epist de solit vit agent p. 647. graec Hieron catalog script in Fortunat. say that for feare of death he subscribed to the Arians Damasus i Damas vit Liberij saies that Vrsacius and Valence two Arian Bishops being sent to him by the Emperor he consented to him Diuers other examples are well knowne and commonly obiected Dominicus Bannes k Bann vbi sup pag. 115. saies the Pope as he is a Doctor and a priuate person may erre in matters of faith euen with pertinacy that he becomes an Hereticke And this conclusion he affirmes to be generally holden by all the ancient Bishops of Rome themselues and by all the schoole Doctors before Albertus Pighius and by the grauer sort of Doctors also since him And to what purpose should vniuersally all the Diuines of the Church of Rome till of late yeares so curiously debate the questions touching the Churches power ouer the Pope l Turre â—rem summ de eccl l. 2 c. 112. l. 4. part 2. c. 20. Caietan de author Pap. concil cap. 18. Anton. de Rosell Monarch tract de concil p. 67. Occham dialog l. 6. partis 1 c. 12. inde in case he should chance to be an Hereticke if they had thought with the Repliar that he could not be an Hereticke at all Alphonsus a Castro m Adu haeres l. 1. c. 4. saies euery man may erre in the faith although it be the Pope himselfe For touching Pope Liberius it is manifest he was an Arian and he that hath read histories doubts not but Anastasius fauoured the Nestorians I CANNOT BELEEVE THERE IS ANY MAN SO IMPVDENT A FLATTERER OF THE POPE AS TO SAY HE CANNOT ERRE or be deceiued in expounding the Scripture For when IT IS WELL KNOWNE THAT DIVERS OF THEM ARE SO VNLERANED THAT THEY ARE ALTOGETHER IGNORANT OF GRAMMAR how can they expound the sacred Scripture My Aduersarie therefore and his learned Cardinall are egregious flatterers and parasites to the Pope by Alphonsus verdict such as he presumed the world should neuer haue seene but he was deceiued we now see them and heare them and my Aduersary it seemes beleeues them n Aen. Sylu. comment in Panorm de dict fact Alph. l. 1. n. 3. Pope Iohn the 23 was woont to say when flatterers praised him though he knew they lied yet he felt himselfe something tickled with that they said Which humor of the Pope being now better knowne you must giue his seruants leaue to gratifie it 8 Secondly he saies All the best learned Catholicke Diuines agree that neuer any Pope did shall or can ex Cathedra define any error or heresie to be true faith or authoratatiuely teach the Church any thing contrary to the true faith Indeed this is the opinion of the most Papists now adaies deuised of late to put off the inconueniences that pressed them that whatsoeuer heresies and abhominations of the Pope were obiected they might be salued by this distinction that he taught them not out of the chaire but from his owne stoole But it is false that all the best learned Catholickes agree in it For very many of the ancienter sort held it not but the contrary whose learning will abide any comparison that can be made with the Iesuites that now so presumptuously assume from their predecessors all the learning to themselues Hadrian who himselfe was Pope o In 4. de sacra confirm sub finem affirmes it to be certaine that the Pope may erre euen in things touching the faith and auouch that which is heresie by his determination or decretall Turrecremata a Cardinall of that reputation for his learning p Catharin tract de certa sanct glor l. 1. that the Pope honoured him with the title of Protector of the faith assigning certaine cases wherein pertinacy or wilfulnesse in heresie lies q Turre crem sum de eccl l 4. part 2. c. 16. giues this for one The seuenteenth manner whereby the Pope specially may be conuinced of pertinacy in heresie is if he SOLEMNLY DEFINE THE ERROR and affirme it to be holden by Christians as Catholicke It was therefore r Azor. tom 2. moral l. 5. c. 4. his iudgement that the Pope might erre euen iudiciously è Cathedra Waldensis Å¿ Waldens doctrinal fid l. 2. c. 19 tom 1. affirmes that no Church or Councell no not the particular Church of Rome is free from error but onely the Catholicke Church dispersed all ouer the world from the times of Christ and his Apostles to this day If onely the Catholicke Church thus considered be free from error then he thought the Pope euery way howsoeuer might erre and his particular Church and colledge being allowed to helpe him yet they not being the Church mentioned in the creed in Waldens the innocent promoting the faithlesse defaming Catholicks exalting schismatickes hating good men oppressing the truth with all their power and by all meanes possible without feare aduancing forward hereticall prauitie The time alas is come whereof the blessed Apostle prophecied 2. Tim. 4. The time shall be when men will not abide wholesome doctrine but with itching eares shal heape to themselues teachers after their owne lusts and turning their eares from the truth shall giue heed to fables Which prophecie indeed is fulfilled in our dayes which I speake with griefe And that I may conclude in few words with a whores forehead and execrable boldnesse they hasten to subuert both King and law diuine and humane c. 9 The third thing the Reply sayes is that the Popes priuate errors cannot preiudice the Church But this is folly For who sees not that if his decrees be admitted to be infallible truths the Church shall be constrained by the consequence of this principle to receiue for such many of his errors the reason is because he cannot possibly decree otherwise then he priuatly thinkes and in decreeing he is not bound either to follow or vse the counsell of other Bishops in which case what hath he to leade him but his owne erronious priuate spirit They will say possible Gods promise and prouidence is to preserue him when he teaches the Church è Cathedra else the Church should be tied to an inconuenience and be bound to follow his errors I answer in a word that priuiledge shall be granted him when our aduersaries can shew vs where God hath made any such promise Those promises that are belong not to the Pope but to the vniuersall Church and the lawfull Councels thereof as the most ancient and learned Papists do for the most part expound Thus the Fathers of the Councels of Pisa Basil Constance Thus all the Diuines that hold a Councell to be aboue the Pope And this was the cause why in the ancient Church not the Bishop of Rome but a Councell was the highest iudge of all controuersies that fell out for which cause the Church in all ages hath vsed to call such Councels which needed
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
faith or needfull to be followed And so from that place to pag. 57 I disputed that the Scripture ALONE is the rule of faith that is to say That rule which my Aduersary in his fourth ground had said God had prouided whereby euery man learned and vnlearned may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for the true faith Now he complaines that the State is peruerted the question not being whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether Scripture alone be the rule and meane ordained of God to breed all faith And he notes two points wherein it is peruerted First in that I so affirme and defend the Scripture to be the rule as if he and his sectaries excluded it from being the rule in any sort which he sayes they do not For they hold the Scripture as propounded by the Church to be part of it I answer that I knew well enough they confessed the Scripture to be part of the rule and the Diuine doctrine which is the whole rule to be some of it written But I knew also that they denied it to be the whole rule ioyning therewith vnwritten traditions and the Popes Decretals which they call Church authority I knew also they allowed it to be no part of the rule but as and in such sence as the Church of Rome should please to propound it and I saw his conclusion in termes denying the Scripture alone to be the rule whereby men may sufficiently be instructed WHAT the faith is therefore I disputed directly opposite to all this that the Scripture alone without traditions is the whole rule to shew vs WHAT is to be holden for faith and nothing but the Scripture this is close to the question For albeit he yeelds it to be the rule in a sort because as his Church propounds it it containes part of the rule yet he denies it to be that whole and entire rule that his conclusion inquires of and so is to be disputed against as well as if he denied it to be any part of the rule at all Againe he holds two things First affirmatiuely that the Scripture is one part of the rule then negatiuely that the Scripture alone is not all the rule Both these are contradictory to my assertion The Scripture alone is the rule My assertion therefore affirming what he denies and denying what he affirmes containes the true state of the question and his inuoluing the matter with all this cauilling tends onely to the couering of his doctrine the loathsome visage whereof he is ashamed should be seene 3 The second point wherein he sayes the question is peruerted is in that I take the rule of faith otherwise then he doth For whereas he by that word rule meanes such a rule as not onely is sufficient to REVEALE all diuine truths that are to be beleeued but also to BREED or produce in vs the faith whereby we beleeue them I he sayes vnderstand such a rule onely as is sufficient to reueale the diuine verities though it be not sufficient to breed in vs faith and assent thereunto And it is true that I vnderstand such a rule indeed the Church wherein I liue onely beleeuing the sufficiency of the Scripture to containe all the obiect of faith but not to enable vs to beleeue it or vnderstand it ordinarily without the ministry of the Church and other meanes But this peruerts not the question * The state of the question touching Scripture ALONâ— for about the meanes there is no question but the question is whether Scripture alone excluding all Church traditions and authority comprehend the whole obiect or matter of faith that is to say All that we are bound to know beleeue and doe for our saluation though it be granted that to breed or produce faith and knowledge of that which is in the Scripture the Ministry of the Church and the helpe of Gods Spirit and our owne industry must concurre For our Aduersaries deny this and hold their runagate traditions and Church authority to be necessary not onely for the expounding and confirming to vs that which is in the Scripture if any one chance to deny it or not to see it but for the supplying of infinite articles of faith which are no waies at all comprised in the Scripture but vpon the said authority are to be receiued as well as that which is reuealed in the Scripture The Iesuite speakes as if he thought his Church authority to consist more in breeding faith and leading men to beleeue what is written then in adding any thing to the measure of the diuine verities contained in the Scripture and indeed sometime there be of his side that will plainely say so He that writ the defence of the Censure a Def. of the Cens pag. 141. NOTE THIS and inquire whether all Papists will stand to it sayes it is to be noted that the question betweene vs and the Protestants is of EXPRESSE SCRIPTVRE ONELY and not of any far fet place which by interpretation may be applied to a controuersie For this contention began betweene vs vpon this occasion that when we alledged diuers weighty places and reasons out of the Scripture for proofe of inuocation of Saints praier for the dead Purgatory and some other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they did not plainely and expresly decide the matter Whereupon came this question whether all matters of beleefe are plainely and expresly in Scripture or not which they affirme and we deny And this he sayes is is the true state of the question Gretser b Defens Bellar tom 1. l. 4. c. 4. p. 1598. sayes These things may be proued by Scripture but not sufficiently not effectually by Scripture alone without tradition but onely probably The which if my aduersary and his Church did hold constantly and in good earnest I would confesse I had peruerted the state of the question But they do not but hold many things belonging to faith to be wanting and no way at all neither openly nor expresly nor consequently contained in the Scripture Dominicus Bannes c D. Dann 22. Tho. p. 302. All things which pertaine to Catholicke faith are not contained in the Canonicall books either manifestly or obscurely nor all those things which Christ and his Apostles taught and ordained for the instructing of his Church and confirming of the faith were committed to the holy Scriptures and the contrary is open heresie Melchior Canus d Can. loc p. 151 There are many things belonging to the doctrine and faith of Christians which are contained in the sacred Scriptures neither manifestly nor obscurely Cardinall Hosius e Hos confess Polon p. 383. The greater part of the Gospell by a great deale is come to vs by tradition very little of it being written in the Scripture Peresius f Peres de tradit p. 4. Tradition is taken so that it is distinguisht against the doctrine which is found in the Canonicall bookes of the
Scripture Bellarmine g Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. c. 1. The name of tradition is applied by Diuines to signifie onely vnwritten doctrine Alphonsus h Alphons à Castr adu haer lib 1. c. 5. This is to be laid for a most sound foundation that the traditions of the vniuersall Church and the determinations thereof in things concerning faith are of no lesse authority then the sacred Scripture it selfe though there be no Scripture to proue them Hessels of Louan i Hessel expli symb c. 69. p. 38. The Apostles neuer intended by their writing to commit to writing the whole doctrine of faith but as necessity vrged them what in their absence they could not teach that they committed to writing Costerus the Iesuite k Coster enchirid p. 43. It was neuer the mind of Christ either to commit his mysteries to parchment or that his Church should depend on paper writings Lindane l Lind. panopl. pag. 4. We Catholickes teach that Christians are to beleeue many things which are to be acknowledged for Gods word that are not contained in the Scripture and many things finally to be receiued with the same authoritie wherewith those doctrines of faith are receiued which are contained in holy writ Rodericus Delgado m Roderic dosm de autor Script l. vlt. p. 63 Albeit these things are not found written in the Bible yet they must no lesse be obserued by the godly that they may fulfill the precepts and firmely beleeue the mysteries of the heauenly faith Doctor Stapleton n Staplet princip doctr l. 12. cap. 5. There both were among the Iewes and are among vs very many things religiously performed in the worship of God and also necessary to saluation and necessarily to be beleeued which yet are not comprehended in the Scriptures but are approued or commended to vs ONELY by the authority of the Church Gregory of Valentia o Valent. tom 3. p. 258. D. All the controuersie is whether the Apostles by word of mouth WITHOVT WRITING deliuered any such doctrines as now affoord an infallible argument for the determining of the controuersies of faith in the Church These wordes of our aduersaries make it more then plaine that the Church of Rome holds the Scriptures vnsufficient not onely in respect of breeding faith or bringing men to know and beleeue it ordinarily which we grant but also in respect of containing it in themselues which we deny And that my aduersary holds the same thing I will prone directly For ha-laid downe 4. grounds First that true faith is necessary Secondly that this faith is onely one Thirdly that this faith must be certaine Fourthly and entire in all points he addes the fift that it must not be doubted but God hath prouided and left some certaine rule and meanes whereby euery man may in all points and questions be sufficiently and infallibly instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith and then immediately he puts the question what in particular may be assigned to be this rule wherto he answers in his first conclusion The Scripture alone especially as translated into English cannot be this rule Which I denied Therefore his question was touching the sufficiency of the Scripture as the said sufficiency is opposed to vnwrittē traditiō not as it is distinguished against the requisite condition of the meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scripture And this I confirme for my aduersary saies they hold the Scripture to be part of the rule because it is part of the doctrine of the Church immediatly reuealed by God but yet there are many substantiall points of faith not contained in them Yea p Pag. 67. Reply his expresse words are The question is betwixt vs and Protestants whether God did reueale any thing to the Prophets and Apostles necessary to be beleeued which is not now expressed or so contained in the Scripture that by euident and necessary consequence excluding all tradition and Church authority it may be gathered out of some sentence expresly set downe in the Scripture I did not therefore peruert the state of the question but my Aduersary hauing nothing else to say thought good by this shift to rid himselfe from that which he saw could not be answered 4 Neuerthelesse pleasing himselfe with his owne conceite he concludes that conuicted with the euidence of truth I haue yeelded to his conclusion in that sence wherein he meant it That Scripture alone is not the rule of faith And therefore all my discourse is idle and impertinent I answer two things first if his conclusion The Scripture alone is not this rule which almighty God hath prouided whereby euery man may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith meane no more but onely to adde the Ministry of the Church and mens owne industry to the Scripture as the meanes for the ordinary vnderstanding and beleeuing that which is written in it in this sence the Scripture alone is the rule whereby to iudge whatsoeuer matter belongs to faith but Scripture alone is not the ordinary rule and meanes by it selfe to kindle in vs the true knowledge and faith of that which it containes without the Ministrie of the Church and other things be ioyned with it for the learning of it then I grant it and require the Iesuite againe in lieu thereof either to renounce his traditions or else confesse they haue no other vse but onely to helpe to expoūd and teach that which is wholly contained in the Scripture without any power to supply any defect of doctrine that may be supposed to be therein And when he hath done the next treatise of faith he writes to distinguish a little better betweene the Rule and the Meanes of applying it and not say that is no sufficient rule whereby to be instructed WHAT is faith and WHAT not which onely is not a sufficient meanes to bring men to faith without the subordinate condition of such meanes as is required in the application of any rule Secondly I answer that his conclusion meanes more viz. That Scripture alone is vnperfect and defectiue 2. waies The first in that without other meanes it doth not ordinarily breed or draw foorth in vs assent to that it reueales nor so much as make vs see the reuelation to be And therefore there needes the Church by her Pastor to teach and perswade vs and there needes the Spirit of God and industrie in our selues This way no Protestant euer denied The second is in that it alone containes not all Gods word or all such truth as he hath reuealed necessarily to be beleeued but onely one small and obscure part thereof the best part or at least some part being by Tradition onely vnwritten This way we deny with open mouth and the Iesuite holds it and in the place now controuerted hugges it in his armes and therefore I discoursed against him as I did and in no other sense and so consequently it is
saluation Therefore it is sufficient How doth it now appeare so plainely that it proues nothing the first proposition is manifest of it selfe the second is as manifest for all that the Apostle affirmes is of the Scripture alone and of nothing else for of Scripture alone he saies it is able to make wise to saluation it is profitable to teach to reproue to instruct to correct that the man of God may be perfect the conclusion therfore must needs be true Secondly he saies the Apostle speakes of the old Testament yea of euery parcell of Scripture yet M. White will not say that now specially the old Testament without the New or euery parcell of the old it selfe is alone sufficient for all the said purposes whereto M. White answers that he neither speakes of the old Testament alone nor of any one parcell either of old or new separated from the rest but of the whole in this sense all the whole Scripture taken together is able c. And if the Iesuits and D. Stapleton whom this man traces had not renounced all truth they would not say it when that which the Apostle auouches of the Scripture cannot agree to euery parcel alone but to all together for what one parcell performes all these effects to make wise to saluation to teach to reproue to instruct to correct to make perfect the Scripture is so vnderstood as that all these things may truly be affirmed of it but these things cannot truely be affirmed of the parcels alone Ergo. 4 Thirdly he saies the word PROFITABLE must not expound the word ABLE or if it be the word ABLE doth not signifie that the Scripture is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most it imports a great degree of profitablenesse This is no answer to this argument But to another that he hath not expressed I said therefore thirdly though very briefly By the word able the other word profitable must be expounded Which I thus put into forme that which is PROFITABLE by being ABLE is sufficient the Scripture is so PROFITABLE that it is ABLE to make vs wise to saluation Ergo it is sufficient He first denies the Minor and saies the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word Able but he seemes to be dazeled For that which is able to make wise to saluation must needes be able to make absolute and perfect because perfection consists in being wife to saluation but the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation Ergo. Next he saies that supposing the word PROFITABLE be expounded by the word ABLE thus Scripture is able to make one absolute and perfect yet the meaning is not that it is able without other helpes and meanes concurring with it but at the most that it is very profitable and if it be sufficient yet this sufficiency is not that whereof our question is but in a certaine limited kinde to wit of written Scripture That is to say if by able to make vs wise to saluation be meant that the Scriptures are sufficient yet it is not meant that alone they are sufficient as the Protestants hold but with a limitation so far as Scripture can be sufficient In which his answer he plainely discouers himselfe to be foundred and spent For our question is not whether the Scripture alone without vsing the Ministery of the Church or our owne industry or such meanes as God hath appointed for the finding our and vnderstanding of that which is contained in it be sufficient for Bread and Drinke and all manner of food is not sufficient to sustaine mans life if he take no paines to get it or if he be not able to swallow and digest it and my aduersaries owne Church and traditions with all their royalties are not sufficient vnlesse men take paines to finde them and be so mad as to beleeue them and so blinde as to let them downe but the question is of their latitude and extent viz. whether the written Scripture containe in expresse words or sense the whole and entire doctrine of faith and good life so that the Church by her authoritie and traditions may adde no point of faith that is wanting in the Scripture This appeares to be the question by my aduersaries own words and the words of the Diuines in his Church Now the Apostle saying the Scripture is able to make one wise to saluation affirmes the sufficiency of it alone without any other helpe or meanes to supply any doctrine or matter of faith not contained therein because there is no more needfull but to be wise to saluation and that wisdome the Scripture is able to instruct vs in Which ability is not limited to certaine points but extended to all the whole obiect of faith by the word For thus I reason He speakes of the Scripture alone and nothing else therefore the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation therefore it is so profitable and in such sort to make absolute and perfect to euery good worke that it can do it For it is able Therefore it alone is sufficient Therefore this sufficiency is so limited to written Scripture that it is perfectly and wholy contained in it 5 The second part of my aduersaries answer in his discourse to the text alleadged was that the Scripture is said to be profitable because it commendes to vs the authority of the Church This his answer I opposed with 7. arguments But when I repeated it I put in the word sufficient thus He saies they be profitable and SVFFICIENT because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority the addition of which word you see he distasts and makes a vantage of thereby to put off the answer to sixe of my arguments That the Prouerbe might be true it s an ill winde but blowes some men profite for vnder that pretence he takes occasion to cauill and put off that he could not answer For first the word might well be put in without any preiudice to his sense For if their profitablenesse lie in commending to vs the Church authoritie then their sufficiency lyes there too and so I might well make him say they be profitable and sufficient because they cōmend vnto vs the Churches authority Secondly it is idle that he saies my obiections are ouerthrown Only by reading his words aright leauing out the word sufficient For let him looke vpon them againe and he shall finde they ourthrow his exposition of profitable as well as if he had expounded sufficient in the same manner But my aduersary will take a small occasion to shun an argument 6 Onely to the sixth he replies for whereas I said the meaning cannot be that they are profitable because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority because the Apostle saies they are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastor himselfe the Pope the Councell and all and it were absurd to say that the
all the gates of hell not onely ouer the sayings of men though holy men or deceitful custom Gods word is ouer all The diuine Maiestie is of my side that I care not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand King Harry-churches stood against me God can neither deceiue nor be deceiued Austin and Cyprian as all the elect may erre and haue erred In all these words there is nothing spoken simply against the Fathers but comparatiuely if a thousand Fathers were against the Scriptures he would rather stand to the Scripture wherein he speakes most godly and honestly that d Gal. 1. if an Apostle or an Angell from heauen farre greater then a thousand Austins and Cyprians should preach otherwise let him be accursed Neither Saint Paul nor Luther granted the Angels or Doctors of the Church to preach otherwise then they did but if any man would pretend and oppose their names and preaching against the Scripture let them be accursed the word of God is aboue all that I care not if a thousand Austins and a thousand Cyprians stood against me which is the truth and our aduersaries say as much themselues Baronius e An. 31. n. 213. Though the Fathers whom for their high learning we worthily call the Doctors of the Church were endued with the grace of the holy Ghost aboue others yet in expounding the Scripture the Catholicke Church doth not alway and in all things follow them D. Marta f De iurisdict part 1. pag. 273. The common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when the contrary opinion fauours the power of the Popes keyes or a pious cause And I haue shewed g THE WAY digr 47. elsewhere that this is the common practise of our aduersaries They speake not alway so zealously and plainly as Luther doth but for substance they say the same that he doth h Yesterday Ecchius brought against me Gregory Ambrose Chrysostome to whom I then answered nothing I will therefore now say what I then forgot opposing the rule of diuine Augustine that the savings of all writers must be iudged by the sacred Scripture whose authoritie is greater then the authoritie of all men Not that I condemne the iudgement of the most illustrious Fathers but I imitate those that come nearest to the Scriptures and if the Scripture be plaine I embrace it before them all Tom. 1. disput Lips cum Ecch. pag 263. Wittemb I mention the opinion of Austin not to defame or detract froÌ„ that holy man but because it is good necessary that these holy Fathers be sometime found like our selues men that the glorie of God may stand firme c. Jâ— Genesc 21 pag. 255. tom 6. Wittemb who thought also as reuerently of the Fathers as any man is bound to do 3 But it was not Luthers going against the Fathers that discontented our aduersaries it was his resisting the Popes Canons and the faith of the Church of Rome which they shrowded vnder the name of the Fathers wherein by their owne diuinitie he might be guiltlesse Peraduenture i Dialog tract 2. part 2. c. vult pag. 180. col 3. edit Lugdun per Ioh. â—rech an 1494. saith Occham one might say that simple men ought to beleeue nothing but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer to be beleeued explicately and should be content with things common not presuming vpon their owne vnderstanding to beleeue any thing explicitely but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer vnto them but HE THAT SHOVLD AFFIRME THESE THINGS WERE AN INVENTOR OF NEW ERRORS For though simple men be not ordinarily tied to beleeue explicitely but onely those things which are by the Cleargie declared to be so beleeued yet SIMPLE MEN READING THE DIVINE SCRIPTVRE BY THE SHARPNES OF REASON MAY SEE SOME THING THAT THE POPE AND CARDINALS HAVE NOT DECLARED EVIDENTLY TO FOLLOW OF THE SCRIPTVRE in which case they can and must explicitely beleeue and ARE NOT BOVND TO CONSVLT WITH THE POPE AND CARDINALS FORASMVCH AS THEY ARE BOVND TO PREFERRE THE HOLY SCRIPTVRE BEFORE THEM ALL. If all the Papists in the world can shew Luther did any more then Occham here allowes euery simple man to do I am much deceiued And if he did no more then by their owne iudgements he might doe then away with these friuolous and emptie exclamations against Luther and let vs heare no more of them A. D. But saith M. White Scripture promiseth Pag 201. that euery doctrine is of God which consenteth to it and this consent a man may know infallibly or else in vaine had the Bereans searched c. I answer that I do not denie but a man may know doctrine to consent to Scripture but I aske how he may know this by onely Scripture interpreted by ones owne iudgment or priuate spirit I hope I haue shewed the contrary neither will M. White be euer able to proue that the 1 Act. 17.11 Beraeans had infallible certaintie onely by the Scripture interpreted by their owne priuate iudgement or that 2 Es 8.20 the Prophet sent any for infallible certaintie to the law and testimonie expounded onely by priuate iudgement or that 3 Luc 1 4. Saint Luke or f Col. 2.2 Saint Paul whom he alledgeth meant that men should haue infallible assurance by onely Scripture interpreted by priuate iudgement or spirit 4 I neuer intended that any man could haue infallible assurance of that he beleeues onely by Scripture interpreted by his owne priuate iudgement all that I affirme is that priuate men may examine any doctrine that is publickly taught by whosoeuer and by Scripture alone as by a certaine rule they may be assured of the truth This is plainly euinced by the texts alledged For the Beraeans hearing the Apostles preach yet searched the Scripture dayly whether those things were so and therefore beleeued In which example the matter examined is the things that the Apostles preached The rule whereby this was examined is the Scripture alone which in the text is distinguished from the Apostles preaching and ministery and authoritie and opposed against them for by it the Beraeans examined them The persons that did this were a priuate people subiect to the Pastors of the Church as much as any can be The end why they did thus examine the doctrine was to see if it consented with the Scripture The euent and issue of their examining was Therefore many of them beleeued Whereby it is cleare that a priuate man by the Scripture alone may be able to iudge of any thing that is publickly taught and by the Scripture alone be infallibly assured if he hold the truth Not the Scripture alone excluding the condition of the meanes whereby God makes the sense thereof knowne but the Scripture alone as the rule of faith excluding all authoritie of the Church and Pastors Nor the Scripture interpreted by a mans owne iudgement and priuate spirit but by it selfe truly according to the manifest rule
arbitrio legentis sic us quam veri ratio postulat deriuatur Vigil l. 2. pag. 553. contr â—utych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Clem. Alexan. Strom. l. 7. pag. 322. edit Commelin ann 1592. which no hereticke may do The Papists alledge the Church So do the Greekes theirs the Armenians and Ethiopians theirs The Papists alledge the successions of their Popes so do the Greeks the succession of their Patriarks Chrysostome sayes r Op. imperâ— hom 49. pag 1101. All those things that belong to Christ in truth heresies may haue in schisme and in shew Churches Scriptures Bishops the orders of Cleargie men Baptisme the Eucharist and all things else The diuell also alledged Scripture but did he therefore giue ouer the Scripture No. But as Ierome Å¿ Comment in Math. 4. sayes The false darts of the diuell which he tooke out of the Scripture our Sauiour breakes with the true shield of the Scripture A Scripture ill cited t Concord c. 14 saith Iansenius he beateth backe with another Scripture truly alledged as it were one naile with another The Replier must therefore proue that they which alledge the Scripture or the Church or the Spirit of God against vs do it in like manner with as probable colour as wee alledge it for our selues But this cauill I answered in the WAY on the same page that my aduersarie quotes whereto he replies onely by repeating that I answered and so comes to railing 8 For hauing obiected that it is not Gods manner to teach men immediatly by himselfe but by the meanes of his Church and the Pastors therein I answered that these whom he cals priuate men had their knowledge by meanes of the Scripture truly taught in the Church but the Papacie was not this Church nor the Priests thereof those Pastors whom God had put into his Church To this he replies as you see that I am impudent and it is maruell his owne blacke face blushes not to vtter such a shamelesse vntruth Let him name if he can what Pastors those were that taught Luther and Caluin vnlesse he will allow the Diuell to be a Pastor whom Luther confesses to haue taught him his doctrine against the Masse I answer that the Pastors which taught Luther and Caluin their doctrine were of foure sorts First the blessed Apostles whose ministerie extends it selfe to all ages Next the Doctors and Pastors of the Primitiue Church and long after whose doctrine also in all substantiall points and namely in that wherein they forsooke the Papacie they stedfastly embraced when the Papacie had cast it off Thirdly the learned men whom God in many ages afterward raised vp to preach against the Papacie as it grew Such as were Bernard Wickliffe Husse the Waldenses and diuers others Fourthly many ordinary Pastours of the Church of Rome it selfe who being defiled with much of the Romish corruption yet in many things were sound and taught soundly the truth which truth such as Luther was might learne euen among Heretickes as S. Austin did a good exposition of Tyconius the Hereticke by the Scripture might be able to iudge betweene that they taught truly and that they taught otherwise u Refert Gabr. lect in can 57. h There were in the Church of Rome that taught pardons to be of no force to helpe soules in Purgatory * Durand 4. d. 20. qu 3. Caiet tract de indulg c. 1. p 211. b. that their vse is by no authority of the Scripture or Fathers diuers taught x Occh. Lyr. Hug. Dionys Turrecrem Picus Caietan whom see before the Apocrypha not to be Canonicall Gerson y Declarat compend defect eccl n. 67. complained of the abuse of images The same z Serm. de Natiu Mar. consid 2. Gerson a 3. part q. 68. art 1. 2. 11. Caietan taught that Infants vnbaptised might be saued b Sacramental pag. 30. Waldensis against the merit of workes c 2. d. 26. per tot Ariminensis against the power of nature and freewill d Lect. 4. in rom 3. lect 4. in Gal. 3. Aquinas for iustification by faith onely e De vit spiritual anim concl vnic Coroll 1. in 3. part operum Gers Paris 1606. Gerson that all sinne is against the law of God and none is veniall of it nature f Almain Occh. Gers Maior others to this day famously knowne The Sorbonistes of Paris taught against the Popes Monarchy the Greeke Church also held many things against the Papacy touching Priests mariage Purgatory c. There is no article of Luthers or Caluins doctrine but it was taught in the Church of Rome before them g Praef. in tom 2. operum Luther Melancthon sayes that he often heard Luther make report how an old man among the Austine Friars at Erford confirmed him in that opinion which is so much obiected to him touching speciall faith and he adds that before he stirred there were many in the Church of Rome which did inuocate God aright and held the doctrine of the Gospell some more some lesse such as was that old man who shewed Luther the doctrine of faith 9 That Luther confesses the Diuell to haue taught him the doctrine against the Masse is vntrue He onely reports how the Diuell in a spirituall h That it was no more will appeare to him that reads the whole discourse especially toward the latter end temptation to bring him to despaire accused him for saying Masse and the more to terrifie him layed many true reasons against the Masse before him whereby to let him see the foulenes thereof that so he might driue him to desperation as to bring any man to despaire of Gods mercy he vses ordinarily by true and effectuall reasons to accuse the sinne whereof he is guilty Not to perswade him to hate or leaue the sinne but to bring him to say with Cain My sinne is greater then can be forgiuen i An easie thing it were to obiect as much to the Iesuites touching their fellowes and Ignatius himselfe their founder but let God be iudge of these things Hasenmuller who spent much time among the Iesuites and was of their religion makes this report Turrian the Jesuite hath often told me that Ignatius Loiola both at meat and Masse and in his recreations vsed to be vexed with the Diuel that he should sweate as cold as one that were ready to die Bobadilla told him that he would oftentimes complaine that he could neuer be quiet for the Diuel molesting him Turrian said the Diuel was his daily companion euen to the altar where he vsed to say Masse c. Hasenmull hist Iesuit c. 11 pag. 427. We can giue them a bead-role of Popes that haue had familiarity with the Diuel more then this commed to I know how scurrilously our aduersaries obiect this of Luther but their malice armed with all the wit and skill they haue can neuer euince it to be otherwise then I
My aduersarie therefore maintaining the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of faith * Suarez the Iesuit shames not to tell the king of England in his late writing against him that The authoritie of the Trent Councell which all the world knowes was mooued by the Pope in the same manner that Puppet motions are mooued by such as shew them is the authoritie of the vniuersall Catholicke Church Defens fid Cathol adu Angl. sect lib. 1. c. 9. nu 7. meanes nothing by the Church but THE POPE HIMSELFE and they that yeeld themselues to be led by the Romane Church must depend solely vpon his will and word 3 To the second this diuine doctrine of the Church which the Repliar saies is the rule of our faith is by himselfe expounded to include not onely the written Scripture but vnwritten traditions also and such decrees and interpretations both of Scripture and tradition as the Pope shall reueale and propound hence it followes that any Friars dreame may be thrust vpon vs as an article of faith necessary to saluation because these traditions and interpretations and this authoritie of the Pope containe many such dreames that is to say the Pope and his Church vnder pretence that they are diuine traditions and all power to propose matters of faith belongs to him may and doth require vs to beleeue lyes and errors and albeit the Iesuite affirme these traditions and interpretations of his Church to be reuealed by God to the Apostles and their successors the Doctors and Pastors of the Church as part of that diuine and Church doctrine which he would haue receaued o Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit veneratur Conc. Trid. sess 4. with the same obedience and affection wherewith we receaue the Scripture yet this is false For the whole obiect of our faith is contained in the Scripture alone as I shewed in the third Digression and because he denies that any such dreames can be contained in the doctrine of his Church thus I reason For whatsoeuer the Pope shall definitiuely propound to be beleeued that is the doctrine of the Church But he may definitiuely propound the very dreames of a Friar this I proue The bookes of i Baro. an 159. n 4. ind expurg Hispa p. 149. d. 15. Sanct. Romana Hermes and k Phot. Biblioth p. 156. edit Graec. Haschel Balâ—am respon p. 363 in Iure Graeco Rom. tom 1. Zâ—onar in Apost can vlt. Perer. Ioh. 13. disp 30. Clemens Constitutions are Apochryphall counterfet and vnsound writings but D. Stapleton l Hos similes libros in canoneÌ„ sacrae Scripturae si praesens Ecclesia referret nulla ratio obstat quin eos pro Canonicis admittere debeamus Relect. pag. 514. saies he may put these bookes into the Canon of the Bible and so binde men to beleeue them by diuine faith therefore he may define and make to be matter of faith that which is vnsound and no better then a dreame Againe Canus and Caietan m Refert Fra. Suar. tom 2. p. 30. a. affirme the opinion of the virgine Maries conception without sinne to be godly and probable in shew but false and vncertaine indeede Yet n Suar. ibi Vas qu. in 3. part Tho. to 2. p. 45. the Iesuits say the Pope may define it when he will Thirdly o Grego Val. analys fid pag. 325. they hold the authority of the Church in defining to be in the Pope who may determine the things of faith whether he vse care and diligence therin or not but he that defines without any care taking or diligeÌ„ce vsed may chance specially if he be a Friar p To the number of 52. Azor institut moral tom 2. l. 5. c 44. as many Popes are to thrust his Friars dreames vpon the Church Fourthly the Canon law q Gl Marg. c quanto de translatione sayes He may make something of nothing and make that a sentence which is none Lastly r Suar vbi sup the Iesuites hold that a supernaturall truth may be so implicitely contained in tradition or Scripture that * Canisius reports that in Paris in the Vniuersities of Spaine and elsewhere no man is admitted to any degree in diuinitie vnlesse he sweare that he will hold the Immaculate conception of the virgine Marial lib. 1. c. 7. Such trickes as this will make this consent swell and increase as fast as the mountaine the common consent of the Church increasing whereby oftentimes the Holy Ghost expounds traditions and Scriptures the Church may at last bring in her definition which shall haue the force of a reuelation The two doores of sleepe Å¿ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Odiss Ï„. mentioned so much in the Poets let not in more dreames then this doctrine doth lyes heresies into the world for whensoeuer the Church of Rome will bring in a new doctrine the implicite traditions and the increase of the Churches consent may be pretended 4 * Ad. 3. To the third he notes no more But what he said in his treatise and I granted in such sense as I layed downe in my answer And this noting it againe is needles and impertinent to the matter in hand which is not touching the quality but the quiddity of the rule 5 * Ad. 4. To the fourth we know well enough that the Church and the doctrine go together but it is false that the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule For the doctrine is the rule and the Church that which teaches both vs and it selfe according to it as the Iudge expounding and executing the law is not the rule together with the law but the law is the rule it selfe and the iudge is the kings officer to apply it but hauing no authority ouer or beside it And yet allowing the contrary and all that the Repliar sayes still in his conceite the Pope with his definitions shall be this Church and this doctrine which he thus conioynes to be the rule 6 To the fift to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of saith in such sort as the Repliar hath said Ad. 5. it is not sufficieÌ„t to shew that at least once or in some one age there hath bene a company of men called the Church in one sense or other ordained by God and furnisht with conditions to teach men the faith for the Repliar hath said that the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith in such sort as it includes not onely the written Scriptures but vnwritten traditions and the interpretation of them both by Church authority Where two things are affirmed first that vnwritten traditions are part of the doctrine that is the rule Secondly that our faith is built t Non quid dicatur sed quis dicat attendendum Staplet Princ. pag. 364. Relect. p. 429. on the authority of the Church Neither of these is proued by shewing that which is
here mentioned For though there be a Church in any sense that a true Church can be meant ordained to teach vs yet it followes not that it hath any such authority or any authority at all to propound vnwritten traditions and there may be a Church and yet the iudgement thereof not be the authority whereon our faith is grounded and the same Church may be ordained to teach vs yet not allowed to teach these vnwritten verities For God hath propounded all doctrine of faith in the Scriptures and appointed his Church to reueale and expound it to his people the which doctrine thus expounded inlightens the mind begets faith and is the rule of all mens iudgement through the worke of the Holy Ghost that confirmes it in the mind Granting therefore that which the Repliar so much desires that all his meaning is that once or in one age there was a company of men who in one sense or other may be called the Church whom God hath appointed and furnished to teach all men the things of faith yet it helps not his conclusion nor makes it true in that sense wherein he meanes it CHAP. XXXV 1 The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope 2. How and in what sense they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith 3 They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith 4 And that the Scripture receiues authority and credit from him 6Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not 7. And they may iudge of that they teach 8 The Iesuites dare not answer directly Pag. 204. White pag. 67. A. D. This being proued my Aduersaries may see how much they mistake when they thinke me to meane in this Chapter by the name Church onely the Pope or onely the present Pastours of the Church when as rather I meant to include these onely secondarily meaning here by the name Church principally the Apostles themselues who for the time they liued on earth were principall Doctours and Pastours of thâ— Church being by me therfore tearmed the Church which I said is the rule of faith not taking the verbe is so strictly as onely limited to this present time but â—â—ther indefinitely abstracting from all time or per ampliationem as it may extend it selfe to the by-past as well as to the present time This to be my meaning my Aduersaries might haue perceiued by the texts of Scripture which I bring for the proofe of my conclusion For those texts are by me here applied as they were by our Sauiour spoken and meant to wit principally to the Apostles being the primitiue Pastours and principall members of the Church and are onely secondarily or by consequence applied to other Pastours succeeding in their places Now taking my conclusion in this chiefly intended sense it cannot be denied to be true neither can the reason by which I proue it with any reason be denied to be good 1 IT is easie to see that he knownes not in what sense he should take his conclusion that it might be defended For if by the Church he meant no more but the Apostles and primitiue Pastours and by the doctrine of the Church no more but that which is the doctrine indeed contained in the Scripture no man would deny the doctrine and teaching faith and beleefe of the Apostles contained in the written word to be the rule of faith but he meant and still meanes otherwise that this Church which all men ought to follow is the B. of Rome alone for the time being wherein a See Chap. 34. nu 1. I mistooke him not For he meanes that which in all ages for the time being is the supreame iudge and hath subiectiuely in it all the Church authority But such is the Pope alone according to the principles of Papists Therefore he meanes the Pope alone againe he meanes that Church whereof he expounds the texts of Scripture alledged in that Chapter to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule but all those texts he expounds of the Pope alone for the time being Ergo. Thirdly I suppose the Repliar to be a Papist and in this place a maintainer of the Popish doctrine touching the rule of faith but that doctrine meanes the Church as I expound For the order which God hath left in his Church for the iudging and deciding of matters of faith according to the Iesuites doctrine b Staplet Princ. doctrin fid l. 6. praef 1 Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. 2 Staplet Princ. doctr l. 5. c. 1. 3 c. 2. 4 c. 5. 5 l. 6. c. 1. is this 1. That not the Scripture but the Church is this supreme iudgâ— of all controuersies and things of faith 2 Yet this Church as it is taken for the whole body iudges not 3. Nor lay priuate men therein 4. But the power of iudging belongs to the Bishops and Priests alone 5. And among them the B. of Rome alone as the successor of S. Peter is so the head of the whole Church and the primary and highest subiect of this Church iudgement that he hath power alone aboue all others whether Pastors or sheepe to pronounce 6 Grets def Bellar. tom 1 p. 1218. c. and determine touching the matters of faith 6. So that besides the Doctors and Pastors there must be in the Church some other supreme iudge and he is the B. of Rome either alone or with a Councell Here it is plaine that howsoeuer the name of the Church be pretended yet the whole power is limited and restrained to the Pope alone For they hold the gouernment and power of the Church not to be Aristocraticall placed in Councels or Bishops but Monarchicall where all the gouernment power and infalliblenesse is in the Pope alone Councels Bishops Priests and all other parts of the Church are but cyphers the power is eminently and infallibly and authoratiuely in the Pope alone either with them or without them Bellar. c De Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. §. sed nec sayes plainely Neither the Scripture nor secular princes nor priuate men are iudges of controuersies but Ecclesiasticall Prelates and Councels may iudge of the controuersies of religion but that iudgement is not firme or ratified till the Pope haue confirmed it and therefore the last iudgement belongs to him for either there must be no iudge among men at all or else he must be the iudge that is aboue the rest I haue alledged the words of Gregory of Valence diuers times d Tom. 3. in 22. pag. 24. When we say the Proposition of the Church is a condition necessary to the assent of faith by the name of Church we meane the head thereof that is to say the B. of Rome either alone by himselfe or with a Councell Syluester Prierias e In Luth. tom 1. pag. 159. fundam 1. The vniuersall Church essentially is the conuocation of all that beleeue in Christ but
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
whether this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors shal need to be the same that the doctrine of the Apostles was but onely affirmes that as the Apostles doctrine for the time they liued was the rule so the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors is the rule leauing roome enough for this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles that when we shew the present abuses in the Church of Rome and decrees of their latter Popes for these last 800. yeares to haue swarued from the Apostles doctrine and practise they may pleade the authoritie of their succeding Pastors And indeede it is true that the Church of Rome holds that it is not necessary the doctrine and teaching of the present and succeeding Pastors be the same in all things that it was in the Apostolicke and Primitiue Church but the Pope hath power to make a NEW CREED and NEW ARTICLES of faith For Iacobatius m De Concil p. 310. A. saies The Pope alone may make new articles of faith according to one acceptation of the word Article that is for such as must be beleeued which before needed not be beleeued and Zenzelin a Popish doctor n Gl. extr Ioh. 22. cum inter § doclaramus saies The Vicar of Christ may make an Article of faith taking an article not properly but in a large sense for that which must be beleeued when before by the precept of the Church it was not necessary to be beleeued Augustinus Triumphus writes o August Anconit sum de eccle potest q. â—9 art 1. that it belongs to the Pope alone to make a new Creed For in a Creed those things are put that vniuersally belong to Christian faith he therefore hath authority to make such a Creed who is the head of Christian faith and in whom as in the head all the members of the Church are vnited and by whose authoritie all things pertaining to faith are confirmed and strengthened And p Art 2. againe That the Pope may dispense in adding articles may be vnderstood 3. waies First in respect of the multiplication of the articles themselues Secondly in respect of expounding the things contained in the articles Thirdly in respect of the augmentation of such things as may be reduced to the articles ALL THESE WAIES the Pope may dispense in adding articles because as he may make a new Creed so he may MVLTIPY NEW ARTICLES OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER Secondly he may by more articles explicate the articles already placed in the Creed Thirdly because peraduenture all things beleeued in the Creed may be reduced after the aforesaid articles and by such reduction may be increased so that vnder each article MORE THINGS NECESSARY TO BE BELEEVED MAY BE PVT THEN ARE YET PVT The which being done marke what they say touching their authority q Roder. Dosm de auth script l. 3. c. 12. The Popes assertions ascend to the height of diuine testimony as the assertions of the Apostles did and of such as made the holy Scripture and there be who contend that they belong to the sacred Scripture it selfe which is contained in the bookes of the Bible This doctrine whereof all our aduersaries bookes are full shewes plainely that they intend not that this their Church teaching so much magnified to be the rule should alway be one and the same but such as shall follow the Popes lust and be altered with the time that so this Antichrist of Rome might abolish the whole Testament of Christ this is the first thing to be noted that the reader may see what he meanes by his Church doctrine that is the rule 4 The next thing is his distinction about this doctrine of the Church that it was the rule in the Apostles dayes and is the rule in succeeding ages but not as contained in onely Scripture but as deliuered by these Pastors Which speech containes 2. things a Negatiue and an affirmatiue the negatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is not the rule as it is contained in onely Scripture Meaning as * Ch. 27. n. 3. I haue shewed that all diuine doctrine belonging to the rule is not contained in the Scripture but much or the most of it in tradition vnwritten and that which is contained is not the rule by vertue of writing but by vertue of the Church that makes it authenticall Panormitan r Panorm tom 2. de praesumptione c. Sicut noxius sayes The words of the text of Scripture are not the Popes words but the words of Salomon in the Prouerbs but because this text is made Canonicall it is to be beleeued and induceth necessity so to do as if the Pope had set it foorth himselfe Because we make all those things to bee ours whereto we might impart our authority But whether without Canonization the sayings of Salomon be approued in the Church seeing they are in the body of the Bible say as the glosse saith and Ierom holdeth who seemes to conclude that they are Apocrypha which is to be noted and that because of this as also because Salomon had no power to make Canons This also must be obserued that the Reader may know the meaning of his conclusion and what it is that we deny therein For NO DOCTRINE EITHER OF THE APOSTELS IN THEIR TIME OR OF THE SVCCEEDING PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH IN ANY TIME IS THE RVLE OF FAITH BVT ONELY THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTVRE As I haue Å¿ In the WAY digr 3. shewed His affirmatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is the rule as it is deliuered by the Pastors or the Pastours deliuering this doctrine are the rule which is the same that he said a little before the doctrine as deliuered by the Church or the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule t Pars obiecti formalis fidei est vox Ecclesiae D. Stapler relect p. 484. Saltem aequalis est Ecclesiae Scripturae authoritas ibi pag. 494. His meaning is that the Churches testimony and authority mingles it selfe with the authority of the doctrine and is ioyntly with it or aboue it the rule of faith as when diuers simples haue their ingredience into one compound and two men equally carry betweene them one burthen Their doctrine this way is knowne wel enough how the Scriptures in regard of vs haue all their authority from the Church the sense of the Scripture is to be fetched from the Church whatsoeuer the Church of Rome shall teach is the word of God c. The which things being couched in the Iesuites conclusion as he vnderstands it we detest and spit vpon when he shall thus debarre the Scripture from being the rule to set vpon the bench his Papall Antichristian authority If the shame either of God or men or any respect of truth were with them they durst not thus presumptuously and basely steale the authority to themselues whereby both themselues and we and all the world
should be iudged Pag 210. A. D. Thus therefore we see that those texts which I alledge do not onely pertaine to the Apostles and men liuing in that age as my Aduersaries ignorantly White pag. 72. 73 74. and absurdly make answer to some of the texts but that they pertaine also to men liuing in other ages and consequently as my reason drawne out of them proueth infallibility and other conditions requisite in the rule and meanes to be in the Apostles doctrine so it proueth also infallibility and the said other conditions in the doctrine of succeeding Pastours 5 The texts alledged were these Math. 28 20. Ioh. 14.16 and the 16.13 Math. 28.19 Luc. 10.16 The thing he would proue by them was that the doctrine of the Church is infallible which conclusion in a good sense u §. 13. n. 1. §. 14 n. 2. in the WAY by me set downe I granted But when he meant it otherwise * Ecclesia docere potest aliquid extra praeter verbum scriptum D. Staplet relect p. 431 Eius doctrina quoque est infallibilis pag. 463. according to the doctrine of Rome that the Church can erre in nothing it teaches albeit it teach that which is not in the Scripture I answered the texts he brought out of the Scripture and to these foure I said that they belonged either onely or properly to the Apostles I answered them sufficiently otherwise all which the Repliar here conceals if they were applied to the whole Church but that also was one part of my answer Therefore here he replies that ignorantly and absurdly I make answer because they belong to the Church Pastours in all ages as he hath shewed Yet x The same word may be applied in the Apostle◠and to the succeeding Pastors so far foorth as to proue the substance of the thing signified to agree to both although in circumstance of measure manner or degree there be great difference A. D. Reply p. 208. 217. his owne confession is that this is onely secondarily or by consequence but primarily and principally they pertaine to the Apostles which is as much as I said For I do not so restraine them to the Apostles but that I allow part of the sense therein contained to concerne the Church and therefore I answered them also otherwise whereto the Repliar replies neuer a word And if they had proued the infallibility of his Church so pregnantly let him giue ouer his confidence and tell vs how then comes it to passe that so many in his owne Church hold some that y Occh. dial part 1. l 5. c. 25. Turtecrem sum de eccl l. 3. c. 58. concl 2. Caiet apol part 2. c. 21. Councels some that z Mic. Cezen lit ad Imperat. c. vlt. Hadrian 4. p. 26. Alphons l. 1 c. 4 Onus eccl c. 15. n. 34. the Pope himselfe may erre and let him not talke of erring definitiuely and è Cathedra for that distinction is in none of the texts alledged The priuiledge of not erring is by no words thereof tied to the chaire but that which is promised is tied to the persons So that the persons of these Pastors not being made infallible by these texts it followes that no such infallibility at all as the Repliar dreames of is giuen them therein A. D. As by the promise of Christ we be assured that the Apostles Pag. 214. and consequently in some sense the Pastours of the Church are taught all truth by the Holy Ghost so by the commission warrant commandement and threat ioyntly considered as here I consider them we are assured that the same Holy Ghost doth so assist them as not to permit either the Apostles or the Pastours vniuersally to teach authoratiuely false doctrine or their owne deuices in regard otherwise men should be bound sometimes to beleeue false doctrine which inconuenience cannot be auoided by saying as M. White saith White pag. 75. that the band hath a limitation that we heare them so farre as they teach agreeable to Scripture and no further and by those Scriptures we may releeue our selues if they chance to teach falsely Because first that conditionall limitation is no where expressed nor in M. Whites sense to be necessarily gathered out of any place of Scripture Secondly I aske how those should releeue themselues who cannot reade much lesse vnderstand Scripture 6 The limitation whereof I spake that we heare the Pastors of the Church NO FVRTHER THEN THEY TEACH AGREEABLE TO THE SCRIPTVRE is expressed and necessarily gathered out of Scripture euen in M. Whites sence For the Scripture bids a 1. Th. 5.21 trie all things and hold that which is good And b 1 Ioh. 4.1 beleeue not euery spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God And that we may know the Scripture alone is the rule whereby this triall must be made it sayes againe c 2. Pet. 1.19 We haue a more sure word of the Prophets whereto we do well to take heede as to a light that shines in the darke till the day dawne and the day star rise in our hearts d Ioh. 5.39 And search the Scriptures for in them we thinke to haue eternall life and they be they that testifie of Christ And the mē of Beraea e Act. 17.11 searched the Scriptures daily whether those things which the Apostles preached were so There were nothing more harsh then these speeches of the Holy Ghost if the Scripture were not allowed and appointed as a sufficient and the last outward meanes to preserue the faithfull from false teaching And as I haue often heretofore affirmed the Papists themselues cannot auoid this limitation For the Pope and Councels and particular Pastors may all erre and teach false Adrian that himselfe was a Pope and therefore best knew what belongs to Popes f Vbi sup sayes It is certaine the Pope may erre euen in such things as touch the faith auouching heresie by his determination or decree Touching Councels not confirmed by the Pope Azorius the Iesuite g Azo instit moral tom 2. l. 5. c. 12. sayes All Catholickes are agreed that they may erre touching particular Pastors and Bishops Waldensis h Doctrinal fid l. 2. c. 19. sayes we know that all these both Cleargy and Prelates of the Church haue often erred If all these may erre then it followes that their teaching must be examined accepted with this limitation if it consent with the Scripture Gerson i De exam doctr part 1. confid 5. tom 1. saies Euery man sufficiently learned in the Scriptures is an examiner of doctrines put case there be a simple man not authorised excellently seene in holy writ then in the point of doctrine his assertion is more to be beleeued then the Popes declaration For it is plaine the Gospell is more to be beleeued then the Pope if therefore such a learned man teach any verity to be contained in the
answered Digression 48. yet here I answer againe that the Protestant faith so far as it differeth from that which the Church of Rome holds against vs continued alwaies not in the aire but in men and those men were such as liued in the Church of Rome it selfe constantly holding the foundation of Christian Religion though the same men were corrupted also some more some lesse with those errors that we refuse The rest of this Chapter meddles with nothing I writ but is spent in prouing that the Church whose doctrine is the rule continues in all ages vnto the worlds end not onely the true Church abides for euer vnto the end but that Church doth so whose doctrine is the rule to teach vs as if there were a true Church of Christ whose doctrine were not the rule in such sense as I haue expounded the doctrine of the Church to be the rule This is partly to be saying somewhat when he could not reply to that I said and partly to perswade his people that we hold the contrary I detest his rudenesse and lament their bondage and slauery A. D. M. White granteth Pag. 233. White p. 63. that those Scriptures which I alledge in the treatise proue well Christs abiding alway with the Church whereupon is inferred the continuance of the Church in all ages therefore he will not or ought not deny but that they proue also that there is teaching of true doctrine of faith in the Church not onely for the Apostles time or for sixe or eight hundred yeares after but absolutely for all ages I grant all this and if he beg hard I will giue him more that the doctrine of the Church thus taught in all ages is the rule of faith that all men ought to follow But he is so far bankrupt and behind hand that no reasonable thing will helpe him For still this Church supposes not his Pope nor his Papacy and this doctrine meanes not his traditions nor any thing taught in the Church besides the Scripture nor doth this being the rule intend any such authority or soueraignty of the Church aboue the Scripture as he pleads for but only the Ministry of the Church vnder Christ and his Scriptures in propounding the faith to particular beleeuers and confirming the same to their hearts and consciences by the sole authority of the Scriptures themselues as I haue often touched CHAP. XXXVII Not the Church but the Scripture is the rule 2. The question touching the visiblenesse of the Church proceeds of the Militant Church 3. 4. 5. In what sense we say the Militant Church is sometime inuisible 5. The Papists thinke the Church shall be inuisible in the time of Antichrist Their contradictions touching Antichrist breefly noted A. D. Concerning the twelfth Chapter By that which hath bene said in the two precedent Chapters it is apparant enough Pag. 234. that there is in all ages a certaine company called the Church whose doctrine is the ordinary rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men in all matters of faith and that by the said doctrine and teaching of the true Church euery one is to learne what is and what is not to be holden for the true faith not doubting but that the doctrine of faith which is commended and caught vs by the said true Catholicke Church is the right faith The which being so euery one may see how necessary it is to seeke find and follow the iudgement of the true Church as being a most necessary meanes without which none can expect to attaine that one infallible entire faith which is necessary to saluation This seemeth in a sort to be granted by M. White For although he pleade hard to haue Scripture alone to be the (a) White p. 13. 14. 15. rule holding the letter it selfe to be the (b) Pag. 12. vessell which presenteth thu rule which he (c) Pag. 31. cōpareth to the Carpenters square to the precepts of art to the law of the Land yet as he cannot deny that a child cannot do any thing with the Carpenters square nor an vnlearned man with a booke wherein is contained precepts of art or with a lawbooke but the square must be applied by a cunning Carpenter the precepts of art must be expounded by a learned maister the law must be declared by a skilfull Lawier or propounded by an authorized Iudge Euen so he must grant that the Scripture it selfe although it be a good rule yet if it were as he would haue it the onely rule must be applied expounded declared and propounded not by euery man woman and child but by the authority as we say or by the Ministry as my Aduersaries say of the Church White p. 110. Pag. 93. and that so necessarily that euen as M. White affirmeth except in some extraordinary cases no man can of himselfe attaine to the knowledge of faith but as the Church teacheth him in regard as otherwhere he confesseth the Church is a subordinate meanes for the bringing of men to saluation in that God teacheth his elect by the ministry thereof Neither saith he can any man be the child of God except first he be conceiued in the wombe of the Church So we see euen in M. Whites opinion how necessary it is for euery one to seeke finde and follow the teaching of the true Church 1 THat which he sayes I granted in a sort I grant againe and yet will still pleade and proue the Scripture alone to be the rule and nothing else For though a child can do nothing with a square nor an vnlettered man with a booke yet still the square and contents of the booke are the rule and not the Carpenter and the Iudge they are onely Ministers to apply the rule and subordinate conditions requisite for the due vse of the rule and to be ruled by it themselues if at any time as sometime they may they erre in working So is it in few words with the Church and Scriptures And albeit I affirmed as he saith and it be my opinion that it is necessary to find and follow the teaching of the Church yet is it not my opinion that the vniuersall Church teaches any doctrine that is not written in Scripture or God by the Church teaches those vnwritten traditions or that the Church exceeds the condition of a bare Minister vnder the Scriptures Which Ministry being acknowledged M. White will allow it any authority and power to teach informe perswade correct represse particular men that my Aduersaries will demand but they require Church authority aboue the Scripture and make vnwritten traditions and the Popes Decretals equall with the Scripture and place all the power and faculty of the Church in the Pope and when they haue done allow no particular man or Church to call any of these things in question This is it the Repliars teeth water at and which by M. Whites concessions he would recouer but he shall neuer get it nor all the
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
implicitè all points of faith that we hold This will appeare by these ensuing considerations First it is certaine that the Apostles taught the whole corpse of Christian doctrine partly by word partly by writing which as a sacred depositum was commended by S. Paul to S. Timothy and other succeeding Bishops and Pastors of the Church to be maintained alwaies in the Church against all profane innouation of heresies in these words O Timothy keepe the depositum auoiding the profane nouelties of voices oppositions of falsly called knowledge which diuers promising haue erred about the faith The which words * Aduers haer c. 17. Vincentius Lyrinensis expoundeth thus Who saith he at this day hath the place of Timothy but either the whole Church or especially the whole bodie of Prelats who ought themselues to haue the whole knowledge of diuine religion and also to instruct others And a litle after What is meant by this Depositum it is saith he that which is committed to thee not that which is inuented by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast deuised a thing not of wit but of learning not of priuate vsurpation but of publicke tradition a thing brought to thee not a thing brought forth of thee wherein thou must not be an author but a keeper not an institutor but a secretor not a leader but a follower Keepe the Depositum preserue the talent of the Catholicke faith pure and sincere that which is committed to thee let that remain with thee and that deliuer vnto the people To the same purpose S. Irenaeus saith * l. 3. c. 14. We must not seeke the truth among others which is easie to receiue from the Church when the Apostles haue most fully laid vp all the truth in it as in a rich treasure house Also the same Irenaeus saith * l. 4. c. 43. We must heare and obey those Priests who haue succession from the Apostles who with succession of their Episcopall function haue receiued the Charisma of truth Now supposing that this sacred depositum of the whole corpse of the reuealed truth is preserued in one or other succession of Pastors of one or other companie of Christians called the Church either it must be granted that it was preserued in that succession of Pastors which my catalogue sheweth or else I must require my aduersaries to set forth another catalogue of Pastors vnto whom this sacred depositum was committed and from whom we may receiue it as need shall require For to say that the diuine truth committed to the custody of the Pastors whom God hath appointed to be alwaies in the Church of purpose to preserue men from wauering in faith Eph. 4 v. 13.14 and from being caried about with euery wind of false doctrine did at any time wholy or in part by contrary error faile in them vniuersally in such sort that there should not in all ages be sound one or other company of Pastors and Priests whom we could know still to keep the Depositum inuiolate and entire and whom consequently according to Irenaeus his saying we ought to obey as being men l. 4. ◠4. who with succession of their Episcopall function receiued also the Charisma of truth if I say this were so that Gods truth all or in part had explicitè and implicitè perished from the mouth of all knowne Priests and Pastors Gods ordinance it selfe who for the generall good of the Church appointed these Pastors had bin deficient or had failed of the intended effect Eph. 4. v. 13.14 For how should men be preserued from wauering in faith or from being caried about with euery wind of false doctrine by Pastors appointed to be for that purpose vnto the worlds end if in some ages no such Pastors were or were not to be knowne or being knowne to be the Pastors yet did vniuersally faile to preserue the entire formerly receiued truth by beleeuing and teaching and so making the people beleeue contrary errors If this were so the holy Ghost had failed to teach the Church all truth and consequently Christs promise had not bin performed which said that the Spirit of truth shall teach all truth Ioh. 16. v. 13. Some Pastors therefore alwaies are in the Church who without spot or wrinkle of any error in faith shall preserue the entire truth and by the assistance of Christ and his holy Spirit shall be able as need shall require to vnfold and deliuer to the people the same truth thereby to preserue them from falling into error and from wauering in faith 1 THat the Apostles taught the whole bodie of Christian doctrine and commended the same to the succeeding Pastors of the Church to be alway maintained without innouation and that as Vincentius and Irenaeus speake the faithfull people of the Church were to be taught the truth by these Pastors shall be granted for what the Apostles reuealed and deliuered from Iesus Christ the same they intended should be continued for euer in the Church But this proues not that the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church held all things that the Church of Rome now holds vnlesse my aduersarie can shew that euery thing holden in the Church of Rome is part of the Bodie of that Christian doctrine which the Apostles commended to their successors For ouer besides the truth reuealed by the Apostles the church of Rome successiuely by degrees in these last 800 years especially hath brought in diuers pernicious and damnable errors and corruptions touching Traditions Transubstantiation Images Iustification the Masse the Popes primacie the worship of Saints innumerable other points wherin we haue forsaken it the which corruptions not belonging to the bodie of Christian doctrine which the Apostles taught but being a disease that bred in the body of the Church must not be said to haue bin the faith of the Fathers who receiued nothing from the Apostles but that doctrine which is contained in the canon of the Bible besides which doctrine if either the Fathers or Pastors of the Church succeeding taught any thing it must be reiected as no part of the Depositū mentioned Thus my answer is plain that the Apostles deliuered to their successors to be preserued against all innouation the whole Christian doctrine but the seuerall articles of the now Romish faith which we haue cast off are no part of that Christiā doctrine Secondly my aduersarie replies that it was the mind of the Apostles and the ordinance of God not onely that the whole bodie of the truth should be preserued in some successiō or other but also that it should be preserued so inuiolate and entire that no contrary error should be taught with it which being supposed he sayes it must be granted that it hath bin so preserued in that succession of Pastors which his Catalogue sheweth because the Protestāts are able to shew no other Pastors His whole discourse affirmes two things the first that the bodie of Christian
doctrine coÌ„mitted to the Pastors of the church doth not at any time faile either in whole or part but is preserued inuiolate and entire from all errors growing thereto The second that the Protestants can shew no other succession of Pastors whereto this doctrine was committed then is contained in his catalogue Hence he concludes that his now church of Rome holds nothing but what the ancient Fathers held I answer to the second touching the Catalogue that for the first 600 yeares we approue it confessing the Pastors and Christians mentioned therein to haue bin the true Church And for the rest of the ages to this day we will allow the Catalogue with three limitations first that the Pastors and people therein named be confessed to haue kept the faith lesse purely then they of the former ages so that the lower they succeeded the more they were corrupted Secondly that from the 800. yeare specially such Pastours and people be added euery one in their place as misliked and resisted the corruptions of the Church of Rome growing on and vpheld the purer doctrine in such manner as I briefly touched in THE WAY Digress 52 Thirdly that the legend Saints Antichristian Popeâ— lying stories and the Popes creatures whose succession we need not be wiped out and the ordinary Pastors liuing in communion with the Church of Rome Greece Armenia and such like though we allow not euery singular and speciall man be supplied Let the Catalogue be reformed and vndertaken in this manner and the Pastors and the people contained therein shall be yeelded to be the same that Christ and his Apostles committed the truth to and in the meane time the Repliar doth but trouble himselfe and seduce his Reader wheÌ„ he beares him in hand that we desire to shew other Pastors or people besides these all Protestants freely affirming their faith to haue succeeded euen in the Church of Rome it selfe though the errors thereof were no part of their faith but the inuentions of men added thereunto 2 But the first thing affirmed that the Christian doctrine committed to the Pastours of the Church cannot faile in any degree or part thereof but is alway preserued inuiolate and entire from all error is false For albeit it be the commandemeÌ„t of God and were the desire of the blessed Apostles that it should be so How the Church cannot erre yet as I haue shewed the euent teaches that sometime it falls out otherwise in the same manner that it is Gods ordinance that no man should sinne and yet all men do sinne So that all that can be said of the Church and the Pastors thereof by vertue of the promise is that neither it nor they shall vniuersally all of them at any time faile in the beleefe profession of those truths which are absolutely and simply necessary to saluation though many Pastors and people reputed for the best part of the Church may erre and sometime also persist in ioyning mortall errors with the truth many ages together what time no Pastors or people at all shall appeare to hold the faith so entire but some corruptions not hindering saluation shall be holden therewith the which assertion as it ouerthrowes all the Iesuites discourse in this place so is it true that our Aduersaries grant neither the whole nor any part of the Church to be free from error but so far forth as it followes the Pope who himselfe by their like confession may erre and be deposed for herâ—sie Beside if Gods ordinance or the Apostles intendiment did warrant the Pastors of the Church that they should not erre at least vniuersally how comes it to passe that euen euery Doctor in his Catalogue from Dyonisius and Ignatius to Stapleton and Bellarmine haue had their errors all his Councels haue had theirs and the most of his Popes haue decreed one against another and there is not one Diuine in all his Catalogue not his dearest Thomas of Aquin but he will confesse him to haue erred yet erre he should not if the prouidence of God were to preserue the Doctors of his Church from all error in the degree that the Replie sayes The truth therefore succeeds continually in the Church without ceasing but first Not alway in all nor in the highest Pastors Secondly Nor alway without corruption Thirdly Nor at all times entire and inuiolate from all error but sometime a vniuersall apostasy may so ouerflow the Church that nothing shall remaine free from error but onely the necessary and fundamentall points of faith the which points do not therefore lose their succession because many corruptions are receiued taught with theÌ„ much lesse do those corruptions succeed with the truth from the Apostles but the Pastors people thus corrupted shew themselues not to haue kept his couenant who will saue them that haue perseuered in the foundation and be merciful to them that haue erred of inuincible ignorance and forgiue them that haue repented of their errors and damme them whether Pastors or people that with tyranny and contumacy haue maintained the corruptions 3 The Iesuites reasons to proue that the Pastours of the Church cannot erre and that the true faith cannot be corrupted are answered already in THE WAY § 14. A.D. Wherefore if my Aduersaries will deny the catalogue of Pastors Pag. 270. which I haue set downe to be of such as haue alway preserued the foresaid sacred Depositum of the truth entire and inuiolate I require first that they will assigne another Catalogue of such as did continually preserue it whole and without change Also I require that they assigne the first Pastour of my Catalogue which failed in preseruing the truth setting downe â—hall the point of doctrine wherein he erred and naming other Pastâ—â—â—s who resisted and continued to resist Lastly I require that they assigne not as their manner is White digr 51. 52. and as M. White doth such particulars as they may see ordinarily answered and refuted by Catholicke Authors but some plaine instances which neuer were yet nor cannot be answered or refuted Which my demands if they cannot satisfie as I am sure they cannot euery discreet man carefull of his soule will see that it is not safe to forsake this reuerend ranke and orderly succession of knowne Pastours to follow such a phantasticall Platonicall Idaea of an inuisible company of professing Protestants White p. 338. which M. White imagineth to haue alwaies bene as euery other Hereticke might imagine the professors of his sect to haue bene or to run after such a rabble of ragged hereticks as the same M. White assigneth for emineÌ„t meÌ„bers of the ProtestaÌ„t Church White ib. pag. 394. the which neither haue interrupted succession or continuance in time or place nor vniformity in doctrine with the ancient Church or one with another or with the Protestants of his age This foresaid consideration may suffice to let any indifferent man see that the same doctrine of faith which the ancient
we refuse the church of Rome are nothing else but the corruptions and abuses that came in by the faction of some and were opposed by the sounder part of the Church as they grew and came in CHAP. XLIX 1.2 The ancient Church held the blessed Virgin to haue bene conceiued in sinne 3. The now Church of Rome holds the contrary Pag. 279. A. D. The fourth obiection Fourthly my aduersary M. White obiecteth eight points wherein as he saith the Church holdeth contrary to that which it hath formerly held to wit the conception of the virgin Marie Latin Seruice reading Scriptures Priests marriages Images Supremacie Communion in one kinde Transubstantiation To this I answer here onely briefly and in generall referring the Reader for more particulars to other Catholicke authors who ex professo write of these points First concerning the conception of the blessed virgin Marie it neuer was vniuersally held by the ancient Church as a point of faith that she was conceiued in sinne For if it had bene so held Saint Augustine would neuer haue pronounced so absolutely as he doth that when question is concerning sinne he would haue no mention of the blessed Virgin Neither is it now held by vs as a point of faith that she was not conceiued in sinne this being one of those points in which according to Saint Augustine an erring disputer is to be borne withall in regard the question is not diligently digested nor confirmed by full authoritie of the Church 1 THe Replier in his Treatise that I answered to proue his Romane church Catholicke a In THE WAY §. 46. 47. vsed this reason because it had still professed without change the same faith which hath bene continually since the Apostles without denying any point of doctrine which in former times was vniuersally receiued and bad vs prooue the contrary if we could To this I answered first generally and then in the 49 Digression particularly I obiected the eight points here mentioned shewing that the church of Rome holds therein contrary to that which formerly was holden Now he replies that his answer shall be but briefe and in generall referring the Reader to other Catholicke authors that purposely haue writ of these points But when he made his challenge I supposed he would haue tried them with me himselfe not by referring me to his Catholicke authors whose writings the reader hath no meanes to suruey but by bringing what he thought good out of them and letting the reader see what the issue would be betweene vs. But seeing he durst not put his cause to that kind of triall my answer shall be like his argument That I also referre the Reader to other learned men who ex professo haue answered whatsoeuer his authors haue written of these points And what himselfe hath said I will answer that the reader shall wel perceiue my instances were sufficient to shew that the church of Rome now holds contrary to that which formerly was holden and beleeued 2 First touching the conception of the blessed Virgin he sayes it was neuer vniuersally held by the ancient Church as a point of faith that she was conceiued in sinne nor is it now held in the Church of Rome as a point of faith that she was not conceiued in sinne Let vs make short worke Both these are false First it was held as a point of faith that is to say as a part of the religion and profession of those times that she was conceiued and borne in sinne as all others are This I proue by his owne authors Paulus Cortesius in his writing vpon the Sentences directed to Pope Iulius b 3. d. 4. pag. 65 sayes that one Vincentius produces 260 witnesses affirming her to be conceiued in sinne Cardinall Turrecremata c De consecr d. 4 Firmissimè â— 11. affirmes that all the Doctors in a manner hold it and that himselfe had gathered together the testimonies of three hundred to that effect noting the places and words wherein they affirme it Dominicus Bannes d 1 part qu. 1. dub 5. §. Arguitur secundo pag. 89. Venet. sayes It is the generall consent of the holy Doctors that she was conceiued in sinne and yet the contrarie opinion is holden in the Church to be not onely probable but verie godly This is plaine dealing He sayes that which is contrary to the vnanime consent of all the Fathers is now holden by the Church as the more profitable and godly opinion The like is confessed by e Bonan 3. d. 3. art 1. qu. 2. Arimin 2. d. 30. qu. 2. art 1. Capreol 3. d. 3. art 1. Caietan opusc de concept Cano loc l. 7. c. 1. others as fully To f De nat grat c 36. the place alledged out of Austin Gregorius Ariminensis g Art 3. ad 1. answers that he meanes it onely of actuall sinne In which doctrine Saint Austin is not constant neither for he sayes h De perfect iustit cont Celest sub sin elsewhere Whosoeuer he be that thinkes there haue bene or are any man or any men excepting onely the Mediator of God and men to whom the remission of their sinne was not necessarie he goes against the Scripture and the Apostles Romanes 5. And the Fathers mentioning the text of Iohn 2.4 Woman what haue I to do with thee affirme in effect that she was a sinner Saint Austin i Tulit admonitionem Filij expauescat Filij inuentutem de Symb. l. 2. c. 5. sayes Christ admonished her and bids her feare her Sonne Athanasius k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 orat 4. aduer Arian pag. 281. sayes he checkt her Euthymius l Corripuit eam in Ioh 2. pag. 320. he rebuked her Chrysostome m Asperiora hac verba indignatio hom 20. in Ioh. that he was angrie at her Irenaeus n Repelleni eius intempestinam festinationem l. 3. c. 18. that he repelled her vnseasonable hastinesse Theophylact o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ioh. 2. that he child her not without cause Few of the ancient Fathers this is the confession p Comm. in Ioh. 2. nu 11. of Maldonat a Iesuite but either openly say or obscurely signifie that there was some fault or error in her They thought therefore she was a sinner actually which could not haue bin if originall sinne which is the fountaine of actuall had not bin in her 3 Next the Church of Rome now holds the contrarie whether as a point of faith or no the reader shall iudge presently 1 Below in the letters First it is holden expresly contrary to that which the Fathers held that she had no originall sinne 2 Can. Bâ—n vbi sup Next I presume no Papist will denie it to be defended in the Church as a godly opinion 3 Suar. tom 2. d. 3 s 6. pro. 1. Vasq 3 d. 1â—7 n. 148. Thirdly the Church may define it when she will 4 Vasq
writings confesses c Grets defens Bellar. de verb. Dei l. 2. c. 16. pag. 850. c. pag 918. A. If you speake of the whole Chapter Bellarmine acknowledges the Apostle to speake not onely of spirituall songs and preaching and exhortations but of the reading the Scripture likewise and publicke Seruice Hence it followes that the Apostle condemnes the reading of the Scripture or prayer and Church-seruice in a language not vnderstood as well as he doth preaching collations and hymnes for vers 26. he requires all things that he speakes of be done to edifying and vers 6. he sayes If I come vnto you speaking with tongues that is in a language you vnderstand not what shall I profit you And vers 9. Except ye vtter words that can be vnderstood you shall speake in the aire And vers 11. If I know not the meaning of the voice he that speakes shall be a Barbarian vnto me And vers 14. For if I pray in an vnknowne tongue my vnderstanding is vnfruitfull And vers 16. How shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say AMEN at thy giuing of thanks when he vnderstands not what thou sayst Thou giuest thankes well but the other is not edified Hence I thus reason The Apostle condemnes euery thing in the Church whatsoeuer it be that edifies not But prayer reading the Scripture and Seruice in the Church as well as preaching and spirituall songs in a language that the people present vnderstand not edifie not Ergo he condemnes prayer reading the Scripture and Seruice in the Church in a language that the people present vnderstand not as well as preaching and spirituall songs The first proposition is in vers 12.19.26 the second in vers 6.14.16.17 the conclusion therefore is the Apostles And indeed if our aduersaries could haue shewed that the prayers mentioned ver 15 had bin such spirituall songs or preaching onely as they expound and then that the Apostle in all his discourse had onely spoke of such songs and preaching and not of prayer reading the Scripture or Seruice in the Church also they had had some colour for themselues though not enough to auoid our argument but when he speaks of these things also by their owne confession and the whole intent of his doctrine is that ALL THE THINGS HE SPEAKES OF be done with edification it is desperate peruersnesse to say the text proues nothing against them 3 In the second place therefore when Bellarmine cannot auoide it but it is manifest the Apostle at least in some part of his discourse speakes of singing and prayers and reading of the Scripture which belong to Church-seruice he fals to answering and layes downe foure answers whereof he casts off three and betakes himselfe to the fourth The first is that by singing and praying mentioned verse 19. where the Apostle sayes I will pray and sing with the spirit and I will pray and sing with vnderstanding also else how shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say AMEN when he vnderstands not what thou sayst is meant preaching and exhorting not praying a hard exposition when the common notion of the words is against it and the Apostle manifestly distinguishes the one from the other and men vse not to say Amen to preaching yet most vntruly and dishonestly he fathers it on Basil Theodoret and Sedulius a For Basil reg contract q 278. Theodor 1. Cor. 14. v. Quid ergo est expound the place of prayer as well as of exhortation Sedulius onely expounds it of exhortation alone being deceiued through ignorance of the Greeke word who neither all of them expound it so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil qu. cont q. 178. nor allow prayer in an vnknowne tongue His second exposition is that the Apostle requires not all the people to vnderstand what is prayed and sung but onely that he vnderstand who supplies the roome of the people in answering meaning the Parish clark b Quidam ex Catholicis ita hunc locum intellexerunt Grets p 971. B. But Seâ—ulius sayes Jdiotae id est nuper baptizati qui nullam praeter propriam intelligit linguam p. 237. Theodoret says Qui in laicorum ordine constitutus est This answer is made by some Papists and went for good till necessitie draue the Iesuites to find a better For it was too grosse to bring the pedegree of a Parish clarke vp to the Church of Corinth in S. Pauls dayes His third is that by him that occupies the roome of the vnlearned is meant he that answers for the people belike some that vnderstands the tongue but not a Parish clarke by office and takes vpon him to answer for the rest that vnderstand it not These three answers he casts off and deuises a fourth whereto the Replier in this place referres me 4 Fourthly therefore c §. Vera igitur he sayes The Apostle in this place speakes neither of diuine Seruice nor of the publicke reading of the Scriptures in the Church but of certaine spirituall songs which the Christians composed for the praising of God and giuing him thankes and for their owne and others comfort and edification This answer allowes the Apostle to condemne the vse of such hymnes and canticles in an vnknowne tongue and the like vse of preaching and collations but it denies the vse of prayer and Seruice and the rest of the publicke Liturgie in an vnknowne tongue to be condemned because the Apostle in these words of the 15 and 16 verses speakes nothing concerning them d Antid Apostolic in 1. Cor. 24. v. 16.17 D. Stapleton and e On 1. Cor 14. §. It is as certain the Rhemists also affirme it to be certaine that he meanes not nor writes any word in this place of the Churches publicke Seruice Prayers or ministration of the holy Sacrament but onely of a certaine exercise of mutuall conference wherein one did open to another and to the assembly miraculous gifts and graces of the holy Ghost and such Canticles Psalmes secret mysteries sorts of languages and other reuelations as it pleased God to giue to certaine both men and women This answer containes two parts an affirmatiue and a negatiue The affirmatiue is that he meanes such spirituall songs and exercises of conference I will not sticke with the Iesuite for the vse of such exercises in the Church at that time it being agreed of all hands that there was such a custome and the Apostles owne words report it in the 26 v. When you come together euery one of you hath a Psalme hath a doctrine hath a tongue hath a reuelation hath an interpretation But that he so meanes such hymnes and such extraordinarie exercises alone that he meanes not praier also I vtterly denie For that which he brings out of Eusebius Dionysius and Tertullian will serue to proue that the custome of those times was to sing in the congregation but it proues not that S. Paul here speakes of
may define contrary to that they all writ as the B. Virgin not to be conceiued in sin and so they shall beleeue iust that they beleeued not and the direct contrary CHAP. LVII 1 Touching the first coming in of errors into the Church with the persons Time and Place 2 Purgatory and pardons not knowne in the ancient Church nor in the Greeke Church to this day 3 The true reason why the ancient praied for the dead Pag. 287. A. D. To conclude it is not enough for M. White to name these eight or any other points of our doctrine and to say that we hold or practise contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church but I must require him to set downe the time place persons and other circumstances of this supposed innouation which circumstances are commonly noted in Histories when any such innouation against the vniuersall doctrine of the Church did arise This my demand 1 White Digr 5. pag. 374. M. White who will it seemeth sticke at nothing taketh vpon him to satisfie by naming seauen points of our religion offering to shew the time when and manner how they got into the Church And thereupon first he nameth pardons and purgatory the vse whereof he sayeth came lately into the Church To this I answer first that he nameth not the particular Time Place not Persons that first brought in the vse of pardons and purgatory and so he saieth nothing to the purpose Secondly I answer that our questions is not so much about the vse of pardons and purgatory as whether the doctrine which holdeth purgatory to be and pardons duely vsed to be lawfull came in of late contrary to the former doctrine of the Church Now M. White will neuer be able to shew that that Church did at any time vniuersally beleeue that 2 Concerning praier for the dead which supposeth the beleefe of Purgatory learned Protestants grant it to haue bene general in the Church long before S. Austins time as may be seene in the Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 2. nu 4. purgatory was not or that pardons duely vsed were vnlawfull or that the doctrine concerning the substance of these points was first brought in of late naming the first time place or persons which brought it in contrary to the former faith and shewing who resisted it as an heresie and who continued to resist it 1 HAuing no power to answer the examples I gaue of the Church of Romes now holding contrary to the ancient Church he concludes that it is not enough to name the points or to say they hold contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church vnlesse I set downe the Time Places Persons and other circumstances of the innouations as Histories vse to note them when any such innouations arises and therefore he must require me to set them downe I answer it is sufficient that I haue shewed the points not to haue bene holden by the ancient Church For if the ancient Church held them not what skills it when or by whom they were brought in when they were brought in since the times of the ancient Church for that which was not at the first is not Catholike but by some at some time was brought in contrary to that which is Catholicke And a THE WAY §. 50. n. 5 6. I haue shewed that there be many confessed changes wherein these circumstances cannot bee shewed Neuerthelesse for example b THE WAY Digr 51. I named him seauen points and the circumstances of Time Place and Persons of their getting in whereof the vse of PARDONS was the first He replies that I haue not named the particular time place nor persons that brought them in and therefore say nothing to the purpose Here let the Reader iudge whether hauing shewed out of the confession of his owne writers that they are not from the Apostles times not expressed in the Scripture or Fathers nor brought to our knowledge by their authority but lately come into the Church this be not enough for what is not from the Apostles times came in since there is the Time when What came in lately was not vsed in the Primitiue Church There is the Time againe what is not mentioned by the Scripture Fathers and ancient Church was deuised by innouators there is the Persons What the Scriptures and Pastors of the Church reueals not that growes vp as cockle and weed in the Church there is the place Let me adde to the rest whom I alledged in the Digression the words of B. Fisher c Art 28 p. 86. b. Pardons therefore began AFTER men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory I haue therefore brought euidence sufficient to proue pardons to be an innouation because it proues they were not vsed in the ancient Church nor reuealed by the Apostles 2 He replies that the question is not so much about the VSE of pardons and purgatory as whether the DOCTRINE that holds them came in of late CONTRARY to the doctrine of the Church And I answer againe affirmatiuely that it did For the vse is founded on the doctrine and the doctrine cannot be without vse There was no vse ergo there was no doctrine But M. White will neuer be able to shew that the Church beleeued there was no Purgatory or that pardons were not lawfull This is follie for how should M. White shew the Church condemned that which was not yet in rerum natura no man being able to speake of that which is not in being If pardons therefore were not M. White must be pardoned if he cannot shew how the Church condemned them And touching Purgatory though it be much ancienter yet neither did the Catholicke Church beleeue it There were some in the Church that conceited such a thing and the Fathers began in Saint Austines time but a Non redarguo quia forsitan verum est c. Aug ciuit l. 21. c. 26. see Enchirid. c. 69. and the Apol of the Gre. p. 132. waueringly and without any resolute certainety to mention it but it was not beleeued in their daies as a matter of faith that he which denied it should be an hereticke as it is now beleeued in the Church of Rome Besides the East Church beleeued it not to this day therefore the vniuersall Church beleeued it not Heare their owne words in an Apology written touching this matter b Apol. Graec. p. 119. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We haue not receaued from our Doctors that there is any such Purgatory or temporary punishment by fire and we know the East Church neuer thought so Heare also what the B. of Rochester c Art 18. p. 86. b. saies No true beleeuer NOW doubts of Purgatory whereof notwithstanding among the ancient there is very litle or no mention at all The Greekes also to this day do not beleeue there is a Purgatory Let whose will reade the commentaries of the ancient Greekes and so farre as I see he shall finde very rare
When I heare Anaxagoras I beleue him then comes Melissus and Parmenides and I know not how I change my minde * Quonsque tandem talia edoceor verum tamen nihil addisco How long shall I thus be taught and yet neuer taught to learne the truth 〈…〉 Thus he flouted the Philosophers that would say as much to our aduersaries and iustly might for any certainty they haue to rest vpon in any thing they hold against vs. Let them take the Councell that Vigilius gaue such as they are m Contr. Eutych l. 2. p. 555. Seeing both of you are coÌ„trary to your selues it s not amisse if both of you yeeld to confesse the truth with vs. You are deuided farre asunder the way you haue left is in the middest Come hither vnto vs one of you this way the other that way and meete together Let the one go into the others opinion so that he leaue not his owne let that which you hold priuately be common among you The contempt of which aduise is it that in all ages hath made hereticks so notorious for their disagreements with themselues that this hath bene obserued for the marke of their heresie They are deuided n Paschas comment in Lament l. 4. c. 4. pag. 74. saith Paschasius one from another through the singularity of their wicked inuentions and are able to agree neither with themselues nor with the Catholicke beleeuers of the Church 6 In the last place I named their doctrine of originall sin affirming that it was not vniuersall in former ages nor is not to this day agreed vpon This proues directly that it is not the same which the Apostles and Primitiue Church taught Because what they taught must be certainely knowne and agreed vpon which this their doctrine is not there being yet no certainety what the point is that the Church of Rome holds touching this matter The Reply answers that I cannot name the first author of any thing which the Church of Rome vniuersally holds touching this matter as a point of faith Meaning belike that the opinion of this or that Doctor may be a late deuise but not that which the Church holds I answer the Church of Rome cannot deny but our first Parents left the effect of their sinne in all mankinde their posterity a Eph. 2.3 whereby they are borne the children of wrath which effect is called originall sinne but what it holds vniuersally as a point of faith touching the nature and forme of this sin the Repliar cannot assigne that when he had assigned it I might try whether I could name the first author thereof or no. But let him giue me any definition of originall sinne holden in his Church whether vniuersally or priuately against that which the Church of England teaches and though possible it may fall out that I cannot name the first author thereof yet I will shew it not to haue bene the Catholicke doctrine of the Primitiue Church whereupon it will follow consequently that it is an alteration wherein the now church of Rome beleeues not as did the Primitiue Church In this varietie of opinions therefore I made choise of Bellarmine as most likely to be that which should be the point of faith and vniuersall and shewed it not to be so but to be a late deuice without antiquitie or vniuersalitie But my aduersary craftily forbearing to name what he holds to be the vniuersall doctrine of his Church and making shew as if Bellarmines opinion were not it bids me name the point of faith holden by his Church vniuersally and then shew the first author Because the question is not about priuate Doctors opinions but about the doctrine of faith vniuersally and authoritatiuely taught by the Church Wherein he deales neither plainly nor directly for if neither the opinion of Bellarmine nor of Catharinus which were all I named holden against vs be that which vniuersally authoritatiuely is taught by his Church he should haue named what it is that I might haue shewed it not to be catholicke 7 The truth is * Tantae est doctorum hominuÌ„ varietas inconstantia vt vix vlla alia in re maior Peltan de orig pecc p. 80. there is such varietie and inconstancie and shuffling of opinions touching this point of originall sinne that for his life he cannot tell what his Church holds and which is safest to follow which is an vnanswerable argument that the true faith they haue forsaken and minced into lend and absurd opinions The Councell of Trent b Sess 5. speakes warily and reseruedly defining nothing but leauing all sorts to their owne opinion Andradius c Orthod expl l. 3. p. 216. sayes The Councell of Trent when it had defined originall sinne to be sinne truly proper to euery one yet of set purpose forbore to speake of the proper reason thereof the which thing was also done by other Councels long before which delivering no certaine and expresse reason of originall sinne left it free for euery one to follow his opinion Hereupon it is that there are so many opinions 1 Dur. 2. d â—0 q. 1. Tap. art 2. p. 69. Cathar tract de orig pec disp 6. p. 150. some hold that it is not sinne properly nor can be imputed by reason it came by the will of another 2 Pigh contro 1. p. 29. Apol. p. 34. inde that it is sinne but not our sinne but that which Adam did whereby he made himselfe and his posteritie sinners 3 Roffâ—ns art 2 p. 29. Altisiod sum p. 97 col 4. Some that it is onely the guilt which lies vpon mankind for Adams sin being thereby excluded from eternall life without the mercie of God 4 Biel. 2. d. 30. q. 2. conc 6. Gre Arim. 2. p. 114. Aureol 2. d. 30. art 2. p. 284. Some that it is a corrupt or diseased qualitie in the soule deriued thereinto by the corruption of the flesh 5 Mag. 2. d. 30. Alexand. quem resert Dionys 2. p. 4â—8 col 2. Some that it is the concupiscence that is in vs to euill not euery inclination but that which is in the mind or will 6 Occh. 2. q. vlt. lit v. Scot. 2. d. 3. §. Circa istam Some that it is onely the priuation or destitution of the originall iustice that was in Adam and should be in all men 7 Tho. 12 q. 82. art 3. Bonau quem refert Dionys 2. p. 489 Capreol 2. pag. 495. ad 4. That it is formally the priuation of originall iustice but materially it is concupiscence 8 Sot de nat grat c 9. Azor. sum part 1. p. 287. That it stands wholly in the want or depriuation not of the habit of originall iustice as the sixt opinion affirmes but of that subiection vnto God and vnion of mind with him which all men should haue had if Adam had not transgressed Which of all these is that which the Replier
no such antecedent will at all 19 He replies secondly that they haue the meanes yea all aswell infants as others r Pag. 165. 171. at least in potentia remota Å¿ Pag. 170. 171. and mediatly whereby he might come to that which is sufficient Which I take to be the same that some say how God giues euen these sufficient helpe in actu primo which is some inspiration as a beginning which if men would obey they might successiuely and by degrees rise vp to faith and iustification as t THE WAY pag. 95. in the marg I noted out of Paul Windeck But this will hardly be maintained for I demand first touching these inspirations or motions that are said to be thus offered and stirred vp in the Gentiles are they supernaturall or naturall If supernaturall by what meanes are they wrought for the word of God to produce them they haue not and Gods Spirit doth neuer sufficiently inspire when it doth not sufficiently reueale it selfe to be his spirit Are they narurall arising onely from naturall knowledge then I demand againe whether being harkened vnto and pursued they may be able to bring him that hath them to iustifying grace if they be not they are insufficient if they be then this is u CoÌ„cil Diospol nu 10. 11. Pelagianisme that a man by naturall strength may eleuate himselfe and obtaine the grace of God Secondly I demand what he meanes by his potentia remota media for if the meaning be God giues meanes sufficient of themselues but no meanes to vse them * â—es in esse potentiali in causis secundis antequam sit in proprio genere est simpliciter non esse then he giues no sufficient meanes as I noted out of Vasquez If the meaning be that God prepares them for some no otherwise then the Physition * In the Reply vbi sup mentioned doth his physicke so as he neuer offers it them nor discouers himselfe or his arte to them what is this but to mocke the world with Sophistrie If the meaning be that God offers at the least such motions of nature and of grace that by degrees he may arise from knowledge to knowledge till he come to sufficient knowledge this is confuted before for motions of nature are not sufficient and motions of grace cannot be proued to be giuen infants and Barbarians as appeares by the difficulty of conuerting the wisest and ciuillest Philosopher or Barbarian that euer was or if they be yet they are not of that eleuation that they can fulfill the iust measure of sufficiency 20 Thus I haue shewed three sorts of people to be perpetually destitute of sufficient helpe in regard of all outward and ordinary meanes so far as we can perceiue yet it is certaine that some of these are saued and some reprobated their saluation therefore and reprobation neither beginnes in nor arises from the foresight of their good or ill vse of the meanes but from some higher will and purpose in God vnknowne to vs but iust and holy in himselfe else were there no such mysterie in the doctrine of predestination that the Apostle should neede to crie x Rom. 11.33 O altitudo O the depth of the riches wisedome and knowledge of God how vnsearchable are his iudgements and his waies past finding out nor say y Rom. 9.20 what art thou that pleadest with God z Rom. 9.18 he will haue mercie on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth a Rom. 9.11 before the children were borne and when they had done neither good nor euill it was said I haue loued Iacob and hated Esau For my Aduersaries distinction of Gods willing euen the reprobate to be saued by his antecedent will and the rest of his doctrine of predestination leaue no rome for these sayings They say b Aug. ep 105. saith S. Austin that therefore God loued Iacob and hated Esau being yet vnborne because he foresaw their workes to come but who would not wonder that this sence so acute should be wanting to the Apostle for he saw not so much when the question being obiected to him he had not readie this so briefe so plaine so true and absolute answer as these men thinke this to be For when he had propounded a profound matter touching those that were not yet borne and had done neither good nor euill how it could rightly bee said that God loued the one and hated the other he obiects to himselfe a question What shall we say then saith he is their iniustice with God God forbid THIS THEREFORE WAS A PLACE WHERE HE SHOVLD SAY WHAT THESE MEN THINKE THAT GOD FORESAW THEIR FVTVRE WORKES when he said The greater shall serue the lesser but the Apostle sayes no such thing but rather least any man should glory in the merit of his workes he would haue that which he said to bee of force that the grace and glory of God might be commended for hauing said God forbid that there should be iniquity with God as if we should say how shew you this that there is no iniquity with God when you auouch that not of workes but of him that calleth it was said The elder shall serue the yonger He answereth because Moses saith I will haue mercy on whom I will haue mercy and will shew compassion on whom I will shew compassion therefore it is not in him that wills nor in him that runs but in God that shewes mercy WHERE NOW ARE MERITS * He excludes not onely the works of nature but of grace also WHERE ARE THESE WORKES EITHER PAST OR TO COME PERFORMED OR TO BE PERFORMED AS IT WERE BY THE STRENGTH OF FREEWILL Doth not the Apostle pronounce a plaine sentence touching the commendation of free grace that is to say of true grace Hath not God made the wisedome of Heretiques foolish 21 Lastly this exposition of Gods antecedent and consequent will is destroyed by the doctrine of Gods Predetermination which teacheth that the will of God as the highest and effectuallest cause predefines and determines the will of man to that it wills and applies it to the worke for whose will in all things God predetermines vnto one thing though not by way of necessitation by the influxe of his will their will is no condition or motiue of Gods will for then Gods will were passiue But mans will in all things God predetermines to one thing by the influxe of his owne will Ergo mans will is no condition or motiue of Gods will Therefore God predestinates none vpon the foresight of the good or ill vse of their free-will therefore there is no such antecedent and consequent will in God as my Aduersary maintaines The second proposition is denied by c Martinez de Auxil p. 134. inde Bellar. de Grat lib. arb l. 1 c. 12. §. Est igitur alia Quicquid electuri sumus vidit Deus intuitu aeterno cognitio necessitatem non affert
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
must distinguish for Gregory and Austine no doubt taught many points that were true and wherein we consent with them yea the substance of sauing faith but some things they innouated wherein the Church of Rome now followes them adding to the wordes of wholesome doctrine their owne corrupt opinions the first we graunt was professed before and was the faith of the Brittans at their first conuersion but not the latter And herein appeares the cunning and fraude of our aduersaries that by the testimonies of such as affirme Gregoryes faith in things of the first kind to be Apostolik go about to proue it to be such also in things of the latter kinde The Repliar therefore hath to proue that not the truthes which they taught but the additions which they brought in wherein the Protestants refuse them were the substance of their faith and that whereto our nation was conuerted in the Apostles time Which they can neuer do Thirdly that diuers particular points of the Papists doctrine are acknowledged by learned Protestants to haue bene taught by the ancient Fathers as Vowes Reall presence c. is answered before in the second obiection touching the Centuries And by the D. of Winchester in his booke against Briarly b Prot. App. l. 2. c. 1. inde where the particular instances are examined And if the Repliar and his Author will make good their assertion they must proue that the Fathers with one consent taught these things and withall so meant and expounded them as they are now meant and expounded in the Papacy Let this be done in those points that we refuse and good reason the game be theirs But if these learned Protestants do no more but note the particular corruptions that crept into particular writings and Churches whereby our aduersaries haue taken occasion to increase them they must not be said to acknowledge either that these things were the Catholicke doctrine of the whole Church or that they were intended and beleeued as the Romane Church now beleeues them 4 His fourth and last argument is because forsooth it is not the condition of the Romane Church to inuent or alter any doctrine but humbly and obediently to maintaine what they haue receaued from their predecessors to hate innouation to note reprehend resist all innouation in faith that it cannot be possible there should be any difference betweene the faith of the Fathers and the doctrine of the Church of Rome as the Protestants ignorantly and maliciously obiect And indeed if that part of the Church of Rome which we haue refused I meane the Papacy were the true vniuersall Church he said well for it is against the property of that Church to dissent from any part of the ancient faith as he hath well obserued out of his Gregory and Vincentius but how will he proue that side and faction in the Church of Rome which is charged with innouating and dissenting to be the true Church how shall the reader be assured that these heards of Popes Cardinals Prelats Monkes Friars Iesuites are those faithfull Pastors whose nature is not to innouate when all the world hath discouered them and their doctrine to be nothing else but weedes and excrements arising in the Church Is there not an assertion a Greg. Val. p. 96. tom 3. in the Spaniard quoted that saies By the vnfolded act of faith the same things haue not alway bene beleeued but diuers points in the progresse of time haue bene manifest and beleeued Doth not Austine of Ancona b Sum. de eccl pot q. 59. art 3. say the Pope may make a new Creed multiply the articles of faith and put more points vnder each article then were before This is enough to shew the vntruth of that the Replyar saies for vnder the pretence of the Pope and his Church power to vnfold that which the Fathers and auncient Church beleeued infoldedly and to make new articles they haue altered and innouated all things and their pestilent and palpable heresies are made a part of the old Churches infolded faith and these men being the formallest innouators that euer were yet must be said to dissent from the Fathers in nothing because whatsoeuer they daily inuent and innouate the Fathers held at least implicitely Vnhappie Rome c See Ph. Camerar tom 2. c. 10. whose certen name was neuer publikely knowne and whose certen doctrine to the worlds end can neuer be determined but still it may multiplie and diminish d Solin Poly. hist c. 1. The Gentile Romanes were persuaded the eternitie of Rome should consist in the concealing of the true name thereof and therefore Valerius Soranus was executed because he told the name and our Catholicke Romanes haue placed all their hope of enduring in concealing their faith vnder the veile of infolded faith Hold ye fast to this conceite ye braue Romanists and you may boldly reproch them all with ignorance that deny the consent of your doctrine with the Fathers 5 This obiection the Repliar saw coming for his conscience told him the present Church of Rome had increased that which the Fathers taught and therefore he answers that true it is the Doctors of his Church haue written more largely about diuers points then was done in former times But this was for the confutation of heresies rising and for the more explication of the formerly receaued faith and they haue vsed more significant words then formerly were vsed but yet the sense of such words differs not from the faith and phrases formerly vsed but onely explicate more plainely that which was formerly beleeued by the Church which kinde of explication Vincentius allowes in his golden Treatise But all this is vntrue and is briefely answered the Church of Rome and the D D. therein since the Fathers time haue done more then either the explicating of the ancient faith or giuing new names to old articles They haue innouated diminished corrupted the substance of the articles themselues as I shewed particularly a Dig. 19. 51 in the WAY euen in this very point of transubstantiation And this pretence of vsing more significant words by reason of heresies rising is but a cloke for the treachery the greatest heretickes that arose being themselues and the words deuised being the engines to aduance their heresies the sense whereof hath no agreement with the faith of the Fathers which being too scant for him that would sit as God in the Church of God must be inlarged by dispensations explications determinations new articles fulnesse of power and what not The contents of the Scripture were not enough to hold themselues to that which is expressed therein b Alphons haer v. eccl 3. n◠were to play the foole and to destroy all Christian religion The Pope is like Typhaeus the giant in Nannus c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys l. 2. pag. 36. that must haue a higher rooffed firmament to walke vnder and bigger starres to giue him light or else he would put
in their conscience they know the primitiue Church neuer made and raking into all the abuses of the Scripture that they can finde mens deprauing misexpounding misapplying them vsing them ouer boldly malepartly not with the respect they should hence most dishonestly they conclude the vtter suppressing of them not that they care how they are vsed for neuer any vsed them so vilely as themselues either * PRVRITANVS in applying reuiling or corrupting them but because they are mad at that which discouers their heresie 3 The Reply to salue the matter sayes that if the parties disposition be such that he may take benefit and no harme by reading then they permit the Scripture in the mother tongue both to laie men and women This is not true for how do they permit it to such where as in Spaine there is permitted no translation at all how it is permitted when the Pope sayes none may reade but such as are licenced by the Bishops and this power of licencing is taken from him by the Inquisition Againe euen by making this restraint they are gone from the primitiue Church which gaue rules had discipline to restraine such as abused the Scripture but the liberty of the booke it selfe they neuer restrained nor euer bound the rudest that was to go to the Bishop for a licence but by how much the more he was ignorant or transported with pride or indangered with heresie by so much the more they required him to reade the Scripture to reforme himselfe and if he did not they onely preached against his abuse and punisht the man but the translation they suppressed not And all the Papists in Europe in all the writings of the first 600 yeares cannot shew one period beyond this There are in the Fathers specially Nazianzen and Ierome sharpe speeches against abusers of the Scripture such as tosse turne thē to their owne lusts as Papists do but not a word against the translating and permitting them to all indifferently in the vulgar tongue to be read They neuer reproacht Gods people that desired his law with the name of dogges and swine as these * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustat Centaurs do nor euer imagined the permission of the sacred Scripture to be casting of pearles before them It is easie enough to see that if the laity were dogges and hogs neuer so much it were impossible they should trāple Gods blessed word worse then this Grillus drencht with Cyrces cup at Rome hath by this his application trampled it And whereas it may be some will beleeue him that the restraint made is onely in dangerous times and where there is perill of falling into error as he seemes to speake let it be remembred that at all times and in all places this restraint is made euen when and where there is no danger of error or heresie but onely of that which they will stile heresie when men by the Scripture see the horrible errors of the Church of Rome It being the doctrine of that side that the Scriptures should not be translated at all Let the wordes of Rainolds and Gifford in their a L. 4. c. 7. pag. 824. inde Caluino Turcismus be a litle pondered I conclude therefore that it is much more honour to the Scripture and saffe for religion and wholesome for the people that this power of the people to reade the Scripture in the mother tongue were altogether taken away without which they might both beleeue piously and liue holily and by so doing much more saffely and easily attaine eternall life 2 P. 825. It seemes to me this profane reuealing of the diuine mysteries by translating the Scripture is odiously contrary to the will of God and to the nature of the mysteries themselues 3 P. 830. The Pastors of the Church are not tied true for they haue broke the bonds to translate the Scripture into vulgar tongues there being no Apostolike precept or councell or so much as any light signification of their will to haue it so 4 P. 831. The manifold and great mischiefes which by the translations of the Scripture haue risen against the maiestie of God against the holinesse of the Scripture its selfe against the tranquillity of states against the faith and good conuersation of men * Satis magnā vim habere de buit ad istas translationes penitus supprimendas etiamsi diuina vel Apostolica authoritate niterentur Thus Gods ordinance Christs Testament and the Apostles doctrine must giue place to the Popes lust should haue force enough vtterly to suppresse these translations yea ALBEIT THEY WERE SVPPORTED BY DIVINE OR APOSTOLICALL AVTHORITY Let the reader iudge by this if the Church of Rome do onely as the Reply blaunches it not promiscuously permit vulgar translations when they may be occasions of error by misinterpreting and not vtterly hate and condemne them as the causes of their discontent and desire the suppressing of them from all It s easie to discerne how pretiously they affect that which by reason onely of some abuse which also they multiply by their art many times a mote being in their eye when there is none in the skie they would haue vtterly taken away though by DIVINE AND APOSTOLIKE AVTHORITIE IT WERE SVPPORTED 4 To the testimonies alledged out of 1 Deut. 6.7 Moses 2 2. Tim. 3.15 S. Paule 3 Hom. 3. in Laz ho. 2. in Matthae S. Chrysostome 4 Epitaph Paul S. Ierom and 5 Cornel. Agrip. de vanit c. 100. the Councell of Neece whereby I shewed the doctrine of the Primitiue Church to be that lay people should reade the Scripture he answers nothing but contents himselfe hauing better helps for it with replying to the 5. of Iohn Search the Scriptures wherein I commend his discretion that falling so foule on this would let the rest alone First he saies the wordes were not spoken to all in generall but to the Pharisees and princes of the people because if they were spoken to the people he did wisely foresee that our Sauiour therein no longer counts them dogges and hogges but admonisheth them as Gods people bought with a price to the reading of the Scripture But how shall I be sure he speakes to none but the Pharisees and Priests when a V. 15. 18. the text saies he spake to the Iewes that sought to kill him whom the man healed at the poole of Bethesda had told of his healing which Iewes cannot be shewed to be the Priests and Doctors alone but some of the laity withall who were as eager in persecuting our Sauiour as the Priests and frequented the Temple and prouoked him in all places where he was as well as the Pharisees Or if it were granted he spake onely to the Priests yet how doth that auoide the argument when the Iewes had the Scriptures in their owne language neither Priests nor people vsing them in any other For it were too grosse to
speech of Purgatory or none at all and the Latines in the West Church did not all of them together receaue the truth of this matmatter but by little and little neither indeed was the faith either of Purgatory or pardons so needful in the Primitiue Church as now it is We neede no more then this confession of our aduersaries and testimony of the Greeke Church to shew the nouelty of this doctrine 3 And that which the Reply hath added in his margent Prayer for the dead which supposes the beleefe of Purgatory learned Protestants graunt to haue bene generall in the Church long before Saint Austines time is most weake for whatsoeuer learned Protestants say touching the antiquity of prayer for the dead which is impertinent now to be debated it is not true that the vse thereof supposes Purgatory which I will shew most euidently that the Reply may bewaile his cause when he sees no medicine applied to it can recouer or do it good For the Greekes praied for the dead and yet as you haue heard they beleeued not Purgatory And d See the Liturgies of Iames. Basil Chrysost and the rest in the praiers mentioned they praied for * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lit. Iacob the martyrs the B Virgine Iohn Baptist and for all the righteous from Abel to that day yet neither they nor the Church of Rome euer thought them to be in Purgatory Not the Martyres for e Bell. Purg. l. 2. c. 1. they are exempted by priuiledge Not f Rhem. on act 1. the B. Virgine for she had no sinne to purge but was carried immediately to heauen Not the iust from Abel to Christ for g Tho. Argenti 3. d. 22. art 4 p. 35. Gabr. ib. dub 3. Christ at his descent emptied Purgatorie It remaines therefore that their praying for the dead was not because they thought any to be in Purgatorie but by way of commemoration onely So sayes Cabasilas h Nicol. Cabasil exposic Liturg c 33. p. 503. in Bibl. S Pat. edit 1. in his exposition The Priest giues God thankes and offers supplication laying downe the causes of the thankesgiuing and the matter of the supplication The causes of thankesgiuing are the Saints The matter of the supplication are they who are not yet consummate but haue need of prayer For which Saints he offers this reasonable seruice as A THANKES GIVING to God and aboue all the rest for the B. Mother of God who exceedes all sanctity * Nihil pro eis orat Therefore the Priest PRAIES FOR NOTHING for them but rather praies to them that he may be holpen by their praiers * Haec quidem verba habent supplicationeÌ„ ostendunt autem etiam gratiarum actionem Deum praedicant These wordes containe supplication but shew thankesgiuing and praise God the benefactor of mankinde by remembring the persons whom he hath sanctified and almost consummated saying Giue vs the grace which already thou hast giuen the Saints to sanctifie vs as thou hast sanctified them before who are of the same kinde with vs. It was not therefore with an opinion of purgatory that the ancient praied for the dead but in expectation of the resurrection and in remembrance of Gods goodnesse toward them who had begun to glorifie them the consummation whereof they desired For it was a general opinioÌ„ of the Church of those times that the soules of the Saints departed saw not God nor should see him by beatificall vision till the day of iudgement in which regard they praied for the dead that their glorie might be consummate as all faithfull people pray for that good which they beleeue is to come the certaine fruition whereof they apprehend Bartlemew Medina writing vpon Thomas i Bart. Medin 12. qu. 4. art 5. p. 56. edit Bergom an 1586. saies that Almost all the ancient Fathers Iames in his Liturgie Ireneus Iustine Tertullian Clemens Origen Lactantius Victorine Prudentius Ambrose Chrysostome Augustine Theodorit Arethas Oecumenius Theophylactus Euthymius Bernard at the first sight but in the scanning of their wordes both he and the rest of his fellowes bewray it to be at the second sight too deny that the soules of the Saints see God vntill the day of iudgement The like is testified by k Sixt. Senens Bibl. lib. 6. ann 345. Perer. in Gen. l. 3 n. 45. Bellarm. â—e eccl triumph cap. 1. Vieg in Apoc. pag. 334. Riber ibi pag. 198. lun tom 2. pag. 1587. others the triall whereof the curious reader may see in Sixtus Senensis who hath collected together both the names and wordes of the Fathers to that effect that it is the vainest conceit that can be to imagine the ancient Church by praying for the dead intended a Purgatory when they assumed it for certaine that the dead came not into the presence of God till the last day l Luce clarius constat quia perfectorum animae mox vt huius carnis exeunt in celestibus sedibus recipiuntur Flor. Magistr exposit Missae pag. 65â— Which being an error no maruell if they erred in what they built vpon it nothing being sound that is built on a false foundation CHAP. LVIII 1. The Popes Supremacy 2. Single life of votaries 3. The worship of images 4. The Merite of workes 5. The sacrifice of the Masse 6. And the Popish doctrine touching originall sinne all of them innouations 5. The disagreement of Papists in their religion 7. And namely in their doctrine of originall sinne A. D. Secondly he names the Popes Supremacy which he 1 White pag. 376. saieth Pag. 288. began in Boniface the third But how false his assertion is appeareth by that which is shewed by not onely Catholicke but also Protestant Authors Thirdly he nameth Priests marriages to haue bene first restrained by Siricius This also to be false he may learne by 2 Concil Carth 2. can 2 see Prot. apol tr 1 sec 7 nu 3. the Councel of Carthage which signifieth that Priests were restrained from company of wiues long before Siricius his daies euen by the Apostles themselues Siricius might vpon occasion renew the prohibition as also Gregory the seuenth might but the first Authors of that doctrine or practise they were not Fourthly he nameth worship of images to haue bene first brought in by the Nicen Councell But this Councell was so farre from being 3 See Prot. apol tr 1. sec 3. n. 12. the first author of this doctrine as it expressely saith it followed in this point the doctrine of the holy Fathers and Tradition of the Catholicke Church in which the holy Ghost doth inhabite Concerning that which M. White saith 4 White pag. 378. Conc. Nicen 2. touching images see Bellarmine de imag C 8. Fiftly he nameth the doctrine 5 White p. 379. See Bellar. l. 5. de iustif c 2. 3 4 Greg. de Val. tom 2. disp 8. q. 6. p. 2. 4. of Merite of workes to haue begun lately by
Gospell where the Pope is ignorant or erres it is manifest whose iudgement is to be preferred and in this case such a learned man if he were present at a generall Councell should oppose himselfe against it if he perceiued the maior part through malice or ignorance to go against the Gospell Occham k Occh. Dial. p 180. affirmes that THE POPE AND CARDINALS ARE NOT THE RVLE OF OVR FAITH because though a Catholicke Pope and Catholicke Cardinals ought to be the teachers of faith so that the faithfull should firmely beleeue whatsoeuer they teach and define according to the rule of faith yet if they presume to teach or dâ—fine any thing contrary to the rule of faith which the holy Scripture teaches then Catholickes are not to follow but reproue them These men affirme all things that I say First that the Scripture is the rule of faith Secondly that the Pope with his Councels and Cardinals may erre Thirdly that they may erre in faith and teach erroniously Fourthly that their teaching may be examined Fifthly that euen by priuate men Sixthly the Scripture being the rule whereby Seuenthly vpon which examination their teaching may be refused This is the limitation that I mentioned Let the Repliar and all of his minde open their eyes and confesse we hold nothing but that which the learnedst in his owne Church allow and teach His second exception How shall they relieue themselues who cannot reade nor vnderstand the Scripture l §. 7. pag. 30. I answered in the WAY whereto my aduersary hauing nothing to reply according to his Methode onely repeates his cauill againe but it doth him no good For such as cannot reade yet may heare them read or preached and propounded by others it being sufficient that they haue the knowledge of the Scriptures any way which are so plaine and easie in all things belonging to the substance of faith that as I haue shewed m Gregory the B. of Rome speaking of an vnlearned man saies Nequaquam literas nouerat sed Scripturae sacrae sibi met codices emerat religioso quosque in hospitalitatem suscipiens hos coraÌ„ se studiose legere faciebat Factum est vt iuxta modum suum plene sacram Scripturum disceret cum siâ—ut dixi literas funditus ignoraret Dial. l. 4. c. 14. ibi Graec. Zachar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simplest that are hauing the assistance of Gods Spirit to enlighten them which assistance is not tyed to the presense of the Church as my aduersary cauilles may vnderstand them And to omit the words of the Scripture it selfe which the Repliar and his complices despise and reuile let him say directly whether the Ancient Church taught not thus S. Austine n Epist 3. The Scripture like a familiar friend speakes those plaine things which it containes to the heart of learned and vnlearned Chrysostome o Hom. 1 in Matth. The Scriptures are easie to vnderstand and exposed to the capacity of euery seruant Plowman widow boy and him that is most vnwise Cyrill Alexand p Contr. Iulian. pag. 160. The Scripture that it might be knowne to all men as well small as great are profitably commended to vs in a familiar speech so that they exceede the capacity of no man Isidore Pelusiota q l 2. ep 5. Forasmuch as God gaue lawes to weake men and such as need plaine words therefore he tempered his heauenly doctrine * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with rude words fit for the simple That euery woman and child and the vnlearnedst among mortall men by THE VERY HEARING IT SELFE might get some good r Sixt. Senens Biblioth l 6. annot 152. §. quod autem Grego Valent. 22. pag. 118. §. iam quae Diuers of the learnedst of our aduersaries grant this to be true in that part of the Scripture which containes the principles of faith and the things that all men generally are bound to beleeue which is sufficient to vphold that I say for I will easily allow great obscurity to be in much of the rest according to that which Å¿ Act. 8.31 2. Pet. 3.16 the Scripture and t Basil de fid p. 394. Iren. l. 2. c. 47. August ep 3. the Fathers oftentimes obserue but the rule of faith contained in euident places will preserue the vnlearned from erring therein perniciously A.D. By which explication is answered that which M. White saith is vnanswerable Pag. 220. White p 76. to wit If we must not accept euery doctrine taught by Pastours then there must be another rule by which we must be directed in hearing For it is not necessary to admit another rule distinct from the doctrine of Pastours but it sufficeth that we can distinguish in this rule two distinct manners of teaching the one priuate and without authoritie which we are not bound to accept the other publike and with authority which we may not reiect in any point 7 To the text of Mathew 23.2 The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire c. I answered u The WAY pag. 75. that our Sauiour bindes vs not to heare the Pastours of the Church further then they teach according to the truth This exposition I confirmed by the testimonies of * Fer. in Matth. l. 3 c. 23. Can. Loc. l. 5. c. 4 Iansen concord c. 120. Em. Sa. notat Mat. 23. 4. Papists to whom here I adde a fift Pope Adrian x Hadria quodl 6. art 2. p. 38. we are tyed to obey them in such things as they teach according to Moses chaire Hence I said it followes vnanswerably that there is another rule whereby I may be directed in hearing For else how should a man be able to distinguish those points wherein he must follow his teachers from those wherein he must not And indeed this reason is vnanswerable For if our Sauiour hath bound me to heare them that sit in Moses chaire no further then they teach true doctrine according to the chaire it must necessarily be said that there is some rule distinct from their teaching whereby I may infallibly discerne if they teach falsely against the chaire But the Reply sayes this needs not it being sufficient that we can distinguish two manners of teaching the one Priuate and without authority which we are not bound to accept the other publicke and with authoritie which we may not reiect in any point But for the making of this distinction it needes that there be a rule for though it be sufficient thus to distinguish that is to say by discerning and iudging betweene that which is taught by publicke and that which is taught by priuate authoritie a man may sufficiently guide himselfe in following his Pastors yet how shall I distinguish this which way shall I know the publicke teaching from the priuate without A RVLE Say plainely what is the RVLE to discerne that doctrine which is taught without authority from that which is taught with authoritie and if there be
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
VISIBLE profession of the Romish faith for so much as nothing is VISIBLE that cannot be shewed in their writings Thirdly this answer debarres our aduersaries for euer from alledging the Fathers for their Romish faith which I shew thus First the Iesuites promise is that he will assigne a continuall visible Church professing his now Romane faith for that is the thing vndertaken to name in all ages the names of such as successiuely professed the religion now maintained by the Church of Rome Secondly to effect this he sets downe his catalogue containing the Bishops Doctors and Councels that were in the first 600 yeares Thirdly we obâ—ect that these Bishops Doctors and Councels in diuers things that is to say in all the substantiall points wherein the Church of Rome and we dissent beleeued not as the now Church of Rome doth because such points are not mentioned in their writings To this he answers that they held more either explicitè or implicitè then is expresly to be found in their writings This answer supposeth one of these three things either that they both held and writ expresly those diuers things which we denie or that they writ them not but held them explicitè or that they writ them not nor held them explicitè but held them onely implicitè The first he grants they did not but answers that they beleeued diuers things they writ not Neither is the second for what they held explicitè they writ But the third that they held diuers points of Papistrie onely implicitè is the answer Now this is it that laies all those points of Papistrie on Gods cold earth and shewes them not to haue bene knowne to the Fathers For a Rosel v. Fides n. 2 Altisiod l 3 tract 3. c. 1. q. 5 Dionys 3. d. 25. qu. vnic to beleeue implicitè is to beleeue as the Church beleeues as when a man is demanded whether Christ be borne of the virgin Marie or whether there be one God and three persons he answers that he cannot tell but beleeues touching these things as the Church holdeth And as the Repliar himselfe here expounds it To beleeue whatsoeuer was reuealed by God in word or writing to the Church diuers particulars whereof are not necessary to be knowne or written expresly at all times but this vnfolded faith shall be vnfolded as necessity shall require that is when some heresie arises oppugning the truth of the point which is thus implicitely beleeued Hence it followes that he confesses these Fathers Doctors and Bishops mentioned in the first 600 yeares of this catalogue knew not professed not defended not taught not diuers points of the now Romane faith because in their times they were not points of faith but made so since and therfore by his owne confession they held them onely in this sence that they beleeued and taught whatsoeuer the Church should after their time vnfold by which deuice they may also be said to haue beleeued and visibly professed that the Moone is made of a greene cheese or any thing that the Church of Rome shall hereafter deuise whatsoeuer it be for they implicitely beleeued all the faith of the Church and this coyning of new doctrines shall be but vnfolding some part of the Churches faith that was infolded before and so the Fathers shall be iustified to haue beleeued any thing and the Romane Church to haue bin visibly succeeding in them that neuer vnderstood her doctrine Is this then the meaning of the catalogue that so gloriously he displaies and are all those brags shew vs a visible Church in all ages as we do you our faith is no other but what the ancient Doctors held what they held I hold what they taught I teach what they beleeued I beleeue resolued into this poore shift They beleeued as we do at least implicitely Is this the antiquitie of our Romish Church and can her age be painted no better then thus Were so many diuerse points of her faith beleeued by the ancient Church onely infoldly and vpon condition If this Romane Church after 600 or 1000 yeares should vnfold them where then is the visibilitie of these things in the Church of the Fathers and the light thereof that shined so clearly in their daies Zeuxis the painter b Zuing Theat pag. 1201. they say choked him selfe with laughing at the picture of an old woman that he had drawne in a table His owne conceit with beholding the wrinkles and shadowes and lookes he had set vpon her face so affected him that he which had but a little before drawne the beautie and youth of Helena to the admiration of others with a foolish counterfet of old age killed himselfe And I am perswaded that our aduersaries this Replier and his fellows when they behold the picture of this good old wife their mother the Papacie how ridiculously they haue drawne it making her to looke elder then she is by so many hundred yeares and hanging it forth for the counterfet of antiquitie cannot at the least but smile at their owne deuice to thinke how they mocke both others and themselues if they make not others burst with laughter But to quit this deuice of the Fathers holding implicitely that which is not expressed in their writings let my replier consider that they not onely make no mention of the things which we denie but they write that which by all consequence and discourse ouerthrowes them Though therfore we allow them a litle of the implicite faith which God wot they neuer dreamed of it being a deuice of the latter School-men to serue another purpose yet they could not implicitè beleeue any thing which would be opposite to that they mention and hold expresly as those things are opposite which the Replier confesses to be the diuers things they beleeued implicitè and their Church hath now vnfolded against new heresies that are arisen Thus I reason the Fathers held contrary to that which the Church of Rome now holds ergo they beleeued it not implicitly For implicite faith holds nothing that is coÌ„trary to that which is explicite Again if they only held implicitely what the Church of Rome now holds and not explicitely hence it followes that the Romane faith in such points cannot be visibly shewed in the Fathers for to be visible and to be onely implicitè are contrary in as much as no man can see or discerne that which is implicite so the Romish faith may be shewed in a catalog of Turks as wel as in a catalog of the Fathers by the Iesuits distinctioÌ„ CHAP. XLIIII 1. The whole Christian faith deliuered to the Church hath succeeded in all ages yet many corruptions haue sometime bene added How and in what sence the Church may erre 2. A Catalogue assigned of those in whoÌ„ the Protestants faith alway remained 3. What is required to the reason of successioÌ„ Pag. 268. A. D. Secondly I said that the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church did hold explicitè or
Fathers held is holden at this day by Pastors of our Church or at least may stay him from thinking that the same faith is not holden If all that view his foresaid considerations proue indifferent either to the cause or of indifferent iudgement that which is holden this day by the Pastors of the Repliars Church will not be deemed the same doctrine which the ancient Fathers held I say vpon his foresaid considerations it cannoy be deemed so he may haue new considerations or something else in store to stay men and if I meet it it shall be answered but this foresaid is too absurd for first I deny not the Catalogue of Pastors for the first 600 yeares whereof the question in this place is to be of such as preserued the truth inuiolate but affirme those very persons to haue bin the true Pastors of the true Church would my selfe giue them vp for a catalogue of such assigne no other but I require the Repliar to make it manifest against the obiection that they held as their iudgment and professed as their faith those speciall points of Popery that we renounce And let him not reply that they held and professed them at least implicitè but say ingenuously whether they be to be found in their books for example Transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse the worship of images the Popes primacy and Monarchy ouer the world The which point not being shewed in his foresaid considerations but directly auoided by a cōceit of their beleeuing at least implicitè how may an indifferent man see or by staying neuer so long hope to see the Papacy in the Fathers 4 Againe he sayes if his aduersaries will deny the Catalogue of Pastors which he hath set downe to be of such as haue preserued the truth he must require them to assigne another of their owne And Secondly to note the first Pastor in his Catalogue that failed in preseruing the truth And Thirdly in assigning our Catalogue not to assigne such as are ordinarily answered by Catholicke authors but some plaine instances which his demand if it cānot be answered as he is sure it cannot then the Repliar concludes euery discreet man may if he will driue out his owne wit to make roome for Ad 1 his To the first all the Papists aliue cannot by good discourse driue vs to assigne a Catalogue it being sufficient to say that no doctrine wants lineall succession that accords with the Scripture neuerthelesse for the first 600 yeares we assigne the Church wherein the Fathers liued and for the rest to this day we will assigne no other Catalogue thē the Church of Rome it selfe wherin many of those whom the Repliar hath couched in his Catalogue professed the foundation of the truth that wee Ad 2 maintaine To the second I answered in THE WAY so fully Ad 3 that the Iesuite had no list to reply To the third those particular men whom we name and this blatant beast calls a rabble of ragged heretickes were Gods deare children and better professors of the truth then the reuerend ranke of his Popes and Friars who were and yet are nothing else but the great Antichrist that was prophesied should fit in the Church of God among whom these men and many ordinary Pastors and people of the Church of Rome liuing and holding the foundation of faith and in the agony of their conscience renouncing the damnable heresies of the Papacy it cannot be denied but the Church of Rome it selfe affoords vs a Catalogue sufficient For the Repliar is too simple and deceaues himselfe if he thinke we place the Church onely in Berengarius Wickliffe Husse Ierome the Waldenses and the rest of that sort But we name them as some particular eminent members in the Church of Rome for so we terme all these westerne parts by reason of the Patriarchie lesse corrupted then were many others and vnto them we adde all others in the said Church that held the articles of faith either in solid or in part though it were Occham Gerson Armachanus Cesenas Ardeus Potho Sauanarola or any such for albeit they held many errors yet the truth among their errors was preserued and I affirme that it is sufficient for the succession of the Church and being of the faith if the parts thereof and all the seuerall particulars belonging to saluation can be shewed to haue bene held in any Church albeit no one man in the same or in the world can be shewed to haue holden them all entirely himselfe That * Prot. Apolog. tract 2. c. 2. sect 3.4.5.6 7. our aduersaries may see they do but trifle away the time when they labour so contentiously to shew that Wicklife or Husse or the Albingenses differed in some things from vs no member of the Church in the world being at all times free from euery spot and wrinkle of error CHAP. XLV 1. The Fathers are not against the Protestants but with them 2. Touching the Centuries reiecting of the Fathers The cause of some errors in the Fathers 3. Gregories Faith conuerting England 4. The Papists haue bene formall innouators 5. How they excuse the matter A. D. In which point if he desire to be more fully satisfied Pag. 271. let him reade Iodocus Coccius his Booke intituled Catholicus thesaurus controuersiarum in which he shall see particularly set downe point by point the ancient Fathers with vnanime consent testifying for vs against Protestants The which to be so in many points the Magdeburgians being themselues famous Protestants do likewise testifie who hauing taken great paines in seeking ancient histories and monuments of the Fathers writings to see if they could finde any testimony of authority to countenance their cause are forced at last to acknowledge the ancient Fathers to testifie in many things against them and for vs all which their testimonies they thinke to wipe away with saying that these were the errors or blemishes of these Fathers which is as good a iest as if a guilty person being desirous to cleare himselfe at the barre by the witnesse of honest men and hauing diligently sought and finding that all honest men will beare witnesse against him yet to make a shew wil needs bring in a number of honest substantial men bidding them to giue their verdit of purpose that when they all haue deliuered the truth See the Protestants Apology where these points are hādled largely Tract 1 sect 1. deinceps he may forsooth say they all lie or are deceaued This also to be so is shewed in the Protestants Apologie where particularly is proued out of diuerse learned Protestant writers first that the faith we professe is the same that Saint Gregory professed and by Saint Austine the Monke taught vs English men at our first conuersion Secondly that the same faith was vniuersally professed for sundry ages before and namely that it agreed in substance with the first faith to which the Brittans were conuerted in the Apostles
dayes Thirdly that diuerse particular points of our doctrine are acknowledged by learned Protestants to haue bene taught by the ancient Fathers namely Vowes Reall presence c. For all which the said Protestant Apology citeth the names and bookes and oftentimes the very words of the learned Protestants as may be seene and I wish the Reader for his more satisfaction to see Lastly that our Church holdeth the very same and no other faith in substance then that which was held by the ancient Church may appeare by the very nature as I may say of our Church whose property and condition is not to inuent of new or to alter any doctrine in any matter of faith but to receiue humbly and obediently at the hands of our present Pastours what they in like manner learned of their predecessors and still to hate and resist all innouation in any matter of faith no lesse then a deadly poison as knowing that the least infection of any new inuented heresie or alteration in matter of faith doth corrupt and adulterate the whole faith and taketh away infallible authoritie and credite from the Church Wherefore our Pastors haue bene like men appointed to watch very vigilant in noting reprehending resisting and condemning all innouation in faith and sometimes casting incorrigible members out of the Church euen for a word or two profanely innouated contrary to the custome and faith of the Church The which course being duly obserued as chiefely by Gods prouidence and partly by humane diligence it hath bene and shall be still obserued it is not possible that there should be such alteration in religion or difference betwixt the faith and doctrine of the ancient and present Pastours of the Church as our aduersaries ignorantly or maliciously obiect For as Vincencius Lyrinensis saith Vincent Lyr. l. aduersus haereses Vincentius Lyr. contra haereses c. 32. the Church of Christ is a carefull keeper of religion committed to her charge she neuer changeth or altereth in any thing she diminisheth nothing nothing she addeth to wit as a doctrine of faith True it is that by reason of heresies arising the Pastors and doctors of the Church in latter ages haue had occasion to write more largely and expressely about diuerse points then was done in former times when no such heresies were and that for confutatiō of those heresies and more explication of the formerly receiued faith these Pastours and Doctors haue vsed some kinde of more significant words then formerly were vsed in which sort the terme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was brought in against those who denied Christ our Sauiour to be true God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against those who denied our blessed Lady to be the mother of God and transubstantiation against those who denied the conuersion of the substance of bread into the substance of the body of our Lord. The which tearmes although they may seeme to smell of noueltie yet indeed are not of that prophane sort of nouelty of voices or wordes which the Apostle wisheth to be auoided because the sence of these wordes is not different from the faith and phrase vsed formerly by the Church but do onely explicate more plainely or signifie more fully and clearely that which was formerly beleeued and taught by the Church which kinde of explication of the ancient faith to be lawfull and allowable Vincent Lyrin cont haer c. 2. we may learne out of Vincentius Lyrinensis who although a most true louer of antiquitie alloweth such new explicatiō of the faith as we may see in his goldē Treatise where hauing declared excellently by that saying of the Apostle Cap. 28.29 30. O Timothy keepe the Depositum c. that nothing is to be innouated in faith he sheweth how this notwithstanding Cap. 32. the ancient faith may in processe of time be more explained and that for more easie vnderstanding of it to an old article of faith we may giue a new name 1 HEre are foure reasons to proue that the ancient Fathers held the same doctrine of faith that is now professed in the Church of Rome and one obiection answered that he thinkes will be made against him His first reason is the testimony of Coccius a Cum ab ineunte aetate incidisset in praeceptores Lutheranos adhuc inuenis in eiusmodi haereticorum Academijs versatus c. Posseuin ap v. Iod. Cocc an apostata who in his Thesaurus settes downe the Fathers point by point with vnanime consent testifying against the Protestants Wherein he much forgets himselfe for if Coccius set downe the Fathers point by point what needed the Repliar haue graunted b Ch. 44. a little before that there be diuers points held by his side now adaies whereof there is no mention in the writings of the Fathers yet they held them because either explicitely or implicitely they held many points that they haue not expressely mentioned let these two be reconciled They held some things onely implicitely by an infolded faith not mentioning them expressely and yet Coccius sets them downe point by point testifying against the Protestants For those points which they held onely infoldedly Coccius cannot set downe in their owne wordes point by point I answer therefore that Coccius with his * Spatio 24. annorū Posseu twenty foure yeares studie hath not done this that my Repliar reports he hath collected together the wordes of the Fathers and such places as his side vses for the confirmation of their hereticall opinions but the vnanime and certaine consent in the now current Romane faith he hath not shewen and the Reader shall know it by this that in the controuersies betweene vs they many times deny the authority of the Fathers and c Ind. expurg Belg pag. 12. professe so to do yea to excuse and extenuate their errors by deuising shifts and to fainesome fit sense for their owne purpose vnto them when they are opposed against them by vs in our disputations And why haue they thus purged and corrupted their writings and why do they allow nothing to be the sense of their wordes but what the Pope and his Clergy allowes to be the sense Is it not palpable hypocrisie to do all this and yet to bragge of their vnanime consent against vs Coccius therefore out of the Fathers whom they haue CORRVPTED PVRGED COVNTERFETTED and COINED may bring places which being fraudulently expounded and shuffled may giue colour to Papistrie but by the true writings of the true Fathers truely expounded as themselues meant the present faith of Rome in the articles which they hold against vs and as they expound them cannot be confirmed no not in one point and let no man hope the contrarie as may appeare by these examples following Of the sufficiency of the Scripture without traditions Saint Basil d De Fid. p. 394. graec Basil sayes It is a manifest falling from the faith and an argument of arrogancy either to abrogate any of