among them that will dispute if euer it were a time to leaue wording and fall to realitie this it is wherein our aduersaries by the glorious and vnlimited reports of their owne sinceritie haue raised vp the opinions of so many to the expectation of matter at their hands and indeed the distraction of so many peoples minds about religion require and euen cry for materiall and sound dealing and is this now the performance thereof with reuiling words to pester their bookes and to the matter to reply Hoc nihil inuariabile Grosse vntruths blockishly ignorant against his owne knowledge and conscience carelesly inconsiderate I might here make an end c. Was this all the Iesuite could say against that which M. White confirmed by plain authorities could he confute his writing no otherwise then thus Then M. White tels him again that as he hath written nothing but what all learned men know to be true and many haue obiected against the Church of Rome long ago to farre better purpose then himselfe is able to do so his knowledge and conscience and the conscience of thousands with him are the firmlier assured of these things in that his aduersary is able to say so little against them A.D. Yet because in the 12. Pag 29. § of his Preface he offereth as he saith certaine externall markes and sensible tokens whereby the falshood of the Romane Church may be discouered and the most resolute Papist that liueth moued to misdoubt of his owne religion I haue thought it not amisse to examine these his markes and tokens as supposing that if I finde him to faile of truth and sinceritie in these men will not expect to finde it in the rest of his booke in regard he intending to moue by these his marke and tokens euen as he saith the most resolute Papist that liueth to misdoubt of his religion it is like he would vse all his diligence and care that such a carelesse man in so bad a cause could not onely to bring sensible but also sound and substantiall matter and that very truly and sincerely set downe as knowing that such resolute Papists will not be easily moued to misdoubt of their so ancient and well grounded religion by any sleight markes or tokens though neuer so seeming sensible especially if they may sensibly perceiue them to be vnsincerely and vntruly propounded and vrged against them That therefore the Reader may better guesse what truth and sinceritie he may expect in the rest of M. White his booke I haue thought fit briefly to view and runne through these his markes and tokens 9 What Reader now but would imagine the Iesuite to be with child of some substantiall matter and yet it will proue but a tympanie of mind and therefore I desire the Reader diligently to obserue what passes betweene vs. For I say againe that if a man neuer looke further those very things which I mentioned as externall markes and sensible tokens of the Roman Churches iniquitie are sufficient of themselues to moue the hotest and zealousest Papist aliue yet once again to lay his hand vpō his heart and better to look into his religion And what account soeuer the Iesuits resolute Papists that will not so easily be moued make of that I said yet still I offer it to their a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isid Pelusio ep 191. lib. 3. more retired and vnpreiudicate considerations especially now when this Iesuite hath studied out what he can to lay in against it and finding the demonstrations whereby though very briefly yet really I shewed euery Marke to be too hot for his mouth meddles not with them but passes them ouer and sayes not a word to them but onely repeates the motiue and making a face at it so lets it go not mentioning the arguments whereby I declare it b Chrysost This is the power of truth and the grace of innocencie when her enemie is her iudge and the diuell her accuser and wrath and furie and calumnie and hatred are impaneled against her yet she is quit and iustified CHAP. IX 1. The Apocrypha not accounted Canonicall Scripture 2. Papists professing to expound against the Fathers 3. The new English translation of the Bible 4. Traditions equalled with the holy Scripture 6. About the erring of Councels 7. And the sufficiencie of the Scriptures Pag. 29. A. D. The first marke is saith he their enmitie with the holy Scripture this is an euident vntruth proceeding either out of ignorance or out of enmitie and malice against vs. For who knoweth not that we be so farre from hauing enmitie with sacred Scriptures as we reuerence and respect them farre more then Protestants doe partly in that we accept all the bookes of them which the ancient Church hath deliuered to vs as sacred and canonicall whereas Protestants by their priuate spirit thrust some of them as it were by the head and shoulders out of the Canon and partly also for that we hold such reuerent regard to the diuine truth contained in them as that we do not presume either to translate or interprete them according to our priuate phansie or iudgement but conformably according to the approoued spirit and iudgement of the vniuersall Catholicke Church whereas the Protestants haue so little regard that they permit euery man to rush without reuerence into the sacred text to translate it if he haue skill in the learned tongues or to interprete it by his priuate spirit although he haue no skill in any besides the vulgar tongue 1 THe enmitie and rebellion of the Romane Church against the Scriptures is so apparent that the Iesuite thought it his best policie not to meddle with that whereby I shewed it more fully in the 22 Digr but to wrangle at that I here onely touched briefly by the way bearing the Reader in hand that I haue in this place vsed all the diligence and care I could and brought the soundest and substantiallest matter that I had when I onely in few words pointed at it First he sayes they be so farre from hauing enmitie with the Scriptures that they reuerence them more then we do His reasons to perswade this are two First they accept all the bookes of the Scriptures which the ancient Church hath deliuered vs for Canonicall whereas Protestants by their priuate spirit thrust some of them he meanes the Apocrypha out of the Canon by the head and shoulders I answer that we denie no part of the Canon which the ancient Church receiued and this bringing in of the Apocryphal books Wisd Ecclesiast Toby Iudith Maccab. and the rest into the Canon conuinces the Church of Rome of that contempt of the Scriptures which I mentioned when it exalts and aduances to the honour of diuine inspired Scripture that which is not so nor was esteemed so in the ancient Church For Rebels to place another in the same throne with the King and to giue him equall power and honour with him and to make
Syllogisme here set downe Whereto I answered First granting the maior and acknowledging it to be a point of faith necessary to be beleeued that the Canonicall bookes which the Church vses are true diuine Scripture but I denied the second proposition that they cannot be proued so to be by themselues secluding Church authority and tradition And I distinguish for the Authority and direction of the Church is Gods outward ordinance to teach vs as a condition how to see the Scripture to be diuine but not the thing whereby they are prooued so to be and whereon our faith leaneth but this diuinity the Church as a bare Minister out of the Scripture it selfe prooues to be in the Scripture not by her owne authority that vpon her word and testimony either onely or particularly it should be taken for Scripture rather then the books of other men In the same manner that a man shewes a star giuing light to it selfe which yet another cannot see till the man point to it Or as a dead mans will kept in the Register of necessity must be sought there and thence receiued yet all the authority of that court which is great and ample specially in preseruing records neither makes nor prooues the will to be legitimate but is onely a requisite condition to bring it forth and vs to the sight and knowledge of it the will proouing it selfe by the hand and seale of him that made it affixed to it So it is with the word of God which we do not ordinarily see to be the word of God vntill the Church teach and traine vs vp therein But when it hath done the arguments whereby it is proued so to be and the authority whereupon I beleeue it are contained in the word it selfe which I expound and confirme by this that euermore and perpetually the Church by the Scripture it selfe and by no other argument prooues it to be diuine to those she teaches and vpon that ground at the first receiued them for such her selfe and many times it fals out as with some Atheists and Pagans that where no Church authority ministry or perswasion is vsed by onely reading of the Scripture it selfe in respect of the outward meanes a man coms to faith which could not be if the Scripture it selfe had not conuinced him forsomuch as an Atheist or vnbeleeuer will not be perswaded by any thing but that which he euidently sees to be Gods owne word and this perswasion arises in him from the very booke it selfe without Church authority 3 And this is yet confirmed by that which the Iesuites teach against the Anabaptists Swinkfieldians holding the motions of their inward spirit to be Gods word for Bellarmine c De verb. Dei l. 1. c. 1. 2. sayes that to the faithfull acknowledging the Scripture to be Gods word it may be prooued out of the Scripture it selfe that the Scripture is the word of God Molhusine and Gretsers d Gretser def Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. pag. 34. D. words are these It is manifest that Bellarmine onely affirmes that it may be prooued OVT OF THE SCRIPTVRES THEMSELVES and the Canonicall books thereof onely TO THE FAITHFVLL who receiue and reuerence them for such that the word of God is not the inward spirit whereof fantasticall men boast but the word of God is truly it which is contriued in those books which the faithfull hold for Canonicall In which words they say three things First that the faithfull who acknowledge the Scripture to be Gods word are they persons of whom they speake not such as receiue it not Secondly that to such it may be prooued that not the inward spirit of fantasticall men but the Canonicall Scripture is the word of God Wherein they affirme two things may be prooued A Negatiue that the inward spirit is not Gods word and an Affirmatiue that Gods word is truely it which is contained in the Canonicall books of the Scripture Thirdly that both this Negatiue and this Affirmatiue may be proued out of the Scriptures themselues Hence I reasō thus To the godly that receiue and acknowledge the Scripture this affirmatiue that Gods word is it which is contained in the Canonicall Bookes of the Scripture may be proued out of the Scriptures themselues therefore the Scripture it selfe can proue it selfe to be the word of God Therefore that the Scripture it the very word of God is contained in the Scripture because otherwise it could not be proued so to be out of the Scripture it selfe Therefore all things needfull are contained in this Scripture No wrangling can auoid this If to such as receiue them it may be proued out of themselues that these Bookes are the word of God then this point that these bookes are diuine Scripture is contained in Scripture and the cause why some see it not is their owne indisposition and vnbeleefe wherewith the Scripture must not be charged but to such as receiue these Bookes the Iesuits affirme it may be proued out of themselues that they are the word of God that is without all Church authoritie which is externall and not in the Scripture 4 Secondlie this being admitted that it is a a point of faith necessary to be beleeued that the Canonical Books are diuine and then againe that they could not be shewed so to be out of themselues yet doth it not follow ineuitably that all points of faith are not contained in them for the question is not whether the Scripture be Gods word or no which is granted of all hands but whether being confessed so to be it containe all such verities as a Christian man is bound to know in such measure that there is no point to be beleeued that is not contained therein The reason is because the Scriptures are the principles of diuine knowledge and the faith thereof * Not in nature but in proportion like the credite we yeed to the rules of humane sciences which are knowne and beleeued of themselues without any further demonstration And as the kings lawes containe all things whatsoeuer the subiect is bound to do and yet the said lawes not prouing themselues to be of authoritie but supposing it to be known before and otherwise are not thereby proued to be vnperfect or defectiue but being receiued then there is nothing wanting in them that is necessary for the common-wealth and as in all arts and sciences that we learne the rules and precepts thereof need not proue themselues for that which is the generall rule of other things is not ruled it selfe in the same kinde and yet it were folly to say they were therefore imperfect So may it be said to be in the Scripture supposing it had no more light thereby to authorize it selfe then Princes lawes and humane principles haue that it containes all points of faith though it were not expressed that it selfe is the word of God For the readier vnderstanding whereof let the Reader againe cast his eie vpon the occasion
infallible rule of faith as it is also the ordinary sufficient meanes ordained by God to breed faith in men My aduersaryes for their better aduantage take the question in the first sense whereas they ought to take it in the second sense in regard I so take it in the fift Chapter vnto which this Chapter hath reference For whereas in the foure first Chapters I had set downe for a certaine ground that one infallible entire faith was necessary to saluation in the first Chapter I proued that God had ordained some rule and meanes that is some such rule as was also a meanes sufficient to breed this one infallible entire faith in all sorts of men yea quantum ex se in all men In the sixt Chapter I set downe certaine conditions of this rule and meanes and consequently when in this seuenth Chapter I deny Scripture alone to be the rule I must needes meane that it is not the rule which is also a sufficient ordinary meanes of which all my speech went before Now in this true sense my aduersaries do not gainesay but conuicted by the euidence of truth yeeld that Scripture alone is not the rule taking the rule as it signifieth that which is so a rule as it is also the ordinary sufficient meanes to breed faith in men as here I take it The Scripture it selfe saith M. Wootton is a rule Wootton p. 66. or meanes made effectuall to some by reading without any outward helpe of man but this is not the ordinary course that God hath appointed for the instruction of the people Pag. 89. in the knowledge of his truth therefore if we say at any time Scripture alone is the rule of faith by ALONE we seuer it from the traditions and authoritie of men not from their Ministry and ascribe sufficiently vnto it in respect of the matter to be beleeued not simply of the meanes to bring men to beleeue And againe we require besides onely expresse wordes of Scripture the Ministry and industry of man together and conclude points of doctrine out of that which is written in Scripture White pag. 23. M. White although he seeme to make the doctrine it selfe of Scripture to be the rule the letter of the original or translation to be a meanes which like a vessell presenteth vnto vs this rule yet to the purpose of the question in my sense he granteth that the Ministry is the ordinary meanes Pag. 116. whereby we may learne the faith of Christ and that no man can of himselfe attaine the knowledge thereof but as the Church teacheth him excepting some extraordinary cases Whereby I euidently conclude that both M. Wootton and M. White yeeld to the principall conclusion of this Chapter to wit that Scripture alone whether taken for the originall or translation is not the rule of faith in such sense as I here speake of the rule of faith Idle therefore and impertinent is most of their long and tedious discourse vpon this Chapter which consequently I pretermit as vnworthie of any reply if any thing here brought by them and pretermitted by me seeme contrary to my conclusion it is such as is answered ordinarily by Catholicke Authors or such as these my aduersaries themselues if they wil not contradict this which is yeelded to by themselues ought to answer vnto as well as I. 1 HEre I must repeate my old complaint that I am forced to renew in euery question that falles out betweene vs that my aduersary omits and dissembles the whole substance of my writing and onely descants vpon some few remnants that he rends out here and there wisely foreseeing either that his cause would abide no triall or himselfe was not the man that was able to make the triall For though he could well enough translate and transcribe another man writing and patch it together when he had done to make a pamphlet yet the defence he must leaue to his Author being belike some student * A.D. Student in diuinitie as he professes himselfe that is proceeded no higher then translations and yet will serue the turne to beare the name of a Catholicke writer This abiect course which now adayes that side cleaues to as deuoutly as to their faith bewrayes the misery of their side to say no more and so I follow him whither the winde and the tide carrie me For he that rides a iade must take his owne pace or go afoote 2 First he sayes his Aduersaries either ignorantly or wilfully peruert the state of the question else they could haue had no colour to make so long discourse The which is no vnprofitable way when he cannot defend his question to picke a quarrel to the state And possible he hath learned it by poâ—ching in D. Stapletons bookes who in his time made good vse of this tricke But how was the question mistaken He saies his question was not whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether Scripture alone be the rule and meanes to breed faith For the trial of this I must intreate the Reader to take knowledge how things stand betweene vs though I haue once or twise already vpon like occasions repeated it The Iesuite in his Treatise that I answered beginnes with certaine propositions which he sayes are to be supposed and set downe for certaine and assured grounds First that no man can be saued without the true faith Secondly that this faith is but one neither can men be saued in any other Thirdly that this faith must be infallible and certaine so that the beleeuer be fully perswaded of the truth thereof Fourthly that it must be whole and entire beleeuing rightly all points one as well as another Fifthly that God hath ordained a certaine rule or meane whereby all men learned and vnlearned may be instructed in this faith and infallibly taught WHAT is to be holden for the true faith and WHAT not Sixtly that this rule must haue three conditions First infallibility to be certaine without deceiuing vs. Secondly easines that it may be plainely knowne of all sorts of men Thirdly latitude that by it we may know absolutely all points needfull to be learned Then a In THE WAY §. 5. and in his printed treatise p. 17. concl 1. he proceeds to inquire what in particular is the thing which may be assigned to be this rule whereto he answers in foure conclusions the first whereof is this whereabout he now contends The Scripture alone especially as it is translated * In his printed copie it is Specially as it is by Protestants translated into the English tongue into the English tongue cannot he this rule This I denied in another conclusion opposite to it vsing the words of the publike articles of our Church The Scripture comprehended in the Canonicall bookes of the old and new Testament is the rule of faith so far that whatsoeuer is not read therein or cannot be proued thereby is not to be accepted as any point of
A wonder not farre from Rome Writers not putting their names to their bookes censured by the Iesuites The Popes Iester The name of Minister and Priest Church the pillar of truth The way of Catholicke discipline is the way of the Scripture The Iesuites Method in perswading to Papistry The manner of A. D. his Replying and his promise to raile Chap. 2. The Papists trampling of the Scriptures and preferring their Church The Church of Rome touched in her honesty and reputed for a whore The conditions of a whore Chap. 3. The order of the Iesuites why and to what purpose erected by the Pope they are that to the Pope that the Ianisaries are to the Turke Their aboadments Chap. 4 Some examples of the Iesuites rapine Touching the present Pope Paule 5. and his nephew Burghesi The Iesuites deuouring those that entertaine thē Chap. 5. Touching the rapine and couetousnesse of the Romish Cleargy And their single life and what the world hath thought thereof Chap. 6. Touching the turbulency of our Iesuites and Maspriests in the State and their vnthankefulnesse to the King The seditious doctrine of the Church of Rome leading to all disobedience against the Magistrate and rebellion whēsoeuer occasion shall serue Tyrones rebellion and the Spanish inuasion promoted by the Pope A Catalogue of about forty Emperors Kings and Princes destroyed or vexed by the Pope and his Cleargy A consideration vpon the doctrine of the Popes power to depose kings Chap. 7. Concerning the doctrine of Merits taught in the Church of Rome and touching the Bull of Pius and Gregory against Michael Bayus the Deane of Louane Chap. 8. The Papacy brought in by Sathan The Iesuits spirit of contradiction The Church of Rome reuolted The fiue Patriarkes were equall at the first Plaine Scripture against the Papacy The ignorance of Popish laity Corruption of writings by the Papists Reformation desired long before it came Aduice giuen to A.D. Chap. 9. The Apocrypha not accounted Canonicall Scripture Papists professing to expound against the Fathers The new English translation of the Bible Traditions equalled with the holy Scripture About the erring of Councels And the sufficiencie of the Scriptures Chap. 10. The practise of the Papists in purging bookes The sacrifice of the Masse and reall presence denied Points of Papists absurd The Pope Lords it ouer all Papists need pay no debts May be traitors to murder Princes Iesuites plots in the powder-treason The Popes dispensing with sinne A meditation for all Papists Chap. 11. The Papists manner of dealing with immodesty and vncharitablenesse Briarly and Walsinghams bookes noted Some reports of the Papists meeknesse and mildnesse Hunt a Seminary arraigned at Lancaster The dumbe cattle slaughtered in Lancash The generall desire of vs all to reduce them to charity Chap. 12. Touching the ignorance that Papistrie hath bred among people Their barbarous manner of praying auoched Of Iohn the Almoner a legend The manner how a certaine Priest baptised The Replies zeale for recusants of the better sort A Lancash gentleman alledged by the Reply A note of a French Knight The successe of preaching in Lancash Chap. 13. Touching prayer to Saints Mediation of redemption and intercession Bonauentures Psalter Christ the onely mediator of intercession Reasons why we desire not the dead to pray for vs as we do the liuing The prayers of a Friar and an Archbishop It cannot be shewed that the dead heare vs. Deuices of the Schoolemen to shew how they heare vs. God not like an earthly King In their Saint-inuocating they Platonize Men equalled with Christ Chap. 14. More touching the worship of Saints The same words vsed to Saints that are to God The formall reason of worship The harsh praiers made to Saints how excused Nauarres forme of deuotion Counterfeits bearing the name of Fathers S. Austines doctrine to vse no mediator but Christ Chap. 15. The Iesuits insolency censured Note bookes A relation shewing how the Iesuites traine vp their nouices to dispute The doctrine of the Iesuites touching formall lies and equiuocation The Repliars motion to Protestant Ministers answered Chap. 16. Touching assurance of grace and beleeuing a mans owne saluation Perfection of the Scripture and necessity of the Church Ministry How the iustified conclude their saluation from the Scripture The iustified haue the assurance of faith This is declared full assurance voide of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome Touching perseuerance Chap. 17. Concerning points fundamentall and not fundamentall the distinction expounded and defended Who shall iudge what is fundamentall and what not A iest at the election of Pope Leo the x. Chap. 18. Touching the perpetuall virginity of Marie The celebration of Easter The baptisme of infants The Iesuits halting And the Scriptures sufficiency Chap. 19. How the Church proues the Scripture The Iesuites plainely confesse that the Scripture alone proues it selfe to be Gods word The Scriptures are principles indemonstrable in any superior science All other testimonies resolued into the testimony of the Scripture Touching euidence and the compossibility thereof with faith Chap. 20 A continuation of the same matter touching the Churches authority in giuing testimony of the Scriptures The Scripture proues it selfe to be Gods word The light of the Scripture How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture The Papists retyring to the Spirit And casting off the Fathers A Councell is aboue the Pope The Pope may erre Chap. 21. Which is the Militant Church And the Catholicke The Church of the elect inuisible A rancid conceite of the Iesuite Chap. 22. Reports made by Papists that the Protestants are without religion They hold the iustification of the Gentiles without the Gospell or knowledge of Christ No saluation but in one true religion The Repliars tergiuersation Chap. 23. Touching the implicit faith that is taught in the Church of Rome How defined by them In what sense the Protestants mislike or allow it Arguments made for it answered The ancient Church allowed it not Chap. 24. Touching the necessitie and nature of the Rule of faith And how it is reuealed and communicated to all men that none need to despaire Chap. 25. The text of 1. Tim. 2.4 God wils all men to be saued c. expounded The diuerse expositions that are giuen of those words Gods antecedent will as they call it is not his will formally The antecedent and consequent will of God expounded diuerse wayes Chap. 26. The properties of the rule of faith described None follow priuate spirits more then our aduersaries How the Rule must be vnpartial and of authority Chap. 27. The Repliars tergiuersation The state of the question touching the sufficiencie of the Scripture alone and the necessity of the Church ministery The speeches of diuers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture In what sence the Scripture alone is not sufficient Chap. 28. Touching our English translations of the Bible their sinceritie and infalliblenesse How
his lawes equall to the Kings is as much as if they thrust the King out of the throne For a wife to yeeld those duties to a neighbour that are proper to her husband makes her an adulteresse though otherwise she denie him nothing And it is vntrue that the Iesuite sayes the Apocrypha was esteemed canonicall Scripture in the ancient Church for a Legit quidem Ecclesia sed eos inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit c. Iero praef in Prou. Non sunt in Canone Praef. in 1. Reg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Conc. Laodic e vlt. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. synops p. 63. Athanasius reckoned the bookes of Scripture according to the mind of the Nicen Councell says Bâ—ron an 63. n. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Melito apud Euseb hist pag. 43. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen apud Euseb pag 65. Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt ex quibus fidei nostrae assertiones constare voluerunt Sciendum tamen est quod alij libri sunt qui non Canonici sed Ecclesiastici à maioribus appellati sunt quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesiis voluerunt non tamen proferri ad authoritatem ex his fiâ—ei confirmandam Cypr. exp symb n. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Epiph. pag. 534. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Ierosol pag. 30. Catech. Hic verissimus diuinitus datarum est Scripturarum Canon Amphiloch Icon. Iamb pag. 730. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Carm. p. 36. In viginti duo libros Lex Testamenti veteru deputetur Hilar. in Psal pag 615. Sunt autem libri veteris Testamenti 24. Victorin apocal pag. 718. Hij sunt libri qui in Ecclesia pro Canonicis habentur Veteris Scripturae libri sunt viginti duo Leont de sect pag. 1848. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damasc orth fid l. 4. c. 18. pag. 348. all Antiquitie shewes the contrary that it was vsed but not to ground faith vpon and therefore the Papists putting it into the Canon abuse the Scripture and antiquitie and Protestants iudging it not to be Scripture follow not their priuate spirit but the publicke spirit of the ancient Church in the purest times And b Liber Judith Tobia Macchabaeorum Ecclesiasticus atque liber Sapientiae non sunt recipiendi ad confirmandum aliquid in fide Occham dial p. 212. Non sunt in Canone sanctorum librorum reputata siue confirmata nec inter libros Legis Prophetarum nic inter Hagiographos computantur sicut liber Sapientiae liber Judith liber Tobiae liber Maccabaor Turrecr c. Sancta Rom. d. 15. n. 19. d. 16. c. Apostolor n. 5. The Apocrypha denied to be Canonicall Scripture by Antonin sum mor. part 3. tit 18. c. 6. §. 2. Lyra Praef. in Tob. Hugo Cardin. praef in Ios Caietan in Hest c. vlt. Picus Mirandul de fid ordin cred theor 5. And many others the learnedst also of our aduersaries are of the same iudgement the Church of Rome neuer wanting those in it that in all ages gaue testimonie to the truth that it is not Canonicall Scripture whereby the Reader may see the Iesuites rashnesse and ignorance when he sayes the Protestants of their priuate spirit thrust the Apocrypha by the head and shoulders out of the Canon For the other bookes as Ierome saith the Church doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine say * Art 6. idem R. Iacob praef monitor pag. 39. the articles of our Church 2 His second reason to proue that the Church of Rome reuerences the Scripture more then we do is because they presume not to translate them or interprete them according to their owne priuate iudgement but conformably according to the spirit of the vniuersall Church whereas Protestants permit euery man to rush into the Text to translate or interprete it Both the parts of this reason are false First the Papists out of the reuerend regard to the diuine truth contained in theÌ„ presume not either to translate or interprete the Scripture according to their priuate iudgement but according to the iudgement of the vniuersall Church Here are three vntruths First that in their expositions and interpretations they follow the vniuersall Church for therein they follow onely the Popes will and practise of the present Romane Church which are not the vniuersall Church this is shewed in THE WAY Digr 16. And c Si quando occurrerit aliquis sensus textui consoâ—us quamuis à torrente doctorum alienus loctor aequum se prebeat censorem nullusque detestetur illum ex hoc quod dissonat à priscis Doctoribus Non enim alligauit Deus expositionem Scripturae priscorum Doctorum sensibus alioquin spes nobis tolleretur exponendi ScripturaruÌ„ Caietan pâ—â—oem in Gen defended and followed herein by Andrad pro concil l. 2. Communu opinio Doctorum non est attendenda quando altera contraria opinio fauet potestati clauium aut iurisdictioni Ecclesiae aut pâ—ae causae D. Marta de iurisd part 4 pag. 273. their learned men professe to follow new expositions that the ancient Fathers neuer vsed Secondly that in their Translations they follow the vniuersall Church For the vulgar Latin is not the Translation of the vniuersall Church neither was any man bound to it till the Councell of Trent and their translations into the mother tongues when they are inforced thereunto following the vulgar follow the vniuersall Church no more then it doth The corruption of that Translation I haue shewed in THE WAY Digr 7. Thirdly that they translate not the Scripture but according to the iudgement of the vniuersall Church as if they vsed translations into the mother tongue which is vntrue thus far that they vse them not but being inforced thereto by some extremitie but vtterly forbid them and crie out against them as I haue shewed elsewhere 3 The second part of his second reason is likewise false that Protestants permit euery man to rush without reuerence into the sacred Text to translate it if he haue skill in the learned tongues or to interprete it by his priuate spirit although he haue no skill in any besides the vulgar tongue for we mislike priuate spirits and expositions more then our aduersaries do who tie all to the Popes sole will when we allow no exposition afore it be squared to the rule of faith and the sence of the true Church And touching translating there is as much regard with vs as was when the Church was purest no mans priuate translation is canonized but that which is publickly vsed is done by publicke authoritie an example whereof we had these last yeares in the new Translation * The comparison will scarce please those that absurdly hold the Septuagint and the author of the Latin vulgar were Prophets infallibly guided in translating by Gods Spirit as the Apostles and Prophets them selues were
faith or needfull to be followed And so from that place to pag. 57 I disputed that the Scripture ALONE is the rule of faith that is to say That rule which my Aduersary in his fourth ground had said God had prouided whereby euery man learned and vnlearned may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for the true faith Now he complaines that the State is peruerted the question not being whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether Scripture alone be the rule and meane ordained of God to breed all faith And he notes two points wherein it is peruerted First in that I so affirme and defend the Scripture to be the rule as if he and his sectaries excluded it from being the rule in any sort which he sayes they do not For they hold the Scripture as propounded by the Church to be part of it I answer that I knew well enough they confessed the Scripture to be part of the rule and the Diuine doctrine which is the whole rule to be some of it written But I knew also that they denied it to be the whole rule ioyning therewith vnwritten traditions and the Popes Decretals which they call Church authority I knew also they allowed it to be no part of the rule but as and in such sence as the Church of Rome should please to propound it and I saw his conclusion in termes denying the Scripture alone to be the rule whereby men may sufficiently be instructed WHAT the faith is therefore I disputed directly opposite to all this that the Scripture alone without traditions is the whole rule to shew vs WHAT is to be holden for faith and nothing but the Scripture this is close to the question For albeit he yeelds it to be the rule in a sort because as his Church propounds it it containes part of the rule yet he denies it to be that whole and entire rule that his conclusion inquires of and so is to be disputed against as well as if he denied it to be any part of the rule at all Againe he holds two things First affirmatiuely that the Scripture is one part of the rule then negatiuely that the Scripture alone is not all the rule Both these are contradictory to my assertion The Scripture alone is the rule My assertion therefore affirming what he denies and denying what he affirmes containes the true state of the question and his inuoluing the matter with all this cauilling tends onely to the couering of his doctrine the loathsome visage whereof he is ashamed should be seene 3 The second point wherein he sayes the question is peruerted is in that I take the rule of faith otherwise then he doth For whereas he by that word rule meanes such a rule as not onely is sufficient to REVEALE all diuine truths that are to be beleeued but also to BREED or produce in vs the faith whereby we beleeue them I he sayes vnderstand such a rule onely as is sufficient to reueale the diuine verities though it be not sufficient to breed in vs faith and assent thereunto And it is true that I vnderstand such a rule indeed the Church wherein I liue onely beleeuing the sufficiency of the Scripture to containe all the obiect of faith but not to enable vs to beleeue it or vnderstand it ordinarily without the ministry of the Church and other meanes But this peruerts not the question * The state of the question touching Scripture ALONâ— for about the meanes there is no question but the question is whether Scripture alone excluding all Church traditions and authority comprehend the whole obiect or matter of faith that is to say All that we are bound to know beleeue and doe for our saluation though it be granted that to breed or produce faith and knowledge of that which is in the Scripture the Ministry of the Church and the helpe of Gods Spirit and our owne industry must concurre For our Aduersaries deny this and hold their runagate traditions and Church authority to be necessary not onely for the expounding and confirming to vs that which is in the Scripture if any one chance to deny it or not to see it but for the supplying of infinite articles of faith which are no waies at all comprised in the Scripture but vpon the said authority are to be receiued as well as that which is reuealed in the Scripture The Iesuite speakes as if he thought his Church authority to consist more in breeding faith and leading men to beleeue what is written then in adding any thing to the measure of the diuine verities contained in the Scripture and indeed sometime there be of his side that will plainely say so He that writ the defence of the Censure a Def. of the Cens pag. 141. NOTE THIS and inquire whether all Papists will stand to it sayes it is to be noted that the question betweene vs and the Protestants is of EXPRESSE SCRIPTVRE ONELY and not of any far fet place which by interpretation may be applied to a controuersie For this contention began betweene vs vpon this occasion that when we alledged diuers weighty places and reasons out of the Scripture for proofe of inuocation of Saints praier for the dead Purgatory and some other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they did not plainely and expresly decide the matter Whereupon came this question whether all matters of beleefe are plainely and expresly in Scripture or not which they affirme and we deny And this he sayes is is the true state of the question Gretser b Defens Bellar tom 1. l. 4. c. 4. p. 1598. sayes These things may be proued by Scripture but not sufficiently not effectually by Scripture alone without tradition but onely probably The which if my aduersary and his Church did hold constantly and in good earnest I would confesse I had peruerted the state of the question But they do not but hold many things belonging to faith to be wanting and no way at all neither openly nor expresly nor consequently contained in the Scripture Dominicus Bannes c D. Dann 22. Tho. p. 302. All things which pertaine to Catholicke faith are not contained in the Canonicall books either manifestly or obscurely nor all those things which Christ and his Apostles taught and ordained for the instructing of his Church and confirming of the faith were committed to the holy Scriptures and the contrary is open heresie Melchior Canus d Can. loc p. 151 There are many things belonging to the doctrine and faith of Christians which are contained in the sacred Scriptures neither manifestly nor obscurely Cardinall Hosius e Hos confess Polon p. 383. The greater part of the Gospell by a great deale is come to vs by tradition very little of it being written in the Scripture Peresius f Peres de tradit p. 4. Tradition is taken so that it is distinguisht against the doctrine which is found in the Canonicall bookes of the
c Orat. cont Gent. sub init saies The holy Scriptures are * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient by themselues to shew the truth Isiodore Pelusiota d L. 2. Epist 369. The sacred volumes hauing the testimony of the diuine Scriptures are the stayres whereby we ascend to God All therefore brought out of them in the Church of God receiue as proued gold tried in the fire of the Spirit of Gods truth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whatsoeuer things without these volumes are carried about though they haue shew of probability leaue to those that plot the fables of heresies S. Basil e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de fid pag. 394. edit Basil an 1551. It is manifest presumption and apostasie from the faith either to abrogate any of the things that are written or bring in any thing that is not written And Vincent Lirin f Monito c. 2. 41. The rule of the Scripture is perfect and in it selfe sufficient and more then sufficient vnto all things And g 3. d. 25. qu. vnic a. Gab. Biell his owne Schoolman All things necessary to be beleeued are contained in the Canonicall Scripture it belonges therefore to the perfection of the Scripture to containe all things 2. Against this he obiected the stale and threadbare argument it is not contained in the Scripture that it selfe is the word of God My answer was that the vertue and power that shewes it selfe in euery line and leafe of the Bible proclaimes it to be the word of God and the sheepe of Christ discerne the voice and light of it as men discerne sweete from sowre light from darkenesse Now he demandes in this Reply How then it chances that our illuminated Luther could not see the Epistle of S. Iames to be diuine Scripture I answer readily to the point if the Scripture be so easily and infallibly knowne to be Gods word by the authority of the Church how chances it that his illuminated Caietan h Catharin cont Nov. dog Caiet S xt Senens Biblio l. 6. annot 337. denied the same Epistle of S. Iames to be diuine Scripture how chances i Noted afore so many Papists deny the Apocrypha to be Canonicall as well as we how comes it about that Genebrard k Genebrard chronol p. 181. Posseuin appar verb. Gilb. Genebrard affirmes the third fourth Bookes of Esdras to be Canonicall Scripture which the Chuch denies Thus my Iesuit is fallen vnawares into the same pit he made for me Secondly my aduersarie l Verum est doctorem quidem Lutherū quosdam alios exemplum veteris Ecclesiae imitatos de libris modo dictis non ita praeclare sensisse sed tamen jidē postea re diligentius perpensa priorem sententiam mutare non dubitarunt Eckhard fascic pag. 21. cannot proue that M. Luther perseuered to the end in the deniall of this Epistle The iudgement of m Nonnul i antiquitus de epistolae huius authoritate dubitarunt Passeuin appar v. Iacob Apost see Euseb hist. Eccle l. 3 c. 25. Ieron Doroth de viris illust v. Iacobus so many in the Primitiue Church refusing it dazeled Luthers eyes and made him to doubt for a time but that he neuer saw and beleeued it to be Scripture to the end my aduersary will scarse be able to shew Thirdly Luthers not seeing this light proues not that there is no such light or voice in the Scripture for all faith thereof is not in an instant but successiuely and by degrees and all men at all times haue not eyes and disposition alike to see it as the Apostles at the first saw not Christ to be that he was though he were the light that came into the world Saint Austine n Tract 35. Ioh. sayes The Scriptures are lighted vp to be our Candle in this world that we walke not in darknesse Therefore they are seene by their owne light For the same Saint Austine n saies will you light a Candle to see a burning Candle for a burning Candle is able both to make manifest other things that are hidden in darkenesse and to shew it selfe to thy eyes The Scripture therefore by it owne light shewes it selfe as I said to be the word of God and if any see not this light the defect is in themselues and is remoued by no other light added but by the same light at such time as pleases God to open the eyes Theophilus Antiochenus o Orat. 1. ad Antolych sayes we must not say there is no light because the blind see it not but let them that see it not accuse their owne eyes For as in all other matters of faith it falls out among the children of God that p 1. Cor. 13.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ibi hom 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scol graec ibi some see and know more and some vnderstand and beleeue lesse then othersome yet the matters of faith themselues are one and the same and the beleeuers are inlightened with Gods Spirit though not all in the same measure so may it fall out about this obiect that some particular men may not at the first or alway perfitly see the light of euery part of Scripture or perfitly heare the voice of Christ founding therein for here in this life we know but in part and prophecy but in part though the light of the Scripture shine fully forth vnto all 3 This light of the Scripture my aduersary grants but yet to bring in his traditions and Church-authority marke how he replyes What light soeuer there be in the Scripture yet it shines not to our vnderstanding till it be illuminated with faith which the elect themselues at all times are not the which I grant and thereupon inferre that this light was neuerthelesse in the Scripture though Luther saw it not in one place thereof and the reason why he saw it not was because euery one of the elect is not at all times indued with all faith but my Iesuite addes that this light whereby the Scriptures shew themselues to be the word of God shines not to the vnderstanding illuminated with faith neither vnlesse it be propounded by the authority of the Church vpon which as vpon a Candlesticke the light of the Scripture must be set or else it will not sufficiently shine vnto vs to giue vs of it selfe infallible assurance that it is the word of God q Concedimus igitur sacras liteteras quae diuinae doctrinae continent lumen tanquam lucernam esse per seipsam splendidissimam atque fulgentissimam sed nobis tamen non in se lucidam sed quatenus est diuinitus in Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritate tanquam in candelabro positum vt luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt Errant igitur aduersarij cum scripturam esse lucernam ac illuminare nos idem esse existimant quod eam non egere Ecclesiae infallibili authoritate vt
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
Ecclesiam Dei posse de assertione non vera facere veram aut de non non falsam Turrecâ—em sum de Eccl. l 4. part 2. c. 3. ad 6. our aduersaries denie the latter is not sufficient to make the Scripture onely probable in that howsoeuer for want of Church authoritie a man may not see such texts to proue the virginitie of Marie or the Baptisme of children yet the proofe is in them within their owne latitude and if there be any such matter in them at all then is it in them more then probably because no diuine testimonie is probable but necessarie but Gretser and the Church of Rome vse their traditions as Alchymists do the Philosophers stone with the touch of it they turne any mettall into gold or as Painters do Allum to giue tincture to their colours CHAP. XIX 1. 2. How the Churches authoritie proues the Scripture 3. The Iesuits plainely confesse that the Scriptures alone prooues it selfe to be Gods word 4. The Scriptures are Principles indemonstrable in any superior science 6. All other testimony resolued into the testimony of the Scripture 7. Touching Euidence and the Compossibility thereof with faith A. D. I will insist in that example which I propounded Pag. 68. in the treatise and thus I dispute All sorts both Catholickes and Protestants do beleeue and hold it a point necessary to be beleeued that S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. are true diuine Scripture and that these particular bookes which the Church vseth are the same true Scripture at least in sense and substance which was set downe by those holy writers But these points are not expressed in Scripture nor secluding Church authority and tradition so contained as that they can be proued euidently and necessarily out of any sentence of Scripture Ergo all points necessary to be beleeued are not so contained in Scripture as Protestants say they are M. Wotton and M. White both struggle with this argument as other Protestants haue done before theÌ„ but when they haue done said all one may easily see how they sticke fast in the mire To omit their impertinent speeches there are onely two things which to the purpose they do or can directly say viz. either they must deny these to be points of faith necessary to be beleeued or else they must shew how one may prooue these points euidently out of some sentence of Scripture For if they admit that these be points of faith necessary to be beleeued and that these cannot be prooued out of Scripture it followeth ineuitably that all points of faith necessary to be beleeued cannot be prooued by Scripture and that their Principle is false which saith nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of saith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture M. White saith that like as in other sciences White pag. 47. there are some Principles indemonstrable so in matters of faith it is a Principle to be supposed that Scripture is Diuine and so no maruell if it cannot be prooued as other points of faith are To this I reply that Principles in sciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of terms or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superior science by some other Principle more euident to vs. But that these books which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is * If it were euident how is it onely beleeued by faith For S. Paul calls faith argumentum non apparentium Heb. 11. v. 1. not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other Principle more euidently vnto vs that these books which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture Secondly I aske whether this point of doctrine that S. Mathewes Gospell c. is diuine Scripture be such a Principle of faith as it selfe is also a point necessary to be beleeued and that by the same infallible faith by which we beleeue the blessed Trinity Or that it is so a Principle as it selfe is not to be beleeued at all by faith or by the same faith by which wee beleeue the blessed Trinity If the first be said then either the opinion of Protestants who say nothing is to be necessarily beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued out of the Scripture is false or else this is not a Principle indemonstrable as M. White affirmeth If rhe second be said then it followeth that Protestants do not beleeue by faith S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. nor any other booke in the Bible to be diuine Scripture and consequently not hauing assurance of diuine faith in this point they cannot haue any faith at all in any other points since other points being not otherwise in a Protestants iudgement points of faith then as they are conclusions prooued out of Scripture cannot be more assuredly knowne then Scripture it selfe which is the onely Premise or Principle whence Protestants deduce all other points of their faith 1 MY Aduersary in a In THE WAY §. 9. but in his printed booke cap. 7. his treatise that I answered to shew that the Scripture is not the Rule whereby to find and iudge of true faith obiected the insufficiencie and imperfection thereof because there be diuers questions and points of faith not contained and determined therein Which he endeuours to proue by this argument here set downe Whereto I answered directly and in forme as b THE WAY §. 9. n. 3. inde the booke will shew The which my answer in this place he replies to as you see after his ordinary manner with bragging and saying nothing and casting out a few insolent speeches The Protestants struggle with this argument One may easily see how they sticke in the mire Onely two things to the purpose It seems M. White saw the weakenes of his answer c wherto I answer 2 First he sayes we struggle with this argument and sticke in the mire which in some sense I may not deny for when I vndertooke this Iesuit I struggled with a dunghill and therefore * Hoc scio pro certo quod si cuÌ„ stercâ—re c. no maruell if for my penance I sticke in the mire both here and in many other places of this reply his bragging and railing and facing it out with nothing when yet all this with many shall be accepted for sound diuinity being such as will bemire and weary any man in the world that desires nothing but the truth Otherwise my answer was direct and plaine for the point he is to proue is that the Scripture alone containes not nor determines the whole obiect of our faith but diuers points needfull to be beleeued are wanting in it and must be supplied by the authority and tradition of the Church his reason to proue this is the