authority of the Church as if were it not for the authority of the Church the Scripture were of no force neither could deserve any credit So the Romanists do frequently pervert those words of Austine but Austines meaning was only this that the Churches authority by way of introduction was a means to bring him to beleeve the Gospel by propounding and commending the Gospel unto him as a thing to be beleeved whereas otherwise he should not have given heed to it nor taken notice of it not as if he did finally rest in the authority of the Church and resolve his faith into it No for as I have shewed before he would have the Church it selfe sought in the Scripture and proved by it Had not the woman of Samaria told those among whom she lived of Christ they had not come to the knowledge of him much lesse to beleeve in him yet having heard Christ himselfe they did not rest in the testimony of the woman but said unto her Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we have heard him our selves and know that this is indeed the Christ and the Saviour of the world Joh. 4. 42. So should not the Church hold out unto us the Scriptures we should not know much lesse beleeve them but at length God by his Spirit opening our understandings that we may understand the Scriptures Luke 24. 45. we come to be convinced by the Scriptures themselves that they are the Oracles of God and of divine authority Melchior Canus a learned Writer of the Church of Rome holds that the formall reason of our faith is not the authority of the Church that is that the last resolution of our faith is not into the Churches testimony And he saith that he could not dissemble their errour who hold that our faith is to be reduced thither as to the utmost cause of beleeving For the confuting of this errour he saith belongs that Ioh. 4. Now we beleeve not because of thy saying for we our selves have heard him and know c. The same authour averres that the authority of the Church is not a reason by it selfe moving to beleeve but only a cause or meanes without which we should not beleeve viz. Because as he addes the Church doth propound unto us that the Scripture is the word of God and except the Church did so propound it we should never ordinarily come to beleeve it yet we doe not therefore beleeve the Scripture to be Gods word because the Church doth say it but because God doth reveal it If the Church saith he doth make way for us to know such sacred books we must not therefore rest there but we must goe further and must relye on Gods solid truth And then he brings in that very speech of Austine and shewes what he meant by it Hereby is understood saith he what Austine meant when he said I should not beleeve the Gospell except the authority of the Church did move me And again By the Catholikes I had beleeved the Gospell For Austine had to doe with the Manichees who without dispute would have a certain Gospell of theirs beleeved and so would establish the faith of the Manichees Austine therefore askes them what they would doe if they did light upon a man who did not beleeve so much as the Gospell what kind of perswasion they would use to bring him to their opinion He affirmes that himselfe could not be otherwise brought to embrace the Gospell but that the authority of the Church did overcome him He doth not therefore teach that the faith of the Gospell is grounded upon the Churches authority but only that there is no certain way whereby either infidels or novices in the faith may have entrance to the holy books but one and the same consent of the Catholike Church This he himselfe hath sufficiently explicated in the fourth Chapter of that Epistle and in his book to Honoratus concerning the benefit of beleeving I have thus largely cited the words of this learned Romanist because no Protestant can speak more clearly and more fully to the purpose That which the Marquesse after addeth is nothing against us viz. That there was a Church before there was any Scripture that though the Scripture be a light yet we have need of some to guide us though it be the food of our soules yet there must be some to administer it unto us though it be an antidote against the infection of the devill yet it is not for every one to be a compounder of the ingredients that though it be the onely sword and buckler to defend the Church from her Ghostly enemies yet this doth not exclude the noble army of Martyrs and the holy Church which through all the world doth acknowledg Christ All this I say is nothing at all against us who do so assert the authority of the Scripture as that we doe not evacuate the Churches ministery Timothy must preach but it is the word viz. of God contained in the Scriptures which he must preach 2 Tim. 4. 2. If any man speak for the instructing of others he must speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4. 11. He must confirm that which he doth speak by the Scriptures And so on the other side they that hear must take heed how and what they hear Luke 8. 18. Mark 4. 24. They must not beleeve every Spirit but must try the Spirits whether they be of God 1 John 4. 1. They must to the Law and to the Testimony for that if any speak not according to this word it is because they have no light in them Isai 8. 20. They must search the Scriptures diligently to see whether the things delivered unto them be so or no. Acts 17. 11. OF THE CHVRCH of ENGLAND THE SECOND PART OF THE Rejoynder to the Marquess of WORCESTER'S Reply MAJESTIE' 's Answer to the said Marquesse's Plea for the ROMISH RELIGION THE Marquesse saith that he will now consider the Opinions of Protestants apart from them of the Church of Rome and begin with the Church of England The Religion of this Church he saith as it is in opposition to theirs consists wholly in denying for that what she affirms they affirm the same as the Real presence the Infallibility Visibility Universality and Unity of the Church Confession and Remission of sinnes Free-will Possibility of keeping the Commandments c. And you may as well saith he deny the blessed Trinity for we have no such word in Scripture only inference as that which you have already denied for which we have plain Scripture c. But 1. it is not altogether so that what the Church of England doth affirm the same they of the Church of Rome do affirm also For the Church of England Art 9. doth affirm alleadging the authority of the Apostle for proof thereof that Concupiscence hath of it self the nature of sinne even in the regenerate which the Romanists deny the Councel of Trent accurseth
the words of the Apostle Rom. 12. 6. Except we must to use the Marquesses expressions take them margin'd with their own notes sens'd with their own meaning and enlivened with their own private spirit As for the rule mentioned Gal. 6. 16. it is no generall rule of faith or of interpreting Scripture but a speciall rule that in Christ Iesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new creature as is cleare by the context ver 15. As many as walke according to this rule that is as Oecumenius expounds it as many as are content with this rule and this doctrine that all things are made a new creature and doe not subject themselves to the Law Neither is the place 2 Cor. 10. 15. to the purpose For the Apostle there speakes of a ruleby way of similitude as Cardinall Cajetan doth well expound it viz. that as an Architect or the like chiefe workman doth by rule divide the worke that is to be done and appoint under-workemen where they shall imploy themselves and how farre they shall reach so God did as it were by rule appoint Paul where he should preach the Gospell and how farre his imployment should extend in that kinde This plainly appeares to be the Apostles meaning by the two verses immediately preceding But we will not boast of things without our measure but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed unto us a measure to reach even unto you For we stretch not our selves beyond our measure as though wee reached not unto you for we are come as farre as you also in preaching the Gospell of Christ Then he addes Not boasting of things without our measure that is of other mens labours but having hope when your faith is encreased that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly To preach the Gospell in the regions beyond you and not to boast in another mans line of things made ready to our hand All may plainly see that here is nothing spoken of a rule of faith or a rule for the understanding of the Scripture And therefore most impertinently is 2 Cor. 10. 16. cited as if the Apostle there did speak of a rule of faith made ready to their hands And so also is that of not measuring our selves by our selves 2 Cor. 10. 12. Neither can our Adversaries ever be able to prove that by the forme of Doctrine mentioned Rom. 6. 17. the Apostle did meane any other Doctrine then what is contained in the Scripture or that any Doctrine but the Doctrine of the Scripture is meant by that which was committed to Timotheus trust 1 Tim. 6. 20. which the Apostle there bids him keepe avoiding profane and vaine bablings c. Though such as are unlearned and unstable wrest the Scriptures c. 2 Pet. 3. 16. yet the same Apostle in the same Epistle doth teach us to take heed to the Scripture as to a light shining in a darke place 2 Pet. 1. 19. That the Apostle spake of any unwritten tradition as a rule whereby to interpret Scriptures 2 Tim. 2. 2. can never be made good by the things which Timothy heard him and was to commit to faithfull men c. hee meant nothing but the Doctrine of the Gospell as the forementioned Cajetan doth truly interpret and that Doctrine I presume is no where to be found but in the Scripture Surely the Apostle in the next Chapter after tells Timothy that from a child hee had known the holy Scriptures which were able to make him wise unto salvation thorough faith which is in Christ Iesus 2 Tim. 3. 15. After the Scriptures the Marquesse cites the Fathers as being of this opinion viz. Ireneus l. 4. c. 45. Tertull. de Praescript and Vincent Lirin in suo Commentario perhaps it should be Commonitorio But it will not appeare that the Fathers held any rule of faith and of interpreting the Scripture besides the Scripture it selfe His Majesty as I noted before cited above twice as many Fathers as the Marquesse here alledgeth plainly testifying that the Scriptures are their own interpreters and that matters of faith are to be decided by them I will adde a few more testimonies of the Fathers to this purpose As wee doe not deny saith Hierome those things which are written so we refuse those things which are not written I adore saith Tertullian the fulnesse of the Scripture And againe Let Hermogenes saith hee shew that it is written If it be not written let him feare that woe appointed for those that either adde to the Scripture or detract from it Wee doe Cyprian no wrong saith Austine when wee distinguish any of his writings from the canonicall authority of the Divine Scriptures For not without cause is such a wholesome Ecclesiasticall rule of vigilancy constituted to which certaine Bookes of the Prophets and the Apostles belong which we may not at all dare to judge and according to which wee may freely judge of other writings whether they bee of Beleevers or of unbelievers And againe I am not bound saith hee by the authority of this Epistle viz. of Cyprian because I doe not account Cyprians writings as Canonicall but I examine them by those that are Canonicall and that which is in them agreeable to the authority of the Divine Scriptures I receive with his praise and what is not agreeable I refuse with his leave For the Fathers here cited by the Marquesse Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 45. hath nothing that may seeme to make that way except this Where saith hee the gifts of the Lord are placed there wee ought to learne truth of those with whom is that succession of the Church which is from the Apostles and that sound speech not to be reproved For they keepe that faith of ours which is in one God that made all things and increase that love which is towards the Son of God who did such great things for us and they without danger expound unto us the Scriptures neither blaspheming God nor dishonoring the Patriarcks nor contemning the Prophets Here Irenaeus speakes of some of whom truth was to be learnt who kept the faith and did expound the Scriptures without danger but hee doth not say that they had any unwritten rule of faith or any such rule whereby to expound the Scriptures No for so Irenaeus should not agree with himselfe who saith as His Majesty observed that the evidences which are in the Scriptures cannot be manifested but by the Scriptures themselves Adde hereunto another saying of the Father very pertinent to the purpose We have not known saith hee the dspensation of our salvation but by those by whom the Gospell came unto us which Gospell they preached aad afterward by the Will of God delivered unto us in the Scriptures as that which should be for the foundation and pillar of our Faith So much for Irenaeus The Marquesse cites the words of
point at takes upon him to refell that which some others answer in the behalf of Beza but never takes notice of this which Beza hath said in his own behalf But the Marquesse returns to Luther and besides other things which he objects against him but proves only by the testimony of his adversaries or by such pieces of Luthers own Works as I have not liberty to peruse he taxeth him for giving such opprobrious termes to King Henry 8. Ans It is true K. Hen. 8. having written or at least some other in his name against Luther and his Doctrine Luther did return answer so as to shew but small respect to the person against whom he wrote But afterwards Luther in an Epistle which he wrote to the King confessed his fault humbly craving pardon and offering to write a publike recantation and to do the King honour if he should require it Indeed the King not answering Luthers expectation but instead of accepting his submission setting forth another book against him with his Epistle annexed to it and insulting over him as if he had recanted his doctrine Luther made answer to this book also yet so as to abstain from those terms of contumely and reproach which before he had used only shewing that he was firm and stedfast in his doctrine yea daily more and more confirmed in it and that no mans person how great soever he were should be of any esteem with him so as to bring him to any recantation in that respect The Marquesse having censured some of the prime Doctors of the Reformed Churches falls to censure the people as being generally averse from all honesty and godlines and to this end he all eadgeth the words of Luther and some others who complain of the vitious and corrupt wayes of those that live under the pure preaching of the Gospel and he concludes How could the people be better when their Ministers were so bad Bellarmine urging also some of these testimonies proceeds so farre in his censure as to say that though among them of the Church of Rome for that he means by the Catholike Church there be many bad yet among Protestants whom after his manner he terms Hereticks there is none good and this he saith is notorious But if both Ministers and people were bad as their adversaries pretend yet might their doctrine and profession be good for all that It was the Apostles complaint in his time All seek their own not the things that are Jesus Christs Phil. 2. 21. Yet the doctrine of Jesus Christ which they preached and professed was never a whit the worse for all this though with some it might be worse accounted of In like manner the Prophets frequently complain of the people of the Jews whose Religion neverthelesse was the only true Religion in the world See Isa 1. 4 5 6. Jer. 5. 1. 2. 9. 2. c. Ezek. 22. 2. c. and so many other places And that the Protestant doctrine is not to blame what ever the Preachers and professors of it be may appear by those very testimonies which the Marquesse and other alledge For in that as they shew Ministers tax and reprove people for being so bad it argues that the doctrine delivered unto them is good though they make no good use of it But that Protestants are so universally bad as that Bellarmine should say there is none good among them is too grosse an aspersion and wondrous impudence it is to adde that this is notorious to all that know them I will only cite the testimony of Bodinus one that never withdrew himself for any thing I finde from communion with the Church of Rome He speaking of Geneva where Calvin and Beza were Ministers of the Gospel exceedingly commends the discipline there used Then which he saith nothing could be imagined greater and more divine for the restraining of mens lusts and those vices which by humane Laws and Judgements could no way be reformed Insomuch that no whoredomes no drunkennesse no dancings no beggars no idle persons are found in that City But to proceed the Marquesse in the conclusion of all that he hath in this kinde relates horrible things of Calvin in respect both of his life and death alleadging that they are written by two knowne and approved Protestant Authors One of these Authors whose words the Marquesse alleadgeth was indeed a Protestant but a great Lutheran to wit Schlusselberg and a professed adversary unto Calvin and I presume so also was the other who the Marquesse saith did write the life of Calvin and confirme that which is said by the former to wit Herennius though I have not heard of him before Mr. Breerley so far as I finde never mentions him though he make very frequent use of Schlusselberg whose words concerning Calvin here cited by the Marquesse he all eadgeth in two several places of his Apology But however Bolsecus is the man from whom at first did proceed whatsoever any have in disgrace of Calvin either for his life or death Now this Author lived some while at Geneva where Calvin was and being opposed by him it seems for some things which he could not approve he both became Calvins bitter enemy and also turned back to Popery and was a Papist at that very time when he wrote of Calvin as is confessed by Mr. Breerley who saith that therefore he doth purposely forbear to urge his testimony in which respect also it may be the Marquesse made no mention of this Author because he would not seem in this case to alleadge any of their own Church But to what porpose is it that they forbear to cite Bolsecus when as they cite those who have nothing in this kinde but from Bolsecus He was the first and for some while the only man that did traduce Calvin as concerning his life and death And therefore Bellarmine as writing before those whom Mr. Breerley and the Marquesse mention alleadgeth only Bolsecus as relating things that concerne Calvin of this nature But if Mr. Breerley and so other Romanists could think there was just cause to except against the testimonies of Benno and others concerning Pope Hildebrand called Gregory 7. alleadging that they were his adversaries and took part with the Emperour against him though yet Benno was a Cardinal and the rest were all Romanists what candour and ingenuity is there to alleadge against Calvin the testimonies of those who did professe themselves adversaries unto him Besides that Bolsecus the first deviser of these calumnies was one of their own party For the things that are objected That concerning the manner of Calvins death appears most false by what Beza hath written of it who being with Calvin at Geneva when he dyed had more cause to know the truth then Bolsecus who was removed I think from Geneva before that time And the other particular about Calvins being stigmatized is clearly