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
is one thing it selfe that is beleeued the fore to be grounded on some superior authoritie Can loc l. ◠§. 8. D Weston layes the resolution of faith thus Our faith of any mystery is resolued into a former act wherby the Scripture containing this mystery is beleeued to be the word of God and this also is resolued into a former act as the cause thereof that the Church cannot erre Which we beleeue for the signes and notes which shew it to be a true Church Thus resoluing all diuine faith into humane motiues de Tripl offic c. 3. pag. 143. aduersaries themselues as I haue often shewed after all authoritie of Fathers Church Councels Pope and all do rest and resolue their faith vpon the second proposition of this Syllogisme I am taught this by Scripture our aduersaries denie not but Fathers Councels Popes may erre or if they cannot yet the authoritie of these things is not the reason of our faith for then faith should be humane but the inward authoritie of the Scripture and the Spirit of God If it be demanded how the Protestants can giue infallible assurance to others that they vnderstand the Scripture aright I answer that the same question is to be made to the Papists and both they and we must answer that vnlesse God illuminate their hearts we can giue no assurance neither they by the Church nor we by the Scripture but such as haue this illumination do see manifestly the truth of the things they haue beleeued But Luther he sayes held against the vniuersall Catholicke Church I answer and let all Papists well consider of it that they must proue this which I call the Papacie to be the vniuersall Catholicke Church afore they can say Luther was deceiued That they cannot proue but by the Scripture in which triall Luther shall retire to the Scripture no faster then themselues and then they may be deceiued as well as Luther in as much vnlesse they will runne in a round as all their other authoritie proofes and motiues must be tried by the Scriptures OVER WHICH GOD HATH SET NO VISIBLE IVDGE IN THIS WORLD THAT CAN INFALLIBLY CONVINCE AND PERSWADE ALL MEN. I wil make this plaine by laying downe the maner how Luther and how a Papist assures himselfe Luther and the Protestants for their part beleeue for example that a man is iustified by faith onely because the Scripture in plaine places excluding workes and proposing Gods free grace in Christ and maintaining the sole merits of Christ applied by faith debarres euery thing from iustifying that is in our selues and so teaches expresly that we are iustified onely by faith in Christ The Papists hold the contrary alledging the Church and the Pope whose doctrine they say it is that we are iustified by our workes But being demanded how we know infallibly that the Church or the Pope hath not erred in holding so they grant they may erre and answer that yet they are known not to erre in this point by the Scriptures which Scripture and the true sence thereof is knowne and beleeued for it selfe Here they are fallen into the same issue that the Protestants are I am taught this by the Scripture Now if they reply that we are infallibly assured the Scripture is meant as we say because the Church expounds it so who sees not that they make a circle thus to beleeue the Church first because of the Scripture and then againe to beleeue the Scripture because of the Church Their maine resolution therfore is the euidence and authoritie of the Scripture perswading them both that the doctrine is true and that the Church which teaches it is the true Church And so they lie open to the same cauils that are made against the Protestāts Luther in vnderstanding the Scripture may be deceiued so may they It is Luthers own cause so is this the Papists Luthers iudgment is to be suspected when he preferred himself before the iudgement of the Church The same say we to them They preferre their iudgement before the Church and all the Fathers in as much as we can shew the Church and Fathers to be against them and themselues professe that the Popes authoritie is aboue both Church and Fathers 2 Indeed if M. Luther had had a thousand Austins and Cyprians and other Fathers of the Church with one consent and plainly against him he had bin so much the more to be suspected for this is one maine thing that makes vs abhorre the present Roman Church because it prefers it selfe and the Popes determination before all the Doctors in the world but he neuer thought so nor said so His words are these in c Tom. 2. Wittemb pag 344. a booke that he writ against King Henry the 8. Lastly he produces the sayings of the Fathers for the establishing of the sacrifice of the Masse and sees my foolishnes who alone will be wiser then all other This is is it I say that by this my opinion is confirmed For this I said that these * His vnciuill speeches to the King himselfe afterward retracted Sleid. They are but a weak argumēt to discredit his reformation Lucifer Caralitanus his books against the Emperor Constantius are as bitter and violent If Luther offended against K. Harry the Iesuites and their supplies repay it to K. Iames and long since haue returned it with the interest to good Q. Elizabeth Thomisticall asses haue nothing to produce but a multitude of men and antique vse and then to him that brings the Scriptures to say Thou art the foolishest of all men that liue Art thou onely wise and then it must needs be so But to me who am the foolishest of all men it is sufficient that the most wise Henry can bring no Scripture against me nor answer that which is brought against him besides he is constrained to grant his Fathers haue often erred and his antique vse makes no article of faith in which it is lawfull but for the multitude of that Church to trust whereof he himselfe with his pardons is defender But against the saying of Fathers men Angels and diuels I oppose not ancient custome nor a multitude of men o This is that which the Fathers themselues aduise vnto when heresies haue long continued preuailed in the Church to flie to the Scriptures because the writings of the Fathers after the long continuance of heresie are in danger of corruption See Chrysost op imperf hom 49. sub init §. Tūo cum videritis abominationē Vincen. Lyrin cōmonit c. 39. but the word the Gospel of one eternal maiestie which themselues are constrained to allow wherein the Masse is euidently taught to be the signe and testament of God wherein he promises and by a signe certifies to vs his grace For this worke and word of God is not in our power here I set my foote here I sit here I abide here I glorie here I triumph here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Sophisters and
A DEFENCE OF THE WAY TO THE TRVE CHVRCH against A. D. his Reply Wherein The MOTIVES leading to Papistry And QVESTIONS touching the RVLE of Faith The AVTHORITIE of the Church The SVCCESSION of the Truth and The BEGINNING of Romish Innouations are handled and fully disputed By IOHN WHITE Doctor of Diuinity sometime of Gunwell and Caius Coll. in Cambridge I intreate and desire you all that setting aside what this or that man thinkes touching these matters you will inquire what the Scripture saies concerning them Chrysost in 2. Cor. hom 13. LONDON Printed for WILLIAM BARRET dwelling in Pauls Church-yard at the signe of the three Pigeons 1614. TO THE KINGS MOST EXCELLENT MAIESTIE IAMES BY THE grace of God King of great Brittaine France and Ireland defender of the Faith MOst dread and renowned Soueraigne may it please your excellent Maiestie Such is the power of true Religion and the hope that all men haue to be deliuered from error and their naturall miserie and to attaine supernaturall and eternall good thereby that they which haue tasted it cleaue vnto it more then to all the hopes of this life beside The law of thy mouth Psal 119. saith Dauid is better to me then thousands of gold and siluer This is the reason why the cause of religion and the state of our Church this day vnder your Highnesse most happy gouernement is so deare and acceptable to vs that the opposition and violence of our greatest enemies can neuer make vs weary of defending it but as the seruants of Isaac Gen. 26. when the Canaanites stopped their wels opened them againe and would neuer yeeld the inheritance of their master to the heards men of Gerar no more can we endure the truth of religion to be choaked with Popish heresies or the inheritance of our Lord to be taken from vs by the Swaines of Rome Nazianz orat 2. de Pace Gods blessed truth being of that value that in defence thereof his meekest seruants will stir and the mildest fight before it shall be indamaged by their forbearance Our assurance through Gods mercy of that we professe and the benefite of our faith and the certaine knowledge of our aduersaries vngodly and reprobate practises against it is such that no course of theirs can discourage vs no contention beate vs off no importunity make vs shrinke from that which we know to be the truth Aen. Sylu hist Bohem. When a certaine iester set on by others as it was thought in the presence of the king of Hungary spake to a Noble man of Prage touching his religion because he fancied not the Romish Seruice but was addicted to Rochezana a follower of Husse the Noble man gaue him this answer If thou speake of thy selfe thou art not the man thou conterfets and so I will answer thee as I would a wise man if by others setting on it is meete I satisfie them Heare me therefore Euery man vseth Church ceremonies agreeable to his faith and offers such sacrifices as he beleeues are acceptable with God it is not in our owne power to beleeue what we will THE MINDE OF MAN CONQVERED WITH POWERFVLL REASONS WILLING OR NILLING IS TAKEN CAPTIVE I am sufficiently resolued of the religiō I follow if I follow thine I may deceaue men but God that searches the hearts I cannot deceaue nor yet is it fit I should be like to thee one thing becomes a Iester and another thing a Nobleman this you may take to your selfe or report if you please to them that set you a worke This zeale of the truth and conscience surprised with the authority thereof is it which leades forward so many learned men of all sorts into contention with the Papists and constraines them both by vehement preaching and open writings to oppose them who neuer cease to corrupt the faith and poyson all sorts of people with discontent and violent hatred against their brethren and by the working of Iesuites and Seminaries much after the fashion of Antheninus the Mathematitian mentioned in Agathias to shake all the quarters of your kingdomes in which course through long practise and some conniuency and for want of straiter execution of the lawes against them the dangerous sequel whereof we will daily pray God to turne aside they are growne so vehement and fierie that scarce any part of our faith can please them no not the truthes that we hold in common with themselues nor any part of your Highnesse gouernment because it is not holdē in capite of the Pope Athenae The Stoikes beleeuing that none but a wise man could do any thing well concluded that therefore none but a wise man could make good pottage or season a messe of broth well and because in their conceite their master Zeno was the wisest of all men they concluded againe that the broth could not be good if it were not made after Zenoes direction whose vse was to prescribe to the twelfth part of a Coriander seed possible that he might haue primatum ollae or least the cookes of Lacedaemon should exempt themselues from his iurisdiction This Hildebrandine humor of ouerruling all things so possesseth our Aduersaries that now the Church of England hath neither God nor faith nor religion the King of England no crowne no dominion no subiects the state no iustice no lawes no gouernement because the Pope giues not the ingredients or confirmes them not I am the meanest person and least able of many and the best I can do falles short of that which these exquisite times require Theodor. de prouid l. 8. Theodorite saies The maiesty of things depends not a little vpon the manner of handling them and therefore such as meddle with any high argument haue neede of great power both of tongue and conceit because such as weigh the force of words more then the nature of things iudge of the things according to the weight or weakenesse of the words But the condition of the place where sometime I liued trāsported with much superstition and importuned with Romish Priests and their bookes and sometime their libelles set vpon our Church doores drew vpon me a necessity of doing what I was able when for diuers yeares I was inforced by priuate writings and conference to maintaine or expound what I preached openly The benefite whereof I found to be such both in stablishing my owne conscience and recouering the people and repelling such as seduced them that I was easily drawne forward to proceede and much of my time to bestow in dealing with the Seminaries vntill at the length it is now come to this that I am inforced in the open veiw of the world what I haue spoken in the eare Mat. 10.27 secretly that to publish on the house-top and now againe the second time to do that which I thought at the first to do but once My owne priuate condition is not such that I should greatly care what any man write against me all that
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
more clearely declared and more strongly confirmed by A.D. student in Diuinitie Wherein I mislike diuers things First that he stiles it A REPLY which is nothing lesse when he replies neither to all nor in forme to any thing but onely repeating the conclusions and arguments of some part of the Treatise mentioned and without any order making choise of what he lists in my booke to confute he sets downe my answers imperfectly and skipping from one thing to another and dissembling or quite omitting the strength and substance of that I writ he replies to few things in comparison and most an end occupies himselfe in rehearsing things that he should haue defended This is a sorie kind of Replying and a We hold it VNWORTHY the title of an Answer wherein all the authors best reasons are dissembled and quite omitted Bâ—â—arl protest apol p 61 vnworthy the Title especially in these dayes when our Seminaries haue challenged to themselues such an opinion of substantiall dealing and going through-stitch with euery thing they take in hand and the poore Booke hauing bene so terribly threatned They haue had it now foure yeares to blow vpon and many heauie imputations haue bene layed vpon it by no meane persons of their sect that would seeme to haue skill and courage and is all now resolued into this poore REPLY If they thought it vnworthy the answering why would they meddle with it If they would needs be medling why haue they not done it sincerely and in forme I haue b Onus eccl p. 30. n. 13. read how not farre from Rome there hath bene heard in the aire as it were the noise of an armie and blowing of trumpets and going off of gunnes as if there had bene some great businesse towards and yet when men haue come neare to view they haue seene nothing but a heard of swine and the footings of certaine strange beasts vpon the ground this be like was to warne the Pope that the noise of his champions and clamouâ—s of his people was but a meteore that would end in a little gruntling and trampling 2 Next I mislike the concealing of his name and shrouding of himselfe vnder a couple of letters yet because the ordinary practise thereof seemes to haue legitimated it I will forbeare all other kinde of censuring and onely in the words of three of his owne side let him see what I might say of it The first is c Search p. 16. Walsingham When I came to view and peruse the booke and finding it to be without name of author hauing onely a most bitter intitulation I began first to maruell at that because I did see no reason why any Protestant writer should conceale his name in so worthy a matter as is the defence of his religion for which his labour and learned trauell he might assuredly hope for so great praise and commendation not onely from men but reward from God also whose truth and Gospell he should acquit from such and so great blemishes of falshood and vntruth as were by the aduersaries thereof obiected against it So he The second is Cardinall Bellarmine d Tract de potest sum Pont. adu Baâ—cl praefat Hee that set foorth Barklies booke neither put to his name nor the name of the Printer or place where it was printed he was afraid belike and not without cause either that he should be punished or discommended for it These are no signes of a good worke For he that euill doth hateth the light lest his workes be reproued whereas he that doth the truth comes to the light that his workes may be knowne to be of God Ioh. 3. The third is Iesuite Becane e Quaest Batav opusc tom 3. p. 140. Yea but you haue another name which you dissemble What 's the reason Your Hollanders will thinke one thing but I thinke another MY OPINION IS YOV DO IT THAT YOV MAY THE MORE SECVRELY LIE AND PLAY THE IMPOSTOR It is not said for nothing in the Gospell He that euill doth hateth the light and in the Epistle to the Thessalonians They that are drunke are drunke in the night And certainly IF YOV WERE A GOOD MAN YOV WOVLD NOT BE ASHAMED OF YOVR NAME to confesse who you are now when you do otherwise how can any man chuse but suspect you When you flie the light WHO WILL NOT TAKE YOV FOR A NIGHT-BIRD But Papists may do that which is not permitted vs. For f Poggh faceâ— the Pope was wont to haue his iester when he told him tales to make him sport to do it standing behind a cloth in a corner for being outfaced And it should seeme our Seminary-priests haue obtained the same fauour that standing out of fight behind the shreene they may be the bolder to vtter that which being bashfull they would be loath to speake bare faced If this be so I am satisfied good reason euery Order enioy his priuiledge 3 In the Title also hee calls vs Ministers g Such is the ordinarie and common ignominie and dishonor to be reputed a MINISTER in the English Church that I suppose very few or no Catholike Priests of that nation would change their HONOVR euen in England with so base and infamous a generation R. B. resolut relig p 54. Of which HONOVR of Popish Priests in the times past one writes Nam homines Ecclesiastics sua culâ—a ita profanarunt sâ— ordinem suum quod iam planè à magnis à paruâ—s in toto mundo habeantur despectui Ioh. Mar. Belg. de schism concil pag. 467. ex Alan Chartier in contempt But we haue the vantage of him for whereas he cannot shew one place in all the new Testament where the Preachers of the Gospell and Pastors of the Church are intitled Priests as he is albeit the name may be vsed well enough in his due sense by those that are the Ministers of Iesus Christ and not the vassals of Antichrist we can shew where they h Act. 13.2 20 24. 1. Cor. 4 1. 2. Cor. 3 6. 5.18 Eph. 3.7 4.12 6.21 Col. 1.7.23.27 4.7 1. Thess 3 2.1 Tim. 4.6 2. Tim 4.5.11 are called Ministers and their worke Ministerie and our contentment is that being called to the worke of this Ministerie we carie a Name that imports no more Whereas Masse-priests and Soulepriests Friars Iesuites and Seminaries not onely are the titles of those that weare Christs liuerie and do seruice to Antichrist but are become the names of the vnnaturallest monsters and wickedst persons that liue in the world as all the Churches and States thereof this day feele by experience and this kingdome can well testifie 4 Vnder the Title he writes this sentence of Scripture Ecclesia est columna firmamentum veritatis The Church is the pillar and firmament of truth 1. Tim. 3. He had read belike in i Rat. 3. Campian that the name of the Church would terrifie the Protestants and
make them pale for feare and therefore he would affixe it though I for my part will thinke he doe it not so much to terrifie vs as to gull his owne with the name of the Church If he had in any good fashion defended the exposition and application he made of it k THE WAY § 15. Reply pag. 223 in his Treatise he might haue vsed it the better and it would haue made vs the more afraid but hauing left it in the lash where I answered it he is not worthy so faire a text should come vnder his title Neuerthelesse there is good vse to be made of it against himselfe For if the Church be the pillar of truth and the Papacie which he striues for in his Reply be the pillar of lies then it will follow the Papacie is not the Church The first proposition is his text The second neither his Reply nor Treatise can put by The conclusion therefore is the truth And so the Text may keep his place to good purpose 5 On the backside of the same page hee hath placed in Latin and English this sentence of Saint Austin de vtil cred c. 8. If thou seeme to thy selfe to be sufficiently tossed to wit in doubts questions or controuersies of faith and wouldest make an end of these labours follow the way of the Catholicke discipline which did proceed from Christ himselfe by the Apostles euen vnto vs and from hence shall be deriued to posteritie I guesse his minde was to allude to the title of my booke which I called THE WAY and because therein I defend the way of the Scripture followed by the vniuersall Church which he likes not therefore he brings S. Austin reuoking vs to the way of Catholicke discipline This man sure hath a strange apprehension * Denique addimus Ecclesiam quae nunc Pontifici Romano obtemperat ture ac merito Catholicae nomen sibi vendicare eademque ratio ne fidem eius Catholicam esse censendam appellandam Suar. de fens si◠Cathol aduers Anglic. sect err l. 1. c. 12. nu 9. to thinke that wheresoeuer the Fathers vse the word Catholicke they vnderstand thereby this New-Roman-Catholicke and when they speake of Catholicke discipline they vnderstand his Church proposition determined by the Pope when they affirme nothing else but the doctrine contained and written in the Scriptures to be Catholicke and the discipline whereby men are directed both in faith and manners So S. Austin expounds himselfe l Cap. 6. in the same place Beleeue me whatsoeuer is in those SCRIPTVRES is loftie and diuine THERE is altogether IN THEM the truth and discipline most accommodate for the renewing and repairing of our mindes and so qualified that there is NO MAN BVT FROM THENCE HE MAY DRAW THAT WHICH IS SVFFICIENT for him if to the drawing he come deuoutly and godly as true religion requires So also Theophilus Alexandrinus m Epist 1. Pas chal pag. 377. cals the medicines taken out of the holy Scriptures for the curing of heresies the ecclesiasticall discipline The WAY to the Church therefore and S. Austins WAY of Catholicke discipline are both one because they both are the way of the Scripture and that sufficient and easie way which the simplest that is may finde though the Pope with his authoritie and traditions intermeddle not and he that will seeke the Catholicke discipline by Saint Austins consent must do it in the SCRIPTVRE which I doubt will not greatly please this Iesuite who hath spent all his time in groping for it about the Popes stoole he being the man when all is done that must determine this discipline and * Cum Pontisex definit Ecclesia per caput suum loquitur Suar. vbi sup c. 2◠nu 7. the mouth whereby their Catholicke Church must vtter and expound it 6 In the next page followes a Table of the contents of his booke and after that a short Preface to the Reader wherein first he commends his booke that I confuted and his Method vsed therein to bring men to resolution and then shewes how he was vrged by our writing against it to this Reply excusing himselfe for the plainesse of his stile and concluding with a grieuous complaint of our vnsincere dealing which he proceeds to shew in that which followes The Commendation that he giues his Method may not be denied for we allow Apes to hugge their yong ones and heretickes to conceit their owne deuices and I must confesse it is good round Method indeed for the purpose and profitable for them to be followed For if you will see it this it is Good Eue for your soules health I were readie to shed my best bloud and therefore haue ventured my life as you see vpon the entertainment you know of such as I find in the hiding roomes to bring you home to the Catholicke Church your Method is this Close vp your eies and examine nothing but obstinately renouncing the Protestants and stopping your eares against the Scriptures in all things beleeue vs who on my owne word are the Church of God and submitting your selfe to the direction of your ghostly father without more adoe be resolute and you shall easily be perswaded of our Roman faith This is a good sure Method to resolution and makes many resolute indeed and the Iesuite hauing found by experience how kindly it works with good natures had reason to commend it though in any indifferent iudgement it be a poore one as will appeare The rest of his Preface is trash come we to that which is materiall 7 After the Preface to shew my vnsincere dealing whereof he complaines he makes a title of examples of grosse vntruths gathered out of M Woottons and M. Whites bookes by which the discreete reader may see how little sinceritie or care of truth they haue had and consequently how little credit is to be giuen to their writings and hauing dispatched M. Wootton he comes to me with these words Now to come to M. White whose booke is said to do much more harme among the simple then M. Woottons doth I hope I shall lay open such foule want of sinceritie and care of truth in him as it will plainly appeare that those which shall hereafter take harme by giuing credence to his words or writings shall shew themseluis to be very simple indeed So that in all probabilie he should haue some great matter to shew that makes so large an offer and yet euery one of these examples will proue in the scanning so many testimonies of his owne weaknesse and immodesty when hauing had the book foure yeares in his hands and so many of his consorts to ioyne with him in replying all which time their rage against it and desire to discredit it and vowes to confute it appeared well enough yet now at the last can obiect no other examples of vntruth then these And that we may know he comes furnished he cals for a railing roome to brawle in
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.
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
d Syllog Whatsoeuer he taught by word of mouth the same by his Epistles he reuoked to their memory But he taught al things belōging to faith by word of mouth Therefore by his Epistles he reuoked the same to memory But his Epistles are written therfore by writing he reuoked to their memorie all things belōging to faith Therefore all things belonging to faith are written is from the demonstration of holy inspired Scriptures b Iren. l. 3 c. 1. For the disposing of our saluation we haue not knowne by any other but those by whom the Gospell came vnto vs the which then they preached but afterward by Gods appointment they deliuered vnto vs in the Scriptures to be the foundatiō and pillar of our faith And c Ibid. c. 2. Whē hereticks are conuinced out of the Scriptures they fal to accusing them as if they were not right nor from authoritie because they are variably spoken and from them the truth cannot be found of those that know not Tradition inasmuch as this truth was not deliuered by writing but by word of mouth Thus speakes the ancient Church in expresse termes pointing to our aduersaries whereby the Reader may iudge which of vs beare most good will to the Church and Scriptures and if the Iesuite will yeeld to that Nicephorus q writes in his Ecclesiasticall historie that whatsoeuer S. Paul being present taught by word of mouth among the Corinths Ephesians Galatians Colossians Philippians Thessalonians Iewes Romanes and many other townes whereunto the holy Ghost sent him and whom he begat in the faith of Christ the same being absent by his Epistles sent to them he compendiously reuoketh into their memorie Then forasmuch as the Apostles preached nothing to any but what they set downe in the Epistles the Protestants haue good reason to admit onely Scripture because it containes all the preaching of the Apostles whatsoeuer Let the Iesuite in the course of his studies and all Papists in the heate of their zeale marke these and such like our grounds and well consider them Pag. 32. A.D. As concerning his second mark wherein he says the very face of our Church is cleane contrary to the first antiquitie if he mean that there is some accidentall difference either in personall qualities of particular men or in some point of outward estate and manner of gouernment betwixt the first primitiue age or infancie of the Church and that other estate which after it had and now hath when it is at full growth this is not an argument sufficient to make men doubt of our religion more then to see some accidental alteration betwixt the infancy elder age of a man is any argument sufficient to make one doubt whether he be substantially the same man or no but if he meane that there is any substantiall difference in any doctrine of faith his assertion is very false as I declare in the Appendix annexed to this my Reply where particular answer is made to the chiefe matters against which here he taketh exception 8 I meane and expresse so much that betweene the present Roman Church and the ancient there is a substantiall difference in many doctrines of faith and not such an accidentall difference onely as the Iesuite mentions And because I desire no man to credit my bare word I named the Hierarchie of the Church of Rome consisting in the state and iurisdiction of the Roman cleargie which is simply the substantiallest point that they count of and foure other points and my speech was of that latitude that it chargeth them with innouation in all the rest the booke it selfe afterward shewing it in particular so fully and directly that all the Iesuites in England dare not lay railing and cauilling aside and answer what I said temperately and ingeniously for that which the Iesuite sayes in the Appendix he hath made particular answer is vntrue he hath answered particularly to nothing nor can he But knowing his sectaries were either so slothfull that they would not reade his booke so far or so forgetfull that when they came to the Appendix this matter would be out of their head he was bold in this place to promise what he neuer meant there to pay though whatsoeuer he say there is sufficiently answered I am sorie at my heart for my countrimen that haue these tricks put vpon them to seduce and peruert them I beseech them by the mercies of Iesus Christ that as I penned my booke out of my loue to them and desire of their saluation for the which I would sacrifice my life and all the hopes I haue in this world so they will faithfully examine how the contents thereof are answered by this Reply who if I be not deceiued is farre vnable to meddle with these things CHAP. X. 1. The practise of the Papists in purging bookes 2. The sacrifice of the Masse and Reall presence denied 4. Points of Papistrie absurd 6. The Pope Lords it ouer all Papists need pay no debts May be traitors to murther Princes 7. Iesuites plotters in the Powder-treason The Popes dispensing with sinne 8. A meditation for all Papists A. D. M. Whites third marke is set downe by him in these words Pag. 31. There is no point of our faith but many learned in their owne Church hold it with vs. And no point of Papistrie that we haue reiected but some of themselues haue misliked as well as we And this saith he may be demonstrated in all the questions that are betweene vs and they know it c. Thus farre are M. Whites words The which containe in them so many blacke lies as there are instances which may be giuen of particular points both of Catholicke doctrine reiected by Protestants and not misliked by any of our selues and of Protestant doctrine not patronized nor held by any learned men of our Church And to omit other instances I aske M. White how many learned men of our Church haue denied the Masse to containe a Sacrifice in such sort as Protestants do denie How many also will he finde to affirme that Christ his blessed bodie is onely figuratiuely in the Sacrament or in such sort that the reall substance of it is no nearer them that receiue the Sacrament then heauen is to earth as by the Caluinists is held against the Romane Church Let M. White for his credit produce if he can many or any learned men of our Church which hold in these points with Caluinists against the Romane faith As for the Index expurgatorius which M. White mentioneth and the practise and vse of it our Authors haue sufficiently answered namely N.D. in his Warnword and the author of the booke called the Grounds of the old and new religion in his answer to M. Crashaw annexed to the said booke 1 THat which I said I shewed in my book where in euery controuersie that fell out betweene vs I haue produced popish writers one against another either iustifying our doctrine or crossing
the money rated Among the grieuances of the States of Germany this was d Grauam Ger. n. 3. infascic re expet fug one that the Popes pardoners granted freedome for * Noxas praeteritas nut futuras times to come and so filled the countrey with all whordome incest periury murder theft rapine vsurie Onus Ecclesiae e Cap. 15. n. 47. pag. 27. sayes it is manifest our Mother the Church with her children are not a little perplexed and rent about the rule and manner of penances and pardons and without Gods great helpe she will neuer be able to deliuer her selfe 8 And thus not onely the common sort of Protestants but the resolutest Papists also that are may see whether we relate the points of their doctrine truly or no and the Reasons and Authorities for which they are beleeued among them and when their deeds are so apparant that very children in the streets obserue them and all their books so full of these damnable doctrines that they contriue almost nothing else they must not thinke with crying out blacke lies ignorant and malitious Ministers shameles and slanderous vntruths to shift themselues it were a better way for them and more expedient for the saluation of their soules and the edification of so many people from whom with fraud and treachery they conceale these things to confesse them and forsake them remembring there is a God that hates lying and will be reuenged on treason and falsehood For our parts when we report these things we do it not in malice or vntruly but to admonish the world what wolues they be that thus iet vp and downe in sheepes clothing CHAP. XI 1. The Papists manner of dealing with immodesty and vncharitablenes Briarly and Walsinghams bookes noted 2. Some reports of the Papists meekenes and mildnes Hunt a Seminary arraigned at Lancaster The dumbe cattell slaughtered in Lanc. The generall desire of vs all to reduce them to charity A. D. The fifth marke saith M. White is their intemperate and vnchristian proceeding against vs for saith he if they were of the truth they would not defend themselues and deale against vs with grosse lying vncharitable railing irreconciliable malice which are the weapons darkenesse but with grauitie and sincerite as becomes Christs Gospell Thus he who with more truth might haue told many of his owne-Protestant * Whether this imputatioÌ„ made by M. White against vs be more fitly applied to Protestants or Catholiks J refer me to those who shall with indifferency read and compare their writings and particularly J wish the reader to reade and note what after due examination was found and is set down in priâ—e by M. Walsingham once an earnest Portestant and now a good Catholike conuerted partly by obseruation of the syncerity of Catholiks and grosse lying euidently found to be frequented by not onely one but diuers chiefe protestant writers brethren of these soule faults with which he falsely chargeth vs and might also haue found himselfe so grossely guiltie in the same kinde as he should have bene afraid to cast these stones of calumniation against vs least with shame they should be more iustly returned against himselfe whom I haue now so freshly taken with the manner of intemperate and vnchristian proceeding aagainst vs to wit with grosse lying vnchristian rayling and malice I will not say as he doth irreconciliable malice because I will in charity hope the best that he may repent and amend and so be reconciled to vs which reconciliation when he shall syncerely desire and seeke he shall by experience finde that we do not beare irreconciliable malice but will with all charity receive him and that he need not feare that we will vse any ceremony of exorcizing him as a possessed persoÌ„ which is neuer vsed by vs when ordinary Protestants euen Ministers are conuerted as those that have bene conuerted can tell He shall then finde also that which now praeiudicate conceipt will not let him see that our authors who charge Protestant writers with absurd opinions had iust cause so to do and that there is among vs ordinarily that spirit of meekenesse and forbearance farre more then is ceteris paribus or can be expected to be among Protestants Ordinarilie I say because so farre forth as any of our men haue threatned or attempted any vnfit thing or haue in their writings or actions demeaned themselues otherwise then in ChristiaÌ„ duty they ought our Church doctrine doth dissalow it and therefore no reason that their priuate faults or errors should be ascribed to our Church whereas on the contrarie side it may be doubted whether Protestants may in like manner pleade that their Church doctrine doth also dissalow all misdemeanors of their men because diuers of eueÌ„ their * See the Protestants Apology principall pillars and chiefe men either by wordes examples or writings haue without controlment of any of their Church Canons opened the gap to far more rancour impatience and rebellion against their Catholike Soueraignes then can be shewed in Catholikes against their Protestant Princes 1 IN all this you see not a word that disprooues my obiection but onely a little passion and wrinkling of his face ioyned with some charitable speeches concerning himselfe all which is easily done by a man of his practise but I contemne it and therefore to the matter I named in my Booke for a taste some speciall points wherein I thought the lying and malice wherewith I charged them might appeare their giuing it out that we hold God to be the author of sin deny good workes to be necessary put women recusants into the stewes pull downe Churches make hauock of their Cardinals Archbishops Doctors Nobles Queenes What not as if there had neuer bene any persecuted as Papists be That they hold vs Protestants to be possessed that they haue an order in their Church to exorcize and coniure a reconciled Protestant that all the Queenes time most vnnaturally and barbarously they threatned the land and by execrable treasons conspired against it and that they haue reported and practised these things I shewed out of their booke naming the place and leafe of euery booke as the reader may see and thereupon charged them with intemperate and vnchristian proceeding against vs and said that if they were of the truth they would not thus defend themselues with lying rayling and malice Wherein how truely I speake the reader must iudge by this that the Iesuit excepts not against my quotations wherein I shewed this which are true and full but answers me with bare denials and idle passion alleadging the bookes of Walsingham and Briarly wherein he sayes they haue shewed Protestants to be more guilty of these things as if he should haue replied Aske my fellow if I be a theefe which of themselues are enough to iustifie my speech if there were no other matter extant to charge our adversaries withall this waies that Papists deale against vs with the weapons of
must we alone hold our peace my head is broken on euery side and when the blood gushes out round about shall I thinke to hide it Whatsoever I put about it will be bloodied and my shame will be the greater thus to go about to hide that which will not be hidden This is it that I say for my selfe against the Iesuites reproches come we now to his Reply First he answers that in all his acquaintance here there he may protest that he neuer heard any one of these his examples and absurd forms of Prayer to be vsed by any and divers Catholikes of far better credite then M. White being demaunded their knowledge about this point haue not knowen any Catholike man or woman to vse them Wherein he mocks the reader to his face three times ouer First in producing himselfe and his Catholikes for witnesses whom no man knowes against M. White that stands openly in the face of the world and is knowne to all where he dwels and what he is and lies subject in his person and name to the open and secret censure of the world if he speake vntruly whereas this masked Iesuite and his Catholikes of so good credit and his person of good esteeme whose words he alledges are all shadowes and Idols that no man knowes to whom any thing that they say can be imputed because they are inuisible we heare the sound of an A and a D. and the Ghost possibly of a Gentlewoman but what they are and where and how I may let my countrey see their face that thus walke in the darke I know not but these are the waies of Iesuites a maske a darke roome a blinde lanterne a vault and two or three blanke letters and thence they fight with all this noise Next he mocks vs againe in that he sayes he neuer heard any of these formes for no doubt he hath heard as bad as these in other words if he haue not heard these and I make no question but some of those Catholikes that haue bene demanded their knowledge about this point if they were ouerheard when they say their prayers would speake no better For I haue heard many repeat their praiers yet neuer did I heare one speake in any tollerable forme And any man may easily perceiue it is scarce possible that they which vnderstand no Latine should pronounce it otherwise then as I haue set downe Thirdly where he saies he and his Catholikes neuer heard any of these things as though Seminaries ordinarily vsed to examine or heare how their people say their praiers who are well knowne to haue many things else they minde more and when their people haue learned to refuse the Church that they once possesse them they greatly passe not either what they be or how they pray so they pray not with vnderstanding But he saies M. White met at an Alehouse some drunken old man or some dâ—â—ing wife and of them he might receiue this rotten stuffe Indeed the Legend tels of Iohn the Almoner that seeing his people in the time of diuine seruice going out of the Church to the Alehouse tooke his booke and followed them saying that where the sheepe were there the Shepheard must be also yet M. White neuer vsed that course when his people went to the Ale-house but left it to Seminaries who were as good Alebeaters in their disguised habit as either the drunken old maÌ„ or the doting old wife here mentioned And to let the Iesuit plainly vnderstand where I receiued this ridiculous rotten stuffe I observed and learned it of the people where I dwelt diuers whereof I haue heard thus to say their praiers when I haue examined them or otherwise intreated them sometime at their owne houses where they dwelt and somtime at mine and I know the guise of popish people so well that schollers excepted the laity of them generally as well yong as old sober as drunken gentle as simple pronounce their Latine praiers no better which is the barbarous ignorance that I reported We reade in a De consecrat d. 4. Retulerunt Gratian how Priests baptised in Nomine Patria Filia Spiritua sancta and no man I thinke will deny but in king Henry and Queene Maries times many Masse priests in all parts of the land went ordinarily to the Grammar schoole to learne to reade their Portuisse that no man wonder at this brutishnesse in the laity which was little lesse in a great part of the Cleargy and what I said of their Ceremonies also those that liue in the countrey know to be true And what they sauour of whether the purity and simplicitie of Christianity or the fashion of the Gentiles b Tertull. de coron militis so much detested by antiquitie let who so will iudge For my own part though I iudge not such as vse them in their simplicity and ignorance yet I abhorre and detest those wreches that taking vpon them to be their ghostly fathers yet suffer them to liue in that brutish superstition 2 But that which the Reply takes most vnkindly is a speech that I added after I had set downe those formes of praier It cannot be answered that these are the customes of a few simple people for this is generall throughout the Countrey the most men and women deuoted to Papistry though well borne and of good place yet lye plunged in this ignorance which last wordes were it should seeme a Prophecy For you see how the touching of this sore puts him into passion and my Booke was scarce come out when many of this Better sort had it by the ende and quarrelled it yet if we had meanes to make the triall it would fall out to be true for I know not what faculty or priuiledge a gentleman or his wife for example that vnderstands no Latine hath to pronounce it any better then their tenants here I auouch againe in his presence that knowes all things that the same ignorance and rudenesse wherewith I charge the vulgar people I haue obserued in diuers of the better sort and the Iesuit is but vnwise to deny it For if white Pater noster and little Creed be good Physicke for the vulgar I know not but Catholiks of greater note may vse them too c Phil. Camerar meditat hist When an Emperour lay in the pangue of the gout he cried out that now he differed nothing from a cloune he felt the same disease and the same paine and pangs without any difference So I suppose this rude ignorance in such as are well borne and of good place is of no other nature then that which is in the common sort yet the Iesuit you see is earnester for them then the rest and possibly he hath reason Ladies and Gentlewomen and men of worth can see better then a poore client it s not a drunken old man or a doting wife that can merit a Seminaries zeale leaue them in an Alehouse with M. White saying their white
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
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
whereof all this question rises 5 Our Aduersaries holding many points of religion which we refuse we require them to shew vs the said points in the Scriptures if they will either haue vs to beleeue them or free themselues from heresie their Tradition their Purgatory their Masse their Latine seruice their Transubstantiation their Images their seuen Sacraments their Inuocation of Saints and all the rest wherein we differ * This is shewed c. 28. n. 3. Their answer is that many diuine truthes and articles of faith are not contained in the Scriptures but reuealed by Tradition and Church authoritie which are to be receiued and beleeued as well as that which is written * The original cause why the Papists set a foot the question touching the insufficiency of the Scripture This is the originall reason why they stand thus against the sufficiency of the written word for their Church authoritie and to proue this they vse the Argument here propounded by the Reply and descant with it as you see Which is an impertinent kinde of proceeding when this point whether the Bookes contained in holy writ be Gods word is no question betweene vs but agreed vpon of all hands but the question is touching other speciall articles Images adoration halfe communion and such like a number more whether not being contained in the Scripture men are bound to beleeue them For touching these things it is properly that we say Nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture And therefore this argument is impertinent For where we affirme all points of faith to be comprised within the body of the Scripture we distinguish first of the things which we say are comprised for albeit we firmely hold the diuine truth and authoritie of these Bookes to be euident in themselues yet the points that we meane in this question are touching other matters for neither they nor we deny the Scripture but both they and we deny many things to be contained in it Secondly then againe of the manner how things are comprised for all other things are comprised in Scripture as the duty obedience of subiects is in the kings lawes and as true speaking is contained in Grammar or the right forme of resoluing in Logicke but this one point is so contained as light is in the Sunne or sweete in hony and according to the same notion whereby the authoritie of the Law and truth of Principles is contained in themselues This is it which very briefly I answered in * THE WAIE § 9. 3. digr 11. n. 17. two seuerall places of my Booke Now let us see what the Iesuite replies to it To this saith he I reply that principles insciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of termes 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 superiour science by some other principle more euident to vs. But that these Bookes which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other principle more euident to vs that these Bookes which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture The substance of his Reply is that all principles are either euident of themselues or not euident such principles as are euident he grants need no prouing but the Scriptures are principles of religiō not euident of themselues but such as need to be demonstrated to be Gods word by some other principle in a higher science more euident to vs both denying them to be euident and also to be made so by onely declaring the words wherein they are vttered And to proue this he saies in the margent if it were euident that these Bookes in the Bible are diuine Scripture how is it onely beleeued by faith for Saint Paule cals faith Argumentū non apparentium Heb. 11.1 1. My answer is that the Scriptures are principles euident of themselues to those that haue the Spirit of God and such as need not to be proued by Church authoritie but onely to be reuealed and expounded according to that which is in themselues This my answer to helpe the reader out of the Iesuits perplexed discourse I will lay downe and explicate in 3. propositions First the Scripture in diuinitie hath the same office that principles haue in sciences that as the rules and principles of Grammar teach all true speaking and as the elements of Arithmeticke teach all right numbring so the doctrine contained in the Scriptures teaches all true faith Secondly as they are the principles of religion and rule of faith so they enioy the same priuiledge that principles do in forren Professions that is to be receiued and assented to for themselues without discourse For e Atist Poster c. 1. no humane science proues it owne principles or disputes against him that denies them and although the principles of an inferiour science may be demonstrated in a superiour yet this befalles not that which is the highest as the Metaphysicks which hauing no superiour science neither stands to demonstrate it selfe nor to receiue demonstration from another but our vnderstanding assents immediatly to the principles thereof and so goes forward by them to discerne of other things In the same manner the Scripture hauing no superiour science or rule aboue it is like these principles receiued for it selfe and is not occupied in prouing it selfe and the principles therin contained but shewing other things by them it selfe must be assented to without discourse by faith before we can argue out of it Thirdly all demonstration and proofe of principles is onely voluntary not necessarie against him that denies them as in Musicke the Musitian demonstrates his precepts not thereby to teach his arte but to conuince him that denies it Hence appeares the insufficiency of my aduersaries reply First in that he saies principles are not euident but need demonstration that so the Scriptures being yeelded to be the principles of religion yet they should not be receiued vnlesse they proue themselues vntill the authoritie of the Church come There is no man acquainted with f Principia per seipsa nata sunt cognosci reliqua verò per principia Arist prio l. 2 c. 18. idem Procl in Euclid l. 2. c. 2. humane art will say so His owne Thomas g Tho. 1. part q. 1. art 8. sayes that like as other sciences do not argue to proue their owne principles but out of the principles argue to shew other things so the sacred doctrine doth not argue to proue the owne principles but from them proceeds to shew something The same is said by h Capreol prol in 1. part q. 1. pag. 24. Greg. Valent. tom 1. pag. 50. a. others Next it is false that the Scripture is like those principles which need
is manifestly gathered from that which of it selfe is manifest as that a stone cannot moue vpward of it selfe naturally because all heauie things naturally moue downeward Hence it is plaine that * Albeit faith rest not vpon that eu dence but vpon duine reuelatioÌ„ Fides non elicit actus suos mediante discursu sed sicut visus immediate fertur in obiectum sub ratione lucidâ—â—ta etiam fulei habitus in suum obiectum sub ratione diuinae reuelationis The contrary whereof is Manichisme Putaruâ—t nihil amplius esse â—re dendum quà m quod possit euidenti ratione demonstrari August de vtil credend c. 1. tom 6. many obiects of faith may also be euident because that which is beleeued may also in some respect be seene as Peter that beleeued Christ yet also saw him Or otherwise be knowne by the light of nature or gathered from that which is knowne as that there is a God And before I read this in my aduersaries margent I neuer knew but there was a compossibilitie of faith and euidence in diuers respects whereby they might both stand together in the same man about the same obiect Eymericus n Eymeric Directo part 1. q. 2 n. 2. sayes We may know the vnitie of the Deitie by naturall reason yet we beleeue one God Delgado o De Author Script pag. 51. Many diuine things touching God which are receiued by faith may also be found out by naturall reason Caietan p Caiet 22. qu. 175. art 3. sayes though Paul were rapt into the third heauens where he saw things which before hee beleeued yet the habit of faith touching those things remained in him still c. Faith and knowledge q Mayro 3. d. 23. art 6. pag. 13 sayes Francis Mayronis are habits that may stand together Faith by authoritie reuealed knowledge by euident demonstration Thus it is no contradiction that the same obiect be beleeued by authoritie and euidently knowne by demonstration Altisiodorensis r Altisiod sum l. 3. pag. 273. According to diuers apprehensions the same thing is knowne and beleeued beleeued and doubted Å¿ Mag. 3. d. 24. Alexand. 3. part qu. 79. m. 3. Tho. 22. qu. 2. art 4. cont Gent l. 1. c. 4 Occh. 3. q. 8. art 4. c. Duran prol sent pag. 4 c. Ricard 3. d. 24. q. 5. pag. 85. Gabr. 3. d 24. qu. vnic art 2. concl 2. Henric. Albert. Bonau Tarantas quos refert sequitur Dionys 3. d. 24. Simanch cath instit tit 28 n. 18. Rectè porro Caiet ex hoc loco Pauli argumentatur esse nonnulla quae de Deo euidenter cognosci demonstratiue probari queant Perer. select disp in Roma pag. 83. The principallest Schoole-men that are do all hold thus which I would not haue noted so curiously but to beate the confidence of my aduersary thus peremptorily auouching against me that he knowes not For albeit faith exceeds the dimension of reason yet reason is subordinate to it as sense is to vnderstanding And therefore as it is no inconuenience to say we vnderstand the same things we see no more is it to say we beleeue that which is euident in diuers respects How many things are we commanded in the Scripture to beleeue which yet we can demonstrate by reason as that there is a God and the immortalitie of the soule For as one may reueale a thing to another two wayes together first by shewing him a light to see it and then by proposing some externall signe or marke whereby to finde it or some image or description whereby to conceiue it so God hath shewed vs the Scripture to be diuine not onely by the light that shines in it whereby we beleeue it but also by the outward contexture of it containing the image of the diuine wisedome and puritie as the principles of sciences shew their owne authoritie The place cited out of the Hebrewes is answered by that I haue said CHAP. XX. 1. A continuation of the same matter touching the Churches authoritie in giuing testimonie to the Scriptures 2. The Scripture proues it selfe to be Gods word 3. The light of the Scripture 4. 5. How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit 6. The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture 7. The Papists retiring to the Spirit 8. And casting off the Fathers A Councell is aboue the Pope The Pope may erre A.D. It seemeth M. White saw the weaknesse of this his first answer Pag. 70. White pag. 47. and therefore not standing vpon it he secondly attempteth to proue Scripture to be diuine out of the Scripture For saith he S Paul 1 1. Tim. 3 v. 16 saith All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God and S. Peter 2 2. Pet. 1. v. 20. saith no prophesie in the Scripture is of priuate interpretation but the holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost Against this I reply that my argument doth not enquire onely how we proue in generall that there is any diuine Scripture at all which is all that these or any such like sentences can proue but chiefly I aske how we proue these books in particular which the Church now vseth bearing the titles of S. Matthews S. Marks Gospel c. to be diuine Scripture to be the same which was written by those writers whose title they beare For vpon the certain beliefe hereof dependeth the certaintie of other points proued out of these bookes Now it is certaine that this is not proued by those sentences of Scripture since it may be true that there is some diuine Scripture and that all true diuine Scripture was inspired by God and yet if we seclude Tradition and Church-authoritie the question may still be whether S. Matthewes S. Markes Gospell c. especially these in particular which are now vsed are part of that Scripture which these sentences speake of Secondly I say that before these sentences proue sufficiently that there is any diuine Scripture at at all these sentences themselues must be supposed to be diuine the which cannot sufficiently be proued either by themselues or any other like sentences if we exclude Tradition which doth shew that they be diuine 1 All this I answered in the words of my Booke a Digress 12. immediatly following these words that he hath cited and that so briefly directly that nothing could be spoken plainer To proue the imperfection of the Scripture he had said it was no where expresly set downe and determined in Scripture that these bookes are the true word of God this in particular of euerie Booke holden for Scripture we shall not finde expresly written in any part of the Scripture Whereto I answered that it was written expresly that b 2. Tim. 3.16 All Scripture is giuen by inspiration and c 2. Pet. 1.20 No Scripture is of priuate interpretation but the holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost
d Luc. 1 70. God spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets therefore it is expresly written that all the bookes of Scripture are Gods word Any man may see this answer to be full his question being touching this Scripture that we vse and haue in our hand where therein it was written that it selfe is Gods word For I answer that it is written in these three places whereof he hath here rehearsed two Now he replies that he doth not onely enquire how we proue in generall that there is any diuine Scripture at all but how we proue these bookes which the Church now vses to be the same that those men writ whose titles they beare which he sayes cannot be proued by the Scriptures alledged because it may still be doubted whether these bookes that we vse as the Gospell of Matthew and Marke for example be part of that Scripture which the texts alledged affirme to be inspired of God and it must likewise be proued that these texts that affirme this are themselues the word of God Whereto I answer first that granting these places to proue some diuine Scripture to be and to be inspired of God it must be granted that the Scripture may be proued so to be by the Scripture it selfe For these sentences All Scripture is giuen by inspiration Holy men spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost and such like places could not proue so much as in generall that any bookes at all whether it were these that we vse or no are diuine Scripture if themselues were not diuine I say they could not proue it truly and effectually they might say it but they could not proue it because that which shall proue it must it selfe first be a diuine testimonie Secondly prouing some diuine Scripture to be and to be inspired they proue this that we vse to be such because they so mention the Scripture they speake of that it appeares to be this that we vse and it is agreed vpon of all hands that there is no scripture but this and therefore speaking of some scripture they speake of this This is my argument That Scripture whereof the sentences alledged speake is proued thereby to be diuine But the sentences alledged speake of the same Scripture that we vse For the Church hath alwayes vnderstood it so The sentences therefore alledged proue this Scripture that we vse to be diuine And so my aduersaries demaund is satisfied I enquire not onely how it is proued by Scripture that there is some diuine Scripture which is inspired by God but that these bookes in particular are that Scripture For if it giue any testimonie at all to any Scripture at all it is to these bookes in particular which are now vsed in that it describes these bookes neither are there or haue there bene any other nor dares the Church of Rome it selfe hitherto canonize any other howsoeuer some therein think it may 2 To this my aduersarie replies that before these sentences can sufficiently proue the Scripture to be diuine they must themselues be supposed to be diuine which cannot be proued by themselues if Tradition be excluded I answered this e Digr 12. in my Booke whereto he hath replied neuer a word but stands dumbe and offers the Reader that which I answered in stead of a Reply to my answer neuerthelesse I answer againe that all places in the Scripture which affirme the Scripture to be Gods word are proued to be Gods word by themselues and their owne light and not by Tradition or Church-authoritie which is but the ministerie whereby God reueales the proofe to vs and it selfe is iudged by the Scripture For if the Church-authoritie make them to be canonicall and diuine * For that is it properly that the Papists say Bellar. Stapl. Grego to vs then it is either by adding truth diuinitie authoritie to them which they had not before in themselues by diuine inspiration or onely by declaring and reuealing to vs that truth diuinitie and authoritie which they haue immediatly from God of themselues before the Church approued them that we might see and confesse it The former our aduersaries will not say or if they will it is Atheisme worse then blasphemie for so all our faith and the highest reason mouing vs to beleeue should not be diuine reuelation but humane authoritie and the Scripture which of it selfe had no truth or diuine inspiration should be canonized by men If the latter which our aduersaries dare not denie then who sees not that they proue themselues and in themselues haue diuine authoritie immediatly from God the Church-authoritie in approuing them being nothing else but bare ministerie in respect of the Scripture though in regard of vs it be authoritie in helping vs to see that which is in themselues When the King stampes coine and signes it with his image and superscription he puts that valew and currentnesse into it that was not there before Thus a small peece of copper of it selfe originally not worth a penie may be made worth sixe pence Thus the Church authorizes not the Scripture Stapleton f Staplet relect pag. 505. in explicat art sayes The Church approues not the Scripture the first way by making it sacred diuine for this approbation it hath onely from the holy Ghost the author thereof of whom alone it hath to be sacred and not humane nor the second way by making that through her iudgement it should be accepted for true and worthy credit because that which is in the Scripture is the diuine truth BY IT SELFE AND IS NOT MADE TRVE BY THE APPROBATION OF THE CHVRCH But the third way in that by the force of her approofe and iudgement they are accepted of the faithfull for sacred and diuine and infallible true And thus we beleeue these Scriptures to be Canonicall for the testimonie of the Church The King sends a commission vnder seale by a messenger this messenger giues no authoritie to the commission but is the Kings minister authorized to propound it to the subiects Thus the Church giues testimonie to the Scriptures that it is diuine and no otherwise and it selfe fetches this testimonie from the Scripture and all the authoritie thereof is lastly resolued into the testimonie of the Scripture 3 Next these Scriptures are proued to be diuine by their owne light shining and by their owne vertue shewing it selfe in them as sweetnesse is knowne by it owne taste and the Sunne seene by it owne light and as the Kings coine is knowne by his image vpon it and the fathers voice is knowne to his children by the sound and fashion thereof so are these Scriptures by the heauenly light image and sound inspired into them knowne to be the word of God The aduersaries against whom I deale haue here with Turks and Infidels debarred me from alledging Scripture to proue it selfe and therefore I will shew it otherwise Canus a Papist g Can. loc l. 2. c. 8. pag. 13.
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
our Church vsed This shall be granted him in respect of the matter and doctrine contained which in all translations that varie but in character of speech is alike certaine But how shall the vnlearned which can neither vnderstand the originall nor compare translations nor so much as reade nor will admit infallible authoritie in the Church to assure them be infallibly certaine the translation containes no substantiall error euen in the matter this he would faine know My answer * My answer was not touing the vnlearned alone but of the vnlearned and learned together per commodam distributionem was that we know this by the same meanes whereby we know other truths and discerne other articles of Christian faith namely by the light of the doctrine translated the testimonie of the Spirit the ministerie of the word the rules of art and such like My aduersarie replies this is but a flourish of words and bids me answer directly to the point and thus he reasons If these be the meanes whereby we are assured our translations containe no substantiall error the light of the doctrine translated the testimonie of the Spirit the ministerie of the word the rules of art the knowledge of tongues and such like then they are so either ioyntly altogether or euery one seuerally by it selfe or onely some of them But neither are all of them ioyntly nor euery one seuerally nor onely some of them Ergo these be not the meanes ergo some other meanes must be assigned and that is the authoritie of the Church I will answer directly to the point granting the first proposition and distinguishing the second which hath three members first that all of them ioyntly together are not necessarie which he proues because so the vnlearned that want tongues and art could not haue this assurance I answer they are all of them ioyntly together necessary by concurring all of them in the Church some in the learned some in the vnlearned to the working of this assurance in the learned and vnlearned for they are not ioyntly the means so that they need all of them immediatly touch euery one that shal be assured but it is sufficient that art and tongues ioyned with Gods Spirit be in the learned and the ministerie of the Spirit and the Church and the light of the doctrine translated be in the vnlearned all concurring to produce * Viz. this clear assurance that the translation cōtains at least nothing contrary to the analogie and rule of faith one effect in both though not all alike existing in them both The second member is that euery one of these seuerally is not sufficient and this I grant for no other meanes is sufficient if Gods Spirit be wanting to giue effect to it The third member is that onely some of these are not a sufficient meanes to breed this assurance this is false for the light of the doctrine translated the testimony of Gods Spirit are sufficient to assure the vnlearned that what is translated to them is true at least touching the doctrine in the same maner that Gods Spirit and the light of the truth assure vs that the things taught by word of mouth in preaching are the truth which light and testimony of the Spirit neuer go with translations or preaching which contain false doctrine His D. Stapleton * Triplic in admonit says it ouer that by the internall perswasion of the Spirit of God alone any matter of faith may be beleeued though the Church say nothing at all but the Iesuits reason to the contrary is then it would follow that an vnlearned man hauing that Spirit of God by the onely light of the doctrine shining in it without any other help should vnderstand Greeke and Hebrew because the Scriptures are written in them but this followes neuer a whit for though I grant the doctrine shines in the Scripture and God by his Spirit giues a full assurance yet he doth not this to the vnlearned but by translations which assurance I vnderstand according to the state and condition of him that is to be assured the learned seeing the heauenly doctrine in the learned tongues and translated both the vnlearned vulgar people in the translation onely and not in the originall as a man sees light by the opening of a window because that is the meanes to let it in I do not say the light of the doctrine and the testimonie of Gods Spirit giue the vnlearned assurance in the Scripture it selfe euery way but in the Scripture truly translated into the language they vnderstand neither doth the contrary follow of my words We know the diuine doctrine to be one and the same in all translations immediatly in the originall and more obscurely in the translations and God 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 for this light shineth and this testimonie of the holy Ghost worketh first not immediatly but by meanes secondly not by the same meanes in all but diuersly whiles to such as haue the light of the holy Ghost being learned it shines in the originall tongues but being vnlearned onely in translations as the words that are printed in a booke are plaine and legible of themselues without any other meanes to him that hath light and a perfect eye but if a man be dim sighted then to him they are onely legible through his spectacles and as it is necessary though the light be cleare of it selfe yet to open the window in case a man be shut vp in a house so my saying the doctrine is one and the same in all translations and God directs the children of the light to discerne it and makes the light of it shine vnto them hinders not but I may well say also the window or translation must be opened to let in this light when men are shut vp in ignorance of the tongues and so still some of the meanes I named alone are sufficient where all cannot concurre 4 My aduersary in the knitting vp replies against this that if the holy Ghost doth not sufficiently assure vs without other meanes then the light of the doctrine and the testimonie of the Spirit are not the onely necessary nor alone sufficient meanes to assure vs that the translation we vse is not corrupted By which reason he may say also that when the opening of a window is a necessary meanes to shew the light this light is not the onely necessary nor alone sufficient meanes to enlighten me for there is sufficient in the Scripture to assure me but still the helpe of Church-ministery and industry are necessary to worke it in me or else my aduersarie must proue that the subordination of the meanes where by causes are applied to their effects take away the sufficiencie and perfection of the said causes that is to say the Grammar containes not all things necessary 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
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
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
bee in some points which formerly were held as points of faith rather then in the doctrine of the blessed Trinity and Incarnation is because these mysteries are more necessary to be expresly knowne of all sorts then some other points of faith are and consequently men are as they are bound more carefull to get expresse knowledge of them according to the knowne sence expositiō of the Church which Church also hath more expresly determined what is to be holden in these points then in some others which although necessary to be beleeued explicitè or implicitè are not so necessary to be expresly knowne of all sorts 1 IF it cannot be denied as the Repliar denies it not but that in the writings of particular men liuing in these latter ages in the Church of Rome and following the Papacy there be found diuers errors contrary to the faith of the ancient Fathers it must be granted that all such must be wiped out of the catalogue because a So the Reply in the former Chapter n. 1. which is p. 269. of his Reply by promise none are to stand there but onely such as kept the doctrine of the Fathers without innouation Which being done the last 600 yeares at the least will be blanke and the Repliar must seeke new names to furnish them for there is not a particular person named frō an 1000 to an 1600 in the catalogue which had not diuers errors cōtrary to the former faith of the Fathers which the Reader without more ado shall know by this that there is not a boke extant that they writ but our aduersaries at this day haue either purged or forbiddē it or else censured reiected diuers things written in it Which needed not if they had bene those succeeding Pastors which alway maintained the corps of Christian doctrine so grauely talked of a little before And that which the Repliar answers satisfies not the obiection For it is true The Catholicke Church builds not her faith vpon priuate Doctors opinions but the Romane Church which the Repliar contends for and whose succession he demonstrates in his catalogue consists in no other but such Doctors that held such priuate opinions and such people as followed them therein or else let him name if he can any one of his Doctors that held not such priuate opinions or any other Church of his that consisted not in these A man may easily see he can neuer winde himselfe out of this straight And let it be granted also that they were ready to renounce these opinions thus holden against the former faith and to submit themselues to the Church yet the former difficulty returns againe for whether they were thus ready or no yet they swarued from the faith of the Fathers no matter with what minde when the Repliar so confidently bills them in his catalogue for such as preserued the whole corps of the reuealed truth without innouation Thereby vndertaking to name such as in all things trod in the steps of the Fathers without any error that should need submission Againe where and in whom was this Church whereto they were so ready to submit themselues who should reforme them when themselues were the Church for example when Gregory the 7. that was Pope in the 10 age Eugenius the 3. and Boniface the 8. in the 12. Vrbanus 6. and Iohn 22. in the 13. Gregory 12. Iohn 23. Eugenius 4. in the 14. age by schisme error and heresie innouated the faith where was their submission to the Church how could it be when themselues were heads of the Church and how was it done when contrariwise they made opposition against all such as admonished them But the third thing he answers that those priuate D D. deliuer not their said opinions as points of faith is false because they are in such points as are now controuerted betweene vs and the Church of Rome which the Repliar I presume will allow to be no other but points of faith 2 This I had to say touching the obiection as the Repliar hath set it downe fraudulently and maimedly whereas if he had proposed it effectually as we obiected all his answer were impertinent For we say that not onely in particular mens writings are found many things contrary to the former faith of the Fathers but in the doctrine of the Church it selfe as it is practised and expounded by such as are deputed thereunto The which I demonstrated throughout my Booke in euery controuersie by alleadging the wordes of the chiefest and most eminēt writers in the Church of Rome expounding the doctrine holden in the said Church There being indeed very little of their religion but some or other among them so expound it and so teach the Church-meaning therein that it is easie to see the ancient faith to be innouated thereby And I care not though my aduersary begin his answer with a little confidence It seemes M. White hath with great paines raked together all the riffe raffe and odde opinions and spent his time in seeking the sinkes and sweeping together odde sentences of some Catholicke authors c. For his leane and lancke cause had neede of bombast but whosoeuer shall enquire what M. White alleadged shall well perceaue the Popish D D. whom he hath raked together to be the eminentest men that were in the Church of Rome and their doctrine and opinions cited so farre as I haue refused it to be riffe raffe indeed and such as lies in sinkes and sweepings but yet such riffe raffe as the Romish Church it selfe now turned into a sinke of all filthy heresie pestered with the sweepings of all the false doctrine and errors of old heretickes maintaines and offers to the world for sound religion as I haue shewed in the beginning of this booke where the speech of Mic. Bayus the onely instance that the Repliar thought good to make of my charging his Church with priuate Doctors opinions which he will not deny to be part of the riffe raffe and sweepings here mentioned is proued to containe no other matter then is generally holden by others and to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome as certainely as any other that himselfe can assigne to be the doctrine 3 This therefore is it I say that the errors obiected to the Doctors and Schoolemen of the Church of Rome and the manifold absurdities which I haue obserued in them alleadging their wordes in my Booke are a sufficient argument to proue the Church of Rome wherein they liued and whose Pastors they were to hold contrary to the Fathers and to be departed from the Apostolicke faith And all this furniture of wordes to the contrary is but a desperate shift to auoide the inconuenience that followes vpon it For first the vniuersall faith of the Catholicke Church is not discredited by the priuate opinions of particular Authors This I graunt and will yeeld my selfe to be both vaine and shallow witted if the things I haue alleadged out of Popish Authors be
the first rudiments of Christian Religion that there is but one onely God and therefore it may not be thought that so many reuerend and learned Bishops as were at that Councell whom this Minister malepertly calleth vnlearned and simple persons could euer haue conceiued and much lesse that they would haue definitiuely concluded so grosse an errour and published it to the world Nay the Nicene Councell was so farre from defining that images were to be worshipped with latria or diuine honour as expressely it denieth diuine honour to be done to them as appeareth by these wordes of that CouÌ„cel We define images to be honored c. that by looking vpon the painted images all that do behold them may come to the remembrance and desire of the things represented by them and may exhibite to them an honorable salutation and worship not according to our faith true latria which is due onely to the diuine honour Now as touching the Frankeford Councell first it was not Generall neither euer did the Popes Legates if they were present assent to condemne the Nicene Councell neither did the Pope euer confirme any such condemnation Besides no such condemnation is to be found in the Councell of Frankford all that is found being in a forged booke ascribed falsely to Charles the Great in which also that feigned canon which is cited as the canon of the Councell of Frankeford nameth not the Nicene but the Constantinopolitan Councell By which may appeare that the Author of the booke neither knew what the Nicene Constantinopolitan or Frankeford Councell did truely hold or decree but set downe that canon either by hearesaie or at aduenture by the imagination of his owne head 1 THat which I said touching the Councels of Neece and Frankeford was not to shew the errours that haue bene in Councels or to proue that generall Councels may erre in things of faith though it fully and vnauoideably do it but to let the reader see in that example how vnable our aduersaries are for all their confident boasting when things come to the triall to quit themselues And indeede in this one example among many any man may perceaue they are the most shifting and preuaricating companions that euer dealt not hauing any where to abide or rest their foote or any truth to stand vpon when things are put to the issue which appeares now the more by the Repliars intermedling who saying what he can to that I obiected and hauing had time to search what he could is yet fallen into those shifts and absurdities that no man looking with the face of a Christian would be taken in denying apparant truthes testified by all Antiquitie and confessed by many of his owne side and with a desperate conscience vttering euery word falser then other And I desire the reader to marke attentiuely if it be not true that I said that WHATSOEVER OPINION THEIR FAVORITES HAVE OF THEM yet when things are brought home to their triall these magnified Iesuites are the emptiest and idlest disputers that euer with so great ostentation set pen to paper First he saies I endeauour to proue that the Councell of Neece was condemned by the Councell of Frankeford for defining that the same adoration and seruice ought to be giuen to the images of Saints which is giuen to the diuine Trinitie This is vntrue for in my discourse I said no such thing but only that the secoÌ„d Nicene Councel hauing brought in the worship of images not affirming what kinde of worship whether such as is giuen the Trinity or of a lower degree the Emperor Charles assembled another at Frankeford and condemned it againe reiecting the Nicene Indeede the Emperours booke charges the Councell with decreeing that kinde of worship It was written in the booke of the Synod that they should be cursed which did not giue the same seruice and adoration to the images of Saints which is giuen to the diuine Trinitie But these are not my words neither are they alledged to that end but to confute certaine Papists that affirmed the Councell of Frankford condemned not the worship of images at all The same booke a Constantinus Constantiae Cypri Episcopus dixit Suscipio amplector honorabiliter sanctas venerabiles imagines secundùm ser ntium adorationis quod consubstantialâ— Trinitatâ— emitto qui sic non sentiunt anathemati submitto Constantius caeteris consentientibus Lib. Caroli pag. 382. ann 1549. in 16. reports that in that Councell Constantius the Bishop of Cyprus and the rest of the Bishops consenting with him saide hee would giue to images the same seruice and adoration that he gaue to the consubstantiall Trinitie And b Paâ—o an 794. nu 36. our aduersaries confesse the Councell of Frankford thought that of Nice to be of this mind but whether it were or no I affirmed not but onely that it decreed they should be worshipped This is his first vntruth 2 Next he sayes The Nicene Councell did not define that images were to be worshipped with honour onely due to God because such a grosse conceit could neuer haue entred into any Christian mans minde c. This reason affirmes another vntruth for Azorius a Iesuite c Iâ—stit moral l 9 c. 6. And the same is said by Pesâ—nt in Tho pag. 837. a. affirmes it to be the constant opinion of the Diuines in the Church of Rome that images must be adored with the same adoration that belongs to their samplar and he addes that the Councell of Nice insinuated so much Both the Councell of Nice therefore and the Diuines of the Church of Rome hold the Images of God and our Sauiour and the Crosse must be adored with diuine adoration because God and Christ is adored with diuine adoration and thus d Tho. 3. p. qu. 25. râ— 3. 4. Alexand. 3. p q. 30. m. 3. art 3. Ricar 3. d. 9 art 2. qu. 2. 3. Capreol art 1. concl 2. Ferrar. contr gent. l. 3. c. 120. ad 2. Turrecrem 3. p. de consecr c. crucis n 2 c. venerab n. 2. Silvest v. Latria n 2. Waldens de sacramental c. 119. Caiet in 3. p. Tho. q. 25 art 3. 4. Pesant â—isp 2. concl 3. Valentia tom 3. disp 6. qu. 11. punct 6. Bellar. imag l. 2. c. 23. Turrian pro Câ—nonic ep l. 1 c. 25. Andrad orthod explic l. 9. Iacob de Graff decis p. 1. l. 2. c. 3. n. 1. 4. Thyrrae de apparit pag. 81. n 2. Posseâ—â—n bibl select l. 8. c. 17. n. 23. â—and de imag c. 17. pag. 184. teach the most Schoole-men and Diuines that handle this matter as will appeare by viewing their bookes Which being so grosse a conceit as it is indeed let the Repliers censure fall vpon it hardly and let the Diuines of his Church go for such as are no Christians being ignorant of the rudiments of Christs religion and that there is but one God And let the world beware of such pestilent heretickes
as giue the diuine honour of the immortall God to a dumbe creature whose image soeuer it be And if Azorius e Azo vbi sup say true that this doctrine of Thomas and his Diuines was insinuated by the Councell of Nice then my Replier is guiltie of a third vntruth because he denies it presuming vpon the words contained in the seuenth act of the Councell which yet these Iesuites expound to containe nothing against their opinion which exposition and report of the Iesuites if you adde to that I cited out of the Emperours booke and ioyne withall the words of Baronius who reporteth that the Bishops of France conceiued the minde of the Nicene Councell to be that images should be adored with latria The Replier will haue something to doe before he can quit his Nicene Councell from that which he sayes I impute vnto it But if his Councell of Trent also be of the same minde as f Suar. tom 1. disp 54. sect 4. Vasq a dorat disp 8. c. 14. Azor. inst mor. tom 1. l. 9. c. 6. the Iesuites resolutely affirme it is then this grosse conceit went farre and their case is but indifferent that hitherto haue built their faith touching this and other points of religion vpon such as by the Repliers owne verdit were no Christians nor knew the first rudiments of religion 3 Thirdly he vpbraids me with malepertnesse for calling the Bishops of the Nicene Councell simple and vnlearned but it is his destiny still to crosse and infatuate himselfe with his forwardnesse for his owne words calls them grosse conceited and ignorant of the first rudiments of religion that hold the seruing and adoring of images with the same adoration and seruice that is giuen to the Trinitie And that they thus held and defined the Emperours booke and the Iesuites themselues testifie that I might well say they were both simple and vnlearned and something worse Thus therefore I excuse my selfe it is no malepertnesse to call them simple or vnlearned who teach the giuing of diuine honour to an image because the Replier confesseth this to be a grosse conceite of such as know not the first rudiments of religion nor that there is a God But the second Nicene Councell taught this For Azorius sayes it insinuated the worshipping of images with the same worshippe that is giuen to the samplars which is diuine worshippe in the images of God and Christ They insinuated therefore that images should be worshipped with diuine honour the same that is giuen to God and Christ Therefore they were a packe of simple and vnlearned heretickes But because he is so zealous for his friends I will if I can a little coole him till hee know better what and who they were Claudius Espencaeus a Doctour in his owne Church g Com. in 2. Tim. pag. 151. Paris hath written of them that the Greekes in their contention about Images on both sides handled the matter out of fabulous and vncertaine writings They which opposed them with writings falsely inscribed by heretickes and * Qui propugnabant daemoniaÌ„ etiam spectris muliebribus somnijs parùm verecundè abutentes they which defended them did it also with delusions of diuels and with little modestie thereto abused womens dreames as may be read in the Nicene Councell This is more then I said For I spake as temperately as it was possible of so fond Idolaters but Espencaeus giues it them with open mouth It may be read in the second Nicene Councell how images were defended with womens dreames and delusions of diuels which speech whosoeuer mislikes must consider it comes from a learned Papist and not from mee and the actes and processe of the Councell will shew it to be true The forgeries and fables and trifling discourses therein contained being such as are able to prouoke any that reades them and our aduersaries themselues are not a little intangled in them 4 Hauing thus affirmed how truly it skilleth not to the point in question that the Nicene Councell defined not the worshippe of Images with diuine honour hee passeth to the Councell of Frankford wherein I said the Nicene was condemned and the actes thereof concerning images abrogated Whereto hee answers not one true word First hee sayes the Councell of Frankford was not generall But I had witnesses in the margent that it was h Ouand 4 d. 2. prop. 8. Ouandus There were present three hundred Bishops with the Popes Legats so that the Fathers who were present called it a full Synod and in truth it cannot be cast off as a Prouinciall Councell or as without a head If it were not Prouinciall and had the Pope for head it must not bee denied to bee generall Baronius i An. 794. n. 1. sayes It is found to be called a plenarie Councell for the multitude of the Bishops and presence of the Legats of the Apostolicke sea The Bishops of Italie France and Germanie were there Hincmarus sayes it was a generall Councell whose words see * In the letter o below Secondly he shuffles with a parenthesis as if the Popes Legats were not there But you see what Baronius and Ouandus say k Chr. l. 2. n. 794 Rhegino and l Chro. an 793. the Abbot of Vrsperge testifie the same Thirdly he sayes if they were there they confirmed not any such condemnation The which is impertinent For I onely intend to shew that in the iudgement of the Christian world the bringing in of image-worship was condemned Whether the want of the Legates assent make the condemnation voide or no I care not but the reader may see Pope Adrians packing with the Greekes to set vp images was noted and resisted by all the Prouinces of the Westerne Empire Let our aduersaries proue the want of the Legats assent makes this a nullitie Fourthly hee sayes no such condemnation is to be found in the Councell of Frankford but onely in a booke ascribed to Charles and I answer the Councell of Frankford as it is set foorth in the tomes of the Councels hee knowes well enough is imperfect and containes not all that was done therein But marke what Bellarmine m De imag l. 2. c. 1◠§. Primò quâ—â— sayes That booke of Charles containes the acts of the Councell of Frankford and it may not be doubted but the Councell therein condemned is indeed the second Nicene n An. 794 n. 31. Baronius sayes that Hincmarus the Archbishop of Rhemes a writer of those times affirmes the booke to containe the acts of the Councell of Frankford that we are not to doubt thereof it containes many chapters against the Nicene Councell The words of this Hincmarus are these that my aduersarie may a litle blush at his rashnesse o Hincmar lib. cont landun c. 20. But the seuenth Synod vntruly so called which the Greekes call vniuersall not long before my time was holden at Nice and sent to Rome which the Pope againe directed