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
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
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
Pined in Iob 19 v. 26. nu 3. sayes a Iesuite when I see and heare some wise man of our age as Fran. Suarez a Iesuite for example and vpon occasion bring him into my Commentaries then when I cast mine eyes vpon many of the ancient Fathers Here antiquity must giue place to a Iesuite and yet if the Protestants do but one halfe of this they are audacious and impudent vpon their bold presumption This is that Erasmus l Annot in Hieron Praef. in Dan. tom 3. p. 28. noted of them long agoe When it is for our purpose the authority of Hierome is woorth any thing when otherwise it is not for our purpose it is worth nothing and afterward they condemne vs because we beleeue them not The examples how they cast off Fathers and Councels and all antiquity are innumerable they do it in euery question that fals out betweene vs whensoeuer they ioyne in the triall with vs and they confesse that they may be refused because they may erre Guido the Carmelite m Guido de Perpin de haeres c. 7. pag. 8. edit à Bad. Ascens an 1528. sayes Albeit the writings of the holy Doctors be to be handled and read and receiued with due reuerence yet is their authority neither so firme nor inuiolable but it may be lawfull to contradict them or doubt of them where they are not prooued and confirmed euidently and expresly by the holy Scripture and where the Church hath not determined their firme and vndoubted soothfastnes Whence it followes that an opinion cannot precisely be conuinced of heresie by the saying of the Doctors for where where is not infallible truth there is no certaine faith since certaine faith leanes vpon infallible truth yea there can be no infallible assent that a man should firmely cleaue to such things for when there is no infallible truth there can be no certaine and vndoubted faith But in the saying of the Doctors there is no infallible certaine or vndoubted truth partly because they sometime doubt themselues in their owne sayings whether they haue erred therein or no partly because their disagreement is a testimony of falsity and what disagreement there is among the Doctors no man doubts that hath read their writings It is not necessary therefore vndoubtingly to beleeue them but it is lawfull to THINKE AGAINST THEM DISALOW THEM AND REIECT THEM without any danger of heresie So he And yet you see how busily my aduersary taxes Protestants for neglecting the Fathers like the crabfish that chid her yong one for creeping backward and yet went backward her selfe it were an honester course and more relishing of piety for our aduersaries to spare our dissenting sometime from the Fathers as they do their owne onely inquire whether we dissent with reason as themselues sometimes do but this were labour and expence a Iesuites pen can afford railing and facing a great deale better cheape CHAP. XXI 2. Which is the Militant Church 3. And the Catholicke 4. The Church of the Elect inuisible 5. A rancid conceite of the Iesuite Pag. 113. A. D. This Church which consisteth of Professors M. White * White pag. â—9 100. calleth the Church Militant that which consisteth onely of the Elect he calleth the Catholicke Church but to keepe the Antithesis he should rather call it the Church Triumphant not Triumphant as we Catholickes take the name for the happiest part of the Church which is now glorious in heauen but as it being a Church inuisible in earth may triumph indeed as hauing no need to feare any persecutions in that none in time of persecutions can finde theÌ„ out nor can know them nor consequently can persecute or hurt theÌ„ for being members of Christs true Church But as in this respect it may be called the Church Triumphant so on the other side it may be called the Church Lamentant as hauing so iust cause to lament in that the members of it being vnknowne not onely to the world but to one another can haue no societie one with another requisite to the nature of a true Church nor can performe those offices which should be done in and onely in the true Church nor can tell whom to repaire to for instruction in faith or for counsaile in direction of manners or for the comfort of the holy Sacraments nor can haue any knowne Pastours to gouerne the Church nor any knowne sheepe to obey these Pastours nor can haue any Historiographer to write their actes thereby to edifie men with the vertues exercised by them or so much as to make it appeare to posterity that such a company hath bene according to Christs promise alwaies extant in the world In this respect it may be called a Church Lamentant or a Lamentable Church 1 MY Aduersary being in a deepe discourse about the persons and societies of men to whom alone God vouchsafes the assistance of his Spirit for the vnderstanding and beleeuing the things of faith thinks himselfe interrupted by a speech of mine in the place quoted touching the Church Militant and Triumphant the which if he had misliked he should haue confuted in it owne place where I vsed it to shew the true state of the question concerning the visiblenes of the Church saying the question is of the Militant Church though we say also that the Church mentioned in the Creed euery member whereof is saued be in some sort inuisible too in that the Church Triumphant in heauen which is one part of the Church mentioned in the Creed is to vs that liue here inuisible and onely beleeued This speech my Aduersary according to his disordered and cowardly Method vsed in all his booke durst not confute in it owne place where it lay but drawes in backwards by the taile into the den of his discourse as * Apollodo de orig deorum they say Cacus did the oxen he stole from Hercules that he might the better descant vppon it when his Reader by this his glancing at it cannot know the purpose whereto I intended it nor the ground whereupon I affirmed it 2 That which he sayes is foure things First that I call that which consists of Professours the Church Militant the which you see he mentions so that one would thinke he meant to condemne it yet he dares not but onely craftily repeats it to expose it to censure with the rest that followes for a Catech. Roman pag. 112. edit Colo. an 1507. Bellar. Eccl. mil. c. 1. his owne side speakes in the same manner D. Bannes b 22. pag 94. edit Venet. apud Dâ—mian Zâ—nar 1602. sayes The Church which VPON THE EARTH LIVES IN WARFARE is called Militant One way as it is a congregation of such as professe the faith of God another way as it is congregated not onely by faith but also by Baptisme In this therefore there is no fault but all is well for this part of the Church on earth that liues in the Camp warfaring with 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
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
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
virtually it is the Church of Rome and the Pope the Church of Rome representatiuely is the Colledge of Cardinals but virtually the Pope who is the head of the Church Pelaeottus f De consist part 1. qu. 3. pag. 19. The Pope alone may do not onely that which is granted to all and singular Prelates in the Church but also more then they all g Respons moral p. 44. n 4. Comitol The power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is not in the vniuersality of the Church as in the true subiect but in the Prelates thereof and in the Bishops of Rome as in the fountaine whence it flowes vnto all other Ministers of the new Testament Albertine h Coroll pag. 251. saies The Bishop of Rome is the rule of faith into which Rule all the articles of our faith are lastly resolued as into the formall reason whereby they are propounded to vs. Gretser i Defens Bell. to 1. p. 1450. B. saies when we affirme the Church to be the iudge of all controuersies of faith by the Church we vnderstand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being gouernes the ship of the militant Church and by liuely voice doth clearely and expressely expound his iudgement to them that seeke to him Zumel k Disput var. tom 3. p. 49 D. saies I beleeue that the chiefe Priest and Bishop of the Church the Pope who is the master of our faith cannot but attaine the truth of faith nor can be deceaued or erre if as chiefe Bishop and master of the faith he set downe his determination so that vnlesse a man be afraid of the truth there is no cause why he should feare the Popes determination It is idle therefore and sordid that the Repliar saies by the Church he meant the Pope but secondarily as it is ridiculous to say the Church is the rule indefinitely and abstracting from all time or per ampliationem which are termes deuised onely to besot the ignorant that they should not smell his heresie for if his Church be the rule he must needes meane such a Church as he thinkes in all ages and times successiuely to haue bene inuested with that authority and that Church is the Pope alone that miserable iudge of whom their owne men say h Do. Bann to 3. p. 106. b. It is no Catholicke faith but an opinion very probable that he is S. Peters successor and the most iudicious confesse i Alph. l. 1. c. 4. Hadrian pag. 26. ad 2. he may erre * August Anconit sum qu. 5. art 1 Iacobat de conc l. 4. art 1. Occh Dialog 1. part l. 6. 2. part c. 69. inde Cusan de concord cath l. 2. c. 17. Panorm de elect C. signif not 7. Zabarell tract de schismat Gerson de auferibil Pap. consid 10. inde and be deposed for heresie A.D. § 1. Pag. 205. That the doctrine of the Apostles was for their life time the rule and meanes First I say that my conclusion being vnderstood as in this Chapter I principally meant cannot be denied to be true for it cannot be denied but that the doctrine as deliuered by the Apostles themselues being for the time they liued the Church in such sense as here I take the name Church was such a rule and meanes as here we seeke for For first it is knowne to be infallible Secondly it was easie to be vnderstood c. Thirdly it was vniuersall c. Since therefore these 3. conditions requisite in the rule of faith are found in the doctrine and teaching of the Apostles it cannot be denied but that the diuine doctrine as deliuered by them in their life time either by word or writing was the rule and meanes which God ordained to instruct men in faith Taking therfore my conclusion in the chiefely intended sense I suppose that my aduersaries will neither deny it to be true nor the reason by which I proue it to be good 2 This discourse needed not for no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule either for their time or the time succeeding to the world ende I graunt therefore the Repliar his assertion and inferre thereupon that his Popes determinations and the doctrine of his Romish Church is not the rule of faith because they agree not with that which he here confesses was the rule in the Apostles time vnlesse he will maintaine when he replies againe that the rule is not one and the same at all times as k Cusan ep 2.7 his Cardinall writes that the Scripture is fitted to the time and variably vnderstood so that at one time it is expounded according to the fashion of the Church and when that fashion is changed the sense of the Scripture is also changed Againe Magalian a Iesuite I thinke yet liuing l Magal op Hierarch in tit p. 61. n. 6. saies Though it were granted that the wordes of Paule Tit. 1.6 containe a precept to marrie yet seeing Paule gaue it by his owne authority it were no diuine but an Ecclesiasticall precept which the Church may change yea abrogate and much more dispense with Marke what trickes heretickes haue to change the Apostles doctrine when it fits not their Church then the Apostles gaue it by their owne authority which I note that the Reader may perceaue there is no sincerity in the Repliars words For albeit he grants here the Apostles doctrine be the rule yet he meanes it to be the rule but for their owne time because the Pope may vnder colourable pretences expound it that is in plaine English change it when he will as his Cardinall and Iesuite here affirme A D. § 2. That the doctrine of the succeeding Pastours of the Church Pag. 207. is the rule and meanes The chiefe controuersie is about my conclusion as in a secondary sense it may be meant of the succeeding Pastors of the Church In which sense I affirme that like as the diuine doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture or as gathered thence by natural wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by the Apostles or the Apostles as deliuering this doctrine was the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in their daies in all matters of faith So the same doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture nor as gathered thence by naturall wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by Pastors of the succeeding Church or those Pastors as deliuering this doctrine is the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in succeding ages in all points of faith 3 This assertion I will grant as I did the former namely that the doctrine of the Pastors of the true Church such as succeed the Apostles is the rule and meanes of faith but the reader shall note two trickes that the Iesuite puts vpon him in the Proposition hereof First that affirming the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors of the Church to be the rule he saies not
elect be pag. 240. the Church thus considered is altogether inuisible but the question is not touching this Church and therfore against his conclusion I haue also affirmed thirdly that the Church consisting of professors sometime is inuisible that is to say the whole number of true beleeuers and professors liuing in the world which we call the Church Militant sometime loose the outward conspicuousnes of Apostolicke doctrine and gouernment free from abuses which the Papists say they alway hold Touching this assertion he notes two things 7 First the reason why we maintaine it That when he forsooth shall afterwards vrge vs to assigne a continuall professing Protestant company as he can shew a continuall company of Professors of the Roman faith we may by this starting hole escape without answer This is but winde and ostentation he can shew no continuall company successiuely or visibly professing the Roman faith with all the articles thereof as now it is holden he may set downe a catalogue of Bishops Doctors Councels and Professors that in all ages haue bene in the world but that they beleeued as himselfe and the Iesuites and his Romish Church now do otherwise then in the substantiall articles of faith wherein we agree with them or that there were none among them that misliking the corruptions of the Papacy as they grew held in the substance of the Protestants religion he can neuer shew as will appeare The true cause why we maintaine the Church to be sometime inuisible is this that I shall lay downe * The manner how the question touching the visibility of the Church first began and in what sense For when Luther and the first Reformers some hundred yeares agoe withdrew themselues from the subiection of the Pope and put away these innumerable errors out of their Churches which our Aduersaries now maintaine against vs as the doctrine of image worship Inuocation of Saints Purgatory the Masse Transubstantiation and the rest wherein our Aduersaries and we dissent altering nothing of that which belongs to the substance of true faith or which the Church of Rome had receiued from the Apostles and Primitiue Church but onely contrary to the customes of some ages before professing the same without the mixture of the aforesaid errors the Pope with his crew cried out they were Heretickes persecuting them with fire and sword and charging them to haue forsaken the Church of Christ wherein they should be saued and among other arguments his Champions required them to shew the succession of their doctrine and Pastors boasting that vnlesse they could do it and shew their Church to haue visibly bene in all ages they would conclude they had forsaken the Church and were the first authors of the Protestant Religion The Reformers to this answered that THE CHVRCH OF ROME IT SELFE was their visible Church wherein they were bred and whence they proceeded but therein was two kinds of Articles of Religion The one which was Apostolicke and had bene from the beginning the other that which at seuerall times by the faction and conueiance of Hereticks had bene brought in and mingled with the truth this latter they had renounced but not the former making it more then manifest that in the substance of the truth and rule of faith taught by the Apostles and certainely holden by the ancient Church they had altered nothing but onely separated themselues from intollerable corruptions and from the Popes tyranny that maintained and vrged them who by his tyranny and peruerting all things had declared himselfe to be Antichrist sitting in the Church of God And when the Papists still cried SHEW VS A VISIBLE CHVRCH IN ALL THE WORLD PROFSSING IN ALL THINGS AS YOV DO they replied it was not necessary so to do THE CHVRCH OF ROME IT SELFE was the visible Church professing as they did in all things substantiall But if they required such a Church as had put away those errors and held the substance without corruptions and heresies mingled among the Professors then such a Church was sometime inuisible that is to say it may sometime fall out that in all the world no part of the Church shall be outwardly seene to hold the succession of all the true faith without corruption and the purest Professors may be oppressed that their memory shall be taken away and that which is the worst part of the Church shall be strongest and generally reputed most Catholicke This is the true and originall reason of this question whereby it is easie to see that we neuer imagined the Church to be simply inuisible at any time but this inuisibility hath bene affirmed onely of the outward state thereof at some times when reformation hath not bene so pure as now it is No otherwise then I would say the body was inuisible when a Leprosie had ouergrowne it or the kingdome of France were inuisible when tyranny and new customes should mingle themselues therewith and the ancient lawes be expounded by a faction of Rebels 8 By this his second exception that to defend a paradoxe I haue peruerted the state of the question is answered For it is cleare hereby that the question is of the militant Church and so D. Stapleton m Relect. p. 2. sayes expresly In this controuersie the appellation of the Church principally belongs to the militant company And the two things mentioned touching it that it may consist of a small number and that it professes sometime in secret being taken in the sense deliuered are so farre from being blind shifts that they cannot be disproued by bragging and if there be any mettall or truth in my Aduersary here I spur him and let him answer freely That which I noted is the cleare confession of many n In THE WAY Digr 17. n. 3. learned Papists themselues Alexand. Durand Turrecremata Parnormitan Pererius Ouandus Acosta the Rhemists Dom Scoto Gregory Valence But these being principall men in the Church of Rome must not be said to teach blind shifts but the truth that therefore which I noted is the truth If it be the truth that the Church militant in respect of the best part thereof may sometime consist of a small number and may secretly that the world cannot see it professe the faith how can the truth bleare the Readers eye or bewitch his vnderstanding when that which befals the Church at one time may befall it againe though not at any yet at some time and whether the yeares were more or lesse wherein we say it was obscured yet they were the yeares of the persecution of Antichrist and in Antichrists time o Ioh. Parisiens tract de Antich p. 45. edit Venet apud Laz. Soarol an 1516. When the Church is turned into Armageddon the mount of theeues no Papist will deny but it may be inuisible in the sense that we hold as I shewed in the 17. Digression and himselfe confesses in that which immediatly followes CHAP. XXXIX 1 The Papists are inforced to yeeld the same that we
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
others and deuide their kingdomes and diuers other things q Nu. 14. p. 26. If the Pope say that such a gouernment tends to the detriment of spirituall health or that such a law cannot be obserued without mortall sinne or that it is contrary to the law of God or that it maintaines sinne then we must stand to the Popes iudgement forsomuch as the King hath nothing to do to iudge of spirituall things Simancha Pacensis r De Cath. inst tit 23. n. 11. p. 98. If Kings or other Christian Princes become heretickes forthwith their subiects and vassals are freed from their gouernment Å¿ Tit. 45. nu 25. pag. 209. If any Prince be vnprofitable or make vniust lawes against religion or against good manners or do any such like thing to the detriment of spirituall things the Pope obseruing due circumstances may apply a fit remedie euen by depriuing such a King of his gouernment and iurisdiction if the cause require it D. Nicolas Sanders t Visib monar pag. 70. It is moreouer to be supplied that albeit the King when he was first made were a Christian Catholicke yet if afterward he become an Apostata or hereticke true reason requires that he be remoued from his gouernment u Pag. 71. The matter is now brought to this passe that it is fit an hereticall King be remoued from his kingdome w De clau Dau pag. 25. If any be so rauenous that of a lambe he become a wolfe deuouring the flocke stealing slaying and scattering the sheepe which the Pope will say euery Protestant Prince doth if any thing betide this man otherwise then well let him thanke himselfe that voluntarily runnes vpon the sword of the Church Gregorie of Valence x Tom. 3. pag. 444 c. If the crime of heresie or apostacie from the faith be notorious that it cannot be couered then euen before the sentence of the Iudge the aforesaid punishment of being depriued from his dominion and authoritie ouer his subiects is in part incurred that is to say so farre that the subiects may lawfully denie obedience to such a hereticall Lord. Mariana a Iesuite y Instit reg pag. 61. It is a wholesome meditation for Princes to perswade themselues that if they oppresse the common-wealth and grow intollerable through their vices they liue vpon those termes that they may be killed not onely lawfully but with glorie and commendations z Pag. 64. All this pestilent and deadly broode thus he speakes of such Kings as he calls tyrants which are all Protestant Princes it is a glorious thing to roote out of the societie of men it is therefore confessed that a tyrant may be slaine either by open force and armes or by making assault vpon his pallace and if they that haue killed him escape they are honored all their life after as great personages but if it fall out otherwise they die a sacrifice gratefull to God and men a Pag. 65. No difference whether ye kill him with sword or poison When Tyrone rebelled in Ireland in the yeare 1602 the schoole Doctors of Salamanca sent the Papists there this determination b Refert quaest bipart in M.G. Blackw p. 156. That the Bishop of Rome might by armes restraine such as opposed the Catholike religion Tyrones warre against the Queene was iust and by authoritie from the Pope and all Catholickes were bound to further him in the same and so doing their merit and hope of eternall reward should be no lesse then if they had warred against the Turke But all Catholickes had sinned mortally that had serued the English against Tyrone neither should they obtaine saluation or be absolued by any priest from their sinnes vnlesse they repented and forsooke the campe of the English The same thing was also to be deemed of such as in that warre had holpen the English with armes and munition or payed them the accustomed subsidies But such as were in Tyrones campe in no case were traitors nor had denied any due obedience or vniustly occupied the Queenes lands but rather had endeuoured themselues to set at libertie themselues and their countrey being oppressed with vniust and impious tyrannie and to their power defended the orthodoxe faith as Christians and Catholickes ought to do This was the resolution of the Popes Vniuersitie in Portugall for the confirmation of as vile and detestable a rebellion as euer any was The like was done in Desmonds rebellion D. Sanders being sent into Ireland to resolue and encourage the traitors * Quem virum magno lâ—teraruÌ„ incommodo dolenius defuâ—ctum non multo post in Hibernia duÌ„ in eam insulam veram religioneÌ„ restituere contendit Ioh Marian tract pro edit vulg c. 7. sub fin pag. 56. among whom by the iust iudgement of God he died in extremitie and misery In the yeare 1588 c Meteran Belgic hist l. 15. p. 473. when the Spanish fleete should inuade our nation for the promoting of that desseigne D. Allen was made a Cardinall and sent into Flanders with the whole administration of the English affaires committed to him by the Pope who among other his practises had the Popes declaration printed in English that should be published vpon the arriuall of the Fleete in which declaration the sentence of excommunication against the Queene was confirmed and she depriued of her kingdome honour and dignities and all men commanded to receiue the Prince of Parma The writings of this Allen Parsons Sanders and Creswell their Doleman Philopater and Rossaeus a booke canonized by the Pope in consistorie are so scandalous this way that I abhor to report the things they write Bellarmine hath taken vpoÌ„ him to be the principal patron of this doctrine in maintâ—nance thereof hath published diuers treatises There was neuer any d And there was a wicked man named Sheba the son of Bicri a man of Iemini and he blew the trumpet and said We haue no part in Dauid nor inheritance in the son of Ishai euery man to his tents ô Israel 2. Sam. 20.1 Sheba blew the truÌ„pet of rebellioÌ„ as he hath done His assertions are these e De Pont. l. 5. c. 6. The Pope as chiefe spirituall Prince may change kingdomes and take them away from one to giue to another if it be necessary for the sauing of soules as we wil proue It is a good rule that the Glosse giues when the Imperiall and Pontificiall lawes touching the same thing are found to be contrary if the matter of the law be a thing belonging to the danger of soules then the Imperiall law is abrogated by the Pontificiall f Cap. 7. If the Christians in times past deposed not Nero Dioclesian and Iulian and Valens the Arrian and such like that was because they wanted temporall strength For that they might lawfully haue done it appeares by the Apostle Besides to tolerate a King that is an hereticke or an vnbeleeuer labouring to draw men
rendred to him that well did The same is taught generally in the Church of Rome by all them that hold h Vasq 1.2 tom 2. pag. 803. c. 4. in these words deliuers his opinion of merit when a man being in the state of righteousnesse through the grace of God doth good workes then the said workes merit eternall life and are equally worthy of the reward though God make no couenant in Christ to accept them and that they haue no increase of dignitie coming to them by the merits or person of Christ but before God make any promise to vs in him they are in iustice worthy the reward and though God haue made a couenant to accept such workes done by grace yet the merit and worthines thereof arises not nor is founded on that couenant but the promise is founded on the merit of the worke because it were iniustice if God should not reward a good worke And thus the greatest Diuines in the Church of Rome teach a Panopl pâ—g 110. Lindan I thinke they do not worthily enough set forth the grace of Christ in our good workes who thinke God rewards the good workes of iust men with eternall life of free grace and the vouchsafing of his owne clemencie because the reason of true merit which is ingendred in good works through the dignitie of Christs Spirit their author seemes to deserue GREATER praise then that God should only VOVCHSAFE it the reward FREELY Anard b Artic. 9. pag. 126. Far be it from vs that we should waite for eternall life AS A POORE MAN DOTH FOR ALMES for it is MORE GLORIOVS for vs like conquerers and triumphers to possesse it as the garland and crowne that is DVE to our labours Suarez c Tom. 1. pag. 645. B. It must not be denied but our merits are true merits in such sort that the workes of the godly proceeding from grace haue in themselues an inward dignitie and the same proportion to the reward which they should haue vnderstanding a man to be iust and to worke well without the merits of Christ as many thinke of the Angels and of man in the state of innocencie d 12. disp 214. c. 4. n. 17. Vasquez Although God haue made a promise to the workes of iust men yet neither that promise nor any couenant or fauour of God belongs any wayes to the reason of the merit Bellarmine e De iustif l. 5. c. 17. pag. 993. A The workes of the iust merit eternall life condignely by reason of Gods couenant and the worke together NOT BECAVSE THE GOOD WORKE HATH NO PROPORTION TO ETERNALL LIFE WITHOVT GODS COVENANT TO ACCEPT IT but because God is not tied to accept it to the reward though it be equall thereto vnlesse his couenant come betweene D. Stapleton f De iustificat pag. 237. We are said to please God and to be acceptable to him in and for Christ and our iustice is said to leane vpon Christs iustice because the beginning and progresse thereof is of Christ and depends thereon as on the efficient cause and Christs iustice supplies our defects NOT BY SVPPLYING ANY VNPERFECT ACT THAT IS IN OVR RIGHTEOVSNES and so making it perfect that it might stand before Gods iudgement seate but if such imperfection of our righteousnesse be without sinne it is admitted for true righteousnesse and admitted in the iust iudgement of God g Alph. Virvés Andrad Horát Caiet BonaueÌ„ Mart Distor Thom. Ricard Romae Conrad Capraeol Dried Clictouae Tilet Vincent Soto all cited for this opinion by Vasq 12. disp 214. n. 9. 18. The most of our aduersaries hold this and teach a condignitie in our workes arising out of THEMSELVES abstracting from the merits of Christ and promise of God which promise is founded on the worke and which merits of Christ adde nothing to the value of the worke but onely eleuates the person of him that workes Whence it followes that the reward must needs be giuen by the first couenant made with Adam which is as much of Baius his opinion as I alledged 4 Thus I haue shewed that Baius in his words by me quoted teaches no other doctrine then is ordinarily taught by other Diuines in the Church and the Iesuites arguments to the contrary are easily answered To the first there can be no more shewed out of their writings but that life eternall is obtained by grace and the merit of Christ inasmuch as they are the roote of merit which h Quicquid ad humani generis reparationem pertinet id non nostris moritu propriis neque iusto Dei iudicio tribuendum est quia alioqui saltem ex parte essemus nostri redemptores sed tantum proposito gratiae Dei per redemptionem quae facta est in sanguine Christi Pag. 12. Baius denies not but yet for all that holding that workes so done haue in them an intrinsecall righteousnesse and worthinesse of their owne they must needs hold consequently that God in iustice is bound to reward them in the same maner that he rewards Angels or would haue rewarded Adam if he had neuer fallen which was by the couenant of workes And it should seeme the Iesuite by his manner of citing them saw not the bookes theÌ„selues but borowed the quotations of his friends For first touching Alexander he quotes 3. part 9.69 which I presume is mis-printed in stead of qu. 69. memb 5. art 3. 5 whereas in the 5. m. there are only 4 articles and in the 3d art i Pag. 249. he speakes expresly against him that if a man do that which is in himselfe to doe God necessarily giues him grace In which words he plainly ascribes merit to workes done by nature which is Pelagianisme The best that he sayes against nature for grace is in k Concedendum est ergo necessariam esse gratiaÌ„ indistincte ad merendum consequendum beatitudinem m. 1. art 1. another place but that Grace whereby he sayes we merit he expounds to be our owne worke wrought by the power of Gods grace which is the very point that Baius holds Bellarmines opinion is vncertaine he doth nothing but chop and change a man of no resolution but a very weather-cocke yet he hath one good saying on the Iesuites side l De iustif l. 5. c 7. By reason of the vncertaintie of a mans owne righteousnesse and for feare of vaine-glorie it is the safest way to repose our whole confidence in the sole mercie and goodnesse of God But m See Vasqu 1.2 tom 2. pag. 794. c. 7. his fellowes whip him for it The other three Tapper Fisher and Thomas say no more but that our workes merit by grace in which point they crosse not Baius for he also allowes grace and sayes not that they merit by nature but that being done by grace the reward is giuen not by a new couenant in Christ but by the same that God made with Adam in pure nature from
copies which the Authors writ and whereby that should be tried that we say So that in the ages to come when the old copies shall be worne out and their New-purged ones shall haue gotten a little antiquitie these desperate Termagants will resolutely deny that euer any such thing was written or any such purging vfed so it shal be generally maintained that the things that the Iesuites and censors haue clapt into their bookes were written by the authors themselues If this can be answered what do pillories and papers ordained for forgers when not a poore parchment of euidence but the deeds and euidences of the Christian world shall thus be forged and all antiquitie be Iesuited and reduced by this practise to the new cut 2 In the meane time I answer the Iesuite that I wil stand to my offer if he will let the triall be made by bookes vnpurged such as are the true copies that the authors published that there is no point of our faith but many learned in their owne Church hold it with vs and no point of Papistrie that we haue reiected but some of them haue misliked it as well as we and his two instances of the Masse and Reall presence I accept though I haue answered them a Pag. 158. letter m. 178. lett e. 379. lett f. in THE WAY so directly that it was his best policie to dissemble it and to require me for my credit to do that which I had done alreadie For to his first demand How many learned men of our Church haue denied the Masse to containe a sacrifice in such sort as Protestants do denie I answered b Vbi sup in two seuerall places For the vnderstanding whereof and the applying my said answer to this place the Protestants denie that Christ in his last Supper which the Iesuite absurdly calls the Masse offered any propitiatorie sacrifice properly so called according to the reall notion of the word sacrifice of his bodie and bloud This I shewed by the testimonie c Can. loc l. 12. c. 13. Suar. com 3. d. 84. f. 2. Azor instit moral tom 1. l. 10. c. 18. of three seuerall Papists to be denied by some Catholickes in the Councell of Trent and they consequently denie as we do that the Priest offers any such sacrifice d Christus ea quae ab alijs obseruanda instituit ipse primitùs obseruarit Tho 3. q. 81. art 1.0 In hac quaestione initium sumendum est ex facto Christi quod exemplar est actioniâ— nostrae fundamentum ac primum initium huius mysterij Fra. Suar. vbi sup pag. 949. because the Priest now doth no more then Christ did then in his Supper They therefore that denie Christ offered any sacrifice denie it also in the Priest And then I alledged a discourse of Thomas where he propounds the question Whether in this Sacrament Christ be immolated that is sacrificed and his answer is that the celebration of this Sacrament is called the sacrificing of Christ for two causes First because images are vsed to be called by the names of the things whose images they be as when we behold a picture on a table we say this is Cicero Now the celebration of this Sacrament is a certaine image representing the passion of Christ which is his true sacrificing and therefore is called the sacrificing of Christ Next in regard of the effect of Christs passion because by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the benefit of our Lords passion In which words making no mention of such reall and vnbloudie sacrificing as the Church of Rome now teaches it is more then plaine that he beleeued it not For if he had he would haue vttered it as fully as he doth other things Besides these I ad the Master of Sentences who e If we talke of all Diuinitie the bookes of Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences is held to be the first methodicall worke that drew all diuinitie into a certaine forme Walsing p. 128. professing to set downe all the points of Diuinitie most exactly as our aduersaries say yet no where in all his booke mentions this kinde of sacrifice but f 4. d. 12 §. Post haec quaeritur propounding the question Whether that which the Priest doth in the Eucharist be properly said to be a sacrifice or immolation and whether Christ be dayly sacrificed or were onely once sacrificed his answer is To this it may briefly be said that which is offered and consecrated by the Priest is called a sacrifice and an oblation because it is a memoriall and representation of the true sacrifice and holy immolation made vpon the altar of the crosse and Christ died once vpon the Crosse and was there sacrificed in himselfe but he is dayly sacrificed in the Sacrament because the remembrance of that which is once done is retained These words shew plainely that some learned men in the Romane Church haue denied the Masse to containe a sacrifice euen in such sort as Protestants denie it 3 So there be also that affirme the reall substance of Christs bodie to be no nearer them that receiue the Sacrament then heauen is to the earth as the Caluinists hold For Picus Mirandulus g Conclus pag 64. nu â—4 pag 65. nâ— 20. sayes the bodie of Christ is sacramentally on the altar but locally in heauen and one bodie cannot be in diuers places at once And the opinion of the Caluinists is no otherwise then h Effectum tandem vt in hanc insaniam prorumperet Berengarius vt verum corpus sanguinem Christi non esse an pane vino docuerit haec haeresis apud Heluetios hoc nostro tempore per Caluinum reuocatae est Prateol Elenc verbo Berengarius Berengarius and yet Waldensis i Sacrament Eucharist c. 19. pag. 17. tom 2. writes that there were many that with the Church of Rome condemned Berengarius for his maner of speaking which yet thought as he did And k THE WAY pâ—g 349. I alledged a saying of l 4. d. 10. q. 1. §. Quantum Scotus that from the beginning since the matter of this Sacrament was beleeued it hath euer bene beleeued that Christs bodie is not moued out of his place in heauen that it might be here in the Sacrament and yet it was not in the beginning so manifestly beleeued as touching this conuersion Where Scotus affirmes that it hath not alway bene beleeued that the bodie of Christ is moued out of heauen to be in the Sacrament * Note touching the forme of recantation prescribed to Berengarius by Pope Nicolas wherein the Pope enioynes him to say J confesse the bread and wine after consecration to be the true body and bloud of Christ and to be sensibly handled in the hands of the Priest yea broken and chewed with the teeth of the faithfull Which words are read de Consec d. 2 ego Bereng and pressed by the
Papists to explicate proue their transubstantiation that it is confessed to be too grosse and meerly false if the words be vnderstood as they sound of the bodie of Christ So the Glosse Nisi sanc intelligas verba Berengarij in maiorem incides haeresim quà m ipse habuit §. Dentibus Turrecremata Nec iste modus loquendi est tenendus Ibi. nu 1. §. Respondeo Hervaeus Quod quidem vocabulum vt sc à dentibus tereatur non est extendendum sed exponendum restringendum vt sit sensus non quod corpus verum Christi teratur dentibus sed quod illae species sub quibus realiter est tereantur dentibus Et ideo est alia opinio communior verior c. 4. d. 10. qu. 1. pag. 17. But this Glosse is proued vntrue by this that the words thus expounded containe nothing against Berengarius opinion who had denied onely the grosse and reall presence of Christs flesh it was sometime therefore beleeued by some bodie in the Church of Rome belike that his blessed bodie touching the place and maner of presence was as far from them that receiue the Sacrament as heauen is from earth This for the reall and spirituall presence If the Iesuite dare put his Transubstantiation to the triall let him looke into m Digress 49. nu 9. THE WAY and hearken what many of his owne learned men say of it and when he hath done let him take a view of the poore answer that in this his Reply he hath made vnto them Pag. 32. A.D. The fourth marke is set downe by M. White in these words The most points of Papistrie are directly and at the first sight absurd and against common sence and the law of nature If he meane that they seeme at the first sight absurd c. to the seduced people of his sect who neither beleeue nor rightly vnderstand either the things by vs beleeued or the reason or authoritie for which we beleeue them then it may be he saith true but nothing to the purpose For if this were a sufficient marke to make vs misdoubt our religion by the like reason other heretickes or infidels who do not beleeue the mysteries of the blessed Trinitie the Incarnation c. might thinke to make vs misdoubt the truth of these mysteries because they who neither beleeue these mysteries nor rightly vnderstand them nor the reasons and motiues which make vs beleeue them will say that these mysteries are directly and at first sight absurd c. yet in truth they are not absurd nor against but aboue our reason and sense so I say to M. White although other points of our religion seeme to him absurd yet in truth they are not absurd neither are they contrary to but at most aboue the reach of naturall reason 4 I do not obiect against the religion of the Papacie that it is but aboue the reach of reason For many mysteries of the true faith are so the which we must beleeue and n Nec quisquam potest intelligentiam Dei apprehendere nisi qui toto se despecto conuersus ad sapientiam Dei omnem quaerendi ratiocinationem transtuleriâ— ad credendi fideÌ„ Oros l. 6. c. 1. not examine by sence but that many points thereof are absurd and directly against sence and the light of nature which no peece of true religion is as for example that a man endued with reason should fall downe and adore and inuocate an image o Shewed in THE WAY §. 50. n. â—6 51. n 7. and below chap. 54. the which in the Church of Rome is taught and practised As many other points are as absurd as it But if it be true which the Iesuite sayes that they are mysteries which we vnderstand not being a seduced people not acquainted with the authority whereupon they are beleeued that is another matter that I knew not before for they are to blame that will demand reason for the mysteries of Rome that haue authoritie beyond reason p Apoc. 17.5 whose forehead hath the word Mysterie written in it and I had forgotten q Quia in his quae vult ei est pro ratione voluntas Nec est qui ei dicat cur ita facis Gloss §. Veri c. Quanto de transl ep Sacrilegij instaâ— esset disputare de facto suo Glos §. Quis enim d. 40. Non nos Jta nos ad iudices reuocas ac si nescires omnia iura in scrinio pectoris nostri collecata esse sic flat sententia Loco cedant omnes Pontifex sum Paul 2. Platin. p. 304. a rule in his law that forbids men to aske any reason of his doings But in the mean time where are the Iesuites r Introd q. 4. p. 100. prudentiall motiues without which nothing ought to be beleeued because the vnderstanding cannot assent to the thing propounded without some probable motiue For religion bids not men be stockes A. D. And one cause why the common sort of Protestants do at the first sight thinke them absurd is because they haue not heard points of our doctrine truly related and declared as our Authors declare them nor the reasons and authorities set downe for which we beleeue them but haue heard such ignorant or malicious Ministers as M White make false relation of points of absurd doctrine to be held by vs which we do not hold but abhorre As to go no further M. White falsely relateth in this very place that we hold the Pope to haue right to Lord it ouer the Scriptures Fathers Councels Church and all the world That we teach also men to murther the King to pay no debts to blow vp the Parliament to dispense with murther and whoredome c. These and such like be not points of our doctrine but shamelesse and slanderous vntruths by which simple people are drawne by ignorant or malicious Ministers to mislike our doctrine in generall and to be apt to haue a worse conceit of euery point of it in particular especially at the first sight then by due examination they shall finde it to deserue 5 Not Protestants onely thinke Poperie absurd but many Papists also censuring the points I haue named and misliking them shew plainly that I spake true yet the Reply sayes the cause why the common sort of Protestants thinke Poperie absurd is because they heare not the points of Papistrie truly related but their ignorant and malicious Ministers charge them to hold what they hold not This is false for first these Protestants that thus condemne Papistrie do dayly reade the Papists owne bookes which are not restrained and prohibited with a The reading and vse of Lutheran bookes forbidden not onely the vulgar but all others of what state degree order or condition soeuer they be though Bishops Archbishops or greater onely the Jnquisitors are excepted by a Decretall of Iulius the 3. See Sept. Decr. l. 5. tit 4. de lib. prohib c. 2. that seueritie wherewith
vntruth or vnsinceritie hath he shewed what one thing hath he performed worthy of this bragging that neither had the wit to answer the whole nor the fortune to find so much as the least error in any part of that I writ yet you see how he comes vpon the stage b Iust Mart. ib. pag. 392. like Orestes with terrible gesture his bodie bombasted vpon high stilts with a monstrous face and roaring voice not that he hopes hereby to fasten any imputation vpon me but because this is the art of these men with words and boasting to outface their aduersaries and their policie to keepe the vulgar sort of Papists in bondage to Romish drudgerie For the same Iustin c Ibid. pag 390 sayes clamorous and wording companions * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeme admirable to some whose sloth and carelesnesse to looke into things makes them admire other mens lowd boasting 2 For what he hath discouered in my writing will appeare of it selfe without this facing and scurrilitie and I wish with all my heart that my selfe by that which he hath obiected against me and other our writers by that which Walsingham hath noted in them might be censured then should the Reader see if he would take the paines to make the triall as well by our answers as their quarrels this Walsingham to be the man that hath prostituted and set himselfe to sale to lie dissemble and calumniate and the Iesuite that thus mentions him to be a poore Empericke that hath more skill in shriuing then booking and disputing And whereas he sayes twice ouer that I and other pettie Ministers in simplicitie furnish our discourses out of other mens Note-books which is the cause why we are so often and grosly taken napping let him spet and speake out who acquainted him with my reading that he can tell so well whence I haue that I write what one place hath he shewed in all my writing to be mistaken by borrowing it from others Note-bookes What materiall quotation is there but I haue so marked it that he may see I read it in the Author himselfe Although I wil not onely not denie but freely congratulate my selfe that I haue learned and increased the little knowledge I haue by reading and vsing the writings of those whose bookes I am not worthy to beare And if either I or any other had taken any thing out of Caluin B. Iewell or M. Foxe yet might the Iesuite ill vpbraid vs with it who himself translated his whole Treatise that I answered from Greg. of Valence his Analysis fidei All his introduction containing a fourth part of his Reply out of the same mans tract de obiecto fidei His discourse of Predestination containing ten pages together verbatim out of Becanus His Appendix containing another fourth part of his Reply partly out of Gregory Valence and partly out of Stapleton The Catalogue being borrowed from Canisius Besides his continuall referring himselfe to Walsingham Briarly and Coccius So that he that so magisterially censures our reading himselfe hath stolen the whole carcasse of his very book wherein he writes this Besides let him giue a sufficient reason why it should not be lawfull for vs to vse and follow the learned Diuines of our Church as well as it is for a Papist to follow his Thomas his Robert his Stapleton his Gretser his Coccius his Aius Locutius The which vntill he can do he shall giue vs leaue to thinke as well of them as they do of these though we sound not their praises so lowd 3 And yet this conceit of vsing Note-bookes satisfies him not neither for though other mens books might deceiue vs in some things yet he sees at least some wit learning and reading in vs which makes him fall a musing But to put him out of his browne studie be it knowne vnto him and all of his mind that we follow our cause religion with knowledge and peace and a good conscience and write that we know and are able to defend against all this barking and shameles brags of their owne learning and our grounds are Gods word contained in the Scripture and the certen consent of the Church in all ages and that which makes vs the more resolute is the lothsome cariage and behauiour of our aduersaries who notwithstanding with all their endeuour cannot remoue our grounds in one question But with forgerie partialitie tyranny railing and bragging deale against vs which being the weapons of darknesse and desperation we detest and loathe dayly praying to Iesus Christ that he will hasten his comming and let it appeare who they be that haue the truth when the malice of men and the pride of Antichrist thus suppresse it in darknesse Pag. 46. A.D. Among vs it is held against good conscience to tell any formall lie in whatsoeuer matter although without harme of any although by the speaker intended for the glory of God or the good of neuer so many But it seemeth not so to be thought by at least some of the Protestant writers nay it seemeth rather that they either haue no conscience or a very large conscience and that they either seldome or neuer enter into consideration what may or may not stand with conscience or that they frame in themselues such a grosse conscience as I haue read of some Ministers of a In Apol. Eudaemon Johannis pro Henr. Garnet c. 2 See also Bolseck in vita Calumi c. 20. Geneua who held it lawfull to lie for the glory of God and for the aduancement of the Gospell conformably to which is b D. B. in his answer to M. Abbot reported also that one of our English Ministers not many yeares since being told that grosse vntruths were found in the booke of a late Protestant writer answered He cannot lie too much in this cause O wretched cause which needeth to be maintained by such wicked meanes If it were the truth and especially as some Protestants professe it to be the euident truth there should be no need to defend it with lies neither indeed whatsoeuer it be ought it in conscience or credit be defended especially with such grosse lies as sometimes it is Wherefore if Protestant writers do think their cause true and good and therupon in zeale wil needs maintain it I would aduise them for the time to come to be more carefull of truth in maintaining it then hitherto diuers of them haue bene both for conscience and credit sake and as they desire to auoide sinne and shame This passage of the Iesuite and the continuall insolency that he vseth through his Reply makes me remember the relation of * Relat. of the state of relig a noble gentleman concerning the education of the Iesuites which being fit for this place I will here set downe The Iesuites plant in their Scholers with great exactnes and skill the rootes of their Religion and nourish them with an extreame hatred and detestation of the aduerse party And
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
praed sect 6. others that hold predestination to be ex praeuisis to deliuer it in the same maner Lessius a Iesuite among the rest hath one c 5. assert pag 367. n. 75. assertion that containes all this All the iustified are elected and predestinate to glorie but this election and predestination is not complete but requires a condition on our behalfe that it may be complete the which condition it is in our own power to accomplish or not to accomplish and therefore it is also in our owne power to make that our predestination may be complete Aureolus d 1. d. 41. art 1. pag. 490. edit Rom. sayes that all Schoole men which hold predestination ex praeuisis expound that God wils all men to be saued antecedently before their working but not consequently by his will following the foresight of their workes Which words make the doctrine of Gods antecedent and consequent will thus expounded to set the first act of Gods louing Iacob after the foresight of Iacobs good life and to make the foresight of mens good or ill deserts to be the cause of their election and reprobation The question then between the Iesuite and me touching predestination The state of the question touching Gods Anâ—ecedent will is this not whether God from all eternitie decreed to punish the reprobate eternally for their sinnes so that their sinnes should be the immediate cause of their damnation for this I denie not but the true state is touching the CAVSE OF THE DECREE IT SELF that is to say what is the cause why God foreseeing that all men should equally in Adam be sinners yet notwithstanding decreed to shew his mercy in forgiuing some electing them to life and to shew his iustice and wrath in other some by reiecting them from this election forsaking them in their sinnes that they might eternally be condemned I say there can no other cause of this decree be assigned then onely the free will of God whereas the Iesuite in his doctrine of antecedent and consequent will exemplified in this his comparison of an earthly King makes the reason of this decree to be works foreseene so that on the behalfe of the elect their foreseene grace should be the cause of their election and on the behalfe of the reprobate their foreseene sinne should be the cause of their reiection 11 The which doctrine of my aduersary how plaine soeuer he thinke it to iudicious wits whether predestination were in the corrupted masse of sinne or before and whether the foreseene workes be vnderstood to be of grace or of nature is false vpon fiue grounds First it seemes to be the very opinion of the Massilians who of all hands are holden to haue bene Semi-pelagians or the relicks of Pelagius Prosper e Epist ad August sayes This is their profession that euery man sinned in Adam and that no man is regenerate to saluation by his workes but by the grace of God neuerthelesse the propitiation which is in the mysterie of Christs bloud is propounded to all men without exception that whosoeuer will come to faith and baptisme may be saued but who would beleeue and who would perseuere in that faith which afterward should be holpen by Gods grace those God foreknew before the world was made and those he predestinate vnto his kingdome who he foresaw being freely called would be worthy of election and would depart this life well And Faustus that was a Bishop of that sect f De grat lib arb l. 2. c. 2. sayes What God may foresee or fore-ordaine touching vs concerning that which is to come that consists in our well or ill doing g Cap. 3. pag. 833. It is one thing for God to foreknow and another to predestinate praescience foresees what is to be done and then afterwards predestination appoints the rewards that foresees the merits this fore-ordaines the rewards when that hath pronounced a cause then this foretels the sentence and so vnlesse Gods praescience discouer something his predestination decrees nothing This is the selfe same that my aduersarie h Pag. 166. writes how God vpon the foresight and respect of mens liuing and dying well in the secret chamber of his diuine knowledge and will pronounces a particular sentence and decree of saluation to some and of damnation to others Which also is the doctrine whereinto this exposition of Gods antecedent and consequent will is resolued Againe if God predestinate no man to his end but vpon the foresight and respect of his workes then he hath no perfect or formall will to elect any but after the foresight of his good life nor to reprobate any but after the foresight of his euill life which being so I demaund whence it comes that the elect beleeue and the reprobate beleeue not and how it comes to passe that God foresees grace in the one and sinne in the other It must needs be answered either that it is Gods will the elect shall haue grace and the reprobate no grace giuen them or that they beleeue or not beleeue of their owne free will by the strength of nature without any working of God This latter is grosse Pelagianisme making nature the beginning of grace But if the former be granted that God foresees no grace but what himselfe predestinates to giue nor no sinne but what vpon the withholding of his grace the reprobate will freely worke then against all discourse this makes that the cause of predestination which is an effect ensuing on it for therefore God will and doth giue grace because first he hath elected and will giue no grace because he hath reprobated as I will shew by and by 12 Secondly it is a ground both in Diuinitie and nature that the will intends the end before the meanes hence it followes that God cannot haue this consequent will to saue vpon the foresight of grace For I reason thus * Quia volens ordinatè finem ea quae sunt ad finem prius vult fineÌ„ quam aliquod entium ad finem propter talem finem alia vult Ergo cum in toto processâ— quo creatura beatâ—ficabilis perducitur ad perfectum finem cum finis vltimus sit beatitudo perfecta Deus volens huic aliquid istius ordinis PRIMO VVLT HVIC CREATVRAE BEATIFICABILI FINEM ET QVASI POSTERIVS VVLT SIBI ALIA QVAE SVNT IN ORDINE ILLORVM QVAE PERTINENT AD FINEM scilicet Gratia Fides Meritum bonus vsus liberi arbitrij Omnia ista ad istum finem sunt ordinata licet quaedam remotiùs quaedam propinquiùs Ergo PRIMO ISTI VVLT DEVE BEATITVDINEM QVAM ALIQVID ISTORVM ET PRIVS VVLT â—I QVODCVNQVE ISTORVM QVAM PRAEVIDEAT IPSVM HABITVRVM quodcunque istorum Jgitur PROPTER NVLLVM ISTORVM PRAEVISVM VVLT EI BEATITVDINEM Scot. 1. d. 4. qu vnic §. Potest aliter Media vt media non possunt appeti nisi propter finem non igitur potuit Deus
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
such a rule say againe whether it be not something distinct from the teaching and authority of the teachers for so much as that wherby the teaching and authority is discerned and tried cannot be confounded with the teaching and if there be such a distinct rule what can it be but the Scripture which onely is the thing that all Church teaching must agree with Thus therefore I reason ad hominem In the doctrine taught by the Pastours of the Church it sufficeth that I can distinguish the priuate from the publicke that which is taught with authority from that which is without authority Therefore I MAY yea must thus distinguish I may DISTINGVISH therefore I may EXAMINE for by examining things we distinguish them We may examine therefore we must haue a RVLE whereby we do it we must haue a rule therefore it must either be the Scripture or the teaching it selfe of the Church that is examined for a third cannot be giuen But it cannot be the teaching of the Church for that is the thing it selfe examined It must of necessity therefore be the SCRIPTVRE ALONE And for so much as it belongs to euery priuate man thus to distinguish therefore it is true also that I said Euery priuate man inlightned with Gods grace which must alway be supposed and our aduersaries necessarily require it may be able to guide himselfe and to discerne of the Church teaching by the SCRIPTVRE Pag. 223. 1 Tim. 3. v 15. Wootton pag. 154. White p. 80. A. D. Wherefore it is not without cause that S. Paule called the Church the pillar and ground of truth not onely as my aduersaries expound that truth is found in it or fastened to it as a paper is fastened to Pasquin in Rome which is M. Whites grosse similitude but also in that it selfe is free from all error in faith and Religion and is to vs a sure although a secondary foundation of faith in that it doth truely yea infallibly propound to vs what is and what is not to be beleeued by faith it being therefore vnto vs a pillar and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine and an assured ground or establishment of verity whereupon we may securely stand against all heresies and errors It is not also without cause that S. Augustine said whosoeuer is afraid to be deceaued with the obscuritie of this question let him require the iudgement of the Church signifying that to require the iudgement of the Church is a good meanes to preserue one from being deceaued not onely as M. Wootton expoundeth in that particular question which there S. Augustine mentioneth and such like of lesser moment and much lesse doth he meane as M. White minceth the matter to wit in that particular question at this time but also and that à fortiori in other questions of greatest weight and most concerning saluation and at other times c. 8 I find 2. faults in this place with the Repliar 1. that he doth not report the whole expositions that I gaue to these places but onely part of them and yet tels me of mincing Next that hauing confirmed my exposition of the wordes of the Apostle by foure reasons and my exposition of Saint Austine by as many and hauing confuted his sense that here he repeates by manifest arguments he stands dumbe to all and onely repeates the places againe no otherwise then when I answered them I need not therefore trouble my selfe with confuting him here but referre * THE WAY §. 15. me to that I writ much accusing my selfe for medling with so base a trifler that hath neither heart nor strength to go forward in the argument nor wit nor grace to hold his tongue this one passage is the liuely image not onely of all this his Reply but of all his fellowes writings now in request to bring in authority of Scripture and Fathers as a Bride is led into the Church with state and ceremony and some grauity and furniture of words but when they should reply to that we answer and maintaine their expositions then to tergiuerfate and onely repeate that which is confuted CHAP. XXXVI An entrance into the question touching the visibility of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was A. D. Concerning the eleuenth Chapter Hauing proued in the precedent Chapter that the doctrine of the Church is the rule Pag. 227. and meanes to instruct all men in faith in this Chapter I vndertake to shew that the Church whose doctrine is the rule and meanes White pag. 86. Wootton p. 104 White pag. 86. continueth in all ages Both my Aduersaries grant that the Church continueth in all ages M. White saith We confesse the Church neuer coased to be but continueth alwaies without interruption to the worlds end M. Wootton saith the truth of your assertion needeth no proofe and findeth great fault with me for making such a question as though Protestants did deny the Church to continue As concerning this their granting the continuance of the Church I gratefully accept it especially with M. Whites addition who yeeldeth that if we can proue that the very faith which Protestants now confesse hath not * If Protestants faith so far as they differ from vs continued alwaies I aske whether in the aire or in some faithfull men if in men who be those men successiuely continued in all ages since Christ or that it was interrupted so much as one yeare moneth or day it is sufficient to proue them no part of Gods Church For which he citeth in the Margent Dan. 7. ver 27. Psal 102. v. 26. Mat. 16.18 Luk. 1 v. 33. 1 AS no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Church to be the rule taking the Church for a So Waldens doctrinal tom 1. l. 2. c. 19. Haec est Ecclesia Symbolica Ecclesia Christi Catholica Apostolica mater credentiū per totum mundum dispersae à Baptismo Christi per Apostolos ceteros successores eorum ad haec tempora deuoluta quae vtique veram fidem continent c. pag. 99. the whole company of beleeuers which haue bene from Christ to this day so neither do they deny this Church to continue in all ages the which because I granted the Repliar in my answer to his booke you see how he ioyes in himselfe as if he had wonne the cause touching his visiblenesse of the Church But as I noted to him the question is not whether the Church continue in all ages to the worlds end for that we grant but whether the outward state thereof free from all corruption be alway so visible as the Papists say I shewed the Negatiue and in the 17. Digression made it plaine that our Aduersaries themselues cannot deny it the Repliar therefore in this place was to quit his owne D. D. whom I alledged and not to stand gratefully accepting that which no man denies The marginall question is
say the people might not reade that which they had in their owne language b Act 15 21. which they daily heard read in their Synagogues and c Deut. 6.7 which they must rehearse continually to their families d 2. Tim. 3.15 and wherein they brought vp their children from their infancy Secondly he saies either they containe no precept or but a conditional precept or licence that when they would not beleeue Christ himselfe they might search the Scripture Faine he would say absolutely it is no precept because it would serue his turne better But belike he read in his Cyrill e In Ioh. l. 3 c. 4 that the common and receaued expopositionis that with a certen COMMAND our Sauiour stirres them vp to search the Scripture Athanasius f Tom 2 p. 248. Commelin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saies He COMMANDED them to search the Scripture g Aschet p. 599. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil wheÌ„ a COMMANDEMENT is giuen vs let vs obey our Lord saying Search the Scripture h Ho 40. 39. in Ioh. Chrysostome he COMMANDS to digge deepe into the Scripture he sends them away to the Scripture i Pag. 343. in Ioh. Euthymius He COMMANDS them to search k Iansen concord c. 36. Peter seleâ—â— disp to 4. in Ioh. 5. d. 20. Our aduersaries confesse this to be the commonest exposition and some of them the best l In Ioh. 5. Maldonat the Iesuite Cyrill thinkes the word SEARCH not to be the imperatiue but the indicatiue mood but Chrysostom Theophylact. Austine I thinke ALL GRAVE AVTHORS except Cyrill do BETTER thinke it to be the imperatiue And this is confirmed by manifest reason For in case of error the Iewes and all men are bound by precept to haue recourse to such meanes as can reforme them But the Repliar is content it be a precept so he may haue the hammering of it First therefore he saies It s but a conditionall precept or rather a licence that seeing they would not beleeue our Sauiour himselfe they might search the Scripture which they did beleeue This is transparently against the Fathers yet it will serue my turne and vtterly destroy his cause For such a licence the Pope and the Inquisitors will neuer grant as Clement 8. hath professed And if our Sauiour when the Iewes beleeued not him permitteâ— them to search the Scripture then by this text when the People beleeue not the Pope but misdoubt his doctrine he must giue licence to them to reade the Scripture which he will neuer do Gretser to helpe the Repliar a little m Tom. 1. pag. 893. c. answers There is not the same reason of Christians that there was of the Iewes and why so the Iewes beleeued not in Christ but opposed both his doctrine and person whereas he that is a true Christian beleeues Christ and honours him This is true that is said both of the Iewes and Christians but this difference is no reason why a beleeuing Christian may not search the Scripture as well as an vnbeleeuing Iew. For the Christian though he beleeue in Christ yet is ignorant of much of his wil or weake in faith or assailed with heresies increasing in the world or desirous to confirme himselfe and others in the truth in which cases let the Iesuite shew why Christ for the curing of the Iew should allow him to reade the Scripture and yet debar the Christian whose state needes the support of the Scripture one way as much as the state of the Iew doth another Nay this is a good argument against himselfe and my Repliar For if the reason why the laity may not reade the Scripture be because our Sauiour hath commanded vs not to giue holy things to dogges nor to cast pearles before hogges and the Iewes not beleeuing Christ but opposing his doctrine and person be more dogges and hogges then Christians hence it will follow roundly that the Scripture is to be permitted to Christians much more then to the Iewes because the Iewes were permitted to reade the Scriptures though they were dogges and hogges 5 Secondly he sayes that allowing it to containe an absolute precept which he doth as a child kisses the rod for he must do it if he wil follow the coÌ„sent of the Doctors yet being an affirmatiue precept it obliges not all meÌ„ nor at all times but may be limited to particular times as to the time of the Primitiue Church to particular persons as now only the Clergy and other circumstances which the Church of Rome shal think meet I answer affirmatiue precepts first binde all persons to whom they are giuen Secondly they binde at all such times as the matter therein contained agrees vnto Thirdly they receiue limitation or restraint from none but from the lawgiuer himselfe in all which properties they agree with negatiue commandemeÌ„ts therefore omitting all intricate discourse touching this matter the precept of searching the Scripture binding in this manner it is sufficient for the allowance thereof to the people For first they that cannot reade may fulfill it by hearing it read Searching being restrained no more to the one then to the other Secondly there is none but by searching that is to say by diligent labour may vnderstand them in their mother tongue better then in Hebrew Because I haue shewed many times ouer that the articles of faith and rules of good life are set downe so plainely that the simplest may vnderstand them vnlesse he will make lay people so sencelesse that they haue not the common light of nature Thirdly we binde not euery man to reade all the Scriptures and at all houres doing nothing else because there is no such thing in the precept Then I haue satisfied his questions and admit a limitation in things wherein the precept limits it selfe but how followes this Affirmatiue precepts haue their limitations therefore the Pope may limit them Or this Circumstances limit precepts therefore the Church of Rome vpon her Antichristian circumstances may restraine the precept of Christ Or this Some lawfull and legitimate circumstances may stay the execution of an affirmatiue precept therefore the malicious and desperate imputations layed vpon the people or some misdemeanors committed by them indeed may lawfully debarre the people from hauing the Scripture any more Away with these circumstances and giue vs substance CHAP. LII 1 The mariage of Priests and Bishops lawfull and allowed by Antiquitie 2 Some examples hereof in the ancient Church The restraint hereof is a late corruption Priests were married euen in these Westerne parts a thousand yeares after Christ Pag. 281. A. D. Fourthly touching the mariage of Priests M. White citeth * See Bellar. de cleric c. 19. Prot Apol. tract 1. sect 3. n. 1. sect 7. tract 2. c. 1. sect 3. a mistaken sentence out of the Apostle and boldly affirmeth after his fashion that mariage of Priests was ordinarily in the Primitiue Church But he