of faith contained and reuealed in Scripture it selfe 5 The difficultie is when I vpon the authoritie of the Scripture as I verily perswade my selfe beleeue contrary to the Church of Rome or any other presumed to be the true Church how it shall appeare to my selfe and others that I expound and vnderstand the Scriptures aright and not according to my own priuate spirit For answer whereto note first that this demand lies as well against the Beraeans and the rest of Gods people mentioned by Luke and Paul in the texts alledged as against the Protestants For they reiecting something that they were perswaded was not in the Scripture or receiuing that which they saw agreeable to the Scripture might be demanded how they were infallibly assured they had the true sence of the Scripture And a false Apostle when they should by the Scripture examine and reiect his doctrine might cauill as A.D. here doth and say they expounded it after their owne priuate spirit In which case the godly beleeuers could refer themselues to no other rule but onely leaue the truth still to be iudged by the Scripture by all such as would examine it Note secondly that the same difficultie presses our aduersaries For when they haue shewed and vrged the authoritie of the Church and their chiefe Pastor therin what they can yet this authoritie they cannot maintaine to be such as they hold but by the Scripture k Vbi sup liâ— b. Pezantius and k Vbi sup liâ— b. Greg. of Valence You wil ask how the proposition of the Church is known to be infallible Let him that is thus demanded answer He beleeues it by an infallible faith for the authoritie of the Scripture giuing witnesse to the Church which authoritie and reuelation he beleeues for it selfe albeit the proposition of the Church as a requisite condition be needfull thereunto I know not many of our aduersaries some l Durand 3 d 24. qu. 1. d. 25 q. 3. ibi Scot. Alm. Gabr. few Schoolmen excepted that hold the authoritie of the Church to be the formall reason of faith or the first and last cause of beleeuing but the authoritie of God himselfe reuealing these things which authoritie being something distinguished from the Church and aboue it can be no where manifested but in the Scripture Now when they alledge Scripture we may tell them againe they alledge it after their owne spirit which obiection may be multiplied as often as they multiply their discourses out of Scripture Thirdly therefore for satisfaction of the difficultie I beleeue and am assured of that I hold by infused faith God by a supernatural light reuealing and infusing the certaintie of that I beleeue partly by shewing to my vnderstanding out of the Scripture partly by stirring vp and inclining my will to assent vnto it and en brace it The which knowledge and assurance of mind when any man challenges as if it were but a priuate conceit subiect to error I can say no more but that which euery man sayes for his faith that so all true faith may be destroyed in that m For the beleeuer assents not by discourse to the matters of faith reuealed as by the formall reason of beleeuing but by simple cleaning adhering to theÌ„ faith neuer drawing forth her act by meanes of discourse but if discourse be vsed it is rather a conditioÌ„ helping to apply faith to it obiect Mat. 16.17 2. Cor. 10.5 Heb. 11.1 Fides secundùm se coÌ„siderata quod attinet ad causaÌ„ efficientem reuocanda est in motioneÌ„ diuinaeÌ„ lumenque diuinuÌ„ siue in habitum fidei Christiana fides etiam vt est in nobis reuocatur in DeuÌ„ mouentem diuinuÌ„que lumen Lud. Carb sum tom 3. c. 3. l. 1. pag. 6. no mans faith ascends aboue this infused illumination or can be demonstrated to be certaine by euident reasons n Tho. 1. part q 1. art 8 DuraÌ„ prolog sent qu. 1. pag 4. h. that shall conuince all gainsayers but onely there be forcible motiues to induce vnto it though when his reasons that thus beleeues shall be examined and his grounds of Scripture duly weyed by true Christians in a Councell or otherwise all that gainsay him may easily be confuted And this is the thing that we say for Luther and Scripture against the Papacie A. D. Yet saith M. White the Papists cannot denie but there is a heauenly light c. It is true Pag. 201. that Catholicks grant inward testimony of the Spirit to giue infallible assurance But what spirit is that which they thinke giueth this infallible assurance Not priuate spirit but the Spirit which is common to the Church the Spirit which inclineth men to humilâ—tie order and vnitie as in * Qu 6. the Introduction I haue shewed To whom also do they think infallible assurance to be giuen by the Spirit Not to euery one that presuming himselfe to be elect and to haue the Spirit shall rush without reuerence into the sacred text expounding it as he listeth or as it shall be suggested by priuate spirit but to such as with order humilitie and respect of vnitie reade and interprete Scripture as they learne it to be interpreted by the infallible authoritie of the Pastors of Gods Church Those that do otherwise though they may seeme to themselues to be infallibly sure yet indeed they are not as not hauing any substantiall ground to assure them which may not in like maner and with as probable colour be alledged by others whom although perswading themselues to be infallibly sure M. White himselfe wil grant to be deceiued in this their perswasion M. White * White pag. 62. 63. saith that his priuate men be assured by Scripture So say they M. White saith his men haue the witnesse of the holy Ghost So say they M. White saith his men were taught by the Pastors of the true Church This he saith indeed and so if they would be impudent they might say But whereas M White saith that his priuate men let Luther and Caluin be examples were taught by the Pastors if he meane they were taught by the Pastors those speciall points wherein they dissent from vs it is maruell that euen his owne blacke face blusheth not to vtter such a shamelesse vntruth Let M. White name if he can what Pastors those were that taught Luther and Caluin these new doctrines vnlesse he will allow the Diuell to be a Pastor whom Luther * Luth. de miss angul confesseth to haue taught him his doctrine against the Masse 6 If there be as the Replier grants a heauenly light in the things themselues that are beleeued and an inward testimonie of the Spirit that can giue infallible assurance to the beleeuer this is as much as we require for then this light and testimonie wheresoeuer and in whomsoeuer it be is sufficient as I said to assure the conscience of the truth of the things beleeued whosoeuer gainsay them and
Fathers held is holden at this day by Pastors of our Church or at least may stay him from thinking that the same faith is not holden If all that view his foresaid considerations proue indifferent either to the cause or of indifferent iudgement that which is holden this day by the Pastors of the Repliars Church will not be deemed the same doctrine which the ancient Fathers held I say vpon his foresaid considerations it cannoy be deemed so he may haue new considerations or something else in store to stay men and if I meet it it shall be answered but this foresaid is too absurd for first I deny not the Catalogue of Pastors for the first 600 yeares whereof the question in this place is to be of such as preserued the truth inuiolate but affirme those very persons to haue bin the true Pastors of the true Church would my selfe giue them vp for a catalogue of such assigne no other but I require the Repliar to make it manifest against the obiection that they held as their iudgment and professed as their faith those speciall points of Popery that we renounce And let him not reply that they held and professed them at least implicitè but say ingenuously whether they be to be found in their books for example Transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse the worship of images the Popes primacy and Monarchy ouer the world The which point not being shewed in his foresaid considerations but directly auoided by a cōceit of their beleeuing at least implicitè how may an indifferent man see or by staying neuer so long hope to see the Papacy in the Fathers 4 Againe he sayes if his aduersaries will deny the Catalogue of Pastors which he hath set downe to be of such as haue preserued the truth he must require them to assigne another of their owne And Secondly to note the first Pastor in his Catalogue that failed in preseruing the truth And Thirdly in assigning our Catalogue not to assigne such as are ordinarily answered by Catholicke authors but some plaine instances which his demand if it cānot be answered as he is sure it cannot then the Repliar concludes euery discreet man may if he will driue out his owne wit to make roome for Ad 1 his To the first all the Papists aliue cannot by good discourse driue vs to assigne a Catalogue it being sufficient to say that no doctrine wants lineall succession that accords with the Scripture neuerthelesse for the first 600 yeares we assigne the Church wherein the Fathers liued and for the rest to this day we will assigne no other Catalogue thē the Church of Rome it selfe wherin many of those whom the Repliar hath couched in his Catalogue professed the foundation of the truth that wee Ad 2 maintaine To the second I answered in THE WAY so fully Ad 3 that the Iesuite had no list to reply To the third those particular men whom we name and this blatant beast calls a rabble of ragged heretickes were Gods deare children and better professors of the truth then the reuerend ranke of his Popes and Friars who were and yet are nothing else but the great Antichrist that was prophesied should fit in the Church of God among whom these men and many ordinary Pastors and people of the Church of Rome liuing and holding the foundation of faith and in the agony of their conscience renouncing the damnable heresies of the Papacy it cannot be denied but the Church of Rome it selfe affoords vs a Catalogue sufficient For the Repliar is too simple and deceaues himselfe if he thinke we place the Church onely in Berengarius Wickliffe Husse Ierome the Waldenses and the rest of that sort But we name them as some particular eminent members in the Church of Rome for so we terme all these westerne parts by reason of the Patriarchie lesse corrupted then were many others and vnto them we adde all others in the said Church that held the articles of faith either in solid or in part though it were Occham Gerson Armachanus Cesenas Ardeus Potho Sauanarola or any such for albeit they held many errors yet the truth among their errors was preserued and I affirme that it is sufficient for the succession of the Church and being of the faith if the parts thereof and all the seuerall particulars belonging to saluation can be shewed to haue bene held in any Church albeit no one man in the same or in the world can be shewed to haue holden them all entirely himselfe That * Prot. Apolog. tract 2. c. 2. sect 3.4.5.6 7. our aduersaries may see they do but trifle away the time when they labour so contentiously to shew that Wicklife or Husse or the Albingenses differed in some things from vs no member of the Church in the world being at all times free from euery spot and wrinkle of error CHAP. XLV 1. The Fathers are not against the Protestants but with them 2. Touching the Centuries reiecting of the Fathers The cause of some errors in the Fathers 3. Gregories Faith conuerting England 4. The Papists haue bene formall innouators 5. How they excuse the matter A. D. In which point if he desire to be more fully satisfied Pag. 271. let him reade Iodocus Coccius his Booke intituled Catholicus thesaurus controuersiarum in which he shall see particularly set downe point by point the ancient Fathers with vnanime consent testifying for vs against Protestants The which to be so in many points the Magdeburgians being themselues famous Protestants do likewise testifie who hauing taken great paines in seeking ancient histories and monuments of the Fathers writings to see if they could finde any testimony of authority to countenance their cause are forced at last to acknowledge the ancient Fathers to testifie in many things against them and for vs all which their testimonies they thinke to wipe away with saying that these were the errors or blemishes of these Fathers which is as good a iest as if a guilty person being desirous to cleare himselfe at the barre by the witnesse of honest men and hauing diligently sought and finding that all honest men will beare witnesse against him yet to make a shew wil needs bring in a number of honest substantial men bidding them to giue their verdit of purpose that when they all haue deliuered the truth See the Protestants Apology where these points are hādled largely Tract 1 sect 1. deinceps he may forsooth say they all lie or are deceaued This also to be so is shewed in the Protestants Apologie where particularly is proued out of diuerse learned Protestant writers first that the faith we professe is the same that Saint Gregory professed and by Saint Austine the Monke taught vs English men at our first conuersion Secondly that the same faith was vniuersally professed for sundry ages before and namely that it agreed in substance with the first faith to which the Brittans were conuerted in the Apostles
the vnlearned know them to be sincere The new translation lately set foorth by the Kings authoritie defended Momus in his humor The subordination of meanes Chap. 29. Touching the obscuritie of the Scripture The necessitie of meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scripture proues not the obscuritie Traditions debarred A Councell is aboue the Pope The Scripture of it selfe easie to all that vse it as they should The certaine sence of the Scripture and the assurance thereof is not by tradition Chap. 30. Touching the all-sufficiencie of Scripture to the matter of faith It shewes it selfe to be Gods word Luthers denying S. Iames epistle How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture What they and what we hold about the authoritie of the Church How expresse Scripture is required Chap. 31. Wherein the place 2. Tim. 3.15 alledged to proue the fulnesse and sufficiencie of the Scripture alone is expounded and vrged against the Iesuites cauils Chap. 32. Touching priuate spirits that expound against the Church Such priuate expositions refused by the Protestants And yet the Papists haue no other All teaching is to be examined euen by priuate men Certaine propositions shewing how the Church teaching may be or may not be examined and refused Chap. 33. How a priuate man is assured he vnderstands and beleeues aright touching the last and highest resolution of faith Luthers reiecting the Fathers Occhams opinion that no man is tied to the Pope or his Councels The Beraeans examined the doctrine that they were taught The faith of the beleeuer rests vpon diuine infused light M. Luther sought reformation with all humilitie Scripture is the grounds of true assurance Who the Pastors were of whom Luther learned his faith His conference with the Diuel By the Church the Papists meane onely the Pope Chap. 34. The Papists pretending the Church haue a further meaning then the vulgar know The Popes will is made the Churches act Base traditions expounded to be diuine truth Chap. 35. The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope How and in what sence they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith And that the Scripture receiues authoritie from him Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not And they may iudge of that they teach The Iesuites dare not answer directly Chap. 36. An entrance into the question touching the visibilitie of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was Chap. 37. Not the Church but the Scripture is the rule The question touching the visiblenesse of the Church proceeds of the Militant Church In what sence we say the Militant Church is sometime inuisible The Papists thinke the Church shall be inuisible in the time of Antichrist Their contradictions touching Antichrist breefly noted Chap. 38. The Papists cannot proue the Church to be alway visible in that sence wherein we denie it The diuerse considerations of the Church distinguished His quarrels made for our doctrine touching the Churches seuerall states answered The faithfull onely are true members of the Church Vpon what occasion the question touching the visiblenesse of the Church first began Chap. 39. The Papists are enforced to yeeld the same that we say touching the inuisiblenesse of the Church Their doctrine touching the time of Antichrists reigne And the state of the Militant Church at some times Arguments for the perpetuall visiblenesse of the Church answered In whom the true Church consisted before Luthers time Chap. 40. Againe touching the visiblenesse of the Church and in what sence we say it was inuisible Many things innouated in the Church of Rome The complaints of Vbertine and Ierome of Ferrara All the Protestants faith was preserued in the middest of the Church of Rome A iest of the Terinthians What religion hath bred desperation Chap. 41. A narration of a popish Doctor and professor of diuinitie in the Church of Rome translated out of Acosta de temp nouissimis lib. 2. cap. 11. and Maiolus dies canicul tom 2. pag. 89. and inserted for answer to that wherewith the Iesuite reproches our Church in the last words of his precedent replie Chap. 42. An obiection against the Repliars Catalogue Diuers articles condemned by the Fathers mentioned in the Catalogue that the Church of Rome now vses What consent there is betweene antiquitie and papistrie Chap. 43. Whatsoeuer the Fathers of the primitiue Church beleeued is expressed in their bookes The Repliar is driuen to say they held much of his religion onely implicitely What implicite faith is according to the Papists The death of Zeuxis The Fathers writ that which cannot stand with papistrie Chap. 44. The whole Christian faith deliuered to the Church hath succeeded in all ages yet many corruptions haue sometime bene added how and in what sence the Church may erre A Catalogue assigned of those in whom the Protestants faith alway remained What is required to the reason of succession Chap. 45. The Fathers are not against the Protestants but with them Touching the Centuries reiecting of the Fathers The cause of some errors in the Fathers Gregories faith and conuerting England The Papists haue bene formall innouators How they excuse the matter Chap. 46. The errors broached by the later Diuines of the Church of Rome Their errors maintained by that Church and their writings to good purpose alledged by Protestants How that which they speake for the Protestants is shifted of One reason why we alledge their sayings That which is said in excuse of their disagreement answered Chap. 47. Councels haue erred and may erre What manner of Councels they be that the Papists say cannot erre It is confessed that both Councels and Pope may erre Chap. 48. Touching the Councels of Neece the second and Frankford How the Nicene decreed images to be adored What kind of Councell it was And what manner of one that of Frankford was Frankford cōdemned the second Nicene Touching the booke of Charles the Great and of what credit it is Chap. 49. The ancient Church held the blessed Virgin to haue bene conceiued in sinne The now Church of Rome holds the contrary Chap. 50. Touching Seruice and praier in an vnknowne language The text 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine The ancient Church vsed praier in a knowe language Chap. 51. The Church of Rome against all antiquitie forbids the laie people the vse of the Scripture in the vulgar language The shifts vsed by the Papists against reading spitefull speeches against it Testimonies of antiquitie for it The Repliars reason against it Chap. 52. The mariage of Priests and Bishops lawfull and allowed by antiquitie Some examples hereof in the ancient Church The restraint hereof is a late corruption Priests were maried euen in these westerne parts a thousand yeares after Christ Chap. 53. Wherein is handled the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the
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 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
vnworthiest things that are and my knowledge of the meanes whereby and the ends whereto they are trained vp to this writing and my daily exercise in their bookes haue long since remooued from me all opinion of them and taught me that learning as beawty can play the baude and make them loue it that shall fall by it and inamoured of it that little know the danger of it Let the seuerall points of their faith which with that learning they maintaine be well vnderstood and considered for the most vnderstand them not and let the manner of their proceeding in that they defend be iudiciously looked into and it will easily appeare that learning and wit Gen. 38. like Thamar hath prostituted her selfe and sits in the highway and so she may haue children she will deceiue Iudah her owne father And when all learning and the ripest wits and holiest Diuines the Church of Rome hath are now wholly imploied in maintaining the Popes power ouer Princes absoluing subiects from their alleagiance excusing equiuocating and the POWDER-TREASON and making the actors Martyrs and dissoluing the very ioints and bands whereby the world and Christian society is holden together it is high time to let the authoritie of mens persons alone and looke another while into the reasons and causes they maintaine and when they haue found the truth to cease from contending and labour by obedience and submission therunto to bring glory to God that our tongues may professe and our liues glorifie his heauenly Maiestie Hauing therefore written in my former booke to this effect and plainely shewed all this and much more that my countreymen and the people of our nation if they pleased might see the triall of things it is fallen out that the Romish side findes it selfe in an extraordinary manner touched therewith after many rumors vowes to confute me at last about 18. monethes since I receaued this Reply which here thou seest And although I take no pleasure in contentious writings but as time shall shew if I continue my course and God giue meanes intend that which shall cleare the controuersies without contention yet when I had heard many reports of something that would be done with effect against me I was willing to giue satisfaction againe least the ignorant might be perswaded something was writtē indeed that could not be answered It is not vnlikely but others also for they haue more helps meanes and leasure then I haue as soone as they can be furnished wil be doing more may yet be written for so he sends me word that writ the last Triumph of Purgatory an Author that sure will ouerthrow the Chariot and lay all in the mire if he be set to driue it and so I haue bene often told and sent word and therefore if any shall chance to write in forme and without passion whereof this man is full and with modesty will say what he thinks speaking directly and home to that I haue said without declining or shrinking from the point that presses him that I may finde him an honest minded man and not a Mercurialist I will gratifie him againe with the same that he brings and freely reuoke and confesse any error that he shall shew to haue escaped me If I be otherwise dealt with that nothing be sought but the disgrace of my persō vndirect discrediting of my booke it is likely that I shall take my resolution from the circumstances of my aduersary when I see him and do as his booke against me shall deserue In the meane time be admonished of 4. things touching this Reply and my owne Defence First that whereas he hath in the same booke written against M. wootton a learned Diuine as well as me I meddle onely with that which concernes my selfe and therefore taking his booke before me I answer onely the passages that are against me Next all that I meddle with is set downe verbatim as it lies and the number of his page in the margent ouer against his text Then I haue in this sort gone through his whole booke til within a little of the end which containing no new matter but the same that I had occasion to answer diuers times afore I would lose no time about it Fourthly I haue answered fully and directly to euery word he saieth by which diligence I haue benefited the Reader so much that howsoeuer my Aduersary may seeme meane and vnworthy confuting yet he shall not lose his labour in reading but finde my paines bestowed profitably vpon him such as he is who yet to giue him his due though he raile hard and vnciuilly and write an obscure and vnpleasing stile hath replied with all the best and sutablest arguments he could finde in Stapleton Bellarmine and Valentia touching the points depending and onely failes in replying to that which I had answered before Hereafter let me intreate the good and courteous Reader if he will vouchsafe to vse my writings not to iudge of them but by his owne triall and examination For they haue secretly to their wel-willers laid imputations vpon them who being surprised with conceit are afraid to make the triall or to meete the truth The quotations for example or Authors alledged may be challenged reported to be false yet this Reply hath charged but onely one in all his booke and they which haue bene lowdest and earnestest may finde in such a multitude possible some to proue that the diligentest writer may be ouerseene but the substance they cannot discredit If I haue erred in any thing or mistaken an Author I acknowledge my selfe to be a man that may erre and I humbly submit what I haue done not onely to the Church wherein I liue but to euery moderate and peaceable minded man therein yea I will with all respect of his person heare and aduise of any thing that an aduersary shall informe me of if he will hold the rules of Christian truth and charity and go forward with me in that course to seeke the truth which all men see euermore to be lost where words and wrangling giue the sound And I intreate euen those that cleaue most to the Church of Rome to perswade themselues that whatsoeuer I haue written is for their sakes that if it were possible they might discerne the truth offered them and the wickednesse of the Iesuites that leade them I maligne no mans person I hate none that is among them but being called to be a Preacher of the Gospell I am desirous to bestow my spare houres in maintenance of that I preach and for the which I were ready to sacrifice my life much more to bestow my time and trauell that if it might so please God we might be all as one and the state and gouernement wherein we liue be no longer tossed and intangled with our disagreements They cannot but see that God by establishing the Kings throne and blessing it against the malice vnnatural practises of their Church giues testimony on our
their own and I haue so truly alledged them that the quotations being many hundreds this Iesuite in all his Reply hath not so much as enterprised to answer one of them but onely that of Baius whereby the Reader may guesse whether in this my assertion I haue lied or not He sayes there be so many blacke lies as there be instances in my words and I confesse I haue often heard of the sound of a lie that it hath rung so lowd that it might be heard from Rome hither though of the colour I neuer heard before vntil the Iesuites began to paint them yet the argument I vsed to proue that I said the purging and razing and forbidding so many of their owne writers is vnanswerable N. D. in his Warnword and A.D. in his Reply and he that scribbled I know not what against M. Crash may satisfie such as are full gorged with preiudice but let the indifferent reader judge if the publishing of bookes which the authors whose names they beare neuer writ and the razing and purging of their writings be not a manifest signe that they find the doctrine of their Diuines in former times to be against them and to crosse the present opinions of their Church The which their practise the Iesuite makes a light matter but it must be better considered It is our plea against the Church of Rome that the doctrine thereof is altered and that we hold nothing but what the learned in that Church taught as well as we many a day since And this we are ready to shew in euery question out of their bookes a This is so manifest that it cannot be denied 1. First the books thus purged are extant which are of the chiefest of their Diuiâ—eâ— Caietan Folydore Masius Ferus Alphonsus Molineus Eugubinus Lud Viues Erasmus Duarenus Faber Rhenanus and innumerable others 2. The directions for the purging of all authors by putting into them and taking out of them and razing what they writ called Judices expurgatorij according whereunto they are to be newly printed are extant one set forth in Flanders another in Spaine a third in Portugall a fourth in Naples a fift at Rome all which are publickly to be seene of which sort there are many more that we haue not yet come by and dayly more are made as the Iesuites and their gouernours can espie in any booke what they mislike In these Indices you may see what is to be put out and what to be foisted in in the bookes mentioned 3. There is strait order that no bookâ— be printed before it be thus purged The Spanish Index sayes in the preface thereof that of necessitie some things must be wiped out and cut off The King of Spaine authorizing the Index of Flanders sayes in his letters pattents prefixed that for the propagation of religion he had caused all the Libraries both publicke and priuate to be purged and learned men to be imployed in the reading and reuising of bookes that they might the better and in shorter time be purged commanding all Prelates secretly without the priuitie of any to haue an Expurgatory Index by them and according thereunto to blot out in bookes the places noted 4. Pope Leo the tenth in a certaine decretall appoints and ordaines that hereafter for euer no man shall print or cause to be printed any booke or writing in the citie of Rome or in any other place vnlesse first by his Vicar or Minister of his Pallace or by some Bishop or other thereunto deputed it be diligently examined and subscribed 7. Decretal pag. 534. To what purpose this examination is intended appeares by the rule of the Trent Councell Such bookes as handle good matter and yet haue some things interlaced by the way which belong to heresie or impietie may be permitted after they are purged by the authoritie of the Jnquisition Ind. lib. prohiâ— reg 8 Againe Such as publish Manuscript bookes before they be examined and allowed shall be punished Reg 10 Let Bishops and Jnquisitors haue facultie to purge all bookes whatsoeuer according to the prescript of this Jndex They which are put in trust with correcting and purging bookes must diligently looke into all things and attentiuely note them not such things onely as manifestly offer themselues in the course of the worke but if there be any thing that lies priuily in the Annotations Summaries Margents Tables or in the Prefaces or Epistles dedicatorie of such bookes the things to be corrected and purged are these that follow hereticall assertions or such as are erronious sauouring of heresie scandalous offensiue temerarious and schismaticall such as they will expound any thing to be that hath bene written contrary to the present Iesuitisme though it were holden neuer so generally in the Church of Rome heretofore such as induce any noueltie against the rites and ceremonies of the Sacraments and against the receiued vse of the Church of Rome Prophane nouelties also deuised by heretickes But in the bookes of later Catholickes written since the yeare 1515. if that which needs correcting can be mended by taking away or adding a few things let it be done otherwise let it be altogether blotted out instruct post Ind. 5. Posseuine the Iesuite sayes that in the publicke Libraries of Princes and others speciall care is to be had that Manuscript bookes not permitted by the Church be not open to the view of euery one because they also must be purged Bibl select pag 36. and that Antoninus an Archbishop in the Church of Rome 140 yeares since now enioying the light of heauen no doubt desires that all his writings should be reuiewed and occupied purer then of old they were apparat verb Anton. Flor M. Witherington sayes It is not the Popes manner to permit either the deeds or opinions of their predecessors which helpe the papall authoritie to be impugned or called into question and therfore as well the Pope himselfe as the Ordinarieâ— of places and Inquisitors are carefull enough that no bookes come abroad which any wayes derogate from the Popes authoritie and if that they do come abroad that they be suppressed or not read by any without speciall facultie till they be purged which is the cause why it is so hard a thing in these times to find any clause in the bookes of Catholickes calling the Popes temporall power in question or to know what such authors thought touching the same power who most an end are enforced to speake their mind in the words of the censors Apol. n. 449 Hasenmullerus speaking of this practise of the Inquisitors reports many things that it were too tedious to report pag. 275. And the like doth Iunius praef Ind. exp Belg. to whom I referre thee Wherein to preuent vs daily they raze and wipe those things out and put the contrary in and so publish their bookes the most diuellish and dishonest course that euer any sect vsed to helpe themselues and burne vp the old editions that are the true
it may be the easing of him may do him good He complains this distinction when it is granted will not helpe the matter neither for the question may still be how many and which truthes those be that are necessary the which question if we leaue to be determinated by euery priuate spirit either we shall haue no point to be counted Fundamentall in regard the ignorance of some may be such that they may thinke a man may be saued by morall good life although through ignorance he beleeue nothing at all or else so many as shall please euery brainsicke fellow The determination therefore of this necessary question is to be left to the iudgement of the Catholicke Church that all such points that are confirmed by full authority of the said Church he receiued for such as must necessarily be beleeued by all men Wherein first I blame his discretion for where I mentioned the distinction I had no cause to inquire whose the authority is to iudge what is Fundamentall and what otherwise but assuming it as a thing iudged already I onely mentioned it affirming some points to be Fundamentall and some otherwise How it helps the matter therefore I had nothing to do in that my words were not vsed in this question Next I pittie his wretched state that in no controuersie running betweene vs no not so much as in this a poore distinction can preuaile vnlesse his owne Church and the Pope therein for * Shewed plainely below cap 35. 36. that he meanes by the authority of the Catholicke Church be made the iudge This is a very meane shift when a question depends betweene vs and them to put the Scripture and the consent of the Ancient Church by and require themselues to be iudges Thirdly this question as all other matters belonging to faith must be iudged by no mans priuate spirit but by the Catholicke Church of Christ as the Iudge and by the Scripture onely as the Rule and if they be no competent Iudges who through ignorance may thinke a man may be saued by morall good life though he beleeue nothing at all then away with the Church of Rome and let it be acknowledged as erroneous as any priuate spirit i See cap. 22. n. 1. wherein it is frequently holden that the Gentiles were iustified and might be saued onely by their morall life without beleeueing any thing at all Fourthly supposing the Protest left the determining of this question to priuate spirit which they do not but to the true Church of God following the Scripture yet let my Iesuite answer if the practise of his owne Church be not as bad where the Pope hath power k See cap. 36. n. 3. to make a new article of faith and that to be a Fundamentall point belonging to faith at one time which is not so at another so that all men shall then be bound to beleeue it which before were free to beleeue it l Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 §. ad argu Tonstall de verit corp p 46. as it hath already bene practised in the point of transubstantiation and may when the Pope will in the points of m Dico primò veritatem hanc sc virginem esse conceptam sine peccato originali posse definiti ab Ecclesia quando id expedire indicauerit probatur Nam imprimis EcclesiaÌ„ posse controuersiam hanc in alterutram partem decidere apertè supponunt Sixtus 4. Pius 5. Suar. tom 2. disp 3. sect 6. the conception of the B. Virgin and n Paul Benc Eugub l. de effic auxil c. 1. the concourse of Gods grace with mans wil and the o Staplet Princip doctr l. 9. c. 4. Relect. coÌ„tro 5. q. 2. art 4. Canonizing of Hermes or Clement into the sacred Scripture In which case his Holinesse might possible if not be brain-sicke which betides yonger men which Popes commonly are not vnlesse it be sometime when the yong Cardinâ—â— are in an humor to elect a Bennet or Iohn or * When Leo the tenth a yong man was elected in the Conclaue Alphonsus Petrucius a yong Cardinall proclaimed his election at the window Pontificem habemus Leonem decimum ac viuant vigeantque iuniores Pap. Masso in LeoÌ„ 10. he should haue cried by the order Annutiâ— vobis gaudium magnum Papam habemus Marcell sacr cerem pag. 19 Leo yet doâ—e at least by vertue of his age or for his recreation play the vice of a Play as p Alex. ab Alexand. genial dicr l. 3. c. 21. Amasis the King of Egipt would sometime do among his Courtiers and as q Aelian var. hist l. 12. c. 15. Agesilaus ride vpon a sticke among his children to make them sport the which comparisons howsoeuer his creatures will take vnkindly yet all the world knowes his Consistorie hath bene a stage whereon he hath many a time and often plaied these parts ere now as formally as the priuatest spirit or braine-sickest companion aliue can do and so I leaue him CHAP. XVIII 1. Touching the perpetuall virginity of Mary 2. The celebration of Easter 3. The Baptisme of Infants The Iesuits halting 4. And the Scriptures sufficiency A. D. I for breuitie sake will omit to vrge other points Pag. 68. which Protestants beleeue with vs viz the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgine against the errour of Heluidius White pag. 12. the celebration of Easter on the Sunday against those heretikes that denied it the Baptisme of Infants against Anabaptists who will not allow it c. 1 HEre my name is cited in the Margent and the page of my Booke as if I had written or some way insinuated that these 3. points were matters of faith and yet not contained in the Scripture But I writ nothing that sounds that way neither in the place cited nor any where else yet because I will misse no place where he cites me I answer he affirmes 3. things First that we hold the perpetuall virginity of the blessed Virgine the Celebration of Easter vpon the Sunday and the Baptisme of Infants to be a For that is the question expressed by himselfe a litle before pag. 67. of his Repl. points of faith necessary to be beleeued â—â—condly that these 3. are not contained in Scripture Thirdly that we beleeue all this with the Papists Wherein there is neuer a true word For to the first the perpetuall virginity of the Virgine Marie after the birth of our Sauiour as well as before we beleeue as a probable and likely truth but not as a matter of faith the which if my aduersarie mislike I require him to forbeare me and answer Saint Basil with whom we consent b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil pa. 233. graec Froben an 1551. That she denyed not the workes of mariage to her husband after the birth of her Sonne though it nothing hinder godly doctrine yet what was done after without medling with it let vs leaue to the
all points contained in Scripture all which are points of faith and consequently are points necessary to be beleeued either expressely and in particular or implicitely and in generall vnder paine of damnation Indeed I do grant and neuer did deny but that there are some points necessary to be particularly knowne of all sorts necessitate medij and some necessary to be known necessitate praecepti In which points implicite beleefe doth not suffice but expresse particular knowledge is required by Catholicke Diuines to be ioyned to the assent of our faith Whereby appeareth that M. White doth vtter two grosse vntruthes 2 White p. 5. 7. when he saies that we vtterly refuse knowledge and that the Colliars faith is canonized for our Creed In other points so farre as we neither know nor haue sufficient meanes to know them we may well commend the Colliars faith in beleeuing in generall as the Church beleeueth For in this generall act is infolded a vertuall or implicite beleefe of all points both in regard a generall includeth all particulars contained in it as also for that this particular act of beleeuing the Church eo ipso in that we are moued vnto it by the authority of diuine reuelation as the primary or formall cause and by the authoritie of the Church it selfe as a necessary condition or the secondary cause doth so dispose the minde of the beleeuer that he is ready to beleeue euerie other point reuealed by God and propounded by the Church Againe * Pag. 140. Thirdly whereas M. White 3 White p. 5. requireth particular knowledge to be ioyned with the assent of faith as though he meant that one could not beleeue any point of faith which he did not first expressely and in particular know this his assertion is not onely contrarie to his fellow M. Wotton Wotton p. 46. who admitteth a generall or implicite beleefe of some points which we do not in particular know 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. but it is also against the Scriptures Fathers and naturall reason it selfe In the Scriptures we haue that not onely Faith and knowledge Heb. 11. v. 1. are 2. distinct things but also that faith is of things not apparant or not knowne and that faith doth captiuate the vnderstanding for the seruice of Christ 2. Cor. 10 v. 5. Rom. 10. v. 16. requiring an obedience in the beleeuer all which were not verified if expresse particular distinct knowledge were presupposed before beleefe or if beleefe and such knowledge were all one thing The Fathers do not onely distinguish faith and knowledge but do also affirme Faith to be without knowledge of things beleeued Iren. l. 2. c. 45. It is better saith Irenaeus that one that knoweth nothing beleeue God and perseuere in his loue which doth quicken a man then by subtilties of questions and by much speech to fall into impietie Not to know saith S. Hilary that which thou must beleeue Hilar. l. 5. de Trin. ante medium Aug. Ep. 102. ad Euodium doth not so much require pardon as reward because it is the greatest stipend of faith to hope for those things which thou knowest not If saith Saint Augustine Christ was borne onely for those that can discerne these things with certaine knowledge in vaine almost do we labour in the Church which he saith in regard the common sort cannot with all the preaching in the world discerne with certaine knowledge the high and hard Mysteries of the blessed Trinitie Incarnation and other such mysteries of faith and therefore not the viuacitie or quickenesse of vnderstanding saith the same Saint Augustine but the simplicitie of beleeuing Aug. cont Fund c. 4. Tract 40. in Ioan. doth make the common sort of people most safe And againe he saith of some they did not beleeue because they knew but they beleeued that they might know And in the same place he asketh what is faith but to beleeue that thou seest not Conformable to which also he saith Serm. 120. de tempore After we haue receiued Baptisme we say I am a faithfull man I beleeue that which I know not Reason also and experience it selfe teacheth that beleefe and knowledge are distinct and that beleefe doth not necessarily presuppose knowledge but is rather sometimes an antecedent to it Insomuch that euen in naturall things the Philosopher acknowledgeth that one that learneth must beleeue before he come to knowledge M. White may aske how one can assent to the veritie which he doth not first apprehend or know I answer that some apprehension at least confuse rude and generall I do not deny to be requisite in the assent of faith but expresse particular distinct or cleare apprehension or knowledge is not necessary otherwise not onely the common sort but the learnedest in the world might despaire of saluationâ— in regard they could not beleeue the mysterie of the blessed Trinity which no man in this life can distinctly and clearely vnderstand and know and yet all sorts of men are bound to beleeue it explicite and much lesse could they beleeue both it and all other mysteries contained in the whole corps of the holy Scripture all which are necessary to be beleeued in one sort or other explicite or implicite as hath bene proued and yet no one learned man hath particular distinct knowledge of euerie truth contained in the Scriptures Quis enim est hic laudabimus eum 1 FOr the reducing of this wilde discourse into some order and the better discerning of the controuersie you are to note that the Iesuite in the beginning of his Treatise laied downe 4. propositions touching faith out of the which he would spin his motiues to Papistry the first is that Faith is necessary to saluation The second that this faith is but only one The third that it must be infallible The fourth that it must be entire extending it selfe to all points vniuersally This conclusion I graunted in one sense and denied in another That our beleefe must be entire whole and sound in all points by obtaining a particular distinct knowledge of the same in our selues that so our faith might include an apprehension and knowledge of that we beleeue as well as an assent in the will I granted but if his meaning were that which then I suspected and now he bewraies that the implicite faith taught by the Iesuites and schoolemen destitute of knowledge and onely beleeuing as the Church beleeues were this entire faith so necessary and infallible then I denied it and gaue my reasons and a Dig. 2. in a speciall Digress shewed and confuted it All which he passes by and onely mentions as you see my bare assertion against his implicite faith but what I said in describing it confuting it and shewing the drift and purpose of it he touches not though it concerned his cause more then that which he replies to This is his method whereto he cleaues in all his booke to reply entirely to
all men is NO PROPER and FORMALL act of willing in God because he hath no imperfect act of willing as they call VELLEITIE but onely * Voluntatem signi a signification of will which onely is METAPHORICALL and INTERPRETATIVE in that he carries himselfe towards men as if he had that act of willing Thus thinke Caietan and Marsilius Others say the formall and proper will of God reaches not to the saluation of all men for that cause because it is not fulfilled but onely to the giuing of sufficient meanes which will onely to appoint sufficient meanes is formall in God and thereof God is said to will the saluation of all men and of this minde are many Schoole men This will of God b In 1. Tho. disp 83. nu 22. saith Vasquez whereby he would the saluation of all men euen of the reprobate verie many Schoole-men especially the newer thinke to be onely a CONDITIONATED will which they call a VELLEITIE whose act is not absolute and perfect but vnder condition Now the probabler opinion c 1. p. q. 19. ar 6 concl 2. comm saith Dominicus Bannes is that there is FORMALLY no will in God which is signified by the name of velleitie Whence it followes that since by the doctrine of Thomas and many others this Antecedent will is but a VELLEITIE it cannot be formally in God But to take downe this raw student yet a little more Soto Maior d Soto Maio. in Tim vbi sup pag. 274. saith This word God will the saluation of all men by the good leaue of so many ancient Authors we will not onely expound of will PROPERLY so called which is Gods good pleasure but of his antecedent will that is to say an IMAGINARY and METAPHORICALL will according to the which it is no inconuenience to say God will haue all men to be saued of which antecedent will or will IMPROPERLY so called Damascen speakes And e Pag. 276. againe Damascens antecedent will is but a GENERALL METAPHORICALL and IMPROPER will which they call a VELLEITIE Here you see that Damascen and Thomas his antecedent will is but a velleitie and this velleitie is no will simply or formally in God and therefore I spake not ignorantly but after the minde of the best Schoole men that write when I said out of Durand that this antecedent will is not simply properly and formally the will of God but knew well enough what I said and such as hold the contrary that this antecedent will whereby God is said to will the saluation of all men is simply properly or formally the wil of God f Opus est fateri non omnem voluntatem Beneplaciti semper impleri Magal in Tim. pag. 252. are driuen to hold a paradoxe that Gods absolute will which is defined to be the will of his good pleasure may be defeated and not accomplished which is a desperate shift and contrary to the doctrine of g Tho. 1. p. q. 19. art 6. Magist 1. d. 46. ibi Scot. Occham Dionys Capreol d. 45. q. vnic art 2. concl 5. Caiet in 1. Tim. 2.4 Dom. Ban. 1. p. q. 19. art 6. concl 2. in sum text Perer. select disp in Ioh 1. nu 73. the best ancient Diuines in the Church of Rome and directly against the Scripture which saith h Psal 135.6 Our God hath done whatsoeuer pleased him in heauen and earth i Rom. 9.19 Who hath resisted his will k Eph. 1.11 who worketh all things according to the counsell of his owne will 7 Thirdly he saith that in our ignorance possible we vnderstand not this distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will and that is the cause why we mislike the exposition of Saint Pauls words thereby which may be true and himselfe also as ignorant therein as we For be it spoken in good time Ludouicus Viues a man of his owne side hath l In August de ciuit lib. 22. c. 1. obserued that the late Diuines of the Church of Rome either to solue or cut asunder things obiected against them haue found out so many wils of Good pleasure of Signification Antecedent Consequent of simple Complacencie or Displicencie that it were to be wished they would better explane what they say in words suited to common sence and not with these absurd nouelties of words seeke for admiration Neuerthelesse because my aduersary is so peremptory in charging vs with ignorance that we vnderstand it not and so confident of his owne exposition that any iudicious wit by the very sound of words must needs grant it to be a good and a true exposition let the triall hereof proceed betweene vs and let it be obserued whether my confident Iesuite with his wit so iudicious hath hit the bird in the eye 8 The question therefore is whether we vnderstand the distinction of Gods antecedent and consequent will touching the saluation of all men right because we mislike the exposition of Saint Pauls text made thereby or rather whether himselfe haue giuen the true exposition thereof For the deciding whereof note first that m Capreol 1. d. 45. qu. vnic art 2. concl 4. Molin concor qu. 19. art 6. disp 1. Vasquez 1 p. disp 83. c. 3. Rispol de praedifin lib. 1. q. 1. dub 2. the Schoole-men who are the principall Diuines that haue bene in the Church of Rome and labour most to fit it to the text yet differ and are contrary one to another in expounding it Ariminensis n 1. d. 46. qu. vnic ad 1. sayes This distinction is vnderstood by some one way and by some another Gregorie of Valence o Tom. 1. disp 1 q. 19. punct 2. sayes All Diuines do not declare after one manner what is to be vnderstood by the names of Antecedent and Consequent will but they expound it diuersly It is therefore an obscure and perplexed distinction conceiued in diuers sences that on our part the matter were not great whether we vnderstood it or no but on our aduersaries part it is ridiculous to tell vs we vnderstand it not when they vnderstand it not themselues and to expound the Scripture by it when all Scripture should be expounded in words plaine and manifest Note secondly that Damascen p Can. loc lib. 11. c. 2. Suar. 3. p. to 2. Suar. 3. p. to 2. disp 43 sect 3. Baron because some make him elder by almost 400 yeares who liued 750 yeares after Christ was the first that euer expounded Gods will to saue all men in these termes Capreolus q Capreol vbi sup sayes he brought in this distinction And r Valentian vbi sup Gregorie of Valence He seemes to be the first that thus distinguished the will of God Damascens words be these ſ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de orthod fid l. 2. c. 29. We must know that God ANTECEDENTLY will haue all men to be saued and obtaine his kingdome for he made vs not to punish vs but to partake
his goodnesse as one that is good but such as sinne he will punish as one that is iust The first therefore is called his ANTECEDENT will and GOOD PLEASVRE but the latter his CONSEQVENT will and PERMISSION arising because of vs. And this Permission againe is twofold the one Dispensatorie and correctorie to saluation the other Condemnatorie to finall iudgement Againe t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dialog de Manich. prope fin Albeit God will condemne yet this he doth not according to his ANTECEDENT will but his CONSEQVENT That is an ANTECEDENT will which a mans wils of himselfe and that is a CONSEQVENT will which arises from the cause of the things that are done For God ANTECEDENTLY of himselfe wils that all men should be saued and come to the knowledge of his truth but when we sinne he will punish vs so much as he sees expedient And thus Gods ANTECEDENT will is of his goodnesse and his CONSEQVENT will of his iustice These are the words of Damascen expounding the manner how God will haue all men to be saued wherein he seemes to affirme fiue things touching the antecedent and consequent will of God First that his Antecedent wil is that whereby he wils a thing simply of himselfe of his owne goodnesse and nature not moued thereunto by any thing in the creature out of himselfe As when he wils the good and saluation of the elect His consequent will is that when he wils according to the disposition and nature or circumstances of the creature as it deserues for the manifestation of his iustice as when he wils the punishment of him that sins because in iustice sinne deserues punishment Secondly that Gods consequent will followes vpon the condition of the creature and vpon some cause therein going before in which regard it is called consequent that is a will ensuing after as when he wils the punishment of man after that man hath sinned against him Thirdly that the antecedent will of God is his good pleasure whereby he takes delight in that he wils but his consequent will is his permission suffering iudgement to be inflicted on them that sinne Fourthly that by this antecedent will God would all men to be saued and come to his kingdome and by his consequent will such to be punished as sinne against him Fiftly that God by his antecedent wil decrees onely good things according to his goodnesse and by his consequent will onely euill things according to his iustice in that he made no man to punish him but to participate his goodnesse From this sence of Damascen thus explicated I gather three things that ensue vpon it First that by Damascens iudgement the first roote of election should be foreseene merits and the first roote of reprobation should be the foresight of the reprobates sinne because none is either saued or refused but by a consequent will which will arises in God from the cause in the creature Secondly I gather that what God wils not simply of himselfe without the condition of the creature he wils not antecedently but consequently because all Gods antecedent will is simple and independant whereupon it o Hence it manifestly appeares that this Antecedent will in God is no Formall will because it works nothing followes that albeit God by his antecedent will would all men to be saued yet no man is saued by it forasmuch as all men are saued consequently vpon the condition of their workes Thirdly I gather that God willing to saue all by his antecedent will and yet de facto sauing none but by his consequent will arising from that which he sees or foresees in the creature it followes that the distinction of wils antecdent and consequent is not reall because according to the one of them God workes nothing And this touching Damascens owne exposition 8 Others expound the antecedent will to be vpon the first consideration of a thing and the consequent vpon the latter consideration thus as God considers man absolutely abstracting from euery thing that circumstantially belongs vnto him and representing him to himselfe onely as a creature he wils his good and saluation antecedently But considering him againe not onely according to his nature but also as he is a sinner or a iust man so he wils his saluation or damnation consequently according to that he findes in him u Tho. 1. p. q. 1◠art 6. ad 1. Thus Aquinas expresses the distinction out of the Metaphysicks w As Gregor Arimin shewes at large ◠46. q. vnic ad 3. cleane contrary to Damascens yea x Pag. 306. e. in 1. part Tho. sayes Gregorie of Valence There is a manifest difference betweene this exposition of Thomas and the former of Damascen And this appeares sufficiently of it selfe which must be noted against my aduersarie because he ioynes Thomas and Damascen in a distinction wherein they are so far from agreeing that they are contrary and when he hath done talks of our ignorance and not vnderstanding 9 A third exposition is that which I noted in the margent of my y THE WAY p. 94. s booke that Gods antecedent will is when he supplies mankind with all such helpes and meanes whether of nature or grace as are sufficient to bring him to saluation But his consequent will is when he makes these meanes not onely sufficient but effectuall also and thereupon according to the merit of our workes conferres saluation and so he wils the saluation of all antecedently by giuing them the meanes and by consequence when he workes effectually that which men deserue This exposition as it is the best so is it the commonest a Occh. 1. d. 46. q. 1. Camerac q. 14. art 1. Bonau d. 47. q. 1. Dionys d. 46. q. 1. Dur. d. 47. q. 1. Clicton in Damasc orth fid l. 2. c. 29. and most vsed and in Gregories opinion the fittest but it differs really from the two former and falls in with the fourth interpretation of Saint Pauls words b Before n. 4. mentioned whereby God is said to will the saluation of all men onely voluntate signi and no further and how my aduersarie will like it I know not but whether he doe or no he may blush to see himselfe and his doctors thus vsing Damascens words and yet retaining so little of his meaning The which tricke if our aduersaries would lay by and as they vse the same termes and words of the Doctors so all of them in the magnified vnitie would retaine the same sence and definition of the words we should haue shorter worke with them and the ignorant should not be so deluded with colourable shew of antiquitie as they are Pag. 146. A. D. Let vs therefore imagine that there were an earthly Emperor or King who of his owne nature were most milde and gracious and who of his owne gracious and good disposition towards his subiects did desire with a true inward primarie or antecedent will that euery subiect he hath
faith but the illumination of Gods Spirit whereof faith is an effect 2. Himselfe in those words the Spirit of God must assist and concur with mans vnderstanding not onely in generall to preserue the faculty thereof but in a speciall manner to enable it to apprehend and yeeld confesses as much as I said or could meane taking my words in all their latitude 3. If faith be taken in one particular sence as sometimes it is for the receiuing of diuine illumination into the heart as a darke roome when the window is opened or a candle is brought in receiues light then it is true * â—rgo ante fidem absque fide intelligi Scripturas posse affirmas Hoc si tibi absurdum non videtur plus quam Pelagia nus es D. Stapl. de author script c. 8. §. 16. that the heart must be endued with faith before any man can vnderstand the rule and yeeld his assent to it vnlesse he will hold Pelagianisme neither doth my Aduersaries argument conclude any thing against this for the vsing of the rule and this faith go together as the opening of the eye and light concur to seeing Therefore as he that seekes a thing in a blind roome first opens the window and lets in light and then applies his eye with the helpe of that meanes to the obiect so though it be supposed that faith cannot be had before the rule instruct vs yet this light of Gods Spirit which is the beginning of faith as the medium whereby the rule is vnderstood goes in order before it As in all our sences * Nihil agit in distans nisi primo agat in medium Allias â—â—â—ct de anim c. 8. part 3. the way from the sence to the obiect is disposed by the medium But if faith be taken in the whole extent for the knowledge and assent of all that which is reuealed then I grant the rule must go before 2 Thirdly touching illumination of the Spirit which we both agree is necessary for the vsing and vnderstanding of the Rule he will haue 2. things noted First that this is not the Protestants spirit Whereunto I answer it is neither the Protestant nor Romish nor any priuate spirit much lesse the Popes spirit a Shewed Ch. 35. whereby alone they breathe that thus charge others with priuate spirits but the Spirit of God that is b 1 Cor. 12.6 giuen to euery man to profit withal Secondly that this Spirit of God is ready to assist all men at least sufficiently to the attaining of the truth and that no maÌ„ whoÌ„ grace hath excited to vse the rule need feare any want thereof but all men rather had need feare least themselues be wanting to concurre with this Spirit and least in stead of following the Spirit of God they suffer themselues as all they do that follow the Church of Rome to be misled by the spirit of Satan transfiguring himselfe into an Angell of light c. The which I am also well pleased to note and commend backe againe to himselfe and all of his sect who refusing the light of the Scripture that so euidently detects their errors haue suffered themselues to be seduced by the spirit of Antichrist * Apoc. 13.13 who hath transfigured himselfe into an Angell of light and broaching his owne priuate conceits yet colours all with the stile of S. Peters successour and seeming authority and spirit of the Church when the Primum mobile of all Papistry is now become the Iesuited Popes sole instinct 3 Fourthly he mislikes that besides these 3. properties of the Rule I would haue other two Vnpartiality that it be addicted to no side and Authority to conuince that there might be no appeale from it But these conditions I added for the better explication of the rest and to exclude the Church of Rome which is so partiall that it begges to be it owne iudge and so vnable to support the cause since that the clearest definitions thereof are still called in question by themselues as c Digr 36. I made demonstration The which being the true reasons of his mislike he dissembles and onely replies that these conditions are either not necessary or else included in the other 3. the former of which is not true the latter that they be included in the condition of infalliblenesse I will not contend about onely I noted them for the more distinct and particular explication of that which must belong to the Rule And so in this point there shall be no variance CHAP. XXVII 1. The Repliers terginersation 2. 3. The state of the question touching the sufficiency of the Scripture alone and the necessity of the Church Ministrie 3. The speeches of diuers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture 4. In what sence Scripture alone is not sufficient Pag. 177. A. D. Concerning the seuenth Chapter if my aduersaries did not ignorantly or wilfully peruert the state of the question they could not haue had colour to make so long discourse about this Chapter as they do both make My question was not whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether it alone be the rule and meanes ordained by God to breed in men that one infallible entire Faith which is necessary to saluation This my question my aduersaries peruert FIRST in that they would gladly as it seemeth make men beleeue that we exclude Scripture from being in any sort the rule of faith and thereupon * Pag. 10 11. M. Wootton maketh speciall opposition betwixt the Scripture which they assigne and the doctrine of the Church which we assigne for the rule of faith whereas we make no such opposition at all but hold the Scripture as propounded to vs by the Church to be part of that which in the tenth Chapter I call the rule of faith For by the doctrine of the Church which there I cal the rule of faith I do not meane any humane doctrine as humane is distinguished from Diuine but do account the same doctrine whether written or vnwritten which is called diuine because it was first immediatly reuealed by God to the Prophets and Apostles to be also Church doctrine because it is propounded interpreted and applyed in particular to vs by the Pastours of the Church This my aduersary might haue vnderstood euen by the very title of this Chapter in regard I said not the Scripture is not the rule of faith but Scripture ALONE is not the rule of faith SECONDLY they peruert the state of the question in that they take the rule of faith otherwise then I do and otherwise then according to the drift of the precedent Chapters wherupon this present Chapter doth depend they ought to do For whereas there may be distinguished in this matter First that which is a rule of faith but not the ordinary sufficient meanes ordained by God to breed faith in men viz the diuine reuealed verities as they are in themselues Secondly that which is so an
in their conscience they know the primitiue Church neuer made and raking into all the abuses of the Scripture that they can finde mens deprauing misexpounding misapplying them vsing them ouer boldly malepartly not with the respect they should hence most dishonestly they conclude the vtter suppressing of them not that they care how they are vsed for neuer any vsed them so vilely as themselues either * PRVRITANVS in applying reuiling or corrupting them but because they are mad at that which discouers their heresie 3 The Reply to salue the matter sayes that if the parties disposition be such that he may take benefit and no harme by reading then they permit the Scripture in the mother tongue both to laie men and women This is not true for how do they permit it to such where as in Spaine there is permitted no translation at all how it is permitted when the Pope sayes none may reade but such as are licenced by the Bishops and this power of licencing is taken from him by the Inquisition Againe euen by making this restraint they are gone from the primitiue Church which gaue rules had discipline to restraine such as abused the Scripture but the liberty of the booke it selfe they neuer restrained nor euer bound the rudest that was to go to the Bishop for a licence but by how much the more he was ignorant or transported with pride or indangered with heresie by so much the more they required him to reade the Scripture to reforme himselfe and if he did not they onely preached against his abuse and punisht the man but the translation they suppressed not And all the Papists in Europe in all the writings of the first 600 yeares cannot shew one period beyond this There are in the Fathers specially Nazianzen and Ierome sharpe speeches against abusers of the Scripture such as tosse turne thē to their owne lusts as Papists do but not a word against the translating and permitting them to all indifferently in the vulgar tongue to be read They neuer reproacht Gods people that desired his law with the name of dogges and swine as these * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustat Centaurs do nor euer imagined the permission of the sacred Scripture to be casting of pearles before them It is easie enough to see that if the laity were dogges and hogs neuer so much it were impossible they should trāple Gods blessed word worse then this Grillus drencht with Cyrces cup at Rome hath by this his application trampled it And whereas it may be some will beleeue him that the restraint made is onely in dangerous times and where there is perill of falling into error as he seemes to speake let it be remembred that at all times and in all places this restraint is made euen when and where there is no danger of error or heresie but onely of that which they will stile heresie when men by the Scripture see the horrible errors of the Church of Rome It being the doctrine of that side that the Scriptures should not be translated at all Let the wordes of Rainolds and Gifford in their a L. 4. c. 7. pag. 824. inde Caluino Turcismus be a litle pondered I conclude therefore that it is much more honour to the Scripture and saffe for religion and wholesome for the people that this power of the people to reade the Scripture in the mother tongue were altogether taken away without which they might both beleeue piously and liue holily and by so doing much more saffely and easily attaine eternall life 2 P. 825. It seemes to me this profane reuealing of the diuine mysteries by translating the Scripture is odiously contrary to the will of God and to the nature of the mysteries themselues 3 P. 830. The Pastors of the Church are not tied true for they haue broke the bonds to translate the Scripture into vulgar tongues there being no Apostolike precept or councell or so much as any light signification of their will to haue it so 4 P. 831. The manifold and great mischiefes which by the translations of the Scripture haue risen against the maiestie of God against the holinesse of the Scripture its selfe against the tranquillity of states against the faith and good conuersation of men * Satis magnā vim habere de buit ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi diuina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Thus Gods ordinance Christs Testament and the Apostles doctrine must giue place to the Popes lust should haue force enough vtterly to suppresse these translations yea ALBEIT THEY WERE SVPPORTED BY DIVINE OR APOSTOLICALL AVTHORITY Let the reader iudge by this if the Church of Rome do onely as the Reply blaunches it not promiscuously permit vulgar translations when they may be occasions of error by misinterpreting and not vtterly hate and condemne them as the causes of their discontent and desire the suppressing of them from all It s easie to discerne how pretiously they affect that which by reason onely of some abuse which also they multiply by their art many times a mote being in their eye when there is none in the skie they would haue vtterly taken away though by DIVINE AND APOSTOLIKE AVTHORITIE IT WERE SVPPORTED 4 To the testimonies alledged out of 1 Deut. 6.7 Moses 2 2. Tim. 3.15 S. Paule 3 Hom. 3. in Laz ho. 2. in Matthae S. Chrysostome 4 Epitaph Paul S. Ierom and 5 Cornel. Agrip. de vanit c. 100. the Councell of Neece whereby I shewed the doctrine of the Primitiue Church to be that lay people should reade the Scripture he answers nothing but contents himselfe hauing better helps for it with replying to the 5. of Iohn Search the Scriptures wherein I commend his discretion that falling so foule on this would let the rest alone First he saies the wordes were not spoken to all in generall but to the Pharisees and princes of the people because if they were spoken to the people he did wisely foresee that our Sauiour therein no longer counts them dogges and hogges but admonisheth them as Gods people bought with a price to the reading of the Scripture But how shall I be sure he speakes to none but the Pharisees and Priests when a V. 15. 18. the text saies he spake to the Iewes that sought to kill him whom the man healed at the poole of Bethesda had told of his healing which Iewes cannot be shewed to be the Priests and Doctors alone but some of the laity withall who were as eager in persecuting our Sauiour as the Priests and frequented the Temple and prouoked him in all places where he was as well as the Pharisees Or if it were granted he spake onely to the Priests yet how doth that auoide the argument when the Iewes had the Scriptures in their owne language neither Priests nor people vsing them in any other For it were too grosse to
Tradit p. 224. Though we may be caried with one and the same knowledge to the image and the samplar yet is it not hence concluded that the same may be done in worshipping and adoring them for there is great dissimilitude betweene this and that For it is not repugnant to an image as it is an image to be conceiued with the same knowledge wherewith the thing represented is knowne but it seemes to be against the nature of an image as it is an image that it should be reuerenced with the same reuerence wherewith the samplar is seeing it exceeds not the limits of an insensible creature and of this comparison of a Kings robe he sayes There is no likenesse betweene an image and the robes of an Emperor 9 In his third note the Reply hauing explicated his analogicall adoration which he sayes is the most they giue to images he sayes thereupon the worship giuen to images in the Church of Rome is not the same in nature substance or equalitie of perfection to that is giuen to God but farre inferiour demonstrating it by two reasons Thus he distinguishes because the Digression had said The Church of Rome worshippeth images with diuine honour the same that is due to God But I haue sufficiently adswered that euen this analogicall honour thus giuen as he distinguishes and proues is condemned by the Scripture and authorities alledged in the Digression for two causes first because it is some kind of worship and all kinds of worship are condemned secondly it is diuine worship though not of the highest degree yet diuine in analogie and in some sort also of the nature and substance of diuine worship because as I haue said before it can be reduced to any other kind then that which by the image is giuen to God Secondly I answer and haue shewed before that the Church of Rome worshippeth images in a higher degree then with analogicall worship For it was c Omnia coniuncta adorandu siue vt partes praesentes vel praeteritae siue vt alias specialem ordinem ad ipsae habeâ—tia propter se â—â—o adorabiliat adoranda sunt eadem specie adoratâ—onis analogice 3 d. 9 q. vnic concl 6. id lect 49. Biels opinion they ought indeed to be worshipped no otherwise but the Iesuites as I haue shewed confute him For there are three opinions whereof this of the analogicall worship is one but the Iesuites and others in the Church of Rome hold it not but go further 10 Now followes that which is worth the noting For the Replier hauing distinguished the maner how diuine honour is giuen to images sayes Perhaps it is too subtill for euerie ones capacitie being intended onely for the satisfaction of more pregnant and iudicious wits But this latter clause he should haue left out For Bellarmine d De imag c. 22 sayes It is not to be said at all that the worship of Latria which is diuine adoration is due to images First because the Councels do not affirme it but simply denie it then it is not without great danger to say so For they who defend images are to be adored with diuine honour are enforced to vse most subtill distinctions which THEMSELVES hardly vnderstaÌ„d much lesse the rude people c. This is a notable dog-trick thus to teach the adoration of images and when they haue done to confesse it is not fit to vtter it What shall the doctrine be then that men shall hold them to It may suffice for the simple sort to vnderstand that IN TRVTH and SPEAKING PROPERLY not the same but a farre inferiour kind of honour is due to the image then is due to the thing whose image it is If this be the truth then e Azor. tom 1. l. 9. c. 6. that which is the constant iudgement of the Romish Diuines is a lie and comes from the father of lies and shall be punished accordingly by him that hates all lies pestilent hypocrites thus to maintaine that in whole volumes which themselues know not to be the truth But now the doctrine of Thomas and the Iesuites and so many great School-men and the constant iudgement of all Diuines is cast off and this inferiour kind of worship is supplied how shall it appeare this also is not to be misliked he answers that as a man bearing respect to the picture of his friend yet is not counted iniurious to him though he respect not the picture so much as his friend but rather so much the more gratefull so this inferior religious reuerence giuen to images is so farre from hindring the respect we owe to Christ that it shewes and practises it the more and increases it and so cannot be thought iniurious but gratefull to Christ and his Saints So he But let him take heed that while he labours to please Christ and his Saints he displease not Thomas and his disciples for he knowes they cannot abide this inferiour worship but seeing the motion of the mind is one and the same to Christ and his image they will haue the worship to both be one and the same And howsoeuer they take the matter let the Replier go roundly to the point and shew how this gratifying Christ with his inferiour worship was gatefull to the ancient Church And let him make demonstration where Christ hath commanded it For a man may make and vse the picture of his friend as he pleases though f Paleot imag l. 2. c. 20. a great Cardinall be somewhat strait-laced in the matter and allowes not all that libertie that we see vsed But where is any allowance to gratifie Christ by worshipping his picture and where is the word of God permitting to make the pictures of the Trinitie let this be shewed and there is an end in the controuersie for that is the point which the Digression affirmes the ancient Church to haue holden against the now-church of Rome whose words against such things he should haue answered and not with an vnlike comparison of a humane picture haue imposed vpon the vulgar But his owne picture for this tricke shall neuer be made because he flies out of the field and leaues the matter behind him For no man will make the picture of a coward that flies and dares not abide it g In 3. Ps sayes S. Chrysostome 11 For the testimonies both of the Scriptures and Fathers though briefly pointed to yet very clearly shew that images in religion might no wayes be vsed vnder any pretence but all worship of them they condemne so farre that they will not admit it with any distinction be it religious worship diuine or ciuill proper improper accidentall analogicall inferiour the same that is giuen to God or not the same if it be worship seruice adoration kneeling kissing crouching capping vowing they condemne it all and the second Nicene Councell 800 yeares after Christ was the first that confirmed it to the great discontent of the godly in the Church as I haue
moraliter id fieri sine magnus incommodis periculis contra reuereÌ„tiam huit sacramento debitam quae vel propter multitudinem comunicantiuÌ„ vel propter eorum varietatem tam in conditionibus affectibus corporu quà m in animi prudentia circumspectione vel denique propter ministraÌ„tiuÌ„ incuriaÌ„ nullatenus possent iuxta humanaÌ„ conditionem euitarâ— Suar. defens fid cathol l. 2. c. 5. n. 20. giues First for the reuerence and decencie of the Sacrament that the cup be not spilled and the wine shed in so great and confused a companie Next for vniformitie that all people euery where might receiue alike which should not be if the cup were ministred for some people loue no wine Thirdly to auoid their error that hold it may not be ministred in one kind Fourthly for the preseruation of the Sacrament and that it might be carried to the sicke which in wine it could not for sowring and spilling Lastly for the instruction of the ignorant that they may know Christ by Thomas his concomitancie is perfectly vnder either kind It were no hard matter throughly to shew the vanitie of these reasons and merrily to whip them but the Cardinall had forgot that all these reasons in his owne opinion held in the primitiue Church and yet then they moued not the Church to take away the cup. I haue read of words vttered in a great frost which freezed in the venting as they were spoken and were not hard till a thaw came a long time after so belike our aduersaries will answer These reasons might be vttered in the ancient Church but they could not be conceiued till d Praeterea nosse debueras quod fecit Deus duo magna luminaria c. de maiorit obed Solitae in decr l. 1. tit 33. the great light in the firmament of the Church had shewed them with his beames now of late within these three hundred yeares CHAP. LVI Touching Transubstantiation 1. It was made an article of faith by the Lateran Councell 1200 yeares after Christ 2. How it came in by degrees 3. The Fathers neuer beleeued nor knew it Pag. 286. A. D. Lastly concerning Transubstantiation 1 White pag. 343. 350. M. White setteth down some coniectures whereby he endeuoureth to perswade his Reader that the beliefe of Transubstantiation came into the Church of late to wit at the Lateran Councell But 2 See the Prot. Apol. tract 1. §. 3 n. 2. where it is shewed that eueÌ„ ProtestaÌ„ts far better learned then M. White will be in haste doe grant the Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councel See Bellar. l. 3. de sacram euchar c. 19.20 21. Gre. de Val. tom 4. disp 6. q. 3. p. 2. §. 2. 3. this is false For although the name Transubstantiation was not perhaps vsed before the Councell of Lateran yet the thing signified by this name to wit the reall presence of Christs body succeeding in the place of the substance of bread was held and beleeued from the beginning as appeareth by plaine and sound authorities of Scriptures and Fathers set downe by Bellarmine and others And although the Church had no necessary occasion to make expresse determination what was to be held in that point before contrary heresies arose which might be one cause that some men did not or were not bound to know it so expresly as after the matter was explaned and determined by full authoritie from the Church yet at least implicitè all did were bound from the beginning to beleeue it And although some in their ignorance did before this declaratioÌ„ of the Church doubt or hold opinion to the contrary yet this hindreth not that they might beleeue this by implicite faith in regard priuate doubts and opinions so long as they are in ignorance without obstinacie especially with resolution and readinesse to yeeld to the Church do not take away implicite faith infolded in the generall assent which euery Catholicke giueth to that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church 1 TO shew the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be contrary to the faith of the Primitiue Church and to be brought in afterward and neuer to haue bin an article of faith before the Lateran Councell I set not downe coniectures but direct full testimonies first * Another like hereticall and most daÌ„gerous aâ—sertion of theirs the Iesuites is that the ancient Fathers Rem transubstantiationis ne attigerunt Quodl p. 31. of the Fathers expounding the words of Christ touching the Sacrament and auouching the substance of bread and wine to remaine as we do then of diuers great Papists Schoole-men and others who confesse the same I say either in expresse words or in effect that not only the NAME of Transubstantiation but the DOCTRINE and thing it selfe was made a matter of faith by the Lateran Councell no man being bound to beleeue it before Their words are reported in the Digression and will giue testimonie to themselues without my contending about them The Reply sayes though the name Transubstantiation were not perhaps vsed before the Councell of Lateran yet the thing to wit the reall presence of Christs bodie succeeding in the place of the substance of bread was held from the beginning as Bellarmine and others haue shewed and euen Protestants farre better learned then M. White will be in hast do grant But the authorities alledged in the Digress shew the contrary not onely the name but the thing it selfe to be new as will appeare by viewing them And though Bellarmine take vpon him to proue Transubstantiation by the Scripture and Fathers yet he confesses it is not improbable that Scotus said There is not extant any place of Scripture so expresse that without the Church declaration can euidently constraine vs to admit it For though the Scripture which I haue brought seeme to vs so cleare that it may constraine a man not froward yet whether it be so or not IT MAY WORTHILY BE DOVBTED when men MOST LEARNED AND ACVTE doe thinke the contrarie Let this be noted he bring a De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. §. Non dissimili Scripture to proue that which may worthily be doubted whether it be so or no and such Scripture as cannot conuince without his Churches declaration b Decernit Synodus vt nemo sacraÌ„ ScripturaÌ„ contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet sancta mater Ecclesia cuius est iudicare de vero sensiâ— interpretari audeat Con. Trid. sess 4. that is to say vnlesse it be expounded so as shall agree with the doctrine of the Church of Rome The Reply therefore must not call them sound authorities of Scripture which without this wresting proue nothing and with all this wresting proue not so much but a man may still worthily doubt and most learned and acute men do doubt and the reader may see in what case he is that shall follow Bellarmine and the Reply in this opinion of Transubstantiation
ground of true assurance 8. Who the Pastors were of whom Luther learned his faith 9. His conference with the Diuell 10. By the Church the Papists meane onely the Pope A.D. To the reason alledged by me and namely to that point of it wherein I say Pag. 200. that a priuate man who presuming to be inspired by the spirit doth oppose himselfe against the Church neither can know himselfe or can assure others that his spirit is infallible M. White answereth denying this to be true For saith he the Scripture is a light and knowne by the sonnes of light and by it they may be assured Now they that be thus assured are infallibly sure they be taught by the holy Ghost for all Scripture is inspired of God and containeth the teaching of the holy Ghost To this I reply asking how in particular Luther for example could by Scripture assure himselfe or others that he was taught by the Spirit of God It seemeth by M. Whites answer that this assurance came by this or the like Syllogisme Whatsoeuer is taught by Scripture is infallibly taught by the Spirit of God But I Luther am taught by Scripture this and that point viz. that I am iustified by onely Faith c. Ergo I Luther am infallibly assured and may assure others that in these points of doctrine although contrary to the doctrine of the vniuersall visible Church I am taught by the Spirit of God But who seeth not the weaknesse of this proofe when all the certaintie thereof is finally resolued into Luthers owne priuate and particular iudgement in his owne case which cannot be proued to be infallible by saying he was assisted in his iudgement by the Spirit of God but by begging the question and supposing that which is the point that needeth most proofe to wit that he is in those points taught by the Scripture or that he is assisted by the Spirit to interprete aright He iudged so it is true but his iudgement is fallible and is so much the more to be suspected to be false by how much he did prize and ouerweene his owne iudgement in his owne cause when with intollerable pride he preferred it so contemptuously before the iudgement of a thousand Augustines and Cyprians and of other most worthy and learned Doctors of the Catholicke Church 1 HE that opposes himselfe against the true Catholicke Church holding contrary to the vniuersall doctrine thereof can giue no assurance either to himselfe or others that his Spirit is infallible this is true but when Luther and the rest opposed themselues against the Church of Rome which is the Papacie this was no presumption but the worke of Gods Spirit in them whereof they might infallibly be assured themselues and giue infallible assurance to others My reason was this The Scripture is a light and knowne by the sonnes of light and by it they may be assured now they that be thus assured are infallibly sure they are taught by the holy Ghost For all Scripture is inspired of God and containeth the teaching of the holy Ghost To this he replies that then the assurance which they haue arises by such a Syllogisme as he hath set downe Whereto I answer granting that it doth saue that in the conclusion there is more although contrary to the doctrine of the vniuersall visible Church then he was able with all his skill to contriue into the premisses But he replies that Luther could haue no certaintie of the second proposition that he was in those points taught by the Scripture when he taught against the vniuersall Church The which reply grants that a priuate man may haue infallible assurance he is taught by the Scripture and assisted by Gods Spirit so long as the thing he holds is not against the vniuersall Church But holding this or that point against the Church he can haue no such assurance I answer first that Luther and the priuate men whom he meanes taught nothing contrary to the vniuersall Church much lesse did they frame to themselues in their mind the conclusion of this Syllogisme that their conscience should checke them as if they had taught contrary to the vniuersall Church or felt themselues so taught by the Scripture that withall they felt the true Church to be against them They felt no such thing but categorically they concluded I am infallibly sure that in this point of iustification for example I am taught by the Scripture Secondly I answer that Luther and euery priuate Protestant beleeuing Iustification by onely Faith and all the rest that our Church holdeth against the Papacie haue infallible assurance they are taught by the Scripture the which assurance is bred by the plaine and euident places of Scripture and the vniuersall teaching of the true Church confirming the same whereto the Spirit of God giues witnesse inwardly in their conscience But this he sayes is the question that should be proued that Luther had these things on his side I answer there is in this life no further or after proofe aboue these things a For albeit the proposition and ministerie of the Church concurre as a condition yet the authoritie of God himselfe speaking in the Scripture induces vs to beleeue in as much as all the authoritie which the Church hath with a beleeuer is because the said beleeuer sees and vnderstands by the Scripture that it is the true Church c. Jassisse Deum vt Ecclesiae credamus non ex Ecclesiae authoritate suspendimus veluti propria aut sola ne quidem in genere causae externae huius fidei nostrae causa sed partim ex Scripturis manifestissimis quibus ad Ecclesiae magisterium remittimur partim ex ipso fideâ— symbolo Stapl. Triplicat pag. 279. the finall and formall resolution of faith being into the authoritie and light of the Scripture and Gods Spirit speaking therein so farre foorth that our b For the Iesuites say the proposition of the Church is beleeued vpon the testimonie of the Scripture the Scripture is beleeued for it selfe Si quis rogatur quare credat si sermo sit de ratione formali assentiendi Dicat se id credere quia Deus reuelauit Si rursus interrogetur vnde cognoscat Deum reuelasse Respondeat se id clare non nosse credere tamen fide infallibili ob infallâ—bilem tamen propâ—sitionem Ecclesiae tanquam conditionem ad idâ—redendum requisitam Quaeres vnde cognoscatur propositioneÌ„ Ecclesiae esse infallibilem similiter respondeat se id credere fide infallibili ob authoritatem Scripturae testimonium perhibentis Ecclesiae cuâ— authoritati reuelationi ob seipsam crâ—dit Alex. Pezâ—nt in Tho. 22. p 479. B. Greg. de Val. toÌ„ 3. p. 31. They that hold the authoritie of the Church to be the hiest reâ—son inducing vs to beleeue fall into two grosse absurdities 1. because so our faith shall not be diuine being grounded on the authority of men 2. because this authority of the Church