suppose to bee infallible that Church being according to their supposition either the Pope in his chaire or a Generall Councell but are engaged altogether to the reports of particular Priests and Iesuites whom none will exempt from being subiect to error and deceit 2. To the second question if the exposition of the Church be not infallible how doe we know the sense and meaning of the Scriptures I answere that although all places of the Scripture are not alike perspicuous as all are not alike necessarie to saluation yet for the opening of the sense thereof so farre as is behoofefull for his Church God is the best Interpreter of his owne meaning expounding outwardly one place of the Word by another inwardly both opening ones eyes to discerne and enclining ones heart to assent vnto the truth As for those which cannot see but with the Popes spectacles and pretend the Scriptures to bee euery where throughout so ouershadowed with a mist that nothing presents it selfe cleerly to their view I wonder the lesse at them because their blindnesse is such that they cannot see to serue God without burning Tapers and lighted Candles at noone day Now on the other side I demand of them if one cannot know the certaine meaning and sense of the Scriptures vnlesse the exposition of the Church be infallible 1. Wherefore hath not the Church of Rome all this while publisht a set interpretation vpon any one book of the Bible considering that they say it is so necessarie and that the Popes Commentaries vpon it haue for so many Marts beene expected 2. How a man which cannot discerne the sense of the Scriptures in plaine places shall be able to shun the processe in infinitum and not runne his wits out of breath considering that according to the Papists themselues the voyce of the Church vttered in former Decrees requires the exposition of the present Church meaning the Pope and that the Churches Canons are inuol'd with no lesse if not more perplexeties than the Scriptures I could instance in ancient Councells as the Nicen and aske whether the sixth Canon wherein these wordes be Quoniam talis est Episcopo Romano consuetudo are to bee vnderstood according to the opinion of Ruffinus or Balsamon or Caranza or Bellarmine which foure are recounted by Bellarmine lib 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 13. But because I desire to confine my selfe to that which is pure Roman let 's cast the water of the Tridentine Synagogue and see whether that runnes so cleere as they pretend I aske therefore first touching the Canonicall bookes the number and names whereof the Fathers therein assembled were so carefull to set downe Sess 4. whether that which we call the Apocrypha Esther be there canonized as Bellarmine affirmeth lib. 1. de verbo Dei c. 7. or whether that booke and those which are called additaments bee there excluded from the Canon as Sixtus Senensis in lib. 1. 8. biblioth sanct doth auouch Secondly for the intention required by the Councell in him which administers the Sacrament Sess 7. I aske whether the wordes of the Councell be to be vnderstood according to Catharinus opinion in opusc or Bellarmines lib. 1. de Sacram in Gen. c. 27. Thirdly I aske how it comes to passe that Priscian and our old Grammarians will not serue to construe the text of the Councel if the Roman Church can endite with so perspicuous a stile but that Sess 7. Can. 8. Opus operatum must contrarie to the Grammar rules as Bellarmine confesseth lib. 2. de Sacram. c. 1. be vnderstood passiuely And that in the sixth Sess cap. 5. de iustif it is said Neque homo ipse nihil omninò agat wherein contrarie to Grammar are two negatiues expressed which cannot bee resolued into an affirmatiue Fourthly if the interpretations of the Church are so facile and easie whether was the Councell of Trents meaning concerning Originall sinne and Iustification the same that Dominicus a Soto affirms it to be or that which Ambrosius Catharinus attributes vnto it seeing both were present at the drawing of the Canons both presented books for proofe of their opinions to the Councell which are now extant and the Councell it selfe being appealed vnto could not decide the Controuersie nor agree what was her owne meaning therein To the third question if the tradition of the Church be not infallible how shall we know whether the Scriptures be perfect and entire or maimed and corrupted I answer that there is a double perfection of the Scriptures the one of integrall parts which appertaines to the perfection of each booke Chapter and verse in particular the other of essentiall parts which pertaine to the perfection of sauing knowledge If the question be of the integrall puritie and perfection how I know that there be copies of the Scriptures in the world by iudicious comparing whereof light may bee giuen to correct all manifest errors and defects crept into the Text whether by negligence or ignorance of the transcribers or otherwise I answer that I am assured thereof by the promises of God in generall to establish a perpetuitie of sauing knowledge and true beliefe in his Church and consequently by that firme foundation of his prouidence which appointing the end to witte eternall life will neuer suffer the meanes conducting thereunto either to perish or being disparaged by corruptions to become fruitlesse Neither doth Greg de Valentia run for farther proofes to secure the Popes legitimacie and salue the danger to which the Latine vulgar edition of the Bible is lyable by often impressions then this prouidence of God But if the question be of the essentiall puritie and perfection of the Scriptures how one may be assured that so much as contaynes points necesarie to saluation is preserued perfect and entire in them I answer that to resolue ones selfe herein he hath besides the generall promises of God and his neuer fayling prouidence an experimentall knowledge also springing from that amplitude of comfort and consolation which Gods Spirit effects by the Scriptures in the hearts and consciences of true beleeuers For such is the vnion and coherence of points necessarie to saluation on with the other that one workes not his proper effect where the other is not at least in some reasonable and conuenient measure knowne and beleeued Now on the contrarie I demaund of them if we cannot bee assured of the puritie and perfection of the Scriptures vnlesse the Tradition of the Church concerning it bee infallible how a man can euer bee resolued thereof from the Church of Rome Which first could neither heretofore preserue her Latine vulgar editions of the Bible which shee preferres before the originall from manifest Corruptions as may appeare by the corrections of Origen and Hierom nor at this day hath been able to Canonize any edition without permitting faults solecismes Barbarismes Misinterpretations Ambiguities Additions Substractions Transpositions Immutations Deprauations and the like which are confest by
precepts touching manners yet it is not decided say Canonists of whom this generall Councell is to consist For as it is generally defined it imports an assembly of Bishops or holy Fathers met together out of all quarters of the earth But Bellarmine in his first Booke De Concil 17. Cap. saith that such a generall Councell neuer was nor possibly can bee since in the first generall Councell there were present but two Priests out of Italy one Bishop out of France one out of Spaine and one out of Africa In the second and third there were none out of the West and in the fourth onely the Legate of Leo which deliuered the consent of the other Bishops of Spaine France and Italy who had before sent the same in Writing vnto the Pope forth of their owne Prouinces And on the contrarie in Councels celebrated in the West few Easterne Bishops haue bin found What then thinkes the Cardinall best to bee done Why he tels vs it is enough if it be published and made knowne to all the greater Christian Prouinces neither matters it say Canus Turrecremata and Gregorie de Valentia that all bee Cited much lesse that all doe Come sufficient it is saith Bellarmine if no Bishop be excluded if out of the greater part of Christian Prouinces some doe appeare and if the foure chiefe Patriarchs which are besides the Bishop of Rome bee present either by themselues or by their substitutes though hee thinkes that this Condition bee not very necessarie at this day considering they are either Heretikes or Schismatikes So that here they commit mayne Contradictions For first they make a Councell to be generall and to represent the whole Church and yet to consist oftentimes of fewer Bishops than a Nationall and those for substance but of one Angle of the World onely the rest either not cited or not expected Secondly they iudge it sufficient for the Patriarchs which are absent to depute others in their roome the which was also practised by their Bishops at Trent and yet as Valentia and others well dispute in the Case of the Popes Legates the assistance of the holy Ghost is a thing personall and cannot bee delegated vnto another Wherefore to salue all sores with one playster Valentia and Turrecremata doe affirme that considering those difficulties the Popes owne authoritie it being vniuersall is capable to make a particular Councell to bee Vniuersall as it hath done in some of the Roman But see then a third contradiction no lesse misse-shapen than the former ascends the Stage for whereas Bellarmine in his first booke de Concil and fifteenth Chapter and others and endeuour to proue jure diuino by the Law of God that Bishops onely haue deciding voyces in a generall Councell and that the promise of deliuering the truth is made to them onely as being the sole Pastors of the Church they confesse notwithstanding in their writings and declare by the practise of the Tridentine Councell that Cardinalls Abbots and Generalls of Orders haue voyces there though not ordinarie and by right yet by priuiledge and custome whence it followes that either the Church hath that prerogatiue to assigne and appoint whom the holy Ghost shall assist or else that a major part in a Councell may bee made vp by those to whom the holy Ghost hath past no promise that they shall not erre 2. These absurdities therefore considered some of the Church of Rome doe abase that high esteeme which for a long time was conceaued of generall Councells making either their first originall to bee but humane as Albertus Pighius or their vse not absolutely necessarie as Bellarmine and others Hence it is that a second sort contracting the face of the Church into a lesser modell doe teach that the Church here disputed of to bee the Iudge of Controuersies is the Pope in the Church represented not by Bishops in a Councell but by the Colledge of Cardinalls in the Consistorie which opinion is recited by Greg. de Valentia in his Disputations vpon Thomas 3. But because the Colledge of Cardinalls seemes too compendious a walke wherein to impale the greatnesse of the Pope and a generall Councell too vncertaine a path to tread therefore the greater cry rings this peale that the Church wee talke of is the Pope himselfe whether with a Councell or without a Councell whether with the Cardinalls or without them as in the next Gradation shall appeare The third Gradation BVt thirdly grant for the manner that it bee the Pope himselfe which is this Church whether with a Councell or without a Councell whether with Cardinalls or without them yet is it not determined for the time when it is the Pope 1. For some teach that it is the Pope at all times in that hee cannot possibly be an Hereticke or publish a falshood and of this opinion is Albertus Pighius in his fourth booke de Hierarch eccles cap. 8. 2. But others hold that it is the Pope then onely when hee publisheth a doctrine vnder this condition to bee beleeued by the whole Church as an Article of Faith and of this opinion is Bellarmine himselfe and by his account Thom. Aquinas Waldensis Ioannes de Turrecremata Driedo Caietan Hosius Eckius Ioannes a Louaine Petrus a Soto Melchior Canus besides Valentia Becanus and the whole fraternitie of Iesuites The fourth Gradation BVt fourthly grant for the time because haec est communissima opinio this is the most common opinion of all Catholicks saith Bellarmine that the Church is then the Pope when hee propounds a doctrine to bee beleeued by all men as an article of Faith yet is it not sufficiently resolued by them for the matters what matters they must bee in resoluing whereof his proposition is infallible 1. For you haue beene hitherto made beleeue that whensoeuer hee buckles himselfe to define any thing to bee beleeued as an Article of Faith that then hee is in his Chaire and then hee cannot erre and amongst other points in which they say that wee are to beleeue assuredly that the Pope cannot erre Bellarmine and Greg. de Valentia reckon vp the Canonization of Saints to be one and that the Pope is the successor of Peter to bee another 2. But on the other side it is first confest by Bellarmine and as hee saith by all Catholickes that the Pope may erre euen with a generall Councell at his elbow in matters of fact which depend vpon information and the testimonies of men and such is the question touching the legitimacie of the Pope confest to bee by Bellarmine And because the Canonization of Saints is of the same nature Valentia confesseth that the Popes infallibilitie therein is not so altogether deliuered by the Church and Canus in his fifth booke de locis theolog chap. 5. saith that it is not certaine de fide as a matter of faith neither will hee
shall please God farther to enlighten one as in the question of the authoritie of the Scriptures the knowing of the Instrument or Pen-man whether it bee Saint Matthew or Saint Paul is not simply so requisite as to know the principall Authour which is God nor to determine punctually of the wordes so oblieging as to beleeue the sense nor againe of the sense of some places and texts as of other all are to striue vnto perfection but as the difference is in the gifts of arte grace and nature so shall the difference be in the measure of the knowledge of all or some The third trick and sleight of theirs which they put vpon the people in this kinde is that bidding them to vrge vs to proue the Scriptures to bee the Word of God or that they are cleare and easie in points necessarie to saluation and knowing that the chiefe proofes vpon which we rest are embowelled in the very body of the Text itselfe first they forbid the lay people to reade the Scriptures vnlesse they obtayne speciall licence from the Bishop or Inquisitor to doe it as appeares by the fourth rule of prohibited bookes which is at the end of the Tridentine Councell And the granting of these licences is now againe taken away by Clement the eighth as may bee seene in his Index of prohibited bookes printed at Paris by Laurentius Sonius and cited also by Iustinianus a Priest of the Congregation of the Oratorie lib. 1. de Scriptura cap. 9. Secondly because they know that some people will bee itching notwithstanding this prohibition to looke into the Scriptures and to see whether matters bee so as wee affirme them to bee therefore they crie downe our Bibles and present a Bible of their owne translation which to argue the obscuritie of the Scriptures they patch vp with such gallimaufrie and inke-horne termes that an ordinarie man may bee confounded with the strangenesse of the wordes As in the old Testament publisht by the Colledge of Doway in stead of Fore-skin they put Prepuce Gen. 17. for Passeouer Phase for vnleauened bread Azims Exod. 12. for high places Excelses 2. King 15. for the holy of holyest Sancta Sanctorum 1. Chr. 6. Nor are they lesse ridiculous in the new Testament set forth by the Colledge of Rhemes where you haue these English wordes piping hot out of the Popes mint Depositum Exinanited Parasceue Didragmes Neophyte Gratis with the spirituals of wickednesse in the Celestials and many more labouring by what meanes they can as our learned Fulke shewes in his Preface to that Testament to suppresse the light of Truth vnder one pretence or another Their fourth stratagem is that after their lay disciples haue giuen so loud a defiance to our Cause as may make simple standers by conceiue so great a crie must needes carrie some wooll with it then if by chance any of the companie vndertake to answere them to fetch them off againe with aduantage by making it knowne afore-hand vnto their Pupils that howsoeuer they may bragge it is forbidden yet vnto a lay man vnder paine of excommunication to dispute of matters of faith which constitution is in the Popes owne Decretals and Emanuel Sa hath it in his Aphorismes voce fides By which meanes they both barre vs after iust prouocation to informe and satisfie their adherents and with all cherish presumption in their followers as not being silenced by the weaknesse of their cause but by the command of their Superiors Their fifth deuice is that if notwithstanding the prohibition to dispute aboue mentioned some of their lay Auditors should be so hardie as to venture a skirmish then to diuert them from reasoning out of the Scriptures least the light thereof should some manner of way or other display it selfe they busie their heads with questions aboue their capacitie as where was our Church before Luther what the exposition of the Doctors in all Ages what the Doctrine of the Fathers Councells and Schoolemen which is the common Theame of this Age hoping that either a few old wiues fables or fragments of antiquitie shall serue to puffe vp their men with conceit of victorie where they finde not equall opponents or where they doe yet they shall not abate thereby any whit of their courage as being for want of artes and languages vnable to see the point of the weapon which is darted at them I meane the truth of those things which are alleaged Their sixt deuice is that if any of their laytie notwithstanding those prohibitions and this diuersion will presume so farre vpon the indulgencie of their ghostly Fathers as to hazard a dispute out of the Bible yet to doe it with aduantage enough on their side they counsell him to make no thrusts but to lie onely vpon the ward and therein to enioyne vs to shew the articles of Faith established in our Church in iust so many wordes and syllables in the Scriptures and as if grace destroyed nature to forbid vs the benefit of Reason or Consequences 1. If we infer any thing by way of consequence they tell vs that wee violate that which wee haue promised to the World which is to proue all our Assertions out of the pure Word of God Whereas according to the grand principle of Logicke De omni de nullo a truth deduced out of another truth is acknowledged to bee contayned therein for otherwise it could not bee drawne from thence So that to bee in the Word of God is to bee the Word of God As Gregorie de Valentia saith of the more distinct conceptions of any obiect that they are contayned implicitly in the more generall as particulars are in vniuersalls And therefore Bellarmine speaking of matters of faith makes those things as well to bee knowne by certaintie of faith which are deduced by necessarie consequences from the Scriptures as those which are immediatly contayned therein 2. If we deduce an article from premises whereof any one proposition is not in the Bible though otherwise it be a principle of nature as for example that a body cannot be in two places at the same time they aske how such a Conclusion can bee of faith or how wee can auerre that our articles of faith are proued out of the pure Word of God considering that a Conclusion takes his efficacie not from one but from both the premises Which argument concludes our Aduersaries as much if not more then it doth vs. For the maynest principle of their to wit That those which professe the faith vnder the Bishop of Rome are the Church of Christ cannot be deduced by Bellarmines logick but search made in the Court Rolls of Nature and by borrowing an Euidence from thence to supply the place of one of the premisses But to speake more punctually we say that those principles of Nature which we imploy in this kinde are also vertually included in the Scriptures though not expresly As hee that faith Socrates is a