanding of that which is contained in it be sufficient for Bread and Drinke and all manner of food is not sufficient to sustaine mans life if he take no paines to get it or if he be not able to swallow and digest it and my aduersaries owne Church and traditions with all their royalties are not sufficient vnlesse men take paines to finde them and be so mad as to beleeue them and so blinde as to let them downe but the question is of their latitude and extent viz. whether the written Scripture containe in expresse words or sense the whole and entire doctrine of faith and good life so that the Church by her authoritie and traditions may adde no point of faith that is wanting in the Scripture This appeares to be the question by my aduersaries own words and the words of the Diuines in his Church Now the Apostle saying the Scripture is able to make one wise to saluation affirmes the sufficiency of it alone without any other helpe or meanes to supply any doctrine or matter of faith not contained therein because there is no more needfull but to be wise to saluation and that wisdome the Scripture is able to instruct vs in Which ability is not limited to certaine points but extended to all the whole obiect of faith by the word For thus I reason He speakes of the Scripture alone and nothing else therefore the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation therefore it is so profitable and in such sort to make absolute and perfect to euery good worke that it can do it For it is able Therefore it alone is sufficient Therefore this sufficiency is so limited to written Scripture that it is perfectly and wholy contained in it 5 The second part of my aduersaries answer in his discourse to the text alleadged was that the Scripture is said to be profitable because it commendes to vs the authority of the Church This his answer I opposed with 7. arguments But when I repeated it I put in the word sufficient thus He saies they be profitable and SVFFICIENT because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority the addition of which word you see he distasts and makes a vantage of thereby to put off the answer to sixe of my arguments That the Prouerbe might be true it s an ill winde but blowes some men profite for vnder that pretence he takes occasion to cauill and put off that he could not answer For first the word might well be put in without any preiudice to his sense For if their profitablenesse lie in commending to vs the Church authoritie then their sufficiency lyes there too and so I might well make him say they be profitable and sufficient because they cōmend vnto vs the Churches authority Secondly it is idle that he saies my obiections are ouerthrown Only by reading his words aright leauing out the word sufficient For let him looke vpon them againe and he shall finde they ourthrow his exposition of profitable as well as if he had expounded sufficient in the same manner But my aduersary will take a small occasion to shun an argument 6 Onely to the sixth he replies for whereas I said the meaning cannot be that they are profitable because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority because the Apostle saies they are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastor himselfe the Pope the Councell and all and it were absurd to say that the
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
which opinion they also cannot be freed inasmuch as they hold the merit of workes not to be founded on Gods couenant in Christ but Gods couenant to be founded on the merit as I haue touched before To the Councell of Trent I answer that Baius was there present and in all probabilitie knew the meaning of it either to be with him or not against him else he would not haue published his booke n The Counceâ— ended an 1563. he printed his booke 1565. two yeares after the Councel was ended and these very words of the Councell eternall life is the grace of God o Cap. 6. he answers and expounds to his owne sence that it is the grace of God because it is due to the merits that proceed of grace which grace he denies not to be the roote of merit but he denies it to haue any influence into the reason of meriting as I haue expounded in the third proposition And if the Reader will see the true meaning of these words of the Councell whereby so many are beguiled here it is p Vasqu p. 819. n. 84. Where life eternall is called a grace mercifully promised to the sonnes of God I answer that life eternall is not called a grace mercifully promised because the workes whereto it is giuen are not equall of themselues to it or condignely worthy of it but because the merits whereto it is rendred are of Gods mercie and so life eternall in respect of the roote thereof is called grace q Pag. 820. n. 88 Againe The Councell of Trent affirming life eternall to be a reward which is to be rendred faithfully by promise if it be well marked nothing fauours their opinion who hold our workes not to merit of themselues but because God hath made a promise to reward them for that word BY PROMISE must not be ioyned with THE REWARD as if the meaning were that life eternall is giuen as a reward because it is giuen by promise which it should not if the promise were not but it must be ioyned with that TO BE FAITHFVLLY rendred to their good workes and merits for this to be FAITHFVLLY rendred it hath by promise Wherefore WITHOVT THE PROMISE of God eternall life should be rendred CONDIGNLY to the works of the iust as the wages stipend and crowne of righteousnesse taking righteousnesse for that equalitie which is to be obserued betweene the dignitie of workes and eternall life but yet it should not be giuen FAITHFVLLY or of fidelitie because where there is no promise there is no fidelitie for fidelitie is that truth which is in keeping promises Whereby we see that it was not the mind of the Councell to ascribe eternall life to the grace of God otherwise then so farre forth as that grace makes vs able to merit it our selues which is the very opinion of Baius that I alledged 5 To the Bull whereby he sayes this opinion of Baius is expresly condemned I answer that when I alledged Baius I knew not of the Bull but since r In Posseuin appar verbo Mich. Baius and at the end of Vasqu para in epist Pauli I haue seene it and bene admonisht thereof neuerthelesse Baius his proposition is not thereby condemned the words of the Bull are these after it hath set downe some 80 propositions extracted out of Baius Many of these propositions might in some fashion be defended yet as they are intended by such as defend them in the rigor and proper sence of the words we condemne them * As Paule the now Pope in his late censure of â—ecanus his booke sayes Many things therein are false and temerarious RESPECTIVELY because this censure being extorted from him to auoide a worse inconuenience should not simply condemne Becanus his opinion which Bellarmine himselfe whose hand is to the Censure hath broached as well as he in his writings but only made a shew of condemning them to serue the present turne and to delude the Princes of the worlde with hope of that which he will neuer do till he see his occasions fitter then now they are respectiuely as hereticall erronious suspected rash and scandalous By which condemnation Å¿ 1. 2. disp 190. n 176. pag 516. sayes Vasquez a Iesuite maintaining some things mentioned in the same Bull it doth not appeare what censure doth agree seuerally to each proposition but by the words it is manifest that all those notes and censures together temerarious and hereticall do not belong to the said propositions but euery one by it selfe that is to say euery one hath his proper censure and thus some propositions are onely condemned as lying open to scandall Thus Vasquez their great Schoole-man and a Iesuite answered the Bull when it was obiected against him for holding certaine propositions therein in the prosecution whereof he shewes that many things contained in it are condemned onely because of his manner of defending them with some violence and intemperance And he sayes t See the Iesuites admonition to the Reader prefixed to the Bull at the end of Vasquez paraphrase wherein he shewes that Baius is mistaken and not truly vnderstood by such as haue dealt against him and that the Popes Bull censures his doctrine no otherwise then Vasquez affirmes he learned this to be the intent of the Bull from Cardinall Tolet who was a commissioner sent by the Pope to Louan for the composing of these contentions and therefore best knew the meaning of the Bull. Belike Baius was somewhat passionate in the maintenance of his opinions much like this Iesuite and so the Pope by a Bull censured him which being so how will the Iesuite make it appeare to me that this singular proposition which is the twelfth in number is condemned as * Note what propositions they be that our aduersaries account to be hereticall temerarious scandalous c. as it is noted by Lud. Carbo in his summes Duo genera propositionum haereticarum primum continet errores manifestos contra veritates in verbo Dei expressaâ— aut per Ecclesiam iam determinatas Alterum in quo continentur errores contra veritates euidenter ex primo genere collectas And then a little before Jdeo aliqua propositio dicitur haeretica quia haresim designat sed hoc non facit nisi adsit pertinacia Propositio erronea est illa qua aduersatur veritati ex propositione de fide euidenter collectae Propositio quae dicitur sapere haeresim est illa quae licet non appareat haerisis manifesta quin potius potest habere bonum sensum tamen ex circumstantijs potest praebere saporem vel suspicionem haeresis Vt ista propositio Iustus ex fide viuit Propositio temeraria quando asseritur aliquid contra communem Ecclesia Doctorum sententiam sine ratione firmissima Propositio scandalosa est illa quae apta est gignere scandalum circa doctrinam veritatem fidei Ludo. Carb sum tom 3. l. 1. c.
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
if I had not he would neuer haue fallen to this vile and wretched shift whereto now he betakes himselfe 2 First he sayes many times ouer that though they vse the same words to the Saints they do to Christ yet they do not really and formally giue them the same worship and so thinkes he hath excused his Church from idolatrie whereof let the Reader iudge by that I haue said * Cha. 13. immediatly before Next he answers that whatsoeuer titles and formes of speech they vse in their seruice of the Saints or Friar Francis yet their meaning is not to attribute vnto them the same holinesse and merits that they ascribe to Christ but an inferiour and such as depends vpon his holinesse and merits thus as all idolaters do flying from the words to the meaning Whereto I answer that it becomes the true Church of Christ not onely to meane well but to speake well and such therein as will keepe the Catholick faith must also hold the Catholick forme of words The Apostle b 2. Tim. 1.13 charging Timothy to keepe the true patterne of wholesome words which he had heard of him Now let the Reply shew any one patterne of these inuocations and narrations in all the Scriptures Saint Austin hath a golden speech to this purpose c De ciuit l. 10 c. 23. Thus spake Plotinus as he was able or rather as he listed For Philosophers speake with freedome of words in the difficultest things that are to vnderstand neuer fearing the offence of religious eares but it is lawfull for vs to speake but after a certaine rule lest the licentiousnesse of words bring any wicked opinions as touching the things that are signified thereby Then I answer againe that this is but a shift to hide the odiousnesse of their blasphemie for albeit it be granted that by such words they meane not such merits and dignitie as belongs to Christ yet they meane more then of right appertaines to any mortall creature For there is no merit or dignitie in any creature capable of these speeches or of any other that are vsed in their Saint-inuocations but the least that is meant is more then belongs to any but the Lord Iesus Thirdly the words alledged and all other whereof any question is if we allow them that immediate grammaticall construction that belongs to all words can import no lesse then the same seruice that is giuen to Christ both really and formally Let the Iesuite take these for example part whereof d Pref. of THE WAY n. 14. I alledged e Hâ—t secund chor August de commem B. Virginis Reioyce O mother celestiall magnifie thy God that made thee singular thou wouldest call thy selfe the handmaid of Iesu Christ but as Gods law teaches thou art his Ladie mistris for right and reason will the mother be aboue her sonne therefore pray him humbly and command him from aboue that he leade vs to his kingdome at the worlds end Thou alone without example art shee whom God hath chosen to be the Mediator of God and men the repairer of the world the end of our exile the washing away of our sinne the ladder of heauen the gate of Paradise Such idolatrie as this were fitter to be purged with an humble confession then to be excufed with these vaine distinctions 3 But M. White he sayes vnderstands not wherein the formall reason of worship doth consist But he tels him the inward estimation of the minde is it Words as prayers and actions as adoring with the bodie be signes whereby this worship is outwardly yeelded and therefore they follow the inward estimation of the minde and import no more then he meanes that vses them and therefore though we vse the same words and actions to creatures that we do to God yet meaning them in one sense to the creature and in another to God this is no idolatrie This is the full summe of his barbarous and confused discourse but I answer again that thus all idolaters in the world may excuse themselues in the worship of their idols for when the Iew to his calfe and the Gentile to his image bended the knee and called it God they did not esteeme it in that degree that they did God himselfe but onely gaue it an inferiour honour such as they thought an image capable of and when they were put to it would answer as the Reply doth f For they did not think their idols to be God but resemblances of the true God Athenag Leg. pag. 20. Dio Chrysost p. 145 Peres de tradit pag. 225. Andr. orthod expl pag. 289. 294 Act. 17.23 though the word or action were one yet the honour was farre different but as I would answer them so I do the Iesuite that the inward estimation opinion of the mind determining the said words prayers and gestures to such an inferiour worship as is mentioned doth not remoue the reason of idolatrie thereby from the said words and prayers because such as it is it remaines diuine worship attributed to a creature For all religious inuocation of a creature in what opinion soeuer is diuine adoration and a part of Gods proper worship Besides our meaning and intention limiting our words cannot dispense with the commandement that forbids the vsing of g Abusus ille reprehensibilis est si praedicara quae secundùm vsum ecclesiae sâ—li Deo Patri Mediatori Christo attribuuntur vt Omnipotens Saluator c. etiam Sanctis applicantur Henr. de Hass quem refert sequitur Gabr. Lect. 32. lit 2. such words to a creature with any meaning whatsoeuer For Christ teaching vs how to pray bids vs pray Our Father which art in heauen Forgiue vs our trespasses Deliuer vs from euill For thine is the kingdome the power and the glorie We must pray to such a one as is our Father which is in heauen c. this is a commandement and Rom. 10. How shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued This is the doctrine of Saint Paul which commandement and doctrine are violated as well when we pray to a Saint with estimation that he is but an intercessor through Christs merits as when we call vpon him with an opinion that he can helpe vs without them The reason is because the commandement doctrine of the Scripture ties vs to God alone which being transgressed there is the reall and formall reason of superstition whatsoeuer the opinion and intent of the minde be 4 But the Iesuite replies that like as we kneele to God and call him our Father so do we the same things to our earthly parents and yet the honour we giue them hereby is farre different from that we yeeld to God therefore we may vse the same inuocations and words to the Saints that we doe to God when the minde acknowledges not that excellencie in them that it doth in him as children vse the same kneeling and words to their fathers
they do to God I answer two things first granting that words and outward gestures are qualified and conditioned by the meaning of him that vses them as he that called the Prophet h 2. Reg. 2.12 13.14 my Father my Father meant not that hie degree of Honor that he did when he called God his Father and therefore I will not deny but Papists vsing these inuocations mentioned to the Saints may meane them otherwise then they do to God as for example calling the virgin Mary their Aduocate their Hope their Sauiour they may meane she is so not of her selfe but vnder Christ and not principally by her owne merits but subordinarily by the merits and grace of her Sonne This I will easily grant may be the meaning of their wordes but then I answer secondly that it doth not follow that therefore we may with such reseruation of our meaning in the same wordes inuocate and worship the Saints departed first because the said inuocation is diuine honour from what minde soeuer it proceed whether the Saint be called vpon as the supreme and eternal beginning or whether onely as the friend of God that by reason of his nearnesse to him can sooner intreate him then my selfe If he be inuocated with the titles of Aduocate Sauiour Redeemer though the intent be but onely to vse him as a friend to intreate yet this is diuine honour belonging to Iesus Christ For all prayer is diuine honour and such titles as are giuen them in their worship Mediator Hope Aduocate Confidence Sauiour Redeemer Ladie Queene of heauen c. exceed the measure of all ciuill reuerence and adoration whatsoeuer and therefore are not like the calling of our earthly parent father or kneeling to him Secondly the worshipping of a creature is idolatrie though he that worship it acknowledge it to be but a creature subordinate to God a thousand times because the commandement is i Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue When the diuell tempted our Sauiour to fall downe before him he did not require him to perswade himselfe that he was Iehouah or that he had those things of himselfe for he confessed vnto him k Luc. 4.6 he had receiued them but onely that he would kneele vnto him and accept those things at his hands And our Sauiour refused it not onely because he was the diuell but also because the commandement forbids the giuing diuine honour to a creature with any opinion estimation or iudgement whatsoeuer l Apoc. 19.10 22.8 When S. Iohn would haue fallen downe and worshipped the Angell he was not so ignorant or stupid as to thinke he was God or to intend him that highest honour that belongs to God but onely by that office he wold present his loue to the Angell and possible procure some fauour at his hand yet the Angell forbad him by a reason that proceeds vnanswerably against the inuocation of all Saints See thou do it not for I am thy fellow seruant and one of thy brethren which haue the testimonie of Iesus Worship God For it is a generall rule in the Scripture that no creature may with any estimation be worshipped with diuine honour A.D. If M. White insist and vrge Pag. 43. that outward words and actions are signes of inward meaning therefore where words and outward actions are the same towards Christ and towards his Saints at least ignorant people haue cause giuen them to thinke we haue the same inward meaning and so by our example are encouraged to commit formall idolatrie I answer that inward meaning is indeed gathered by outward words and actions ordinarily but not alwayes nor ordinarily by the bare outward shew of the action or by that precise sound of one or other word or sentence but by the whole connexion and circumstance of the matter and person about which the speech and action is and by the presupposed and knowne conceit of the partie which speaketh the said words or doth the action Now although in some of our prayers one or other word or sentence may seeme harsh as it is considered precisely in the outward sound especially to those that are not acquainted with the like as also to those who neuer had seen men kneele to any but to God himselfe nor to call any Father besides him it would seeme very harsh to see one kneele to his earthly parent and to call him Father yet when we consider the whole connexion of the words of our prayers hauing respect also to the different circumstances of the persons and matters spoken of and to the commonly knowne conceit of the speaker the sense of our prayers are found neither to be idolatrous nor superstitious nor scandalous none being ordinarily among vs so simple or ill instructed but they know that there is a different inward conceit and more estimation had reuerence done when the words are applied to our Sauiour Christ being God and man then when they are applied to Saints who are knowne to be not Gods but onely men 5 That which the Iesuite still assumes for his defence is still false He presumes that intending their prayers to the Saints no otherwise then they do they are lawfull And as long as God is confessed to be the first beginning of mercie and goodnesse and Christ the Mediator of redemption and the Saints no more but aduocates and friends to present our prayers all is well and those Saints may be inuocated as they are but the answer is that euen this kind of inuocation with no further opinion touching them is vnlawfull as I haue shewed And let the Reader alwayes remember that it is m Mat 6.9 Luc 11.1 Nam quaÌ„libet alia veil a dicamus nihil aliud dicimus quaÌ„ quod in ista Dominica oratione positum est si rectè congruenter oramus Quisquis auteÌ„ id dicit quod ad istam preceÌ„pertinere non possit etiamsi non illicitè orat carnaliter orat c. Aug. op 121. c. 12. Neque ensm propria tantuÌ„ orationis officia complexa cit venerationem Dei aut hominis petitionem sed om nem pene sermoneÌ„ Domini omnem commemorationeÌ„ disciplinae â—t â—â—â—era in oratione Breuiarium totius Euangelij comprehendatur Tertul. de orat c 1. no lawfull prayer that is not according to Christs rule When ye pray do it after this maner Our Father which art in heaueÌ„ c. Let your praiers be made to him that you may say is your Father that is in heauen who forgiues vs our sinnes and to whom belongs the kingdome and power and glorie for euer 6 But that which he chiefly intends in this place is to excuse the harshnesse and scandalousnesse of the words of their prayers albeit if a man should view them well he might maruell what excuse could be deuised for them Yet the Reply not onely excuses them that they must not be measured by their sound and outward
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
his faith of the Scripture resteth 5 Let our aduersaries therefore leaue this custome of forging and misreporting and let them acknowledge the truth No matter to this point whether Protestants or Papists be the elect that haue this spirit but say directly and shrinke not is there not a Spirit euen the Spirit of God enlightning the conscience whereby euery one that beleeues is assured without which the authoritie and perswasion of the Church can do no good Then if there be such a Spirit why may it not be called the voice of Christ the light that shines in the Scriptures themselues and what defect is there in saying that by this Spirit true Scripture and true doctrine too is discerned o The soule hath it taste it feeling it smelling sayes Gers serm de Bern. tom 2. pag 750. edit Paris 1606. as the taste discernes sweet from sower such as know not the Scripture haue not this Spirit The word of God speakes in the Scripture openly though none but Gods children beleeue it Here I challenge my aduersarie and all his sect let them denie this if they can I would not haue them with gesture to out-stare it but as Christian men ought to do shew some reason if it be false which they cannot do D. Stapleton that laboured in this matter beyond all others yet p Triplicat in admonit confesses the internall perswasion of the Spirit to be so necessarie and so effectuall for the beleeuing of euery obiect of faith that neither without it can any thing of any man be beleeued though the church should beare witnesse a thousand times and by it ALONE any thing that should be may be beleeued THOVGH THE CHVRCH ALTOGETHER BE SILENT OR BE NOT HEARD q Princip l. 8. c. 3. Let our aduersaries know we do no way so extoll the outward voice of the Church that we should teach * There can be no faith absolutely without it sine ea nullam fidei rationem posse absolutè consistere Here we see D. Stapleton grants that by the Spirit of God inwardly perswading we may be and are and without it are not assured of any thing to be beleeued and that such as haue this Spirit doe by IT discerne which is the true Scripture and the true sense thereof and which is not as our taste discernes sweet from sower as our eyes light from darknesse doth euidently follow of his words And to let the Reader see how this ignorant Iesuite censures that he vnderstands not his owne Canus r Loc. l. 2 c. 8. pag. 43. edit Colon. an 1605 sayes that as the taste well affected easily discernes the difference of tastes so the good affection of the minde makes that a man can discerne the doctrine of God from error It is therefore true that the beleeuer in himselfe doth taste and see by it owne maiestie the Scripture to be Gods word when the Church hath testified it a thousand times and this taste and light of the Spirit in the heart is a thing distinct from the Churches authoritie and aboue it though ordinarily this Church-authoritie in ministring leade vs to the attaining it and help to open our eyes that we might see it 6 And the reason why some do not thus discerne the true Scripture or any truth is not because the Scripture is not euident enough of it selfe but because such as discerne it not want their taste and such as see or heare it not want their senses in the same maner that they do which cā neither taste the sweetnesse of hony nor heare the sound of a bell nor see the light of the Sunne because they are senslesse for the Sunne hath light in it selfe and honey sweetnesse in it selfe which are discerned by the sense it selfe but some haue no such sense and therefore Saint Austin ſ Prolo de doctr Christia sayes They which vnderstand not the things I write must not reprehend me because they vnderstand not like as if I should shew them with my finger the Moone or a starre which were not very bright and they had not eye-sight enough to see my finger wherewith I point they ought not therefore to be incensed at me So they who vnderstand ng these precepts that I giue cannot yet perceiue the obscure things which are in the sacred bookes must not blame me but pray that some light may be giuen to their eyes from God aboue For though I can with my finger point at a thing yet I can kindle light in no mans eyes to make them see that I point at And againe t Tract 35. in Ioh. in another place he sayes that as our eyes though whole and open yet need the helpe of outward light to see so our minde which is the eye of the soule vnlesse by the light of truth which illuminates other things but it selfe is not illuminated it be enlightned can come neither to wisedome nor righteousnesse In which words Saint Austin affirmes all this that we say that the Scripture and euery truth therein contained shines as a light and by proportion tastes of it selfe and speakes publickly to all as the Sunne shines openly to all and the reason why men discerne it not is not any defect in themselues which must be supplied by Church-authoritie and tradition but onely the def ct of disposition in themselues whereof the want of Church-ministery may be one cause And a little more to shew my aduersaries presumption in denying this let the words of u Ad Antolych l 1 pag 285. 289 edit Basil Henrico Petr. an 1555. Theophilus Antiochenus that liued two hundred yeares afore Austin be obserued If thou who art a Gentile say to me that am a Christian shew me thy God I will bid thee againe shew me that thou art a man and then I will shew thee my God Let me see the eyes of thy soule and the eares of thy heart open For as with carnall eyes we see the things belonging to this life so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the eyes and eares of the soule onely it is possible to behold God who is not seene of all but of such onely as can behold him hauing the eyes of their soule opened All haue eyes yet some are so dimme sighted that they see not the Sunne * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet the Sunne hath neuerthelesse light albeit the blinde see it not who must accuse themselues for their owne blindnesse In like manner O man are the eyes of thy soule possessed with blindnesse c. This therefore which our aduersaries so scurrilously call bold presumption of hauing and being taught by the Spirit was beleeued in the Church from the beginning and it was neuer called either audacious or impudent till this Romane Church and her creatures most audaciously and impudently renounced the authoritie maiestie and euidence of Gods blessed Spirit to aduance the tyrannie heresie and pride of Antichrist For the intended drift
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
all men is NO PROPER and FORMALL act of willing in God because he hath no imperfect act of willing as they call VELLEITIE but onely * Voluntatem signi a signification of will which onely is METAPHORICALL and INTERPRETATIVE in that he carries himselfe towards men as if he had that act of willing Thus thinke Caietan and Marsilius Others say the formall and proper will of God reaches not to the saluation of all men for that cause because it is not fulfilled but onely to the giuing of sufficient meanes which will onely to appoint sufficient meanes is formall in God and thereof God is said to will the saluation of all men and of this minde are many Schoole men This will of God b In 1. Tho. disp 83. nu 22. saith Vasquez whereby he would the saluation of all men euen of the reprobate verie many Schoole-men especially the newer thinke to be onely a CONDITIONATED will which they call a VELLEITIE whose act is not absolute and perfect but vnder condition Now the probabler opinion c 1. p. q. 19. ar 6 concl 2. comm saith Dominicus Bannes is that there is FORMALLY no will in God which is signified by the name of velleitie Whence it followes that since by the doctrine of Thomas and many others this Antecedent will is but a VELLEITIE it cannot be formally in God But to take downe this raw student yet a little more Soto Maior d Soto Maio. in Tim vbi sup pag. 274. saith This word God will the saluation of all men by the good leaue of so many ancient Authors we will not onely expound of will PROPERLY so called which is Gods good pleasure but of his antecedent will that is to say an IMAGINARY and METAPHORICALL will according to the which it is no inconuenience to say God will haue all men to be saued of which antecedent will or will IMPROPERLY so called Damascen speakes And e Pag. 276. againe Damascens antecedent will is but a GENERALL METAPHORICALL and IMPROPER will which they call a VELLEITIE Here you see that Damascen and Thomas his antecedent will is but a velleitie and this velleitie is no will simply or formally in God and therefore I spake not ignorantly but after the minde of the best Schoole men that write when I said out of Durand that this antecedent will is not simply properly and formally the will of God but knew well enough what I said and such as hold the contrary that this antecedent will whereby God is said to will the saluation of all men is simply properly or formally the wil of God f Opus est fateri non omnem voluntatem Beneplaciti semper impleri Magal in Tim. pag. 252. are driuen to hold a paradoxe that Gods absolute will which is defined to be the will of his good pleasure may be defeated and not accomplished which is a desperate shift and contrary to the doctrine of g Tho. 1. p. q. 19. art 6. Magist 1. d. 46. ibi Scot. Occham Dionys Capreol d. 45. q. vnic art 2. concl 5. Caiet in 1. Tim. 2.4 Dom. Ban. 1. p. q. 19. art 6. concl 2. in sum text Perer. select disp in Ioh 1. nu 73. the best ancient Diuines in the Church of Rome and directly against the Scripture which saith h Psal 135.6 Our God hath done whatsoeuer pleased him in heauen and earth i Rom. 9.19 Who hath resisted his will k Eph. 1.11 who worketh all things according to the counsell of his owne will 7 Thirdly he saith that in our ignorance possible we vnderstand not this distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will and that is the cause why we mislike the exposition of Saint Pauls words thereby which may be true and himselfe also as ignorant therein as we For be it spoken in good time Ludouicus Viues a man of his owne side hath l In August de ciuit lib. 22. c. 1. obserued that the late Diuines of the Church of Rome either to solue or cut asunder things obiected against them haue found out so many wils of Good pleasure of Signification Antecedent Consequent of simple Complacencie or Displicencie that it were to be wished they would better explane what they say in words suited to common sence and not with these absurd nouelties of words seeke for admiration Neuerthelesse because my aduersary is so peremptory in charging vs with ignorance that we vnderstand it not and so confident of his owne exposition that any iudicious wit by the very sound of words must needs grant it to be a good and a true exposition let the triall hereof proceed betweene vs and let it be obserued whether my confident Iesuite with his wit so iudicious hath hit the bird in the eye 8 The question therefore is whether we vnderstand the distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will touching the saluation of all men right because we mislike the exposition of Saint Pauls text made thereby or rather whether himselfe haue giuen the true exposition thereof For the deciding whereof note first that m Capreol 1. d. 45. qu. vnic art 2. concl 4. Molin concor qu. 19. art 6. disp 1. Vasquez 1 p. disp 83. c. 3. Rispol de praedifin lib. 1. q. 1. dub 2. the Schoole-men who are the principall Diuines that haue bene in the Church of Rome and labour most to fit it to the text yet differ and are contrary one to another in expounding it Ariminensis n 1. d. 46. qu. vnic ad 1. sayes This distinction is vnderstood by some one way and by some another Gregorie of Valence o Tom. 1. disp 1 q. 19. punct 2. sayes All Diuines do not declare after one manner what is to be vnderstood by the names of Antecedent and Consequent will but they expound it diuersly It is therefore an obscure and perplexed distinction conceiued in diuers sences that on our part the matter were not great whether we vnderstood it or no but on our aduersaries part it is ridiculous to tell vs we vnderstand it not when they vnderstand it not themselues and to expound the Scripture by it when all Scripture should be expounded in words plaine and manifest Note secondly that Damascen p Can. loc lib. 11. c. 2. Suar. 3. p. to 2. Suar. 3. p. to 2. disp 43 sect 3. Baron because some make him elder by almost 400 yeares who liued 750 yeares after Christ was the first that euer expounded Gods will to saue all men in these termes Capreolus q Capreol vbi sup sayes he brought in this distinction And r Valentian vbi sup Gregorie of Valence He seemes to be the first that thus distinguished the will of God Damascens words be these ſ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de orthod fid l. 2. c. 29. We must know that God ANTECEDENTLY will haue all men to be saued and obtaine his kingdome for he made vs not to punish vs but to partake
his goodnesse as one that is good but such as sinne he will punish as one that is iust The first therefore is called his ANTECEDENT will and GOOD PLEASVRE but the latter his CONSEQVENT will and PERMISSION arising because of vs. And this Permission againe is twofold the one Dispensatorie and correctorie to saluation the other Condemnatorie to finall iudgement Againe t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog de Manich. prope fin Albeit God will condemne yet this he doth not according to his ANTECEDENT will but his CONSEQVENT That is an ANTECEDENT will which a mans wils of himselfe and that is a CONSEQVENT will which arises from the cause of the things that are done For God ANTECEDENTLY of himselfe wils that all men should be saued and come to the knowledge of his truth but when we sinne he will punish vs so much as he sees expedient And thus Gods ANTECEDENT will is of his goodnesse and his CONSEQVENT will of his iustice These are the words of Damascen expounding the manner how God will haue all men to be saued wherein he seemes to affirme fiue things touching the antecedent and consequent will of God First that his Antecedent wil is that whereby he wils a thing simply of himselfe of his owne goodnesse and nature not moued thereunto by any thing in the creature out of himselfe As when he wils the good and saluation of the elect His consequent will is that when he wils according to the disposition and nature or circumstances of the creature as it deserues for the manifestation of his iustice as when he wils the punishment of him that sins because in iustice sinne deserues punishment Secondly that Gods consequent will followes vpon the condition of the creature and vpon some cause therein going before in which regard it is called consequent that is a will ensuing after as when he wils the punishment of man after that man hath sinned against him Thirdly that the antecedent will of God is his good pleasure whereby he takes delight in that he wils but his consequent will is his permission suffering iudgement to be inflicted on them that sinne Fourthly that by this antecedent will God would all men to be saued and come to his kingdome and by his consequent will such to be punished as sinne against him Fiftly that God by his antecedent wil decrees onely good things according to his goodnesse and by his consequent will onely euill things according to his iustice in that he made no man to punish him but to participate his goodnesse From this sence of Damascen thus explicated I gather three things that ensue vpon it First that by Damascens iudgement the first roote of election should be foreseene merits and the first roote of reprobation should be the foresight of the reprobates sinne because none is either saued or refused but by a consequent will which will arises in God from the cause in the creature Secondly I gather that what God wils not simply of himselfe without the condition of the creature he wils not antecedently but consequently because all Gods antecedent will is simple and independant whereupon it o Hence it manifestly appeares that this Antecedent will in God is no Formall will because it works nothing followes that albeit God by his antecedent will would all men to be saued yet no man is saued by it forasmuch as all men are saued consequently vpon the condition of their workes Thirdly I gather that God willing to saue all by his antecedent will and yet de facto sauing none but by his consequent will arising from that which he sees or foresees in the creature it followes that the distinction of wils antecdent and consequent is not reall because according to the one of them God workes nothing And this touching Damascens owne exposition 8 Others expound the antecedent will to be vpon the first consideration of a thing and the consequent vpon the latter consideration thus as God considers man absolutely abstracting from euery thing that circumstantially belongs vnto him and representing him to himselfe onely as a creature he wils his good and saluation antecedently But considering him againe not onely according to his nature but also as he is a sinner or a iust man so he wils his saluation or damnation consequently according to that he findes in him u Tho. 1. p. q. 1◠art 6. ad 1. Thus Aquinas expresses the distinction out of the Metaphysicks w As Gregor Arimin shewes at large ◠46. q. vnic ad 3. cleane contrary to Damascens yea x Pag. 306. e. in 1. part Tho. sayes Gregorie of Valence There is a manifest difference betweene this exposition of Thomas and the former of Damascen And this appeares sufficiently of it selfe which must be noted against my aduersarie because he ioynes Thomas and Damascen in a distinction wherein they are so far from agreeing that they are contrary and when he hath done talks of our ignorance and not vnderstanding 9 A third exposition is that which I noted in the margent of my y THE WAY p. 94. s booke that Gods antecedent will is when he supplies mankind with all such helpes and meanes whether of nature or grace as are sufficient to bring him to saluation But his consequent will is when he makes these meanes not onely sufficient but effectuall also and thereupon according to the merit of our workes conferres saluation and so he wils the saluation of all antecedently by giuing them the meanes and by consequence when he workes effectually that which men deserue This exposition as it is the best so is it the commonest a Occh. 1. d. 46. q. 1. Camerac q. 14. art 1. Bonau d. 47. q. 1. Dionys d. 46. q. 1. Dur. d. 47. q. 1. Clicton in Damasc orth fid l. 2. c. 29. and most vsed and in Gregories opinion the fittest but it differs really from the two former and falls in with the fourth interpretation of Saint Pauls words b Before n. 4. mentioned whereby God is said to will the saluation of all men onely voluntate signi and no further and how my aduersarie will like it I know not but whether he doe or no he may blush to see himselfe and his doctors thus vsing Damascens words and yet retaining so little of his meaning The which tricke if our aduersaries would lay by and as they vse the same termes and words of the Doctors so all of them in the magnified vnitie would retaine the same sence and definition of the words we should haue shorter worke with them and the ignorant should not be so deluded with colourable shew of antiquitie as they are Pag. 146. A. D. Let vs therefore imagine that there were an earthly Emperor or King who of his owne nature were most milde and gracious and who of his owne gracious and good disposition towards his subiects did desire with a true inward primarie or antecedent will that euery subiect he hath
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
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
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
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
assurance and the assurance of all other things beleeued is wrought and bred in the heart by the Spirit of God principally and then by the alone words of the Scripture ioyned therewith as by the formal beginning of that my assurance and by the ministry of the Church onely as Gods ordinance appointed to helpe me to attaine and recouet that sence and assurance that by meanes of this helpe arises in me from the Scripture it selfe though many times and very ordinarily this is done without all motion of the Church whatsoeuer by onely reading as I haue often said in case when men are either conuerted from Athisme or confirmed in the truth without hearing or knowing of the Church by onely reading CHAP. XXX Touching the Al-sufficiency of the Scripture to the matter of faith 2. It shewes it selfe to be Gods word Luthers denying Saint Iames his Epistle 3. How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture 4. What they and what we hold about the authority of the Church 6. How expresse Scripture is required A. D. § 3. Pag. 187. The Scripture containeth not all points of faith concerning my third reasō I wish the reader to obserue that I do not attribute any imperfection to the Scripture when I proue that it containeth not all points of faith For want of perfection in a thing is not to be accounted an imperfection vnlesse it can be shewed that the perfection which wanteth doth necessarily pertaine to the nature of the thing or at least is due and ought to be in it as my aduersaries will neuer be able to shew that to containe all points of faith doth necessarily pertaine to the nature of Scripture or is due or ought to be in it This being noted I need say little in confirmation of this argument as hauing vrged it sufficiently against M. Wootton and M. White in the introduction in such sort as they will neuer be able sufficiently to answer it Onely here I will aske one question of M. White White p. 48. who telleth vs that the Scripture manifesteth it selfe to be diuine in regard the vertue and power that sheweth it selfe in euery line and leafe of the Bible proclaimeth it to be the word of the eternall God and the sheepe of Christ discerne the voice and light thereof as men discerne light from darkenesse c. If this be so how chanceth it that his illuminated Luther whom doubtlesse M. White will account one of the sheepe of Christ could not see that S. Iames his Epistle was diuine Scripture by the vertue and power that sheweth it selfe in euery line and leafe of it no lesse then in other places of Scripture shall he be accounted illuminated or rather starke blinde that could not discerne light from darkenesse And shall not M. White also be accounted not so much blinde as braine-sicke that fancieth to himself such a light to shine in euery leafe and line of the Bible that euery one that is the sheepe of Christ discerneth it no otherwise then he that hath corporall eye-sight discerneth outward light from darkenesse True it is there is the vertue and power of God in the Scripture there is puritie and perfection of matter maiestie of speech power ouer the conscience certaintie of Prophecies c. but these do not shine like light to our vnderstanding till it be illuminated with the light of faith as euery one euen of the elect is not at all times indued with faith nor then neither vnlesse those things be propounded duly mediatè or immediatè by the authoritie of the Church vpon which being like a candlesticke the light of the Scripture must be set or else it will not according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence sufficiently shine and appeare vnto vs in such sort as to giue infallible assurance Wootton p. 89. White pag. 46. that it is the word of God It troubleth M. wootton M. White both that I say there be diuers substantiall points which are not expressely set nowne and determined in Scripture which they being conuinced with euidence of the matter cannot deny to be so but say they this is not the question But by their leaues this was first the question when their Grandfather Luther was so hoate to haue expresse Scripture See Gretz in defens Bellar. tom 1 in li. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 3. See introduct q. 2. as that he would haue all expressed euen in wordes Afterwards indeed when his fury cooled a litle he thought it sufficient if all were expressed though not in so many sillables yet in sense And now of late our new Ministers seeing that this also cannot be defended haue made the question whether all be contained in Scripture that is either expressely or so as without Church authoritie or Traditions al necessary points of doctrine may be necessarily euidently or by good consequence deduced out of that which is expressed in Scripture In which sense also they will be neuer able to shew that all points and namely those which I mentioned in my third argument Wootton p. 93. are contained in onely Scripture but must be forced to run to tradition and Church authority if they will haue sufficient assurance of them 1 THe third thing obiected against the Scripture was Imperfection that it containes not the whole matter of faith but many things else are needfull to be knowne and beleeued that are not written therein For though he spake somwhat reseruedly There be diuers questions of faith which are not EXPRESSLY set downe yet his meaning is There be diuers particular points to be beleeued which are contained therein neither expressely nor anyway at all but receiued vpon sole Tradition and Church authoritie as I haue a Ch. 27. n. 2. shewed and his Introduction here mentioned affirmes which being a grosse and blasphemous assertion therefore to couer the odiousnesse of it here in the first place he saies that by affirming the Scripture not to containe all points of faith he doth not attribute any imperfection to it And how I maruell will he perswade vs this when it is impossible it should be perfect that leaues vs vnperfect in the faith and reueals but a portiō of that which yet of necessitie must be known to saluation his reason is because his aduersaries will neuer be able to shew that to containe all points of faith doth belong to the nature and perfection of Scripture But I answer it pertaines to the perfection of the Scripture and is due to the nature thereof to containe all things because it selfe sayes so and there can be no other infallible or conuenient reuelation And b Propounded in the WAY Digr 3. 13. many testimonies and arguments euince it which my aduersary not being able to answer hath well and wisely passed by with silence And therefore denying this they attribute imperfection to it For to deny that which the Scripture is is to make it imperfect Athanasius
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
Scripture D. Stapleton a Relect. p. 462. sayes The Church is the ground and pillar of truth in a higher kind then the Scripture namely in the kind of the efficient cause And b Pag. 494. in explicat qu. the authority of the Church may be vnderstood to be greater then the authority of the Scripture because it is not simply subiect or bound to it but may by it authority teach decerne something which the Scripture hath neither determined nor taught The things which the Church teaches do as much binde the faithfull as those things which the Scripture teacheth we Catholickes affirme that the Church is to be heard more certainely then the Scriptures because the doctrine thereof is more manifest and euident then the doctrine of the Scriptures or at the least equally with the Scriptures because the authority thereof is no lesse irrefragable and infallible The Scripture is the booke of the Church the testimonie of truth which the Church testifies the law of God which the Church hath publisht the rule of faith which the Church hath deliuered We had wont to maruell at the blasphemies c Illyric clau script p. 541. Hos de express verb. Dei of Cusanus Verratus Hosius That the Church hath authoritie aboue the Scripture The Scripture as it is produced by heretikes is the word of the Diuell A Councell is the highest tribunall and hath the same power to determine any thing that the Councell of the Apostles and Disciples had The things written in the Gospell haue no soundnesse but through the determination of the Church c. But now you see the same renewed in that Church to this day and the Iesuits in the midst of their learned subtilties to be as grosse as the grossest Friars preferring their Church authority farre aboue the Scriptures or any vse that a Candlesticke can haue in shewing the candle Note FOVRTHLY what it is that the Protestants say touching the authority of the Scripture and the Church so much as belongs to the present occasion First that the Scriptures haue in them a light and an authoritie of their owne sufficient to prooue themselues to be the word of God and to giue infallible assurance to all men of the true sense and this light and authority is not added increased or multiplied by the Ministry of the Church or any thing that it doth about the Scripture Secondly this light and authoritie of the Scripture shines in vs and takes effect in vs then onely when the Spirit of God opens our hearts to see it The defect of which heauenly illumination is the reason why some neuer and the elect themselues at all times do not see it but it argues no defect of light in the Scriptures Thirdly the means whereby God opens our eies and hearts to see this light and authoritie in the Scripture is the Ministry of the Church I expound my selfe it is the ordinary and publike meanes wherto he referres men And this Ministry is by preaching and expounding the Scripture out of it selfe and perswading and conuincing the consciences of men yet priuately and extraordinarily when and wheresoeuer this Ministry failes or ceasses the light and sense of the Scripture is obtained by the Scripture alone without this Church Ministry and the Scripture alone in this sort immediately at sundry times by it selfe giues full assurance and workes all other effects in our consciences that it doth when the Church propounds it Fourthly the Scripture is so sufficient of it selfe both to reueale whatsoeuer is needfull to be knowne and to establish and assure our heart in the infallible faith of that it reueales that the Church hath nether authority to adde so much as one article more then is contained therein nor power to giue this assurance from any thing but from the Scripture it selfe So farre forth that THE WHOLE TEACHING AND DOCTRINE AND AVTHORITIE OF THE CHVRCH IS TO BE ADMITTED AND YEELDED TO OR REFVSED ACCORDING AS IT CONSENTS OR DISAGREES WITH THE SCRIPTVRE the fountaine of truth the rule of faith Note FIFTLY what our aduersaries meane by the Church and the meanes whereby the Church executes her authority what the things are which by her authority she may do and what the proper effect is that this authority workes in vs. First by this Church d This is shewed c. 35. nu 1. c. 36. nu 1. they vnderstand the Church of Rome for the present time being and therein the Pope in whom they say the whole power and vertue of the Church abideth Secondly the meanes whereby it executeth her authority is vnwritten Tradition out of the which it supplies all things pretended to be needfull for the exposition of the Scripture or the defining of matters that must be beleeued Thirdly the things that she may do by her authoritie are all things that appertaine to the questions of religion 1 Cus epi. 2. 3. 7. to expound the Scripture after her owne iudgement 2 Conc. Trid. sess 24. can 3. to dispense against the Scripture 3 Stapl. princip l. 9. c. 14. relect pag. 514. to canonize new Scripture that before was none 4 Stapl. ibi relect p. 494. inde to giue authority to the Scripture 5 August de Ancon qu. 59. art 1. 2. to make new articles of faith 6 Gl. de transl episc Quanto §. veri to make that to be the sence of the Scripture that is not Lastly the effect of this power is the same that the Scripture breeds and more 7 Grets defens Bel. tom 1. pag. 1218. c. obedience in all that will be saued so that the world is bound as much to the Popes definitiue sentence as to the Scripture or the voice of God himselfe 8 The speech of all the canonists for Christ and the Pope make but one tribunal 9 Capistran de author Pap. pag 130. He is aboue al like him that came downe from heaueÌ„ 10 Capist ibi For with God and the Pope his will is sufficient reason and that which pleases him hath the vigor of a law 11 Palaeot de consist part 5. q 9. after his sentence pronounced no man must doubt or delay to yeeld 12 Petrisedes in Romano solâ—o collocata libertate plena in suis agendis per omnia poteri debet nec vlli subesse homini Gl. ibid. vbi sup yea all the CouÌ„cels and Doctors and Churches in the world must stoop to his determination 5 These fiue things thus obserued it is easie to se that our aduersaries attribute more to the Church then to be onely a meanes for the communicating of that which is in the Scripture to vs expounding the authority thereof that it exceedes the latitude of a Candlesticke and is turned into the Candle it selfe And so to returne to my aduersaries answer and to conclude I thus reason The Ministery and authority of the Church is required either
iudge and i Gi. d. 19 Auast §. in concilio in a difficult cause whether of faith or right he must call a Councel where if the Councel he cannot agree in deciding but are contrary k AntoÌ„ de â—â—o â—eâ—â— Mon â—â—h â—â—ct de concil p 47. â—urtâ—â—eÌ„ d. 19. Sâ—cundum E câ— n. 6. then they of the two must be followed which haue the best reasoÌ„ l â—urâ—ecrem d. 40. Si â—â—pa n. 4. Simaâ—ch Cathol instit tit 12 n. 13. when the faith lies in danger the Cardinals or a CouÌ„cell may resist the Pope in all which cases how shall a priuate man or a whole nation be infallibly assured of truth the Pope may erre he may erre definitiuely against a CouÌ„cell he may be an hereticke he may be resisted the Councell also may erre the faith may be indangered therefore men must try their reasons all this is confessed Where now is this iudge that my aduersary talkes of neither the Pope nor a Councell is it for men must follow them of the two that had the best reasons who shall iudge of their reasons the Christian people whom the cause concernes And by what can they iudge but by some thing distinct from both Councell and Pope and aboue them both which is the m So Occham GersoÌ„ Panorm The Diuines now of Venice and Paris in their tractats of this matter Scripture or nothing And for so much as no man can vnderstand the Scripture without Gods Spirit therefore in the case propounded our aduersaries must allow both Pope and Councell to be tried by priuate spirits as much as we do the teaching of the Church Let the most zealous and learned Papist that liues consider this and he shall perceiue that what we meane when we say The Scripture is the supreme rule and the true sense thereof is assured vnto vs lastly and authoratiuely by the Spirit of God themselues are driuen to hold as well as we Therefore whatsoeuer my aduersary hath rabbled together in his Introduct it is no more a circle in vs to proue our spirit by the Scripture and againe to be assured of the Scripture by the Spirit then it is in discourse to go too and fro betweene causes and effects But * See D. R. Field 2. part Append. p. 12. § 5. 6. where this point is shewed effectually it is himselfe and his owne Diuines that runne the round 3 Thirdly he saies that I needed not haue answered the reasons of his conclusion if the conclusion had not bene against our doctrine but this is idle for I answered the reasons because of that which the conclusion intended Good wordes especially with equiuocators may haue a bad purpose in which case the sense must be distinguisht and that which is false confuted 4 Fourthly he saies 2. things about my distinguishing of the word priuate For the vnderstanding whereof note that his conclusion being No priuate man perswading himselfe to be instructed by the Spirit can be the Rule of faith I answered that if he meant priuate when he sayes so often in the proces of his argument priuate spirits as it is opposed to diuine and spirituall he said well but vsing it in another sense as it is opposed to common and vsuall his conclusion was vntrue To this he replies first ô strange opposition but this he doth onely by the way because he would not loose a Parenthesis His head being so full of mentall reseruations that it makes his booke breake out all ouer into Parentheses as if it were full of the Measels for when particular men and priuate spirits do not erre by reason of their small number but by holding against that which is diuine and spirituall what such strange opposition is it to oppose the priuate spirit against the diuine Spirit of God and a priuate man against him that is spirituall In this sense No priuate mans spirit can be the rule if by priuate he meane not that which is not so common but that which is not diuine and spirituall But this is not worth the standing on his second exception is against the matter of the distinction For I said a priuate man may be so assisted by the holy Ghost that he may interpret Scripture truely and infallibly against a company as bigge as the Romane Church To this he replies denying my supposition that it is not to be thought the holy Ghost assists any that expoundes the Scripture contrary to the vniuersall Catholicke Church the which I thinke too and therefore this is not the point in question when we both agree but the point is whether these priuate men and spirits being expounded to be Luther such as he was with the Churches that cast off the Papacy this Catholicke and vniuersall Christian Church being expounded as it is by our aduersary to be the Papacy or Roman Church theÌ„ whether the priuate coÌ„pany may not haue Gods Spirit and the great company want it and so consequently the said priuate company be able to haue the truth against that which A. D. calles the Catholicke vniuersall Church for we affirme it Not by saying that Luther or any of our side had Gods Spirit or saw any truth which the true Church did not see but that they had and saw the the truth in the middest of the Church against the Papacy which now ridiculously is stiled the Catholicke vniuersall Church And therefore my aduersay and all of his side do but trifle away time in opposing the vniuersall Church against M. Luther vntill they haue proued the Papacy to be it and Luther with such as followed him no part of it For he resisted not the Catholicke Church but the Papacy in the Catholicke Church A. D. I do not deny but that a priuate man Pag. 196. supposing he were indeede assisted by the holy Ghost might interpret Scripture truely and infallibly against a company as bigge as the Romane Church supposing this company were not so assisted But herein consisteth the chiefe point of the question whether it be to be thought that the holy Ghost doth indeed or not assist one or some few priuate men who presuming that they are so assisted do interpret the holy Scripture in such sense as is contrary to the sense of the holy Catholike or vniuersall Christian Church whether it be Romane or not I do not now dispute this we shall see hereafter which as I shall proue is vndoubtedly knowne by the promises of Christ to haue the assistance of the holy Ghost This being the point in question my conclusion in this Chapter is that no priuate man pretending neuer so much to be spiritual or specially inspired is to be thought indeede inspired by the holy Ghost when he interpreteth Scripture as Luther and his like did in a sense contrary to the vnanime interpretation of the precedent and then liuing Pastours of the Catholicke Church and consequently it is not to be thought that the priuate spirit
virtually it is the Church of Rome and the Pope the Church of Rome representatiuely is the Colledge of Cardinals but virtually the Pope who is the head of the Church Pelaeottus f De consist part 1. qu. 3. pag. 19. The Pope alone may do not onely that which is granted to all and singular Prelates in the Church but also more then they all g Respons moral p. 44. n 4. Comitol The power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is not in the vniuersality of the Church as in the true subiect but in the Prelates thereof and in the Bishops of Rome as in the fountaine whence it flowes vnto all other Ministers of the new Testament Albertine h Coroll pag. 251. saies The Bishop of Rome is the rule of faith into which Rule all the articles of our faith are lastly resolued as into the formall reason whereby they are propounded to vs. Gretser i Defens Bell. to 1. p. 1450. B. saies when we affirme the Church to be the iudge of all controuersies of faith by the Church we vnderstand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being gouernes the ship of the militant Church and by liuely voice doth clearely and expressely expound his iudgement to them that seeke to him Zumel k Disput var. tom 3. p. 49 D. saies I beleeue that the chiefe Priest and Bishop of the Church the Pope who is the master of our faith cannot but attaine the truth of faith nor can be deceaued or erre if as chiefe Bishop and master of the faith he set downe his determination so that vnlesse a man be afraid of the truth there is no cause why he should feare the Popes determination It is idle therefore and sordid that the Repliar saies by the Church he meant the Pope but secondarily as it is ridiculous to say the Church is the rule indefinitely and abstracting from all time or per ampliationem which are termes deuised onely to besot the ignorant that they should not smell his heresie for if his Church be the rule he must needes meane such a Church as he thinkes in all ages and times successiuely to haue bene inuested with that authority and that Church is the Pope alone that miserable iudge of whom their owne men say h Do. Bann to 3. p. 106. b. It is no Catholicke faith but an opinion very probable that he is S. Peters successor and the most iudicious confesse i Alph. l. 1. c. 4. Hadrian pag. 26. ad 2. he may erre * August Anconit sum qu. 5. art 1 Iacobat de conc l. 4. art 1. Occh Dialog 1. part l. 6. 2. part c. 69. inde Cusan de concord cath l. 2. c. 17. Panorm de elect C. signif not 7. Zabarell tract de schismat Gerson de auferibil Pap. consid 10. inde and be deposed for heresie A.D. § 1. Pag. 205. That the doctrine of the Apostles was for their life time the rule and meanes First I say that my conclusion being vnderstood as in this Chapter I principally meant cannot be denied to be true for it cannot be denied but that the doctrine as deliuered by the Apostles themselues being for the time they liued the Church in such sense as here I take the name Church was such a rule and meanes as here we seeke for For first it is knowne to be infallible Secondly it was easie to be vnderstood c. Thirdly it was vniuersall c. Since therefore these 3. conditions requisite in the rule of faith are found in the doctrine and teaching of the Apostles it cannot be denied but that the diuine doctrine as deliuered by them in their life time either by word or writing was the rule and meanes which God ordained to instruct men in faith Taking therfore my conclusion in the chiefely intended sense I suppose that my aduersaries will neither deny it to be true nor the reason by which I proue it to be good 2 This discourse needed not for no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule either for their time or the time succeeding to the world ende I graunt therefore the Repliar his assertion and inferre thereupon that his Popes determinations and the doctrine of his Romish Church is not the rule of faith because they agree not with that which he here confesses was the rule in the Apostles time vnlesse he will maintaine when he replies againe that the rule is not one and the same at all times as k Cusan ep 2.7 his Cardinall writes that the Scripture is fitted to the time and variably vnderstood so that at one time it is expounded according to the fashion of the Church and when that fashion is changed the sense of the Scripture is also changed Againe Magalian a Iesuite I thinke yet liuing l Magal op Hierarch in tit p. 61. n. 6. saies Though it were granted that the wordes of Paule Tit. 1.6 containe a precept to marrie yet seeing Paule gaue it by his owne authority it were no diuine but an Ecclesiasticall precept which the Church may change yea abrogate and much more dispense with Marke what trickes heretickes haue to change the Apostles doctrine when it fits not their Church then the Apostles gaue it by their owne authority which I note that the Reader may perceaue there is no sincerity in the Repliars words For albeit he grants here the Apostles doctrine be the rule yet he meanes it to be the rule but for their owne time because the Pope may vnder colourable pretences expound it that is in plaine English change it when he will as his Cardinall and Iesuite here affirme A D. § 2. That the doctrine of the succeeding Pastours of the Church Pag. 207. is the rule and meanes The chiefe controuersie is about my conclusion as in a secondary sense it may be meant of the succeeding Pastors of the Church In which sense I affirme that like as the diuine doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture or as gathered thence by natural wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by the Apostles or the Apostles as deliuering this doctrine was the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in their daies in all matters of faith So the same doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture nor as gathered thence by naturall wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by Pastors of the succeeding Church or those Pastors as deliuering this doctrine is the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in succeding ages in all points of faith 3 This assertion I will grant as I did the former namely that the doctrine of the Pastors of the true Church such as succeed the Apostles is the rule and meanes of faith but the reader shall note two trickes that the Iesuite puts vpon him in the Proposition hereof First that affirming the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors of the Church to be the rule he saies not
whether this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors shal need to be the same that the doctrine of the Apostles was but onely affirmes that as the Apostles doctrine for the time they liued was the rule so the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors is the rule leauing roome enough for this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles that when we shew the present abuses in the Church of Rome and decrees of their latter Popes for these last 800. yeares to haue swarued from the Apostles doctrine and practise they may pleade the authoritie of their succeding Pastors And indeede it is true that the Church of Rome holds that it is not necessary the doctrine and teaching of the present and succeeding Pastors be the same in all things that it was in the Apostolicke and Primitiue Church but the Pope hath power to make a NEW CREED and NEW ARTICLES of faith For Iacobatius m De Concil p. 310. A. saies The Pope alone may make new articles of faith according to one acceptation of the word Article that is for such as must be beleeued which before needed not be beleeued and Zenzelin a Popish doctor n Gl. extr Ioh. 22. cum inter § doclaramus saies The Vicar of Christ may make an Article of faith taking an article not properly but in a large sense for that which must be beleeued when before by the precept of the Church it was not necessary to be beleeued Augustinus Triumphus writes o August Anconit sum de eccle potest q. â—9 art 1. that it belongs to the Pope alone to make a new Creed For in a Creed those things are put that vniuersally belong to Christian faith he therefore hath authority to make such a Creed who is the head of Christian faith and in whom as in the head all the members of the Church are vnited and by whose authoritie all things pertaining to faith are confirmed and strengthened And p Art 2. againe That the Pope may dispense in adding articles may be vnderstood 3. waies First in respect of the multiplication of the articles themselues Secondly in respect of expounding the things contained in the articles Thirdly in respect of the augmentation of such things as may be reduced to the articles ALL THESE WAIES the Pope may dispense in adding articles because as he may make a new Creed so he may MVLTIPY NEW ARTICLES OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER Secondly he may by more articles explicate the articles already placed in the Creed Thirdly because peraduenture all things beleeued in the Creed may be reduced after the aforesaid articles and by such reduction may be increased so that vnder each article MORE THINGS NECESSARY TO BE BELEEVED MAY BE PVT THEN ARE YET PVT The which being done marke what they say touching their authority q Roder. Dosm de auth script l. 3. c. 12. The Popes assertions ascend to the height of diuine testimony as the assertions of the Apostles did and of such as made the holy Scripture and there be who contend that they belong to the sacred Scripture it selfe which is contained in the bookes of the Bible This doctrine whereof all our aduersaries bookes are full shewes plainely that they intend not that this their Church teaching so much magnified to be the rule should alway be one and the same but such as shall follow the Popes lust and be altered with the time that so this Antichrist of Rome might abolish the whole Testament of Christ this is the first thing to be noted that the reader may see what he meanes by his Church doctrine that is the rule 4 The next thing is his distinction about this doctrine of the Church that it was the rule in the Apostles dayes and is the rule in succeeding ages but not as contained in onely Scripture but as deliuered by these Pastors Which speech containes 2. things a Negatiue and an affirmatiue the negatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is not the rule as it is contained in onely Scripture Meaning as * Ch. 27. n. 3. I haue shewed that all diuine doctrine belonging to the rule is not contained in the Scripture but much or the most of it in tradition vnwritten and that which is contained is not the rule by vertue of writing but by vertue of the Church that makes it authenticall Panormitan r Panorm tom 2. de praesumptione c. Sicut noxius sayes The words of the text of Scripture are not the Popes words but the words of Salomon in the Prouerbs but because this text is made Canonicall it is to be beleeued and induceth necessity so to do as if the Pope had set it foorth himselfe Because we make all those things to bee ours whereto we might impart our authority But whether without Canonization the sayings of Salomon be approued in the Church seeing they are in the body of the Bible say as the glosse saith and Ierom holdeth who seemes to conclude that they are Apocrypha which is to be noted and that because of this as also because Salomon had no power to make Canons This also must be obserued that the Reader may know the meaning of his conclusion and what it is that we deny therein For NO DOCTRINE EITHER OF THE APOSTELS IN THEIR TIME OR OF THE SVCCEEDING PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH IN ANY TIME IS THE RVLE OF FAITH BVT ONELY THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTVRE As I haue Å¿ In the WAY digr 3. shewed His affirmatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is the rule as it is deliuered by the Pastors or the Pastours deliuering this doctrine are the rule which is the same that he said a little before the doctrine as deliuered by the Church or the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule t Pars obiecti formalis fidei est vox Ecclesiae D. Stapler relect p. 484. Saltem aequalis est Ecclesiae Scripturae authoritas ibi pag. 494. His meaning is that the Churches testimony and authority mingles it selfe with the authority of the doctrine and is ioyntly with it or aboue it the rule of faith as when diuers simples haue their ingredience into one compound and two men equally carry betweene them one burthen Their doctrine this way is knowne wel enough how the Scriptures in regard of vs haue all their authority from the Church the sense of the Scripture is to be fetched from the Church whatsoeuer the Church of Rome shall teach is the word of God c. The which things being couched in the Iesuites conclusion as he vnderstands it we detest and spit vpon when he shall thus debarre the Scripture from being the rule to set vpon the bench his Papall Antichristian authority If the shame either of God or men or any respect of truth were with them they durst not thus presumptuously and basely steale the authority to themselues whereby both themselues and we and all the world
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
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
must distinguish for Gregory and Austine no doubt taught many points that were true and wherein we consent with them yea the substance of sauing faith but some things they innouated wherein the Church of Rome now followes them adding to the wordes of wholesome doctrine their owne corrupt opinions the first we graunt was professed before and was the faith of the Brittans at their first conuersion but not the latter And herein appeares the cunning and fraude of our aduersaries that by the testimonies of such as affirme Gregoryes faith in things of the first kind to be Apostolik go about to proue it to be such also in things of the latter kinde The Repliar therefore hath to proue that not the truthes which they taught but the additions which they brought in wherein the Protestants refuse them were the substance of their faith and that whereto our nation was conuerted in the Apostles time Which they can neuer do Thirdly that diuers particular points of the Papists doctrine are acknowledged by learned Protestants to haue bene taught by the ancient Fathers as Vowes Reall presence c. is answered before in the second obiection touching the Centuries And by the D. of Winchester in his booke against Briarly b Prot. App. l. 2. c. 1. inde where the particular instances are examined And if the Repliar and his Author will make good their assertion they must proue that the Fathers with one consent taught these things and withall so meant and expounded them as they are now meant and expounded in the Papacy Let this be done in those points that we refuse and good reason the game be theirs But if these learned Protestants do no more but note the particular corruptions that crept into particular writings and Churches whereby our aduersaries haue taken occasion to increase them they must not be said to acknowledge either that these things were the Catholicke doctrine of the whole Church or that they were intended and beleeued as the Romane Church now beleeues them 4 His fourth and last argument is because forsooth it is not the condition of the Romane Church to inuent or alter any doctrine but humbly and obediently to maintaine what they haue receaued from their predecessors to hate innouation to note reprehend resist all innouation in faith that it cannot be possible there should be any difference betweene the faith of the Fathers and the doctrine of the Church of Rome as the Protestants ignorantly and maliciously obiect And indeed if that part of the Church of Rome which we haue refused I meane the Papacy were the true vniuersall Church he said well for it is against the property of that Church to dissent from any part of the ancient faith as he hath well obserued out of his Gregory and Vincentius but how will he proue that side and faction in the Church of Rome which is charged with innouating and dissenting to be the true Church how shall the reader be assured that these heards of Popes Cardinals Prelats Monkes Friars Iesuites are those faithfull Pastors whose nature is not to innouate when all the world hath discouered them and their doctrine to be nothing else but weedes and excrements arising in the Church Is there not an assertion a Greg. Val. p. 96. tom 3. in the Spaniard quoted that saies By the vnfolded act of faith the same things haue not alway bene beleeued but diuers points in the progresse of time haue bene manifest and beleeued Doth not Austine of Ancona b Sum. de eccl pot q. 59. art 3. say the Pope may make a new Creed multiply the articles of faith and put more points vnder each article then were before This is enough to shew the vntruth of that the Replyar saies for vnder the pretence of the Pope and his Church power to vnfold that which the Fathers and auncient Church beleeued infoldedly and to make new articles they haue altered and innouated all things and their pestilent and palpable heresies are made a part of the old Churches infolded faith and these men being the formallest innouators that euer were yet must be said to dissent from the Fathers in nothing because whatsoeuer they daily inuent and innouate the Fathers held at least implicitely Vnhappie Rome c See Ph. Camerar tom 2. c. 10. whose certen name was neuer publikely knowne and whose certen doctrine to the worlds end can neuer be determined but still it may multiplie and diminish d Solin Poly. hist c. 1. The Gentile Romanes were persuaded the eternitie of Rome should consist in the concealing of the true name thereof and therefore Valerius Soranus was executed because he told the name and our Catholicke Romanes haue placed all their hope of enduring in concealing their faith vnder the veile of infolded faith Hold ye fast to this conceite ye braue Romanists and you may boldly reproch them all with ignorance that deny the consent of your doctrine with the Fathers 5 This obiection the Repliar saw coming for his conscience told him the present Church of Rome had increased that which the Fathers taught and therefore he answers that true it is the Doctors of his Church haue written more largely about diuers points then was done in former times But this was for the confutation of heresies rising and for the more explication of the formerly receaued faith and they haue vsed more significant words then formerly were vsed but yet the sense of such words differs not from the faith and phrases formerly vsed but onely explicate more plainely that which was formerly beleeued by the Church which kinde of explication Vincentius allowes in his golden Treatise But all this is vntrue and is briefely answered the Church of Rome and the D D. therein since the Fathers time haue done more then either the explicating of the ancient faith or giuing new names to old articles They haue innouated diminished corrupted the substance of the articles themselues as I shewed particularly a Dig. 19. 51 in the WAY euen in this very point of transubstantiation And this pretence of vsing more significant words by reason of heresies rising is but a cloke for the treachery the greatest heretickes that arose being themselues and the words deuised being the engines to aduance their heresies the sense whereof hath no agreement with the faith of the Fathers which being too scant for him that would sit as God in the Church of God must be inlarged by dispensations explications determinations new articles fulnesse of power and what not The contents of the Scripture were not enough to hold themselues to that which is expressed therein b Alphons haer v. eccl 3. n◠were to play the foole and to destroy all Christian religion The Pope is like Typhaeus the giant in Nannus c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys l. 2. pag. 36. that must haue a higher rooffed firmament to walke vnder and bigger starres to giue him light or else he would put
but the King onely in them but the worship giuen to the image is bounded in the image it self as it is an image and if it were not but Christ onely were worshipped before the image as God was before the Arke yet that practise hath no warrant Albeit therefore there be as the Reply speakes no danger in kneeling to the embassador or chaire of the King but it may be done without treason or preiudice to his honor yet is it not so in the worship of images first because the one is ciuill the other religious worship and that may be done without treason in the one that cannot be done without idolatry in the other Secondly Gods word permits the one but no where the other Thirdly the chaire and embassador are signes of the Kings presence but the image is no signe ordained or allowed so to be of Christs presence neither is Christ any way vnited to it by his own ordinance but onely by the worshippers idolatrous intention And it is so true that nothing may be adored with God that is not really vnited to him a Alexan. 3. par q. 30. m. 2. Tho. 3. q. 25. ar 1. 2. Scot. 3. d. 9 q. vnic ibi communit Scholast Suar. to 1. d. 53. sect 2. that if the humanitie of Christ were separated from his person and did not subsist in the word it might not be adored with diuine honour for no cause but because then it should not be one with him 7 This I haue answered allowing the Papists to do no more to their images then courtiers do to the chaire of Estate or then is done in a play to him that represents the person of a King But they do more and to take the repliers owne example they do not onely on Good-fridays exhibite their crosse-creeping to Christ but they pray grosly to the Crosse it selfe b Primer of our Ladie tit the Hymnes p. 10. O thou right faire and comely tree Whose worthy chosen stocke was such As kingly purple did adorne And did so holy members touch Blest be the tree vpon whose bowes This worlds valew did depend His bodie made the price so iust To free from hell it did intend All haile ô Crosse our onely hope Now at this present passion time Vprightnesse in the good increase And quit the guilty of their crime In which prayer many things are that can be said of nothing but the wood it selfe as c Pontifex imponit thuâ— in thâ— ribulum deinde aspergit crucem aquae benedicta mox eam incensat Tum Pontifex flexis ante crucem genibus ipsâ—m deuote adorat osculatur Jdem faciunt quâ—cunque alij voluerint Pont. Ro. p. 164 the bowing of the knee kissing incensing it are too soule to be washed off with this distinction And all the instruction that popish Pastors vse to giue who themselues speaking thus not with their eyes fixed on the crucifix but to the crucifix it self euen in their pulpits all ouer Italy and Spaine and teaching withall that it must be adored at least improperly or analogically as wel as Christ himselfe euen with diuine honor may not for shame be said to keepe the people from falling into idolatry when by this meanes they teach them and embolden them in it 8 His second reason is this The thing wherewith Christ is vested and wherein he shines as a Prince clothed in his robe and without which he cannot so easily be conceiued may and must necessarily be worshipped with him But such is the image of Christ that he is vested with it c. Ergo. This argument lies couched in his second note or if it do not then all he sayes there is to no purpose for to what end should he shew by the vesture and robes wherewith a Prince is vested and by the phantasmes mentioned whereby things are conceiued how the image may accidentally be conceiued and adored with Christ if by the same things he intend not to proue the lawfulnesse of that adoration I answer therfore first as I did before that these examples will serue to shew how it is possible to worship an image onely accidentally but not how it is lawfull Secondly the doctrine of the Church of Rome is that all images are worshipped more then accidentally or improperly a Bel. c. 21.2 seÌ„t They are worshipped of themselues properly so that themselues are the obiect of the worship as they are considered in themselues and not onely as they are vicegerents of the samplar He meanes not they are thus worshipped with diuine honor but with some honour of another kind yet he shewes the Replier to say false that they are worshipped onely accidentally Nay by this conclusion it must be holden that they are worshipped for themselues as images and properly with diuine honour because all the worship giuen them is to worship Christ withall and no man may worship Christ but with diuine honor Now if the Church of Rome honor the crucifix in a higher degree then the Kings robe is honored what facultie is there in the robe to proue the honor of the crucifixe Thirdly it is vtterly false that an image is the vesture of Christ or that his maiestie shines to vs in it it is rather the vesture of Satan wherein he shewes himselfe to all that worship it whose image soeuer it be Fourthly allowing that by phantasmes I come to the conceiuing of things and see not the King but vested in his robe and in my vnderstanding the image is not conceiued without Christ but the motion of my mind is one to both as to the phantasmes and the things to the robe and the King yet I do not conceiue them as one but as distinct things conceiuing the robe to be a robe the king to be a king the image to be an image and Christ to be God whereupon it followes that the adoration following the conception I need not nor must adore any more then I conceiue to be capable of adoration which the robe and the image is not Durand whom Gerson b To. 1. p. 559. e. thinkes to be one of them that haue written most purely and substantially c 3. d. 9. q. 2. sayes Though the motion of the minde be one and the same to the image and the thing whereof it is an image yet the mind neuer says the image is the thing but alway distinguishes between them and therefore the worship giuen to the thing is neuer giuen to the image The Repliers argument therefore may wel proceed in that opinion that holds Christ to be worshipped only before an image though so also it iustifies it not but it cannot conclude that worship either diuine or any at all must in any sence be giuen to the image because the mind conceiuing both at once yet vnderstands the image to be a block and Christ to be God To the same effect writes Peresius a professor of Diuinitie among our aduersaries a