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
velle dare certiâ— hominibus media infallibilia ad salutem nisi prius dare vellet ijsdem hominibus ipsam salutem Bellarm. de grat lib. arbiâ— l 2. c. 15. pag. 472 D. In the order of reason and causalitie the will of the end goes before the will of the meanes that brings to the end in that the meanes are not intended but for a certaine end and so the said end is entred the will and propounded by it before the meanes But Gods will to elect men to glorie is his will of the end because glorie is the end of faith and a good life and faith and a good life are the meanes because they bring to glorie o Deus nulli electorum ab aeterno ideo ordinauit dare finalem beatitudinem in patria quia praeordinauit dare ei gratiam iustitiam in via sed potiùs è conuerso ideo praeordinauit ab aeterno dare ei graetiam pro via quia gratis pure praedestinauit ei dare finalem beatitudinem pro patriae Andrae Castrens 1. d. 40. concl 5. Deus prius vult glorium Petro deinde gratiam c. Fra. Mayro 1. d. 41. qu. 4. §. Hoc autem declar Therefore Gods will to elect men to glorie goes before his will to giue them faith and grace therefore he elects not after or vpon the foresight of faith and grace therefore before hee see faith or grace in Iacob which he wil giue him he purposes to giue him life eternall therefore he purposes to giue faith and grace after his will to giue him eternall life and therefore he elects no man consequently vpon the foresight of his faith and good life nor antecedently wills the saluation of the reprobate from whom by his eternall purpose he decreed as the meanes to withhold his grace 13 Thirdly this antecedent and consequent will supposes that God elects none to glorie but for the grace and perseuerance he foresees in him nor reprobates or refuses any from glory but for the sinnes he foresees in him Thus my Aduersary sayes i Pag. 163. We must hold for certaine God did not effectually ordaine any to saluation or damnation without foresight of their good or ill desert k Pag. 164. God hath decreed in generall that all and onely those shall be effectually saued who by vsing the meanes of saluation and helpes of grace shall depart this life in good state and that those and onely those shall be damned who by neglecting grace depart this life in the state of sinne l Pag. 165. Leauing it to the libertie and free choise of men whether they will vse or not vse those helpes and meanes And so vpon this foresight and respect of mens liuing and dying well or ill pronounces the sentence of saluation and damnation Against this I reason thus He that neither elects nor reprobates any vpon the foresight of their good or ill vsing of grace and meanes offered by their owne freewill hath no such antecedent will to saue all nor consequent will to reprobate any onely vpon the foresight of their sin This is plaine because this antecedent and consequent will is defined by willing and not willing vpon foresight of that which man by his freewill will do and if the definition be not in God then neither is the thing defined But God neither elects nor reprobates any vpon the foresight of their good or ill vsing of grace and meanes offered by their owne freewill Ergo God hath no such antecedent will to saue all nor consequent will to reprobate any vpon the condition of their workes The second proposition I proue by reason and authoritie By reason for whatsoeuer he foresaw in any that himselfe purposed to worke If he foresaw grace and the good vse of freewill in Iacob he purposed to worke it by infusing it if he foresaw sin and the ill vse of freewill in Esaw he purposed m Rom. 9.18 Habemus ex doctrina Thomae quod diuina reprobatio est CAVSA de relictionis in peccato aeternae poenae Bann 1. p. pag. 665. e. to worke it by withholding grace and hardening and he not onely purposed to worke this which he foresaw but to worke and effect it as the meanes and as a subordinate second cause to bring man to the end appointed For grace freewill perseuerance and the rest are but causes leading to the end and therefore n Inter primam causam agenteÌ„ secundam est ordo quo vna necessario pendet ab altera Ergo secunda non agit nisi à prima ad agendum mota applicata ideo enim dici videtur causa secunda quia mouetur à prima alioqui enim solùm esset causa eum prima Azo instit moral tom 1. l. 1. cap. 21 ad 8. secondary and subordinate causes and therefore decreed and intended after the end and lesse principally then the end The o Suar. latè de praedest lib. 3. c. 2. inde Qâ—ic quid est in homine ordinans ipsam in salutem TOTVM coÌ„prehenditur sub effectu praedestinationis Capreol 1. d. 41. art 1. Fra. Mayron qu 4. D Thomâ—s vt Catholicus in doctrina Augustini conciliorum valde versatus considerat bonum vsum liberi arbitrij quo quis liberè vti ur auxilio Dei tanquam effectum gratiae diuinae praedestinationis praeordinatum praedefinitum à Deo Vnde colligit necessario quod ille bonus vsus non potest esse ratio praedestinationis cum ipsemet sit effectus praedestinationis praedefinitionis Dei Bann 1. pag. 632. e. Iesuites confesse not onely glory in the life to come but the first grace and iustification and all supernaturall workes and the cooperation of freewill and all the goodnes and strength of nature and perseuerance in this life to be the effects of predestination intended and effectually giuen of God to the elect for the bringing of them to glory This glory therefore could not be intended vpon the foresight of them but by the meanes of them and therefore Iacob could not be elected nor Esaw reprobated vpon the foresight of the good and ill vse of grace and freewill as any cause mouing God thereunto but the cause must be his owne will mouing it selfe in manner vnknowne to vs and Iacobs well vsing grace was the means intended by God to bring him to saluation and Esawes wickednes which God decreed to permit was the meanes intended by him to bring him to the condemnation whereunto the masse of sin would leade Secondly that neither election nor reprobation specially negatiue which alone containes the whole reason of reprobation q Odio habere non sonat solum priuationem dilectionis sed significat velle malum Caieta comm in Rom. 9.13 or his purpose not to saue or elect Esaw which is negatiue reprobation puts him into the state that he must be damned is vpon the foresight of works or vpon the condition of
his eternall counsell ordained them to the end 15 Fourthly this opinion of Gods antecedent will necessarily implies that he also giues grace and meanes sufficient for saluation to all men and supposes that there is no mortall man old or yong or Christian or Pagan from the beginning of the world to the end therof but God reueales to him the meanes of saluation and at the least in some instant of his life sets him in a state that he may enioy the meanes if he will and be saued The consequence is proued because if God will onely saue such as vse the meanes of saluation well and damne such as vse them ill and that consequently because they vse them well or ill he must in iustice reueale and exhibite these meanes vnto them forasmuch as no man of himselfe can recouer them and he must reueale and exhibite them to man when he is in such state that he hath the vse of his freewill as my aduersaries king that wils the saluation of his subiects on condition they keepe his lawes is bound to publish and make his lawes knowne vnto them else if he execute any of them it must be vpon a new point and not consequently vpon their not keeping his lawes so it is vnpossible that God should onely consequently reprobate them for the ill vse of his grace and contempt of the meanes of saluation that neuer had these meanes nor euer heard of this grace or euer were in state that they could vse them as many millions of people in all ages haue bene and now are The first sort whereof are infants that either die in the wombe or vnbaptized or reach not the yeares of discretion and vse of reason and freewill of whom Gregorius Ariminensis k 1. d. 46. qu. vnic ad argum Occha sayes It is false that God antecedently giues sufficient meanes of saluation to all for it is manifest that vnto children dying without baptisme in their mothers wombe or after they are borne he giues no such sufficient antecedent meanes wherby they may obtaine saluation The same must consequently be holden by all them l Tom. 1. d. 6. art 1 qu. 1. ad 1. Gabr. 4. d. 4. qu. 2. art 3. dub 2. sub sin Soto de Nat. Gr. l 2. c. 10. p. 90. that teach baptisme to be the onely meanes out of the case of martyrdome of saluation for infants and yet many haue not the meanes of baptisme prouided them Vasquez m Vasqu 1. p. qu. 96. n. 2. 3. sayes The controuersie is not whether Christ haue instituted meanes sufficient of themselues for all infants But whether he hath so prouided and disposed them that he hath left it in the free power of any to apply them for if these meanes which of themselues are sufficient be so disposed that by no diligence of man they can be applied we cannot say the infant was prouided of sufficient meanes because it must be said that sufficient meanes are prouided for him alone to whom they may be applied And his iudgement is that such infants haue not this sufficient meanes adding that * Omnes eodem modo sentiunt the Schoole Doctors are all of the same minde that vnto some infants God hath in no wise granted that by any humane diligence the sufficient meanes of saluation can be applied 16 The second sort are such as are borne naturals without the vse of reason of whom the same is to be said that is of infants that for want of reason and the vse of their free-will they cannot be said to haue sufficient meanes n Vt aliquis iudicetur habere gratiam sufficientem ad piam actionem supernaturalem requiritur eum habere ea auxilia quae ad eandem piam actionem exiguntâ—r tanquam supernaturales formae tanquaÌ„ principiâ— sufficientia quibus homo vocatus excitatus praeuentus possit vsu aliquo liberae facultatis suae Deo adiuuante auxiliante adquiâ—ere reliqua omnia huiusmodi dona gratiae siue auxilij Zumel disp var. 3. part pag. 56. a. for to the sufficiency of the meanes must concurre not onely the perfection of the helpe reuealed but also the ability of the subiect to whom the said helpe is offered for if God haue left his word to leade and direct a man and yet immediatly withholds reason and faculty from him that he cannot heare nor vse it it cannot be conceiued how he may be said to haue left sufficient meanes to that man 17 The third sort are Barbarians and Pagans that neuer heard of God or Christ and his Gospell these also cannot be said to haue sufficient meanes of saluation because o Ioh. 17.3 art 4.12 Rom 1.17 10.14 1. Co 1.21 Fides sacramenta fidei opera bona à principio ad obtinendam salutem homini propofita videÌ„tur Hugo quem refert Cassal de quad instit pag. 49 b. Sine fide impossibile est de potentia Dei ordinata quenquam saluare Ariminens vbi sup Non est adiutorium sufficiens sine fide nec tamen omnibus à Deo datur Ruard art 7. the reuelation of Christ and his Gospell is the meanes and they neuer had it p Ruard ib. The Deane of Louan debating this matter sayes The Schoole Doctors are not agreed whether all men at some time in this life haue sufficient helpe whereby they may turne themselues to God And setting downe his owne opinion that they haue not he sayes It is more agreeable to S. Austin and the ancient Councels that vnto all men God hath not allowed such sufficient helpe but as of his meere will he predestinates some to saluation to whom of his onely goodnes he disposes to giue his free gifts necessary to their saluation so of his meere will not for any cause foreseene in the reprobate he reiects some from glory he is not therefore ready so much as is in him to giue them glory or grace or helpe to hold and recouer that grace There is no question but God in his prouidence hath iustly withholden the meanes of his grace from these men either for the sinnes of their predecessours or for their owne originall sinne but yet it cannot be denied they haue not sufficient meanes 18 My Aduersarie q Pag. 170. sayes afterward in his reply that he speakes not of infants but men of ripe age when he sayes God giues sufficient helpe to all but he must speake of infants if he will speake consequently and vphold his distinction for predestination is of no other reason in infants then in old folke but vpon the same grounds and in the same manner that he wils the saluation of the one he wils the saluation of the other and therefore willing the saluation of such as haue the vse of reason antecedently he must will the saluation of infants in the same manner also therefore hee must giue them sufficient meanes also which not doing it is plaine he hath
A wonder not farre from Rome Writers not putting their names to their bookes censured by the Iesuites The Popes Iester The name of Minister and Priest Church the pillar of truth The way of Catholicke discipline is the way of the Scripture The Iesuites Method in perswading to Papistry The manner of A. D. his Replying and his promise to raile Chap. 2. The Papists trampling of the Scriptures and preferring their Church The Church of Rome touched in her honesty and reputed for a whore The conditions of a whore Chap. 3. The order of the Iesuites why and to what purpose erected by the Pope they are that to the Pope that the Ianisaries are to the Turke Their aboadments Chap. 4 Some examples of the Iesuites rapine Touching the present Pope Paule 5. and his nephew Burghesi The Iesuites deuouring those that entertaine thē Chap. 5. Touching the rapine and couetousnesse of the Romish Cleargy And their single life and what the world hath thought thereof Chap. 6. Touching the turbulency of our Iesuites and Maspriests in the State and their vnthankefulnesse to the King The seditious doctrine of the Church of Rome leading to all disobedience against the Magistrate and rebellion whēsoeuer occasion shall serue Tyrones rebellion and the Spanish inuasion promoted by the Pope A Catalogue of about forty Emperors Kings and Princes destroyed or vexed by the Pope and his Cleargy A consideration vpon the doctrine of the Popes power to depose kings Chap. 7. Concerning the doctrine of Merits taught in the Church of Rome and touching the Bull of Pius and Gregory against Michael Bayus the Deane of Louane Chap. 8. The Papacy brought in by Sathan The Iesuits spirit of contradiction The Church of Rome reuolted The fiue Patriarkes were equall at the first Plaine Scripture against the Papacy The ignorance of Popish laity Corruption of writings by the Papists Reformation desired long before it came Aduice giuen to A.D. Chap. 9. The Apocrypha not accounted Canonicall Scripture Papists professing to expound against the Fathers The new English translation of the Bible Traditions equalled with the holy Scripture About the erring of Councels And the sufficiencie of the Scriptures Chap. 10. The practise of the Papists in purging bookes The sacrifice of the Masse and reall presence denied Points of Papists absurd The Pope Lords it ouer all Papists need pay no debts May be traitors to murder Princes Iesuites plots in the powder-treason The Popes dispensing with sinne A meditation for all Papists Chap. 11. The Papists manner of dealing with immodesty and vncharitablenesse Briarly and Walsinghams bookes noted Some reports of the Papists meeknesse and mildnesse Hunt a Seminary arraigned at Lancaster The dumbe cattle slaughtered in Lancash The generall desire of vs all to reduce them to charity Chap. 12. Touching the ignorance that Papistrie hath bred among people Their barbarous manner of praying auoched Of Iohn the Almoner a legend The manner how a certaine Priest baptised The Replies zeale for recusants of the better sort A Lancash gentleman alledged by the Reply A note of a French Knight The successe of preaching in Lancash Chap. 13. Touching prayer to Saints Mediation of redemption and intercession Bonauentures Psalter Christ the onely mediator of intercession Reasons why we desire not the dead to pray for vs as we do the liuing The prayers of a Friar and an Archbishop It cannot be shewed that the dead heare vs. Deuices of the Schoolemen to shew how they heare vs. God not like an earthly King In their Saint-inuocating they Platonize Men equalled with Christ Chap. 14. More touching the worship of Saints The same words vsed to Saints that are to God The formall reason of worship The harsh praiers made to Saints how excused Nauarres forme of deuotion Counterfeits bearing the name of Fathers S. Austines doctrine to vse no mediator but Christ Chap. 15. The Iesuits insolency censured Note bookes A relation shewing how the Iesuites traine vp their nouices to dispute The doctrine of the Iesuites touching formall lies and equiuocation The Repliars motion to Protestant Ministers answered Chap. 16. Touching assurance of grace and beleeuing a mans owne saluation Perfection of the Scripture and necessity of the Church Ministry How the iustified conclude their saluation from the Scripture The iustified haue the assurance of faith This is declared full assurance voide of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome Touching perseuerance Chap. 17. Concerning points fundamentall and not fundamentall the distinction expounded and defended Who shall iudge what is fundamentall and what not A iest at the election of Pope Leo the x. Chap. 18. Touching the perpetuall virginity of Marie The celebration of Easter The baptisme of infants The Iesuits halting And the Scriptures sufficiency Chap. 19. How the Church proues the Scripture The Iesuites plainely confesse that the Scripture alone proues it selfe to be Gods word The Scriptures are principles indemonstrable in any superior science All other testimonies resolued into the testimony of the Scripture Touching euidence and the compossibility thereof with faith Chap. 20 A continuation of the same matter touching the Churches authority in giuing testimony of the Scriptures The Scripture proues it selfe to be Gods word The light of the Scripture How we are assured of the Scripture by the Spirit The reason why some see not the light of the Scripture The Papists retyring to the Spirit And casting off the Fathers A Councell is aboue the Pope The Pope may erre Chap. 21. Which is the Militant Church And the Catholicke The Church of the elect inuisible A rancid conceite of the Iesuite Chap. 22. Reports made by Papists that the Protestants are without religion They hold the iustification of the Gentiles without the Gospell or knowledge of Christ No saluation but in one true religion The Repliars tergiuersation Chap. 23. Touching the implicit faith that is taught in the Church of Rome How defined by them In what sense the Protestants mislike or allow it Arguments made for it answered The ancient Church allowed it not Chap. 24. Touching the necessitie and nature of the Rule of faith And how it is reuealed and communicated to all men that none need to despaire Chap. 25. The text of 1. Tim. 2.4 God wils all men to be saued c. expounded The diuerse expositions that are giuen of those words Gods antecedent will as they call it is not his will formally The antecedent and consequent will of God expounded diuerse wayes Chap. 26. The properties of the rule of faith described None follow priuate spirits more then our aduersaries How the Rule must be vnpartial and of authority Chap. 27. The Repliars tergiuersation The state of the question touching the sufficiencie of the Scripture alone and the necessity of the Church ministery The speeches of diuers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture In what sence the Scripture alone is not sufficient Chap. 28. Touching our English translations of the Bible their sinceritie and infalliblenesse How
* Jtaque ne in posteruÌ„ quidem Lipsi rosas ogita sesamam aut papauer sed spinas si as aâ—â—ynthium acetuÌ„ Lips const 1.10 I must craue the readers patience if contrarie to my vsuall course he finde me in this passage something sharpe because M. Whites outrages are such as require more then an ordinarie sharp reprehension Let him therefore take the Gun roome or if he will the n Lucian Iupit Tragoe 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cart where in old time they vsed to raile freeliest I am indifferent what he say hauing propounded to my selfe to answer not his scurrilitie but his Diuinitie though he keepe so good promise in this he threatens and his insolencies both in railing and bragging be such that it were able to dissolue into some passion or other the best patience that an aduersary can haue And had he as well performed the grosse vntruths he vndertakes to shew as he hath his sharpnesse which he promises he might haue gone for a good pay-master but to raile and run away is womens fight If he would haue men to thinke my outrages are such as he sayes he should haue expressed some of them and quoted the pages of my booke where the reader might see them which when he doth not nor cannot do the reader may suspect he sayes this to make way for his owne railing For the Booke it selfe will testifie what I haue done better then any thing I can say here wherein there are I denie not many sharp and bitter speeches against the abuses of the Church of Rome but they are not mine but the Papists whom being vrged thereunto I alledge it is one of the things that hath alwaies made me haue a base opinion of our aduersaries that these foule tales of their Church being blabbed out by themselues yet they would neuer giue vs leaue to report them againe or mention them Other outrage or railing then this I haue vsed none nor neuer did in all my conflicts with theÌ„ neither is it my maner to practise or defend it but by this my last will testament I bequeath it in legacie to himselfe and o Namely to D. Harding StapletoÌ„ Sanders Parsons Euans Surius Feuardentius Gret ferus I'acenius his Cleargie and other his consorts whose spirit I haue reasonably tasted these many yeares together p Iude v 9. The Angell disputing with the Diuell about the bodie of Moses durst not blame him with reuiling speeches but bad the Lord rebuke him According to which example I wish there were lesse bitternesse and more going to the argument in their writings For mine owne part q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isid Pelus pag. 453. I thinke it not so meete to speake euery thing that my aduersarie deserues to heare as to let nothing passe me that becomes not my selfe CHAP. II. 1. The Papists trampling of the Scriptures and preferring their Church 2. The Church of Rome touched in her honestie and reported to be a whore The conditions of a whore Pag. 22. A. D. First in his epistle Dedicatorie in which he speaketh not to simple men but to his most reuerend Fathers in God Toby the Archbishop of Yorke his Grace Primate and Metropolitan of England and to George Lord Bishop of Chester his very good Lords he affirmeth to our disgrace that all our speech is of the Church no mention of the Scriptures or God our Father but of our Mother the Church the which he confirmeth with a scurrilous comparison Much like saith he as they write of certaine Ethiopians that by reason they vse no mariage but promiscuously companie together it commeth that the children follow the mother the fathers name is in no request but the mother goeth away with all the reputation Thus he Now how lowd and lewd an vntruth this is I referre to the iudgement of any man almost neuer so simple supposing he haue had any ordinarie conuersation with Catholickes or be in a meane measure acquainted with their words and writings For what man is so simple who cannot discerne this to be euidently contrarie to our ordinarie practise and common speech and contrarie to our profession and publicke doctrine of faith And is it then possible that a Minister whose name is White should haue a face so blacke as without blushing so soberly to asseuere such a notorious vntruth especially in the sight or hearing of those his good Lords and reuerend Fathers in God Surely it is maruell that those his reuerend Fathers or some for them did not examine and marke this and other his grosse vntruths or marking them that they would for their credits sake suffer them to passe especially twice to the print And much more maruell it is that in stead of reproouing the man for such his shamefull vntruths which had beene the dutie of reuerend Fathers in God they would permit him to vse their names in the forefront or beginning of his booke by which men may suppose that they by their authoritie doe canonize or at least giue countenance to so many his grosse errors and vntruths as are found in this his booke 1 THe first example of my outrages and insinceritie is in those words of the epistle Dedicatorie All their speech is of the Church no mention of the Scriptures or God our Father but of our mother the Church c. Wherein if there be any trespasse yet he shewes it but meanly by saying it is a lewd and lowd vntruth and referring the matter to such as are acquainted with Catholickes and their writings For this and the railing that followes and his emptie maruelling at the BB. that would permit me to say so purges not Papists from the imputations but charges them deeper For S. Chrysostome sayes that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hom 22. Rom. when a mans aduersarie fals to scolding it is a signe he is guiltie And if the truth must be tried by the words and writings of his Catholickes then the matter will go well enough on M. Whites side For how should the coÌ„moÌ„ people of whoÌ„ I properly spake talk of the Scripture which they know not b THE WAY § 2. n. 3. See Staplet relect pag. 535. which they are forbidden to reade c THE WAY § 1. n. 3. which they must beleeue containes the least part of that which belongs to their faith The Rhemists d Annot. Luc. 12 11. teach lay Catholickes when any of them are called before the commission to answer that he is a Catholicke man and that he will liue and die in that faith which the Catholicke Church teaches and this Church can giue them a reason of all the things which they demand of him and he that answers thus they say saith enough and defends himselfe sufficiently Here we see all their speech is of the Church no mention of the Scriptures And he that dwels among them or hath occasion to discourse with them of religion shall finde the truth
See Io. Marian. tract pro vulg edit c. 13 23. Matth. Aquar in Capreo prol pag 7. PERFORMED WITH AS GOOD ADVICE AND BY AS LEARNED AND GODLY MEN AS EVER IOYNED TOGETHER IN SVCH A WORKE SINCE TRANSLATION WAS VSED And if some priuate men skilfull in the learned tongues as Wickliffe or Tindall for example when better meanes failed translated the Bible of themselues so did Aquila Theodotion Symmachus Origen Ierom Lucian Isychius and d Fuere autem pene innume rabiles olim editiones Latinae Posseu appar v Biblia p. 223. innumerable others and diuers also lately in the Church of Rome Saint Austin e De Doct. Chr. l. 2. c. 11. sayes They which turned the Scripture out of the Hebrew tongue into Greeke may be reckoned but the Latin interpreters cannot by any meanes for in the first times of the faith as a Greeke booke of the Scriptures came into any mans hands that thought himselfe to haue some little facultie in both the tongues he would be bold to translate it the which thing truly did more helpe then hinder the vnderstanding c. In which words of Saint Austin besides the customes of those times in translating the Bible that in euery place the vulgar might vse it which I presume my Iesuite will grudge at we see they translated then as boldly and commonly and more then any among vs now do Or if the Iesuite will not allow vs the priuiledge of that time yet he may not for shame obiect that to our Church which is done in his owne where Vatablus Munster Pagnin Montanus and others men as priuate as any translator among vs haue translated or corrected the text out of the learned tongues and which I commend to the Iesuites good memorie and contemplation and to the consideration of all the Papists in England their translations agree with ours and differ from the vulgar Latin as much as ours Pag. 30. A.D. Now although we hold that Scripture is not the onely rule yet this doth not argue that we be enemies to the Scripture or that we are voide of all meanes to secure vs of the truth For first we hold the holy Scripture to be one rule yea a principall rule of our faith which we should not do if we were enemies to the Scripture And one reason why we hold something else besides Scripture to be with Scripture the rule of our faith is partly because so we learne out of the Scripture as in the Treatise and this my Reply will appeare partly because we find it necessarie to admit some other infallible rule and * This infallible meanes is the authoritie of the Church Fathers Councels and Pope which iâ— so farre from being yeelded by our selues to be subiect to error in any point of doctrine authoratiuely concluded that euen M. White himselfe who here affirmeth the Church Fathers Councels and Pope to be yeelded by our selues to be subiect to errour doth a few pages before acknowledge that it is a principle of our owne that a generall Councell cannot erre so carelesse this man was what he said or vnsaid so he might seeme to say something against vs. A.D. meanes which may infallibly assure vs both what Bookes be Scripture and what translation and what interpretation is to be followed for finding out the diuine truth contained in Scripture 4 This is his reason why the Church of Rome denies the Scripture to be the whole rule of faith for the vnderstanding whereof haue your eye vpon my words I said that one of their practises against the Scripture is their depriuing it from being the totall rule of faith and I added that hereby they left themselues vtterly voide of all meanes to secure their faith by and to finde the truth inasmuch as the Church the Fathers the Councels the Pope himselfe which is all the rule they can pretend are subiect to error and so by themselues confessed to be To this he replies three things first that they hold the Scripture to be one rule yea a principall rule of our faith which they would not do if they were enemies to the Scripture I answer distinctly three things first sometime some of them when they are pressed cannot shift theÌ„selues say as the Iesuit here doth the Scripture is the rule and the principall rule too yea more so Bellar. Tho. Antonine others whose words I haue reported in THE WAY Secondly howsoeuer some of them sometime speake thus yet againe others allow it to be but a part of the rule that is to say such as containes but one part of things belonging to faith Thus you see the Iesuit expounds himselfe in his next words we hold something else beside Scripture to be with Scripture the rule of faith Becan f Circ Caluin pag 278. sayes The totall and full rule of our faith is Scripture and Tradition both together and this is defined in g Sess 4. the Trent Councell And it is enough to shew their contempt and disdaine of the Scripture when thus they accuse it of imperfection and match base and vncertaine traditions with it Therefore vntill they can proue first that this defect is in the Scripture next that this defect is supplied by Traditions and then thirdly that these whereof they boast are the true Traditions proceeding from the same Spirit that the Scripture doth and left of God to supply this defect of the Scripture they can neuer shake off the imputation layed vpon them that they be enemies to the Scripture Thirdly they do not hold the Scripture to be a principall rule neither as the Iesuite speakes Would they did for their owne sakes but the Iesuite knowes it is holden to be the least part of the rule The Bishops of the Councell of Basil h Concil Basil p. 104. Bin. say The authoritie of an vniuersall Tradition or of a Councell is equall with the authoritie of the Scripture Caesar Baronius i An. 53. n. 11. Tradition is the foundation of the Scriptures and excels them in this that the Scriptures cannot subsist vnlesse they be strengthened by Tradition but Tradition hath strength enough without the Scriptures Cardinall Hosius k Conf Polon pag. 383. The least part of the Gospell is written and the greater part by farre is come to vs by Tradition Gregorie the 13. l D. 40. Si Papa in annot Men do with such reuerence respect the Apostolicall seate of Rome that they rather desire to know the ancient institution of Christian religion from the Popes mouth then from the holy Scriptâ—re and they onely enquire what is his pleasure and according to it they order their life and conuersation And if it be obserued how these Traditions in euery question and point of religion are preferred before the Scripture this that I say wil appeare to be true which they would not do if they were not mortall enemies to the Scripture and slaues to the Popes absolute will 5
The second thing he replies is that the reason why they hold something else beside Scripture to be the rule are two First because we learne so out of the Scripture which he sayes he hath shewed both in his Treatise and in this Reply This is false as appeares in my Answer to his Treatise and shall yet further be manifest in this Defence against his Reply Secondly because we finde it necessarie to admit some other infallible rule and meanes to assure vs both what bookes be Scripture and what interpretation is to be followed which meanes is the authoritie of the Church Fathers Councels and Pope This reason is answered b §. 9. n. 3. and there Digâ— 2â— in THE WAY and hereafter in this DEFENCE and albeit the true Church of Christ which is not the Pope and his Consistorie be a subordinate meanes out of the Scripture it selfe to teach and leade vs forward to the knowledge of the Scripture and the interpretation as a Iudge shewes and expounds the law yet this proues not the Scripture not to be the rule but shewes that God hath commanded the ministerie of his Church to teach and guide vs by that rule For let any Papist say is the Law it selfe but one part of the rule of our obedience to the King and the Iudge the other so that the Law and the Iudge both together make but one rule because we finde it necessarie to admit the Iudge as a meanes infallibly to assure vs both which is the Law and what interpretation thereof is to be followed Not the Law in respect of vs hath all his authoritie in it selfe from the King and is the complete rule of euery mans obedience for more is no man bound to then the Law requires and yet magistrates are vsed to expound and publish it So is it with the Scriptures and therefore the Protestants haue meanes sufficient to secure their faith 6 But where he sayes in the margent that this infallible meanes that must so necessarily be admitted to assure vs what bookes be Scripture and what interpretation is to be followed is the authoritie of the Church Fathers Councels Pope I must admonish him c See THE WAY digr 16. n. 4. and below chap. 35. n. 1. that the current doctrine of Rome is that neither Church Fathers nor Councels exercise this authoritie infallibly but onely the Pope and that his sole definitiue sentence is the last and highest authoritie to secure vs and therefore the Iesuite is bound out and all Papists with him for euer from pretending any other infallible meanes beside the Pope whose iudgement alone being their Load-starre they doe but flatter themselues and mocke vs to our faces when they talke of Church and Councels But because I said the Church Fathers Councels and Pope by themselues were yeelded to be subiect to error and so consequently could not secure them therefore he obiects that a few pages before I acknowledged that it is a principle of their owne that a generall Councell cannot erre If by their owne principles a Councell cannot erre which I confesse there then it is false that I say here the Church the Fathers a Councell the Pope are yeelded by themselues to be subiect to error I answer that in the Councell of d Epist synodal de author cuiuslibet concil general sup Papam Basill ann 1432. it was adiudged that a generall Councell cannot erre whether the Pope confirme it or no. Since which time e Alliac Gers Maior Panorm Almain Ludov. Rom. quos refert Azor. to 2. pa. 565. 575. Viri quidam doctissimi sentiunt ConciliuÌ„ generale legitimè congregatum etiam absente Papa solidâ—m certamque habere authoritatem priusquam à summo Pontifice confirmetur Can. loc pag. 257. very many of the best learned in the Papacie haue followed that opinion therupon I said it was a principle of their owne that a generall Councel cannot erre speaking nothing of the Church Fathers or Pope and yet forsomuch as f Iacobat de conc p. 347. Bellar. de conc c. 11. Turrecr sum l. 3 c. 58. concl 2. CaietaÌ„ apol par 2. c 21. Azor. par 2. l. 5. c. 12. fauer Can pag. 259 loc the Iesuits others hold the contrary that a Councell not authorized by the Pope may erre forsomuch as Councels receiue all their strength from the Pope and g Occham dial par 1. l. 5. c. 25. 26. fauet Waldenf doct princip l. 2. c. 19. some that they may erre though the Pope do confirm them h Hadr. 4. de sacram Euchar pag. 26. others that the Pope may erre euen in his authoratiue conclusions therefore I obiected here that themselues confesse all these may erre This is neither carelesnesse nor yet saying and vnsaying in me but in them that haue no principle but it is contradicted among themselues for what I said a few pages before I spake according to the opinion of some and what I say here according to the contrary opinion of othersome Let the Iesuite shew me an vnforme opinion touching this matter in his Church and he shall deliuer me hereafter from such quarrels and exceptions as this is In the meane time when there is no certaintie or agreement in his church touching that they hold against vs but some say this and some that he must giue vs leaue to charge it with both opinions or with neither vntill they are agreed vpon a certainty Pag. 30. A. D. On the contrarie side Protestants who will admit no rule but onely Scripture doe not this for pure friendship and good will to the Scripture but for enmitie or not very good will to the Church whose authoritie while they do not admit to be infallible they haue left themselues vtterly void of all meanes sufficient to secure their faith by and to finde out the diuine infallible truth contained in the Scripture as in the Treatise and Reply is largely shewed 7 The Protestants I grant and heare solemnly affirme admit no rule whereby to trie what is matter of faith and what is not but onely Scripture the Church hath her authority if it be the true Church and lawfull Councels godly Bishops whereof the Pope is none are the ordinance of God to propound this faith vnto vs but the whole rule of the Churches iudgment is onely Scripture which if the student wil I wil say ouer again in capitall letters ONELY SCRIPTVRE ONELY SCRIPTVRE and NOTHING but Scripture for the exposition and confirmation whereof I refer him to THE WAY which he lost when he made his Reply Digr 3. And this we doe for pure friendship and good will to the Scriptures and Church both lest vngratefully against the Scriptures perniciously against the Church by relying vpon men we should leaue our selues voide of sufficient meanes to secure our faith by For a Cyril Ierosol catech pag. 15. Graec. saith the ancient Church the securitie of our faith
vp of our prayers to God i Apoc. 8.3 it is said that an Angell came and stood before the altar hauing a golden Censer and much odours was giuen vnto him * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he should offer with the prayers of all Saints vpon the golden Altar which is before the Throne And the smoke of the odours with the prayers of the Saints went vp before God out of the Angels hand The Angell that thus offers the prayers to God is k August hom 6. in Apoc. tom 9. pag. 670. Pri mas in hunc locum Beda in apoc tom 5 pag. 1085. Ambr. Ausbert in apoc vis 3. p. 53. Hunc multi Christum esse existimant Riber in apoc c. 8 3. Christus Angelus est habens thuribulum Viega ib. Iesus Christ the Angell of the couenant and it is affirmed of our prayers that he stands for that purpose to receiue them and offer them and that out of this Angels hand they go vp before the Lord. Nothing can be plainer then that of S. Paul l 2 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediatour betweene God and man the man Christ In which words he affirms as well that there is but one Mediatour of intercession as that there is but on redeemer for they containe a reason why we should pray for all men because there is one mediatour that would all men should be saued by whom we haue accesse to God by praier Therefore he sayes but one Mediator to intercede for vs the which S. Austine resolutely concludes out of this place m Cont. epist Parmen l. 2. c. 8. p. 32. tom 7. saying If Paul were a Mediator his other fellow Apostles should be Mediators also and so there should be many mediatours and Paule should be against himselfe where he saies There is one Mediatour of God and men the man Christ not onely affirming him to be one Mediatour but so to be one that he alone makes intercession immediatly from our selues to his Father no other interceding betweene either God and vs or himselfe and vs. 4 Against this he replies 2. things The first is n Reply pag. 14 his answer to M. Wotton whither he referres me also that the making of Saints to be Mediatours of intercession robbes Christ of his office no more then the making liuing men in like manner Mediatours of intercession But this latter to make liuing men Mediatours of intercession robs not Christ of his office Iac. 5. v. 16. Rom. 15. v. 30. because S. Paule and S. Iames make liuing men Mediatours of intercession one of them bidding vs pray one for another and the other intreating men to pray for him ergo neither the former when we make Saints departed our Mediatours of intercession The Proposition he prooues Because there cannot any substantiall reason of difference be assigned why those that pray to Saints to pray or make intercession to God for them do more rob Iesus Christ of his office then those that pray liuing men to pray or make intercession to God for them To this I answer there are 3. reasons assigned why it is lawfull to vse the praiers of the liuing rather then the inuocation of the dead First it is an vnchangeable rule that no man in Gods worship exceede the limits of his commandements o Deut. 12.8 vlt. Ye shall not do euerie man what seemes him good in his owne eies but whatsoeuer I command you take heed you do it thou shalt put nothing thereto nor take ought therefrom p 1. Co 4 6. That no man presume aboue that which is writteÌ„ Now that we may intreate and vse the praiers one of another so long as we liue it is q Gen. 20.17 Eoxd 32.11 Numb 16.48 1. Sam. 12.23 Mat. 5.44 2. Cor. 1.11 Ephes 6.18 1 Tim. 2.1 Iac. 5.14 written and r Rom 15.30 Iac. 5.16 the texts alleadged by the Iesuit will shew in which regard by an improprietie of speech and equiuocally the Saints liuing in this world Å¿ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. pag. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nicet pag. 536. Multi enim Sanctorâ—â— mediationis ministerio vsi sunt Cyrill Alexand thesaur pag 156. are called Mediatours the which commandement or allowance concerning the dead can no where be shewed in all the Scripture The Censure of Collen t Pag. 230. saies The Scripture no where teaches the inuocation of Saints though notwithstanding for all that it be to be receiued and beleeued and in u Antidid g. pag. 43. another booke the same Diuines say the Gospell indeed hath giuen no peculiar commandement touching this matter though it may euidently enough be gathered out of it but with such gatherings we are well enough acquainted when the same Diuines in that place are faine to gather it from Christs words vpon the crosse Eli Eli Lammasabacthani Eckius though according to his fashion he brag there are innumerable passages of the old and new Testament making for it * Enchirid. c. 15. ad 8. yet confesses there is nothing expressely to be found in the Scripture that Saints must be inuocated and he addes that this inuocation of Saints ought not to be expresly deliuered either in the old or new testament for 2. reasons Which he shewes at large and they plainely declare he thought there is no commandement for it in all the Bible Suarez the Iesuit x Tom. 2 in Tho disp 42. sect 1 pag. 434. puts the question Whether the Saints departed before Christ did pray for others and answers that in particular they could not whence it followed that in that time praiers could not regularly be made to soules in that state and that any man in that time directly praied to the Saints departed that they would helpe them or pray for them we no where reade y De Sanct. beatit c. 19. §. item exod c. 20. §. Atque ex his Bellarmine agrees with him that the Saints in the time of the old Testament were not inuocated because they were not yet in heauen Salmeron another Iesuit z In 1. Tim 2. disp 2. ar 7. §. primum saies there is nothing touching this matter to be found in any of the Epistles Seeing therefore the Scriptures teach us to desire the praiers one of another so long as we liue together in this world but not afterwards this is one sufficient reason why the praies of the liuing one for another are allowed and not the inuocation of the dead 5 Another difference is that the inuocation of the dead vsed in the Church of Rome wherewith my words charge it is not like the praying of the liuing one for another For a Eorum qui sunt in hoc muÌ„do aut in Purgatorio suffragia non imploramus orando sed à viuis petimus colloquendo Tho. 22. qu. 83. art 4. ad 3. who inuocates the liuing who praies God by their merits to saue
I say vnto you whatsoeuer you shall aske the Father in my name he will giue it you The Apostle also teaches that l Heb. 2.14.17 for so much as the children of God were partakers of flesh and blood he also himselfe the Mediator tooke part with them and in all things was made like to his brethren that he might be mercifull and a faithfull high priest in things concerning God that he might make reconciliation for the sinnes of the people These promises are such that it is the greatest ingratitude and impiety that can be to misdoubt them or by flying to any other to euacuate them m Pet. Crysolog One man trusts another vpon a bond or bill written in paper and a few lines of writing secure the greatest contracts that are yet the promises of Christ are still called in question and men mistrust his mercy so many bookes as there be in the Bible and so many lines as we haue written in the Scripture so many assurances we haue of his goodnes Euery word of the Gospell and euery Sacrament of the Church and euery drop of his blood shed vpon the crosse being our security to embolden vs to come vnto him 10 And whereas the pretence is n Alexan. 4. part qu. 92. in â— art 4. Bonau 4. d. 45. art 3. q. 3. n. 46. that it is for reuerence to God and to shew our Humility that * Gratias agimus Porphyri quod libris tuis Deorum tuorum substaÌ„tiam nobis prodidisti didicimus per te quatenus dij tui hominibus viuentibus serniant Iul Firmic error prof rel c. 14. like as men seeke to the King by the mediation of his seruants so we seeke to God by the mediation of his Saints This is expresly against the Scripture alledged that conclude our praiers are to be offered immediatly to and by Christ and when all things in this life are depraued with sin it is folly to make any thing therein the rule and example of our seruing God o Es 55.8 whose thoughts are not our thoughts and whose waies are farre aboue ours Princes do not alway vnderstand who giue attendance and sometime pride or state or busines lets them but it is not so with God p Vopisc in Aurelia paulo ante sinem p. â—08 The Emperor Dioclesians speech in Vopiscus will a little open this matter He would say after he was retired from the Empire to a priuate life That there was nothing more difficult then to gouerne well Foure or fiue persons combine themselues and take one counsell to deceiue the Emperor He being shup vp at home knowes the truth of nothing but is constrained to vnderstand that onely which they tell him Thus the good and wary Emperor is bought and sold This ineuitable ignorance in Princes mentioned by Dioclesian which appertaines not vnto God is reason why we vse mediators to them Let the words of Chrysostome touching this point be noted speaking of the woman of Canaan that cried after our Sauiour to heale her daughter Marke q Chrysost hom 16. ex var. in Matth. Loc. tom 2. saith he r Pag. 1193. the wisedome of the woman she askes not Iames nor beseeches Iohn nor goes to Peter nor minds the company of the Apostels she seekes no Mediator but in steed of them all she takes repentance into her company which was insteed of her Aduocate and so she goes to the fountaine it selfe Therefore saith she he descended and therefore he was made man that I also might haue confidence to speake vnto him Å¿ Pag. 1199. for if thou wilt intreate man possible he sleepes or is not at leisure or his seruant will vouchsafe thee no answer but vnto God there is neede of none of these things but wheresoeuer thou be or wheresoeuer thou callest vpon him hee heares thee There is no neede either of a porter or a mediatour or a Minister onely say Haue mercy on me and presently God will be with thee u Comment in Rom. c. 1. §. reuelatur p. 177. t Tom. 3. p. 1047 Learne of this woman that praying BY OVR SELVES we more preuaile with God then when OTHERS pray for vs. Saint Ambrose u Comment in Rom. c. 1. §. Reuelatur p. 177. sayes There be that shaming to heauen neglected God vsed this miserable excuse that by these they may go to God as by officers we go to the king but is any man so mad or so vnmindfull of his saluation as to giue the kings honour to an officer yet these men thinke themselues not guiltie who giue the honour of Gods name to a creature and forsaking the Lord adore their fellow seruants as though there were any thing besides that can be reserued to God For therefore men go to the king by Tribunes and officers because the king is but a man and knowes not to whom he may commit the state but for the promeriting of God who knowes all things and the desertes of all men there needes no helper but a deuout minde and he will answer such a one whensoeuer he speakes vnto him This holy Fathers iudgement was that God must be sought to immediatly without the intercession of any whosoeuer And this is it that Saint Paule meant in those words to the Colossians * Col. 2.18 Let no man beare rule ouer you by humblenesse of minde and worshipping of Angels wherein he rebukes the customes of those x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost tom 7. in Coloss see Balsam in coÌ„c Laod. ca. 35. which made Angels their intercessors as Papists do whose pretence was that it was too much arrogancie to pray immediately to God and therefore it were the better way to vse the intercession of Angels Thus the Greeke Scholiast y pa. 697. veron expounds it There were diuers that under the pretence of modestie forbad them to go to Christ by themselues because they were not worthie but the Angels must be intreated to bring vs to God saying * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was a greater matter then to be brought by our selues through Christ thus bringing in the superstitious worship of Angels whom they neuer saw and Theodoret z On Col. 2. pag. 766. They who brought in the worshipping of Angels vsing the pretence of humility gaue counsell to pray to Angels saying that we could neither see nor comprehend nor come to God And therefore must winne vs his fauour by meanes of the Angels and thereupon he sayes that in the Councell of Laodicea it was ordained that no man should pray to Angels and reports as an abuse against this text that there were certaine oratories of Michael the Angel wherein they vsed to pray to him It is worth the marking to obserue how Baronius entertaines Theodoret for this exposition a Bellar. de beatit sanct c. 20. Rhem. Col. 2.18 Diuers before him labour to giue him a fauourable construction but marke how
Christs merits and mediation who in their d Videtur quod probabiliter sustiners possit quod B Virgo etiam merito condignâ— meruâ—t esse mater Dâ—i filium Dâ—i concepisse Gab. 3. d. 4. q. vinc dub 3. Dico quod B. virgo arte incarnationem meruit filium Dei concipere merito congrui Bonauab art 2. q. 2. So others Maio. â— â— in fin Ricard art 3. q. 1. Alm. q. 1. dub 3. Marsil q. 5. art 3. dub 3. concl 2. 3. Abulens parad l. 34. 38. Of which some think the merit to be of congruitie some of condignitie They are loth to leaue roome for pure Grace in any thing that God doth for vs. schooles maintaine that she merited if not the Incarnation it selfe yet that Christ should be made man and born of her whereof it followes necessarily that there is some merit in her that is not founded on the merit of Christ but went before it because before he was in cause to merit she merited to be his mother Thirdly Christ hath by his obedience so merited all things for vs that he hath done it solely immediatly and incommunicably which are the three conditions of his merits and therefore he that but subordinates the merits of a creature to the merits of Christ robs him of his office in that his merits haue no condition to eleuate or aduance the merits of another to the making of intercession and the reason is because intercession being for the pardoning of sin and obtaining of infinite good cannot proceed by any merits but such as are infinite which are Christs merits alone And if the Iesuit vnderstand not this let him know that Christ is not only robbed of his office by denying his merits or not vsing them but also by vsing applying them otherwise then we ought and not rightly which is done when we beleeue him to be the root of all merit but other merits notwithstanding procure vs fauor and reconciliation and eternall life with God Therefore hauing prayed before By the merits of all Saints and the virgin Mary forgiue me my sin Per Dominum nostruÌ„ Iesum Christum will not mend the matter vnlesse it could be shewed vs out of Gods word that Christ had allowed vs so to pray and that his merits accompanie not our prayer to the end till they come to God but stop at the Saint and there giue authority to his merit to cary them forth to God and apply his grace vnto vs. Or if our Ladie haue any such authoritie yet let it be enquired whether the same commission be also extended to her girdle that Papists pray to in the same fashion they do to her selfe e Refert è Lippomann Iewel repl pag. 398. O blessed girdle make vs inheritors of eternall and blessed life and keepe our present life from destruction O pure Girdle of a pure Virgin preserue thine heritage let vs haue thee to be our strength and our aid our wall and our defence our hauen and sauing refuge CHAP. XIIII More touching the worship of Saints 2. The same words vsed to Saints that are to God 3. The formall reason of worship 5. The harsh prayers made to Saints how excused 6. Nauarres forme of deuotion 7. Counterfets bearing the name of Fathers Saint Austins doctrine to vse no Mediator but Christ A. D. Onely here resteth to examine whether we serue Saints or the blessed Virgin her selfe Pag. 41. in our open seruice with the very same seruice which we giue to Christ which if M. White could proue vs to do really and formally I would grant vnto him that it could not as he saith it cannot be excused from formall Idolatrie But if M. White for proofe hereof bring as he bringeth onely names titles formes of speeches c. seeming in sound to be the same which we attribute to Christ alone this his proofe is not a reall and formall proofe but an idle clamour and a verball quarrell For by the circumstance of our inward meaning commonly knowne both by our ordinary practise and publicke doctrine it is euident that we do not by these names titles and formes of speech attribute to Saint Francis or our blessed Ladie or to any Saint the same seruice or worship which we giue to our Sauiour but in a farre inferiour respect more or lesse according to the more or lesse inward estimation which we haue of their sanctitie dignitie and merit which we alwayes conceiue to be inferiour to and depending of the sanctitie dignitie and merit of our Sauiour Christ Which answer if M. White will not admit for good but do vrge that because the outward sound of bare words is the same therefore the honour and worship is the same I must tell him that he doth not vnderstand wherein the formall reason of honour and worship doth consist For although outward words and actions be the signes by which we outwardly yeeld honour and worship yet the chiefe thing wherein honour and worship do consist is the inward estimation and reuerence thereupon ensuing from which these outward signes proceed which inward estimation and reuerence being wanting outward signes be meere mockeries and not true honour and worship and the inward estimation and reuerence being present maketh those signes to haue in them the nature of true honour and worship in such difference of degrees as the inward estimation and reuerence shall be different as it may be and is ordinarily very different euen when the outward words and actions by which we expresse it are the very same in substance or similitude As for example we honour God when we kneele to him and call him Father and we honour our earthly parent by kneeling in like manner vnto him and calling him Father here the words and outward actions are altogether alike yet because the inward estimation and reuerence which we haue towards God and which we haue towards an earthly parent euen in this action of kneeling and in calling them by the same name Father are farre different Therefore the honour and worship done to God and done to our parent by this word and action are very farre different IN all this passage you see the Iesuite disclaimes nothing of that I obiected neither the maner of praying to the blessed Virgin and the Saints nor those idolatrous and lying speeches of Bernardine Bozius and Galatine concerning her nor the execrable narrations of Biel and his fellow nor the verses of Turcelline and Bencius nor Friar Francis his fiue wounds of Christ but presumptuously takes vpon him to iustifie them which is that I said in the Dedication of my booke that the Iesuites were bred in Chrysippus schoole a Laert. 〈◊〉 Chrysipp who vsed to make his boast that many times he wanted opinions to set abroach but if once he had the opinion he neuer wanted argument to defend it And by this the Reader may perceiue that the Iesuite could not say but I alledged the places truly which
they do to God I answer two things first granting that words and outward gestures are qualified and conditioned by the meaning of him that vses them as he that called the Prophet h 2. Reg. 2.12 13.14 my Father my Father meant not that hie degree of Honor that he did when he called God his Father and therefore I will not deny but Papists vsing these inuocations mentioned to the Saints may meane them otherwise then they do to God as for example calling the virgin Mary their Aduocate their Hope their Sauiour they may meane she is so not of her selfe but vnder Christ and not principally by her owne merits but subordinarily by the merits and grace of her Sonne This I will easily grant may be the meaning of their wordes but then I answer secondly that it doth not follow that therefore we may with such reseruation of our meaning in the same wordes inuocate and worship the Saints departed first because the said inuocation is diuine honour from what minde soeuer it proceed whether the Saint be called vpon as the supreme and eternal beginning or whether onely as the friend of God that by reason of his nearnesse to him can sooner intreate him then my selfe If he be inuocated with the titles of Aduocate Sauiour Redeemer though the intent be but onely to vse him as a friend to intreate yet this is diuine honour belonging to Iesus Christ For all prayer is diuine honour and such titles as are giuen them in their worship Mediator Hope Aduocate Confidence Sauiour Redeemer Ladie Queene of heauen c. exceed the measure of all ciuill reuerence and adoration whatsoeuer and therefore are not like the calling of our earthly parent father or kneeling to him Secondly the worshipping of a creature is idolatrie though he that worship it acknowledge it to be but a creature subordinate to God a thousand times because the commandement is i Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue When the diuell tempted our Sauiour to fall downe before him he did not require him to perswade himselfe that he was Iehouah or that he had those things of himselfe for he confessed vnto him k Luc. 4.6 he had receiued them but onely that he would kneele vnto him and accept those things at his hands And our Sauiour refused it not onely because he was the diuell but also because the commandement forbids the giuing diuine honour to a creature with any opinion estimation or iudgement whatsoeuer l Apoc. 19.10 22.8 When S. Iohn would haue fallen downe and worshipped the Angell he was not so ignorant or stupid as to thinke he was God or to intend him that highest honour that belongs to God but onely by that office he wold present his loue to the Angell and possible procure some fauour at his hand yet the Angell forbad him by a reason that proceeds vnanswerably against the inuocation of all Saints See thou do it not for I am thy fellow seruant and one of thy brethren which haue the testimonie of Iesus Worship God For it is a generall rule in the Scripture that no creature may with any estimation be worshipped with diuine honour A.D. If M. White insist and vrge Pag. 43. that outward words and actions are signes of inward meaning therefore where words and outward actions are the same towards Christ and towards his Saints at least ignorant people haue cause giuen them to thinke we haue the same inward meaning and so by our example are encouraged to commit formall idolatrie I answer that inward meaning is indeed gathered by outward words and actions ordinarily but not alwayes nor ordinarily by the bare outward shew of the action or by that precise sound of one or other word or sentence but by the whole connexion and circumstance of the matter and person about which the speech and action is and by the presupposed and knowne conceit of the partie which speaketh the said words or doth the action Now although in some of our prayers one or other word or sentence may seeme harsh as it is considered precisely in the outward sound especially to those that are not acquainted with the like as also to those who neuer had seen men kneele to any but to God himselfe nor to call any Father besides him it would seeme very harsh to see one kneele to his earthly parent and to call him Father yet when we consider the whole connexion of the words of our prayers hauing respect also to the different circumstances of the persons and matters spoken of and to the commonly knowne conceit of the speaker the sense of our prayers are found neither to be idolatrous nor superstitious nor scandalous none being ordinarily among vs so simple or ill instructed but they know that there is a different inward conceit and more estimation had reuerence done when the words are applied to our Sauiour Christ being God and man then when they are applied to Saints who are knowne to be not Gods but onely men 5 That which the Iesuite still assumes for his defence is still false He presumes that intending their prayers to the Saints no otherwise then they do they are lawfull And as long as God is confessed to be the first beginning of mercie and goodnesse and Christ the Mediator of redemption and the Saints no more but aduocates and friends to present our prayers all is well and those Saints may be inuocated as they are but the answer is that euen this kind of inuocation with no further opinion touching them is vnlawfull as I haue shewed And let the Reader alwayes remember that it is m Mat 6.9 Luc 11.1 Nam quaÌ„libet alia veil a dicamus nihil aliud dicimus quaÌ„ quod in ista Dominica oratione positum est si rectè congruenter oramus Quisquis auteÌ„ id dicit quod ad istam preceÌ„pertinere non possit etiamsi non illicitè orat carnaliter orat c. Aug. op 121. c. 12. Neque ensm propria tantuÌ„ orationis officia complexa cit venerationem Dei aut hominis petitionem sed om nem pene sermoneÌ„ Domini omnem commemorationeÌ„ disciplinae â—t â—â—â—era in oratione Breuiarium totius Euangelij comprehendatur Tertul. de orat c 1. no lawfull prayer that is not according to Christs rule When ye pray do it after this maner Our Father which art in heaueÌ„ c. Let your praiers be made to him that you may say is your Father that is in heauen who forgiues vs our sinnes and to whom belongs the kingdome and power and glorie for euer 6 But that which he chiefly intends in this place is to excuse the harshnesse and scandalousnesse of the words of their prayers albeit if a man should view them well he might maruell what excuse could be deuised for them Yet the Reply not onely excuses them that they must not be measured by their sound and outward
vntruth or vnsinceritie hath he shewed what one thing hath he performed worthy of this bragging that neither had the wit to answer the whole nor the fortune to find so much as the least error in any part of that I writ yet you see how he comes vpon the stage b Iust Mart. ib. pag. 392. like Orestes with terrible gesture his bodie bombasted vpon high stilts with a monstrous face and roaring voice not that he hopes hereby to fasten any imputation vpon me but because this is the art of these men with words and boasting to outface their aduersaries and their policie to keepe the vulgar sort of Papists in bondage to Romish drudgerie For the same Iustin c Ibid. pag 390 sayes clamorous and wording companions * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seeme admirable to some whose sloth and carelesnesse to looke into things makes them admire other mens lowd boasting 2 For what he hath discouered in my writing will appeare of it selfe without this facing and scurrilitie and I wish with all my heart that my selfe by that which he hath obiected against me and other our writers by that which Walsingham hath noted in them might be censured then should the Reader see if he would take the paines to make the triall as well by our answers as their quarrels this Walsingham to be the man that hath prostituted and set himselfe to sale to lie dissemble and calumniate and the Iesuite that thus mentions him to be a poore Empericke that hath more skill in shriuing then booking and disputing And whereas he sayes twice ouer that I and other pettie Ministers in simplicitie furnish our discourses out of other mens Note-books which is the cause why we are so often and grosly taken napping let him spet and speake out who acquainted him with my reading that he can tell so well whence I haue that I write what one place hath he shewed in all my writing to be mistaken by borrowing it from others Note-bookes What materiall quotation is there but I haue so marked it that he may see I read it in the Author himselfe Although I wil not onely not denie but freely congratulate my selfe that I haue learned and increased the little knowledge I haue by reading and vsing the writings of those whose bookes I am not worthy to beare And if either I or any other had taken any thing out of Caluin B. Iewell or M. Foxe yet might the Iesuite ill vpbraid vs with it who himself translated his whole Treatise that I answered from Greg. of Valence his Analysis fidei All his introduction containing a fourth part of his Reply out of the same mans tract de obiecto fidei His discourse of Predestination containing ten pages together verbatim out of Becanus His Appendix containing another fourth part of his Reply partly out of Gregory Valence and partly out of Stapleton The Catalogue being borrowed from Canisius Besides his continuall referring himselfe to Walsingham Briarly and Coccius So that he that so magisterially censures our reading himselfe hath stolen the whole carcasse of his very book wherein he writes this Besides let him giue a sufficient reason why it should not be lawfull for vs to vse and follow the learned Diuines of our Church as well as it is for a Papist to follow his Thomas his Robert his Stapleton his Gretser his Coccius his Aius Locutius The which vntill he can do he shall giue vs leaue to thinke as well of them as they do of these though we sound not their praises so lowd 3 And yet this conceit of vsing Note-bookes satisfies him not neither for though other mens books might deceiue vs in some things yet he sees at least some wit learning and reading in vs which makes him fall a musing But to put him out of his browne studie be it knowne vnto him and all of his mind that we follow our cause religion with knowledge and peace and a good conscience and write that we know and are able to defend against all this barking and shameles brags of their owne learning and our grounds are Gods word contained in the Scripture and the certen consent of the Church in all ages and that which makes vs the more resolute is the lothsome cariage and behauiour of our aduersaries who notwithstanding with all their endeuour cannot remoue our grounds in one question But with forgerie partialitie tyranny railing and bragging deale against vs which being the weapons of darknesse and desperation we detest and loathe dayly praying to Iesus Christ that he will hasten his comming and let it appeare who they be that haue the truth when the malice of men and the pride of Antichrist thus suppresse it in darknesse Pag. 46. A.D. Among vs it is held against good conscience to tell any formall lie in whatsoeuer matter although without harme of any although by the speaker intended for the glory of God or the good of neuer so many But it seemeth not so to be thought by at least some of the Protestant writers nay it seemeth rather that they either haue no conscience or a very large conscience and that they either seldome or neuer enter into consideration what may or may not stand with conscience or that they frame in themselues such a grosse conscience as I haue read of some Ministers of a In Apol. Eudaemon Johannis pro Henr. Garnet c. 2 See also Bolseck in vita Calumi c. 20. Geneua who held it lawfull to lie for the glory of God and for the aduancement of the Gospell conformably to which is b D. B. in his answer to M. Abbot reported also that one of our English Ministers not many yeares since being told that grosse vntruths were found in the booke of a late Protestant writer answered He cannot lie too much in this cause O wretched cause which needeth to be maintained by such wicked meanes If it were the truth and especially as some Protestants professe it to be the euident truth there should be no need to defend it with lies neither indeed whatsoeuer it be ought it in conscience or credit be defended especially with such grosse lies as sometimes it is Wherefore if Protestant writers do think their cause true and good and therupon in zeale wil needs maintain it I would aduise them for the time to come to be more carefull of truth in maintaining it then hitherto diuers of them haue bene both for conscience and credit sake and as they desire to auoide sinne and shame This passage of the Iesuite and the continuall insolency that he vseth through his Reply makes me remember the relation of * Relat. of the state of relig a noble gentleman concerning the education of the Iesuites which being fit for this place I will here set downe The Iesuites plant in their Scholers with great exactnes and skill the rootes of their Religion and nourish them with an extreame hatred and detestation of the aduerse party And
whereof all this question rises 5 Our Aduersaries holding many points of religion which we refuse we require them to shew vs the said points in the Scriptures if they will either haue vs to beleeue them or free themselues from heresie their Tradition their Purgatory their Masse their Latine seruice their Transubstantiation their Images their seuen Sacraments their Inuocation of Saints and all the rest wherein we differ * This is shewed c. 28. n. 3. Their answer is that many diuine truthes and articles of faith are not contained in the Scriptures but reuealed by Tradition and Church authoritie which are to be receiued and beleeued as well as that which is written * The original cause why the Papists set a foot the question touching the insufficiency of the Scripture This is the originall reason why they stand thus against the sufficiency of the written word for their Church authoritie and to proue this they vse the Argument here propounded by the Reply and descant with it as you see Which is an impertinent kinde of proceeding when this point whether the Bookes contained in holy writ be Gods word is no question betweene vs but agreed vpon of all hands but the question is touching other speciall articles Images adoration halfe communion and such like a number more whether not being contained in the Scripture men are bound to beleeue them For touching these things it is properly that we say Nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture And therefore this argument is impertinent For where we affirme all points of faith to be comprised within the body of the Scripture we distinguish first of the things which we say are comprised for albeit we firmely hold the diuine truth and authoritie of these Bookes to be euident in themselues yet the points that we meane in this question are touching other matters for neither they nor we deny the Scripture but both they and we deny many things to be contained in it Secondly then againe of the manner how things are comprised for all other things are comprised in Scripture as the duty obedience of subiects is in the kings lawes and as true speaking is contained in Grammar or the right forme of resoluing in Logicke but this one point is so contained as light is in the Sunne or sweete in hony and according to the same notion whereby the authoritie of the Law and truth of Principles is contained in themselues This is it which very briefly I answered in * THE WAIE § 9. 3. digr 11. n. 17. two seuerall places of my Booke Now let us see what the Iesuite replies to it To this saith he I reply that principles insciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of termes or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superiour science by some other principle more euident to vs. But that these Bookes which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other principle more euident to vs that these Bookes which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture The substance of his Reply is that all principles are either euident of themselues or not euident such principles as are euident he grants need no prouing but the Scriptures are principles of religiō not euident of themselues but such as need to be demonstrated to be Gods word by some other principle in a higher science more euident to vs both denying them to be euident and also to be made so by onely declaring the words wherein they are vttered And to proue this he saies in the margent if it were euident that these Bookes in the Bible are diuine Scripture how is it onely beleeued by faith for Saint Paule cals faith Argumentū non apparentium Heb. 11.1 1. My answer is that the Scriptures are principles euident of themselues to those that haue the Spirit of God and such as need not to be proued by Church authoritie but onely to be reuealed and expounded according to that which is in themselues This my answer to helpe the reader out of the Iesuits perplexed discourse I will lay downe and explicate in 3. propositions First the Scripture in diuinitie hath the same office that principles haue in sciences that as the rules and principles of Grammar teach all true speaking and as the elements of Arithmeticke teach all right numbring so the doctrine contained in the Scriptures teaches all true faith Secondly as they are the principles of religion and rule of faith so they enioy the same priuiledge that principles do in forren Professions that is to be receiued and assented to for themselues without discourse For e Atist Poster c. 1. no humane science proues it owne principles or disputes against him that denies them and although the principles of an inferiour science may be demonstrated in a superiour yet this befalles not that which is the highest as the Metaphysicks which hauing no superiour science neither stands to demonstrate it selfe nor to receiue demonstration from another but our vnderstanding assents immediatly to the principles thereof and so goes forward by them to discerne of other things In the same manner the Scripture hauing no superiour science or rule aboue it is like these principles receiued for it selfe and is not occupied in prouing it selfe and the principles therin contained but shewing other things by them it selfe must be assented to without discourse by faith before we can argue out of it Thirdly all demonstration and proofe of principles is onely voluntary not necessarie against him that denies them as in Musicke the Musitian demonstrates his precepts not thereby to teach his arte but to conuince him that denies it Hence appeares the insufficiency of my aduersaries reply First in that he saies principles are not euident but need demonstration that so the Scriptures being yeelded to be the principles of religion yet they should not be receiued vnlesse they proue themselues vntill the authoritie of the Church come There is no man acquainted with f Principia per seipsa nata sunt cognosci reliqua verò per principia Arist prio l. 2 c. 18. idem Procl in Euclid l. 2. c. 2. humane art will say so His owne Thomas g Tho. 1. part q. 1. art 8. sayes that like as other sciences do not argue to proue their owne principles but out of the principles argue to shew other things so the sacred doctrine doth not argue to proue the owne principles but from them proceeds to shew something The same is said by h Capreol prol in 1. part q. 1. pag. 24. Greg. Valent. tom 1. pag. 50. a. others Next it is false that the Scripture is like those principles which need
against himselfe To the second that my opinion for the knowledge of all points of faith one as well as another is intollerable because it is impossible for vnlearned men to get expresse knowledge of all points contained in Scripture I answer that my words alleadged do not affirme the necessity of knowing all things reuealed as that Iacob had a lame leg or Abraham two wiues but all points of our faith expounding faith not as he doth for euery thing that is reuealed but of the substantiall articles of faith which the vnlearnedst that are may learne and vnderstand if they will vse the Ministry of the Church and exercise their wits therin as the word requires x The story may be seene inâ— Acts and Monum of the Ch. The Church of Rome had experience of this at the sacking of Mirandula Chabriers where not the elder sort alone but the very children of lay men whom vnmercifully they assassinated and butchered were found in knowledge to parallel the Doctors that examined them And Iustine against Trypho y Dial. cum Tryph. sayes of his time that such as could no letter on the booke vnderstood all the mysteries of faith And this is manifest by the places of Chrysostome Theodorit and Eusebius following My aduersary therefore must hold him to that obiect of faith that I speake of and then shew it is impossible to be apprehended which he cannot do And whereas he sayes He graunts and neuer did deny but there are some points necessary to be particularly knowne of all sorts wherein implicite beleefe doth not suffice but expresse particular knowledge is required by Catholicke Diuines I answer that when I spake against implicite faith demanding To what purpose should God propound all the points of our faith one as well as another vnlesse his will were that we should learne them all I knew not what my aduersary would grant or deny but hauing shewed that the Colliars faith was canonized by no small fooles in his Church and commended for sufficient in all points I vsed this reason against it which I confirmed by a text of Scripture and a speech of Saint Austine And if my aduersary conuinced thereby relinquish that rude opinion requiring expresse particular knowledge at least in some points if not Necessitate medij yet Necessitate praecepti this to requite his kindnesse to M. Wootton I gratefully accept and wish him that when he writes againe he will ingenuously expresse what those his some points are and how far foorth the commandement of faith ties vs to know them For these things may be so expounded that what in words is granted in effect shall be denied and then the Pope may commend his towardlinesse z Nub. as the woman doth her daughter in Aristophanes * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A goodly sparke with a tongue that will strike on both sides 10 And whether he meane this or that yet my report that the Church of Rome vtterly refuses knowledge and that the Colliars faith is canonized for the Papists Creed should not haue bene called a grosse vntruth vntill my reasons whereuppon I grounded it had bene answered or at least mentioned but that it is a priuiledge and speciall indulgence that my aduersary hath obtained to reply without making any answer For is not the Colliars faith so reported and commended by the Authors whom I cited that any may fee they allowed it in all points whatsoeuer whether there were means to know them or no means doth not Staphylus a By this faith of the Colliar euery vnlearned man may try the spirits of men whether they be of God or no By this faith he may resist the Diuell and iudge the true interpretation from the false â—iscerne the Catholicke from the hereticall Minister the true doctrine from the forged Fred. Staphyl apol pag. 53. make it the best kind of faith that is and the rest whom I quoted in the margent propose it as the best forme of beleeuing any thing whatsoeuer and yet the Iesuite replies as if they allowed it onely in some few points so far as we nether know nor haue sufficient meanes to know them But his owne words immediately following in defence of this faith touching such things that in this generall action is infolded a particular or implicite beleefe of all points in asmuch as a generall includeth all particulars and beleeuing the Church disposes the minde c. bewraies that he holds the same thing that I obiected For this is the very reason that the grossest maintainers of implicite faith vse to defend it against them that require the knowledge questioned 11 To his third argument That faith and knowledge are 2. distinct things therefore there may be true faith without any distinct knowledge of the things beleeued I answer that the knowledge which I require is not of the essence and reason of the things beleeued but of their proposition and that concerning them which is reuealed as I haue distinguished and therefore I deny the consequence For though such knowledge be not faith but a habit distinct from it yet it concurres to the habit of faith in as much as no man can assent to that whereof he neuer heard for b Ro. 10.14 how shall they beleeue in him of whom they haue not heard The knowledge that hath no ingredience into faith is the knowledge of that which is not reuealed for faith not onely goes before such knowledge but also vtterly repels it neuer admitting any penetration into Gods secret mysteries for c 1. Cor. 2.9 the things which the eye hath not seene nor the eare heard nor can enter into the heart of man hath God prepared for them that loue him And in this sence all the texts of Scripture and places of the Fathers quoted by my aduersary against knowledge are vnderstood and so I answer his last argument For it was the constant and vniforme doctrine of the ancient Church that how soeuer faith apprehends mysteries not to be inquired into yet the proposition and doctrine of all the articles of faith must distinctly be conceaued that a man be able to vnderstand what they are Saint Chrysostome d Hom. 16. in Ioh. rebuking this ignorance proceedes into this discourse which plainely shewes that he was of this minde We beleeue saith he In the Father and the Sonne and the holy Ghost The resurrection of our bodies and euerlasting life If a Gentile aske you who is this Father who is this Sonne this holy Ghost are there 3. Gods what would you say to this what answer would you make how would you dissolue his obiections And when you should stand dumbe to these things suppose he should bring in another question touching the resurrection whether you should rise againe in this or in another bodie if he should demaund why Christ came in the flesh rather at this time then in the former ages what if he should pose vs in such and
praed sect 6. others that hold predestination to be ex praeuisis to deliuer it in the same maner Lessius a Iesuite among the rest hath one c 5. assert pag 367. n. 75. assertion that containes all this All the iustified are elected and predestinate to glorie but this election and predestination is not complete but requires a condition on our behalfe that it may be complete the which condition it is in our own power to accomplish or not to accomplish and therefore it is also in our owne power to make that our predestination may be complete Aureolus d 1. d. 41. art 1. pag. 490. edit Rom. sayes that all Schoole men which hold predestination ex praeuisis expound that God wils all men to be saued antecedently before their working but not consequently by his will following the foresight of their workes Which words make the doctrine of Gods antecedent and consequent will thus expounded to set the first act of Gods louing Iacob after the foresight of Iacobs good life and to make the foresight of mens good or ill deserts to be the cause of their election and reprobation The question then between the Iesuite and me touching predestination The state of the question touching Gods Anâ—ecedent will is this not whether God from all eternitie decreed to punish the reprobate eternally for their sinnes so that their sinnes should be the immediate cause of their damnation for this I denie not but the true state is touching the CAVSE OF THE DECREE IT SELF that is to say what is the cause why God foreseeing that all men should equally in Adam be sinners yet notwithstanding decreed to shew his mercy in forgiuing some electing them to life and to shew his iustice and wrath in other some by reiecting them from this election forsaking them in their sinnes that they might eternally be condemned I say there can no other cause of this decree be assigned then onely the free will of God whereas the Iesuite in his doctrine of antecedent and consequent will exemplified in this his comparison of an earthly King makes the reason of this decree to be works foreseene so that on the behalfe of the elect their foreseene grace should be the cause of their election and on the behalfe of the reprobate their foreseene sinne should be the cause of their reiection 11 The which doctrine of my aduersary how plaine soeuer he thinke it to iudicious wits whether predestination were in the corrupted masse of sinne or before and whether the foreseene workes be vnderstood to be of grace or of nature is false vpon fiue grounds First it seemes to be the very opinion of the Massilians who of all hands are holden to haue bene Semi-pelagians or the relicks of Pelagius Prosper e Epist ad August sayes This is their profession that euery man sinned in Adam and that no man is regenerate to saluation by his workes but by the grace of God neuerthelesse the propitiation which is in the mysterie of Christs bloud is propounded to all men without exception that whosoeuer will come to faith and baptisme may be saued but who would beleeue and who would perseuere in that faith which afterward should be holpen by Gods grace those God foreknew before the world was made and those he predestinate vnto his kingdome who he foresaw being freely called would be worthy of election and would depart this life well And Faustus that was a Bishop of that sect f De grat lib arb l. 2. c. 2. sayes What God may foresee or fore-ordaine touching vs concerning that which is to come that consists in our well or ill doing g Cap. 3. pag. 833. It is one thing for God to foreknow and another to predestinate praescience foresees what is to be done and then afterwards predestination appoints the rewards that foresees the merits this fore-ordaines the rewards when that hath pronounced a cause then this foretels the sentence and so vnlesse Gods praescience discouer something his predestination decrees nothing This is the selfe same that my aduersarie h Pag. 166. writes how God vpon the foresight and respect of mens liuing and dying well in the secret chamber of his diuine knowledge and will pronounces a particular sentence and decree of saluation to some and of damnation to others Which also is the doctrine whereinto this exposition of Gods antecedent and consequent will is resolued Againe if God predestinate no man to his end but vpon the foresight and respect of his workes then he hath no perfect or formall will to elect any but after the foresight of his good life nor to reprobate any but after the foresight of his euill life which being so I demaund whence it comes that the elect beleeue and the reprobate beleeue not and how it comes to passe that God foresees grace in the one and sinne in the other It must needs be answered either that it is Gods will the elect shall haue grace and the reprobate no grace giuen them or that they beleeue or not beleeue of their owne free will by the strength of nature without any working of God This latter is grosse Pelagianisme making nature the beginning of grace But if the former be granted that God foresees no grace but what himselfe predestinates to giue nor no sinne but what vpon the withholding of his grace the reprobate will freely worke then against all discourse this makes that the cause of predestination which is an effect ensuing on it for therefore God will and doth giue grace because first he hath elected and will giue no grace because he hath reprobated as I will shew by and by 12 Secondly it is a ground both in Diuinitie and nature that the will intends the end before the meanes hence it followes that God cannot haue this consequent will to saue vpon the foresight of grace For I reason thus * Quia volens ordinatè finem ea quae sunt ad finem prius vult fineÌ„ quam aliquod entium ad finem propter talem finem alia vult Ergo cum in toto processâ— quo creatura beatâ—ficabilis perducitur ad perfectum finem cum finis vltimus sit beatitudo perfecta Deus volens huic aliquid istius ordinis PRIMO VVLT HVIC CREATVRAE BEATIFICABILI FINEM ET QVASI POSTERIVS VVLT SIBI ALIA QVAE SVNT IN ORDINE ILLORVM QVAE PERTINENT AD FINEM scilicet Gratia Fides Meritum bonus vsus liberi arbitrij Omnia ista ad istum finem sunt ordinata licet quaedam remotiùs quaedam propinquiùs Ergo PRIMO ISTI VVLT DEVE BEATITVDINEM QVAM ALIQVID ISTORVM ET PRIVS VVLT â—I QVODCVNQVE ISTORVM QVAM PRAEVIDEAT IPSVM HABITVRVM quodcunque istorum Jgitur PROPTER NVLLVM ISTORVM PRAEVISVM VVLT EI BEATITVDINEM Scot. 1. d. 4. qu vnic §. Potest aliter Media vt media non possunt appeti nisi propter finem non igitur potuit Deus
mans will is the constant iudgement of the most of our aduersaries I will not ground this authoritie vpon the Scripture or r See his last chap. de praedest grat Ambrosius Catharinus vehementer in eos inuohitur qui dicunt Deum ex se aliquos reprobare excludere à vita aeterna non quidem propter eorum praeuisa mala opera sed quia ipse vult non dare illis vitam eternam Et hanc opinionem vocat ipse durissimam intolerabilem causam desperationis hominum impiam eamque assignat ipse Luthero CVMEA TAMEN SIT IPSISSIMA B. AVGVSTINI SENTENTIA Peter selâ—ct disp in Rom. 9. n. 31. And that the iudgement of S. Austin is that neither election nor reprobation is for workes foreseene is affirmed by Grego Arimin d. 40. Dom. Bann 1. p. q. 23. art 5. Sixt. Senens biblioth l. 6. annot 251. Tolet. in Rom. 11. annot 4 Suar. opusc de auxil l. 3. c. 16. 17. tract de diuin praedest l. 1. c. 8. pag. 179. Zumel var. disp part 3. pag. 358. S. Austin because I intend no solemne discourse about the question and haue to do with an aduersary whose arrogancy p Rom 9 11. 11.33 Eph. 1 11. and ignorance is fittest to be buffeted with the authority of his owne side but I will make it appeare that going about to confute Caluine and expound his antecedent will he is fallen into that grosse opinion about predestination that scarce any of his owne Doctors hold That predestination therefore to eternall life was according to the doctrine of Caluine without and before the foresight of workes so that it was made without any respect of them so freely and in that manner that grace and good works rather are effects of it is affirmed by diuers of the principall Schoole Doctors in the Church of Rome Gregorius Ariminensis and after him the Cardinall of Cambray lay downe r Arim. 1. pag. 163. Camerac 1. pag. 175. their iudgement in fiue propositions the first No man is predestinated for the good vse of his freewill which God knew he would haue howsoeuer the goodnesse thereof be considered The second No man is predestinated for that he was foreordained to perseuere in habituall grace without let to the end The third Whomsoeuer God predestinated he predestinated onely freely and of mercy The fourth No man is reprobated for the euill vse of his freewill that God foresaw he would haue The fift No man is reprobated because it was foreseene that he would finally hinder grace Andreas Castrensis Å¿ Andrae Castrens 1. d. 40. pag. 179. inde sets downe fiue conclusions The first God from eternity neuer predestinated to giue to any iustifying grace that should make him worthy eternall life because he foresaw any merit of theirs to come whereby they should either of condignity or congruity merit that grace The second God from all eternity foreordained to giue grace and charity to some in time not therefore because he foresaw they would vse that grace well The third God from all eternity predestinated to giue euery one of the elect some grace and supernaturall benefit of his meere free goodnesse and not because he foresaw any merit of that man whereupon he should either condignily or of congruity merit the gift The fourth God from all eternity predestinated none of the elect because he foresaw his good works or merits nor for his good workes to come or merits foreseene The fift God from all eternity ordained to giue eternall life to none of the elect BECAVSE HE FOREORDAINED TO GIVE HIM GRACE CHARITY AND IVSTICE IN THIS LIFE BVT CONTRARY therefore he foreordained from all eternity to giue him grace in this life because he freely and purely predestinated to giue him eternall life Dominicus Bannes t Dom. Bann 1. p. q. 23. art 5. â— Pag. 634. b. layes downe diuers conclusions but fiue to this matter 1. There can none cause be assigned not onely of the act of Gods predestination but neither any reason or motiue on the behalfe of the creature 2 Pag. 6 32. b. or of God himselfe 2. It cannot bee said that merits preexisting in this life are the reason or cause of the effect of predestination 3 Ibid. d. 3. It cannot be said that merits following the effect of predestination are the reason of predestination the meaning is that therefore God should be vnderstood to giue any man grace or predestinate to giue him grace because he foresaw he would vse that grace well 4 Pag. 650. b. 4. No cause of predestination is giuen on our behalfe 5 Pag. 664. c. cum 665. a. 5. It is the opinion of Thomas that speaking simply there is NO CAVSE OR REASON OF REPROBATION ASSIGNED ON THE PART OF THE REPROBATE AS NO CAVSE OR REASON OF ELECION IS ASSIGNED ON THE PART OF THE ELECT and the sense is not speaking comparatiuely why he should reprobate Esau rather then Iacob but absolutely considering the reprobate themselues THERE CAN NO CAVSE BE ASSIGNED ON THEIR OWNE PART OF THEIR REPROBATION AND THIS IS THOMAS HIS MEANING and this is proued c. Capreolus shews his owne and Aquinas his iudgement in 7. conclusions u Capreol 1. d. 41. q. vnic whereof the first is Neither merits nor demerits are the cause of predestination on the part of the act of him that predestinateth The fourth is The merits which follow the effect of predestination are not the cause of the effect of predestination in that manner that some say that God therefore giues a man grace and predestinated to giue it him because he foresaw he would vse it well as when the King giues a horse to him that he foreknowes will vse him well The fift Though some particular effect of predestination haue cause on our behalfe yet the totall effect of predestination in common hath no cause on our behalfe The sixt The goodnesse of God is the cause of the totall effect of predestination The seauenth The reason of the election of some and reprobation of other some is takeÌ„ out of the goodnesse of God whose diuine will alone is the reason why he reprobates these and elects them * Aâ—t 2. arg 2. There is no cause in speciall why this man is reprobated and that man elected but the simple will of God These conclusions of Cameracensis Andreas Castrensis Bannes and Capreolus are extracted out of x 1 d. 41. qu. 1. 1. p. q. 23. art 2. 3 4. 5. cont Gent. l. 3. c. 1 61. Lect. in Ro. 9. Aquine followed for substaÌ„ce y Magist 1. d. 40. 41. Altisiod sum l 1. c. 9. 〈◊〉 1. 2. Scot. 1. d. 41. q. 1. Mayron ibi qu. 4. art 1 Maisil art 2. Concl 4. Duran qu. 2. Egid qu. 1. art 2. Dionys qu. 2. Maior d. 40. qu. 2. Ferrat contr Gent. l. 3. c 61. §. pro solutione Gerson consol
Theol. l. 1. pros 3. Soto in Rom. 9. tract de Praedestinat Caietan 1 p. qu. 23. art 3. in Rom. 9. whereof all are cleare for election and many also for reprobation by the best anciēt Schoolmen that I haue looked into so that if the matter were to be caried by nūber and voices Caluines doctrin z Reported by the Reply pag. 151. That God hath predestinated without any merit or demerit of their parts that are predestinated onely because it so pleased him must be acknowledged the truth and my Aduersaries doctrine transcribed and stolne out of Becanus a dozen leaues together must be awarded to containe a The poison of the most pestelent opinion which Caluine holdeth A.D. pag. 145. the poyson and the pestilence The Iesuits also and moderne Diuines of latter time in the Church of Rome follow the same conclusions and maintaine them though I do not deny that some by vertue of the vnity alway found in the Church of Rome dissent from them Henriquez a Iesuite touching election b Sum. de fin hom cap. 11. n. 3. sayes The true and common opinion of the Diuines supposes no motiue cause or condition no mans behalfe foreseene of God why he should by the immutable will of God be loued and predestinated to eternall life and to all the effectuall meanes thereof but all men that shall effectually be saued are freely chosen out of the masse of corruption and predestinate for the merit of Christ before the preuision of the course of their life and their vse of reason and so consequently before the preuision of their perseuerance in grace or any free worke worthy reward and loue and the whole reason is the free will of God Touching reprobation he holds otherwise Bellarmine c De Grat l. 2 c. 9. sayes there can no reason of our part be giuen of Gods predestination I say there cā no reason be assigned to exclud not only merits properly so called but also the good vse of freewill or grace foreseene d Cap. 15. ad 4. God reprobates before the foresight of workes in as much as he will not deliuer the partie reprobated out of the masse of sinne e Cap. 16. prop. 9. Reprobation which S. Austin calles Predestination to death comprehends two acts the one Negatiue whereby God will not saue them whereof there is no cause on the part of men The other positiue whereby he will damne them the cause whereof is the preuision of sinne f Dried concord part 1. c 3. Sixt. Sē l. 6. ann 251. Pomponat de praedest pag. 955. Tolet. in Ro 9. ann 19. 26. c. 11. ann 4. Peter select disp in Rom. 9. disp 5 Suar. de praedest l. 1. c 8. n. 32. l. 2. c 23. nu 14. 20. 27. Pezant 1. p. qu. 23. art 5. disp 6. p. 157. concl 4. Zumel disput vv part 3. pag. 343 345. 346. Rispol lib. 1. qu. 1. concl 3. the same is affirmed by othes though the most of them hold which I deny not that predestinatiō is in the masse of sinne and reprobation positiue which onely is Gods purpose to punish the reprobate is to punish them for workes foreseene yet that helpes not my aduersaries opinion who affirmes predestination in what state soeuer it were to be ex praeuisis and sayes that not onely positiue reprobation which is no more but Gods purpose to damne and to execute that which is called negatiue reprobation but election it selfe is for the preuision of workes done by our owne free will which the workes euen of the corrupt masse are not but are done by Adams will which all these confute Vasquez g Vasqu 1 p. disp 95. n 2. the same thing affirmed by Suar. de praedest l. 5. c. 3. n. 1. saies There be not a few Thomists that affirme God to haue kept the same order in reprobation that he did in election that before any foresight of their sinnes of his owne will alone he decreed to exclude some from the kingdome of heauen though he did not ordaine them to the punishment of sense and then that such as he would exclude he permitted to fall into sinne with that intent that he might exclude them from the kingdome of heauen as he had decreed in such sort as he calles effectually after election to glory And Cardinall Tolet speaking of reprobation seemes h In Rom. 9 annot 26. pag. 428. to say the same thing that our aduersaries so much obiect to M. Caluine that by the right of the dominion and power which God hath ouer man and euery creature God may without any iniustice do and exercise whatsoeuer it pleaseth him be it good or euill for if a man that is lord but of a little wood or stone may of the said wood or stone make what he list either a vile and base or an honorable worke or burne it much more may God do the same thing whose dominion is full and absolute and hereupon he concludes that if it were so that no man can resist Gods will but he hardens whom he will yet we might not pleade with him because all men are vnto God as the clay to the potter and so he may by his good right inflict his punishments shew his wrath and power according to his owne will I haue bene something curious in alleadging or citing these authors because I would make it manifest that neuer a one of my aduersaries assertions either that God elected to saluation vpon foresight of grace and good workes or left it to mans owne will whether he would vse the meanes offered well or ill or that the reprobate are reiected from election and saluation for their sinne foreseene or that the meanes of saluation are giuen alike to all is the doctrine of the Church of Rome but these assertions proceede from the ignorance and rashnesse of a few therein that care not what they say so they may be barking against Caluine And albeit many of these Authors hold all predestination to be in the masse of sinne yet for so much as out of the masse God first i Reprobat Deus ante praeuisionem operum quatenus nō vult aliquē ex massa peccati liberare Bellar. de grat lib. arb l. 2. c 15. quarta obiect p. 474. freely and then determinately and lastly absolutely elects whom he will hence it will follow necessarily that this foresight of the good and ill vse of freewill and this consequent will to saue and refuse vpon the preuision of after workes can haue no place because God once for all in a corrupted masse makes his decree absolute vpon the state of sinne wherein he findes Adam and his posteritie and not conditionall vpon the condition and foresight of that which they themselues shall also do hereafter their workes good or euill being subordinate meanes to bring them to their end but not any cause or condition whereupon God in
apparant I yeelded not his conclusion in the whole sence but onely in a part For view my words The Ministerie of the Church is the ordinary meanes whereby we may learne the faith of Christ And no man can of himselfe attaine to the knowledge thereof but as the Church teaches him except it be in some extraordinary cases How will my Iesuite conclude froÌ„ hence that therefore I yeeld his conclusion as it is vnderstood the second way which way I haue shewed immediately before both his Church and himselfe vnderstand it Doth he that saies the kings Iustices are tâ—â— ordinary meanes whereby to learne the matter of ciuill obedience and that no subiect can ordinarily attaine to the knowledge of the law vnlesse some body publish it yeeld therfore that the law alone is not the rule of the said obedience and subiection prescribing the measure and qualitie thereof but the Iustices also and such as acquaint vs with the law are part of the rule yea the greater and more certaine part No man will say so when all men see the Magistrate to be but the executioner and minister of the law to teach publish and execute that which is in the law it selfe and the Booke of the law to containe the whole and entire obiect of obedience that no subiect is bound to any obedience or to the doing of any thing whatsoeuer the Magistrate might happen to impose vpon him but that onely which is contained in the law either expressely or thence to be gathered by true consequence And so my Iesuits vaunt of our yeelding and impertinent discourses relishes but of the Souldier that created him and his vaunting Order though his putting vs ouer to his other Catholicke Authors be scarse souldier-like but tastes more of the Creeple He vses this often and I confesse it is a good short cutte home-wardes if a man be empty but it sinkes him that vses it into the lowest bottome of contempt to giue the onset with conclusions and principles and then to maintaine them with boasting and ignorance If we were not well acquainted with this transparent cowardlinesse in our busiest Aduersaries it would leauen the most setled patience that is among vs. CHAP. XXVIII Touching our English translations of the Bible Their sinceritie and infalliblenesse 2. How the vnlearned know them to be sincere The new Translation lately set foorth by the Kings authority defended Momus in his humor 4. The subordination of means Pag. 179. A. D. § 1. That English translations of Scripture are not infallible concerning my first reason it is to be obserued that I do not deny the true Scriptures either in the originall or in the translation to be infallible but onely I proue the ordinary English translations which ordinarily Protestants call the Scriptures not to be infallible nor consequently to be Wootton pag. 68. as some make them the onely sufficient rule and means to breed faith M. Wootton asketh what English Protestant euer affirmed that they were infallible or tooke them for the rule To this I reply first that I could wish these his questions could not be answered with affirming that many thousand poore soules that haue and can onely reade English Bibles think the texts which they reade in theÌ„ to be Gods word and consequently the infallible truth and so take them for a rule of their faith that wbat they finde written there they most firmly beleeue what they finde not there they will not beleeue Secondly if the English translation be not accounted infallible nor the rule of faith by some Protestants I aske first what M. White meaneth to say White pag. 25. the Scripture translated into English is infallibly true in respect of the matter Secondly I aske what infallible rule and meanes haue at least vnlearned Protestants whereupon to build their faith It cannot be said that the truth of the reuealed doctrine in it selfe is their rule For this is the thing that should be beleeued and is not the rule and meanes whereby men are to be directed to attain beliefe The first Hebrew or Greeke originall text immediatly written by the holy writers cannot be their rule For first where is this to be found or how shall they be sure if they find it that it is the very authenticall or originall and not a transumpt Or if a transumpt may also serue so that it be incorrupt how shall they know infallibly secluding Church-authoritie that that copie which they haue is incorrupt when they neuer saw the first authenticall nor euer did or are able to compare them together Finally suppose they had a copie well agreeing with the originall what nearer were they attaining faith by it since they cannot vnderstand it White pag. 25. M White is so farre from disclaiming from English translations as M. Wotton doth that he will needs defend them to be infallible in the matter contained in them in so much that with a bold brazen face he saith Martin cannot giue one instance of the sence corrupted Pag. 26. And although he seeme to leaue himselfe a starting hole by saying that he doth not defend tbis or that mans edition but the Scriptures wel and faithfully translated accounting it sufficient that there be some translations faithfull and agreeing with the originall in the Church Ibid. yet presently after he taketh vpon him to defend the varieties of translations saying that this varietie hath bene in words and stile and not in any materiall point of the sence Now how false this bold and blind answer is the Reader may easily perceiue if he will reade not onely M. Gregory Martins discouerie but also M. Reynolds refutation of M. Whitaker and the Grounds of the new Religion which bookes neither are or can so be answered by M. Fulke and his fellow Protestants to helpe him but still it wil be iustified and made plaine that not onely one but many instances may be giuen of the sence corrupted The which is not onely proued by our Diuines but also confessed by Protestants themselues One of which said Broughtons epistle to the Lords of the Councell Carlile in his booke that Christ went not downe into hell that the English Bible was full of errors And what errors Onely in stile or words Nay M. Carlile saith that our English Translators in many places detort the Scriptures from the right sence and that they haue corrupted and depraued the sence obscured the truth deceiued the ignorant Which their confession if it were not also acknowledged for truth by others what need were there after so many varieties of translations that with so much cost care and scandal to the Protestant cause they must needs haue order by publik authority to coine a new translatioÌ„ of the Bible different froÌ„ all English translatioÌ„s that haue bin before the which also when it cometh forth will not be of infallible authoritie more then the former neither can at least vnlearned men be infallibly assured that it
our Church vsed This shall be granted him in respect of the matter and doctrine contained which in all translations that varie but in character of speech is alike certaine But how shall the vnlearned which can neither vnderstand the originall nor compare translations nor so much as reade nor will admit infallible authoritie in the Church to assure them be infallibly certaine the translation containes no substantiall error euen in the matter this he would faine know My answer * My answer was not touing the vnlearned alone but of the vnlearned and learned together per commodam distributionem was that we know this by the same meanes whereby we know other truths and discerne other articles of Christian faith namely by the light of the doctrine translated the testimonie of the Spirit the ministerie of the word the rules of art and such like My aduersarie replies this is but a flourish of words and bids me answer directly to the point and thus he reasons If these be the meanes whereby we are assured our translations containe no substantiall error the light of the doctrine translated the testimonie of the Spirit the ministerie of the word the rules of art the knowledge of tongues and such like then they are so either ioyntly altogether or euery one seuerally by it selfe or onely some of them But neither are all of them ioyntly nor euery one seuerally nor onely some of them Ergo these be not the meanes ergo some other meanes must be assigned and that is the authoritie of the Church I will answer directly to the point granting the first proposition and distinguishing the second which hath three members first that all of them ioyntly together are not necessarie which he proues because so the vnlearned that want tongues and art could not haue this assurance I answer they are all of them ioyntly together necessary by concurring all of them in the Church some in the learned some in the vnlearned to the working of this assurance in the learned and vnlearned for they are not ioyntly the means so that they need all of them immediatly touch euery one that shal be assured but it is sufficient that art and tongues ioyned with Gods Spirit be in the learned and the ministerie of the Spirit and the Church and the light of the doctrine translated be in the vnlearned all concurring to produce * Viz. this clear assurance that the translation cōtains at least nothing contrary to the analogie and rule of faith one effect in both though not all alike existing in them both The second member is that euery one of these seuerally is not sufficient and this I grant for no other meanes is sufficient if Gods Spirit be wanting to giue effect to it The third member is that onely some of these are not a sufficient meanes to breed this assurance this is false for the light of the doctrine translated the testimony of Gods Spirit are sufficient to assure the vnlearned that what is translated to them is true at least touching the doctrine in the same maner that Gods Spirit and the light of the truth assure vs that the things taught by word of mouth in preaching are the truth which light and testimony of the Spirit neuer go with translations or preaching which contain false doctrine His D. Stapleton * Triplic in admonit says it ouer that by the internall perswasion of the Spirit of God alone any matter of faith may be beleeued though the Church say nothing at all but the Iesuits reason to the contrary is then it would follow that an vnlearned man hauing that Spirit of God by the onely light of the doctrine shining in it without any other help should vnderstand Greeke and Hebrew because the Scriptures are written in them but this followes neuer a whit for though I grant the doctrine shines in the Scripture and God by his Spirit giues a full assurance yet he doth not this to the vnlearned but by translations which assurance I vnderstand according to the state and condition of him that is to be assured the learned seeing the heauenly doctrine in the learned tongues and translated both the vnlearned vulgar people in the translation onely and not in the originall as a man sees light by the opening of a window because that is the meanes to let it in I do not say the light of the doctrine and the testimonie of Gods Spirit giue the vnlearned assurance in the Scripture it selfe euery way but in the Scripture truly translated into the language they vnderstand neither doth the contrary follow of my words We know the diuine doctrine to be one and the same in all translations immediatly in the originall and more obscurely in the translations and God directeth the children of light by the holy Ghost who openeth their hearts that they know his voice from all others and that the light of his truth may shine vnto them for this light shineth and this testimonie of the holy Ghost worketh first not immediatly but by meanes secondly not by the same meanes in all but diuersly whiles to such as haue the light of the holy Ghost being learned it shines in the originall tongues but being vnlearned onely in translations as the words that are printed in a booke are plaine and legible of themselues without any other meanes to him that hath light and a perfect eye but if a man be dim sighted then to him they are onely legible through his spectacles and as it is necessary though the light be cleare of it selfe yet to open the window in case a man be shut vp in a house so my saying the doctrine is one and the same in all translations and God directs the children of the light to discerne it and makes the light of it shine vnto them hinders not but I may well say also the window or translation must be opened to let in this light when men are shut vp in ignorance of the tongues and so still some of the meanes I named alone are sufficient where all cannot concurre 4 My aduersary in the knitting vp replies against this that if the holy Ghost doth not sufficiently assure vs without other meanes then the light of the doctrine and the testimonie of the Spirit are not the onely necessary nor alone sufficient meanes to assure vs that the translation we vse is not corrupted By which reason he may say also that when the opening of a window is a necessary meanes to shew the light this light is not the onely necessary nor alone sufficient meanes to enlighten me for there is sufficient in the Scripture to assure me but still the helpe of Church-ministery and industry are necessary to worke it in me or else my aduersarie must proue that the subordination of the meanes where by causes are applied to their effects take away the sufficiencie and perfection of the said causes that is to say the Grammar containes not all things necessary and
sufficient for the vnderstanding of Latin because it is not sufficient vnlesse the learner go to schoole and heare his master teach him And though it be granted that the ministery of men and rules of art and knowledge of tongues be all subiect to error yet doth it not follow that by them we cannot attaine infallible assurance of our translations as I haue shewed in * THE WAY §. 6. n. 3. my answer to this argument where it was first propounded whither I referre my aduersary that if he would haue dealt really should not haue here repeated his old argument but haue ingenuously replied what he had to say to it but that had bene labour CHAP. XXIX 1. Touching the obscuritie of the Scripture 2. The necessitie of meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures proues not their obscuritie 3. Traditions debarred A Councell is aboue the Pope 4. 5. The Scripture of it selfe easie to all that vse it as they should 6. 7. The certen sence of the Scripture and the assurance thereof is not by Traditiō Pag. 183. A. D. § 2. That Scripture alone is obscure Concerning the second reason about the obscuritie of Scripture it is to be vnderstood that I do not speake of the obscuritie of Scripture as though I meant that it could not by any meanes be vnderstood Wottō pag. 74. as M. Wotton seemeth willing to mis-vnderstand me neither do I charge the Scripture it selfe with any fault or imperfection when I say it is obscure but do acknowledge rather that it is the perfection of Scripture the highnesse and maiestie of the matter and the strangenesse of the stile on the one side and the weaknesse and ignorance and sometimes peruersnesse of mens wits on the other side which maketh it obscure But whence soeuer the cause of obscuritie proceedeth which is impertinent to my purpose the onely thing which I am to proue is that de facto it is obscure or at least not so easie as the rule and meanes that should ordinarily breed infallible faith in all sorts ought to be And this my second reason conuinceth it being most euident that Scripture alone is not so easie neither to vnlearned nor learned men The which White pag. 25. 39. 36. M. White seemeth to grant when he requireth so many other euen outward meanes and helpes besides the inward spirit to the vnderstanding of the Scripture Among which outward meanes and helpes I enquire for one which is on the one side infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance and on the other side so easie to be determinately knowne and vnderstood of all sorts as that all men may grace supposed ordinarily direct themselues in matters of faith onely by diligent attending and yeelding assent vnto it For such is that which for the present I call the rule of faith or the rule and meanes by which all sorts may without other meanes ne detur processus in infinitum be sufficiently instructed in all matters of faith If M. Wotton and M White impertinently to this our purpose wil needs striue to haue the Scripture called in some other sence the rule of faith I will not striue with them but do freely grant it may be so called as good written lawes are or may be called the rule of manners in a commonwealth But as besides good written lawes in a commonwealth there are required ordinarily both good vnwritten customes and a good liuing Magistrate hauing authoritie to propound and interprete both written lawes and vnwritten customes without which the written lawes alone were not a sufficient rule and means to preserue good manners in a commonwealth in regard the lawes cannot be so plaine but that considering the weaknesse ignorance and peruersitie of men they may and would be misunderstood and wrested to a wrong sence which inconuenience is remedied partly by vnwritten customes which do best interprete the written lawes partly by the authoritie of the liuing magistrate who may by authoritie declare which is the right sence and may compell men to execute written lawes according to that sence Euen so in the Church besides the diuine infallible written Scriptures there must be admitted some diuine infallible vnwritten traditions and some alwayes liuing magistrate hauing infallible authoritie to propound and expound the Scriptures without which the written Scriptures alone were not a sufficient rule and meanes to preserue infallible faith in the Church because the Scriptures are not so plaine but that considering the weaknesse ignorance and peruersnes of men they may be and as experience ordinarily teacheth are misunderstood and wrested to a wrong sence which inconuenience without miracle cannot be remedied vnlesse we admit vnwritten traditions which are the best ordinary interpreters of Scripture and some liuing magistrate hauing infallible authoritie who may when controuersies arise infallibly declare which is the right sence and who by that authoritie may compell men to take them in that sence M. Wotton and M. White both grant the obscuritie of Scriptures in some places but they both affirme that in some other places the Scripture is perspicuous and plaine Wotton pa 70. White pag. 33. 36. in so much that M Wotton saith Many places of Scripture are so euident that a child cannot mistake the meaning of them And M. White saith citing S. Chrysost euery man of himself by reading may vnderstand To this I reply first that although some places of Scripture be more plaine then others and are and may be called absolutely plain partly for that they be set downe in proper and not figuratiue speech partly in that to them who haue once learned the true interpretation of the Church they seeme so plaine as they need nothing but reading or hearing to make them plaine partly for that some places are so plaine as they need nothing to make them plainly vnderstood of a very child but this generall rule told vs by the Church that the words in such places are to be plainly vnderstood as they sound yet this notwithstanding it doth not follow that the Scripture alone euen in those most plaine places is the rule and meanes which should instruct men in faith because sith some places seeming proper and plaine are not to be taken as the words sound but are oftentimes to be vnderstood by a figure what man without some infallible meanes besides seeming plainnesse of the words can be infalliby assured euen in most plaine places that he vnderstandeth the right sence especially when the most plaine places that are may be and ordinarily are either by weaknesse ignorance or peruersnesse of men wrested to a wrong sence as we see that most plaine place where our Sauiour pronounceth This is my bodie to be by Caluinists wrested to a figuratiue sence Besides therefore the bare letter of Scripture though neuer so plaine to haue infallible assurance of the sence there is required some other infallible rule and meanes to assure vs when and where the
words seeming plaine are to be vnderstood properly as they sound and when they are to be taken in a figuratiue or improper sence This say I is not to be learned sufficiently in the bare letter of Scripture alone but is to be learned of the Church according to that worthy saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyr. cont haeres c. 2. Because all men do not take the holy Scripture for the height of it in one and the same sence but diuers men interpret the sayings of it diuersly in so much that almost so many different sences may seeme possible to be drawne from it as there are diuers men c. Therefore it is very necessarie that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence True it is that by other probable meanes viz. rules of art knowledge of tongues obseruation of circumstances conference of places c. one but not euery lay-man woman and childe euen of M Wotton and M. Whites owne parish may probably finde out when the words are and when they are not to be vnderstood properly but infallibly in such sort as to build thereupon infallible assent of faith one cannot without infallible interpretation had either immediatly by reuelation of the Spirit which is not ordinarily to be expected or by infallible authoritie of the Church True it is also that ordinarily Diuines hold it for a certaine rule that words of Scripture are to be vnderstood properly as they sound vnlesse to auoide some absurditie we be compelled to interprete by a figure But when such an absurditie occurreth that ought to compell vs to interprete plaine words of Scripture by a figure and when not although reason it selfe may probably know which probable knowledge may suffice for direction of manners yet infallibly in such sort as is required to the assent of faith reason alone not assisted by Church authoritie cannot at the least alwayes tell sith many things may seeme absurd to our priuate sence and reason which in truth are not absurd as in the mystery of the blessed Trinitie may plainly appeare and contrariwise many things may seeme in reason not absurd which in true Diuinitie are absurd and most false 1 HIs second reason against the Scriptures being the rule of faith was their obscuritie because they faile in the second condition of the rule being of themselues alone so obscure and vnknowne both to the vnlearned and learned that no man can thereby alone be sufficiently directed This reason was handled § 7 and 8. where I answered the argument whereby he prosecuted it and euery word also that he replies here which makes me to wonder with what conscience he followes his cause when that he sayes here being answered he shrinks from replying and onely repeates his old argument againe and yet intitles his booke a Reply when he replies nothing but conceales all from his Reader that I answered neuerthelesse that he sayes I will answer againe 2 First he tels in what sence he holds the Scripture to be obscure and how farre forth Not that it cannot by any meanes be vnderstood or that it is any imperfection in the Scripture to be obscure but the perfection rather the onely thing he goes about to proue being that de facto it is obscure or at the least not so easie as the ordinary rule of faith ought to be which is denied and confuted not denying some parts to be obscure as many prophecies and mysteries therein nor affirming any of it to be so effectuall to our vnderstanding that without the motion of Gods Spirit and vse of the meanes euery man can effectually vse it to his saluation for I neuer denied the requisite condition of Gods grace and the Churches teaching and our owne endeuour to open our vnderstanding euen in the plainest Scripture that is but I onely affirme all things concerning faith and good life needfull to be knowne to be so plainly set downe therein that the vnlearnedst man aliue vsing the meanes which is not the Church-authoritie intended by my aduersary and being enlightned with Gods Spirit may sufficiently vnderstand them to his saluation which is enough to make it a rule perfect entire and as easie as is possible for a rule to be for the finding out and deciding whatsoeuer matter belongs to faith For howsoeuer some things in the Scripture the knowledge whereof is not simply necessary to saluation be very obscure and doubtfull yet the whole rule of our faith needfull to all men is set downe so plainly that it may be vnderstood of all men allowing them some eleuation and onely supposing them to haue the light of grace and to take that paines in searching that is ordinarily required in the vse of any rule and in the execution of any meanes whatsoeuer It seemes my aduersarie would conclude from hence that therefore I grant Scripture alone not to be so easie as the rule of faith ought to be because I require so many euen outward meanes and helpes for the vnderstanding thereof beside the helpe of Gods Spirit within vs. But he is deceiued and deceiues his Reader for I expounded my selfe that it is not necessarie the rule be so easie and effectuall that no helpe shall be needfull for the applying it to our conscience but the perfection and easinesse of it stands in this that a man vsing diligence and eleuated by grace from his naturall ignorance shall finde therein absolutely and plainly all things whatsoeuer he is bound to know and beleeue and needs not that the Church by her authoritie and traditions should adde any thing to it that is not contained in it And that this condition of vsing meanes and outward helpes takes not away the reason of a rule he must confesse by his owne principles for let his Church-teaching and authoritie his owne Helena be the rule yet afore any man can determinately know it or vnderstand and yeeld to it he must I hope haue the grace of the Spirit and seeke it out and diligently attend what it teaches him which is as much as we require for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures This therefore is a vaste partialitie in my Iesuite that he will conclude a thing cannot be a sufficient rule or meanes that requires the helpe of grace and a mans owne industrie in the applying it when themselues holding their Church to be the rule yet confesse that no man can heare the voice thereof not vnderstand nor yeeld assent to it without the very same meanes that we require for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures What voice what complaint what querimonie shall we vtter against this peruersnesse against this spirit of contradiction But my aduersarie sayes that among these outward meanes and helpes which M. White requires to the vnderstanding of the Scripture besides the Spirit of God there must be one an outward meanes which is * There is no such outward infalible means in this life
follow that the Scripture ALONE euen in those plaine places is the rule because no man without some other meanes besides the plainenesse of the words can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands them right the which he proues first because some places seeming plaine are vnderstood otherwise then they seeme Secondly because the plainest places that are may be wrested to a wrong sense as that plaine place This is my body is wrested by the Caluinists to a figuratiue sense I answer his reason why Scripture alone could not be the rule of faith was because it is not plaine the which obscurity I denied to be in that which is necessary to be knowne affirming the Scripture in such places to be plaine now he replies that though such places be plaine yet still it cannot be the rule Thus first he denies the Scripture to be the rule because it is not plaine and then allowing it againe to be plaine yet still he denies it to be the rule What will this man stand to I maruell But they be not plaine enough because without some other infallible meanes besides the seeming plainenes of the words no man can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands aright euen those plaine places This absurd cauill I haue answered twenty times first that the meanes whereby this is done are the helpe of Gods Spirit our owne diligence the Church-teaching the light of nature and these meanes are infallible And these meanes I admit either coniunctim or diuisim to be necessary as a condition and medium for the full assurance of vnderstanding these places but this condition takes not away the true motion and reasons of plainenesse from them for as I answered in my booke to this argument that is not obscure which by ordinary and easie meanes may be vnderstood but which either hath no meanes at all to open it or onely such as are not ordinary to his confirmation d THE WAY p. 36. n. 2. I answered likewise But to his instances of the Caluinists wresting a plaine place This is my body to a figuratiue sense I reply first it is plaine and euident that it is a figure by the circumstances of the place when he that said the words This is my body that is giuen for you at the same instant held nothing but bread in his hand and liued and was neither yet glorified nor crucified and spake of a sacrament wherein it is ordinary to speake figuratiuely Secondly the Papists do the same in the next words This cup is the new Testament and yet they hold them to be plaine words if my aduersary will be smattering about the exposition of these words let him giue a reall answer to the place of my booke e Digr 49. n. 8. where they are handled of purpose for him 6 Next he sayes though the letter of the Scripture be neuer so plaine yet to haue infallible assuraÌ„ce of the sence there is required some other rule and meanes the which rule is not in the bare letter of the Scripture but is to be learned of the Church as Vincentius saith The which being the same he said before without difference or augmentation let it briefly receiue the same answer That the requisite coÌ„dition of vsing ordinary easie meanes wherof the ministry of the Church truly expounded is one I neuer denied but this proues not the Scriptures to be obscure nor remoues infallible assurance froÌ„ the Scripture to the Church but onely shewes that the Scripture infallibly out of it selfe giues vs this assurance by this meanes and VinceÌ„tius his words affirme no more for by the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence according to the which he requires the line of propheticall and apostolicall interpretation to be directed he meanes no vnwritten Church-tradition or doctrine that is wanting in the Scripture for he holds the Scripture it selfe to be sufficient for euery thing but onely that that which is in the Scripture be so vnderstood as agrees with the rule of faith which the true Church hath alwaies holden now that which the Church hath alwaies holden is contained in the Scripture alone that the Reader may see the Iesuites treachery in alledging Vincentius against the sufficiency of the Scripture who in that very place which belike he neuer saw with his owne eyes begins thus Here possible one may demand when the rule of the Scripture is perfect and in it selfe more then enough sufficient vnto all things Note here whether he thinks as the Iesuite doth that many substantiall points of doctrine needfull to saluation are not contained in them and that it is but a part of the rule what need is there to ioyne vnto it the authority of the Churches sence and he answers as the Iesuite hath alledged that this is because all men do not take it in one sence therefore it is necessary that the line of interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence In which manner he speakes also in f Diximus in superioribus hanc suisse semper esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem vt fidem veram duoâ—us his modis approbent Primum diuini canonis authoritate Deinde â—cclesiae catholicae traditione Non quia canon solus non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina pro suo plerique arburatis interpetantur cap. 41. another place not supposing any thing to be wanting in the Scripture so much as to giue infallible assurance of it owne sence much lesse any articles of faith needfull to saluation but onely supposing that some heretikes would not yeeld to that it gaue or possible through their owne default did not see it and thereupon aduises to oppose against them the rule and practise of the Church as a man by witnesses would conuince him that denies the truth the which practise as it hinders not the Scriptures to containe the perfect rule of faith so we will allow it and require no sence or exposition of the Scripture nor no point of religion to be receiued vnles it be thus directed 7 It is therefore vntrue that he concludes with one cannot infallibly be assured when the words of the Scripture are to be vnderstood properly and when not without the authority of the Church vnlesse it be by reuelation I say this is false vpon two points first because this assurance may be had as from the externall meanes by the Scripture it selfe though the Church say nothing Next because this Church authority he vnderstands to be the externall testimony of the Church reuealing if not making the said sence out of tradition which is not written and not out of the Scripture it selfe so that the vnderstanding which I haue of the sence and my perswasion that it is the true sence shall not be founded on the Scripture but on the authority of the Church of Rome that sayes it which g THE WAY §. 8. n. 7. digr 11. I confuted affirming that this
Scripture D. Stapleton a Relect. p. 462. sayes The Church is the ground and pillar of truth in a higher kind then the Scripture namely in the kind of the efficient cause And b Pag. 494. in explicat qu. the authority of the Church may be vnderstood to be greater then the authority of the Scripture because it is not simply subiect or bound to it but may by it authority teach decerne something which the Scripture hath neither determined nor taught The things which the Church teaches do as much binde the faithfull as those things which the Scripture teacheth we Catholickes affirme that the Church is to be heard more certainely then the Scriptures because the doctrine thereof is more manifest and euident then the doctrine of the Scriptures or at the least equally with the Scriptures because the authority thereof is no lesse irrefragable and infallible The Scripture is the booke of the Church the testimonie of truth which the Church testifies the law of God which the Church hath publisht the rule of faith which the Church hath deliuered We had wont to maruell at the blasphemies c Illyric clau script p. 541. Hos de express verb. Dei of Cusanus Verratus Hosius That the Church hath authoritie aboue the Scripture The Scripture as it is produced by heretikes is the word of the Diuell A Councell is the highest tribunall and hath the same power to determine any thing that the Councell of the Apostles and Disciples had The things written in the Gospell haue no soundnesse but through the determination of the Church c. But now you see the same renewed in that Church to this day and the Iesuits in the midst of their learned subtilties to be as grosse as the grossest Friars preferring their Church authority farre aboue the Scriptures or any vse that a Candlesticke can haue in shewing the candle Note FOVRTHLY what it is that the Protestants say touching the authority of the Scripture and the Church so much as belongs to the present occasion First that the Scriptures haue in them a light and an authoritie of their owne sufficient to prooue themselues to be the word of God and to giue infallible assurance to all men of the true sense and this light and authority is not added increased or multiplied by the Ministry of the Church or any thing that it doth about the Scripture Secondly this light and authoritie of the Scripture shines in vs and takes effect in vs then onely when the Spirit of God opens our hearts to see it The defect of which heauenly illumination is the reason why some neuer and the elect themselues at all times do not see it but it argues no defect of light in the Scriptures Thirdly the means whereby God opens our eies and hearts to see this light and authoritie in the Scripture is the Ministry of the Church I expound my selfe it is the ordinary and publike meanes wherto he referres men And this Ministry is by preaching and expounding the Scripture out of it selfe and perswading and conuincing the consciences of men yet priuately and extraordinarily when and wheresoeuer this Ministry failes or ceasses the light and sense of the Scripture is obtained by the Scripture alone without this Church Ministry and the Scripture alone in this sort immediately at sundry times by it selfe giues full assurance and workes all other effects in our consciences that it doth when the Church propounds it Fourthly the Scripture is so sufficient of it selfe both to reueale whatsoeuer is needfull to be knowne and to establish and assure our heart in the infallible faith of that it reueales that the Church hath nether authority to adde so much as one article more then is contained therein nor power to giue this assurance from any thing but from the Scripture it selfe So farre forth that THE WHOLE TEACHING AND DOCTRINE AND AVTHORITIE OF THE CHVRCH IS TO BE ADMITTED AND YEELDED TO OR REFVSED ACCORDING AS IT CONSENTS OR DISAGREES WITH THE SCRIPTVRE the fountaine of truth the rule of faith Note FIFTLY what our aduersaries meane by the Church and the meanes whereby the Church executes her authority what the things are which by her authority she may do and what the proper effect is that this authority workes in vs. First by this Church d This is shewed c. 35. nu 1. c. 36. nu 1. they vnderstand the Church of Rome for the present time being and therein the Pope in whom they say the whole power and vertue of the Church abideth Secondly the meanes whereby it executeth her authority is vnwritten Tradition out of the which it supplies all things pretended to be needfull for the exposition of the Scripture or the defining of matters that must be beleeued Thirdly the things that she may do by her authoritie are all things that appertaine to the questions of religion 1 Cus epi. 2. 3. 7. to expound the Scripture after her owne iudgement 2 Conc. Trid. sess 24. can 3. to dispense against the Scripture 3 Stapl. princip l. 9. c. 14. relect pag. 514. to canonize new Scripture that before was none 4 Stapl. ibi relect p. 494. inde to giue authority to the Scripture 5 August de Ancon qu. 59. art 1. 2. to make new articles of faith 6 Gl. de transl episc Quanto §. veri to make that to be the sence of the Scripture that is not Lastly the effect of this power is the same that the Scripture breeds and more 7 Grets defens Bel. tom 1. pag. 1218. c. obedience in all that will be saued so that the world is bound as much to the Popes definitiue sentence as to the Scripture or the voice of God himselfe 8 The speech of all the canonists for Christ and the Pope make but one tribunal 9 Capistran de author Pap. pag 130. He is aboue al like him that came downe from heaueÌ„ 10 Capist ibi For with God and the Pope his will is sufficient reason and that which pleases him hath the vigor of a law 11 Palaeot de consist part 5. q 9. after his sentence pronounced no man must doubt or delay to yeeld 12 Petrisedes in Romano solâ—o collocata libertate plena in suis agendis per omnia poteri debet nec vlli subesse homini Gl. ibid. vbi sup yea all the CouÌ„cels and Doctors and Churches in the world must stoop to his determination 5 These fiue things thus obserued it is easie to se that our aduersaries attribute more to the Church then to be onely a meanes for the communicating of that which is in the Scripture to vs expounding the authority thereof that it exceedes the latitude of a Candlesticke and is turned into the Candle it selfe And so to returne to my aduersaries answer and to conclude I thus reason The Ministery and authority of the Church is required either
onely as a condition to instruct vs and leade vs to the knowledge and assurance of that which is contained in the Scripture it selfe or else as a meanes to reueale vnto vs some thing that is not conceiued in the Scripture But not of the latter for all articles of faith are in the Scripture Therefore the former Therefore the Scripture alone is the rule of faith 6 My aduersarie saies it troubles vs that he sayes there be diues questions of faith which are not expressely set downe nor determined in the Scripture Whereto I answered that this was not the question for if by expressely he meant written word for word in so many syllables then the rule is not bound to containe all things thus expressely it being sufficient if all things needefull were contained therein in respect of the sense so that it might be gathered from thence by consequence the question not being in what manner but whether any way at all the whole and entire obiect of our faith be reuealed in the Scripture though some part thereof be gathered but by Consequence from that which is written expressely in so many syllables To this my aduersary replyes that it troubles vs sore to be thus conuinced with the euidence of the matter that we cannot deny it but are driuen to confesse diuers sustantiall points not to be expressely set downe But he is deceaued it troubles vs not a whit would this hatefull guise of bragging and talking of Conuincing when nothing is graunted but that which belongs not to the question troubled vs no more For no Protestant affirms all things to be written expressely but onely that All things belonging to faith are written in such sort that we haue in the Canonicall bookes either expresse wordes as plaine as any man can speake or infallible sense which any man by vsing the meanes may vnderstand for euery article of faith whatsoeuer Neither did D. M. Luther or any of the learned Diuines of our Church whom my aduersary in his canting language calles his new Masters euer hold otherwise He sayes by our leaues this was the question first when our Grandfather Luther was so hoate to haue expresse Scripture that he would haue all expressed euen in words c. And biddes me see Gretser in his defence of Bellarmine But by his leaue Gretser and he both speake vntruly and he absurdly For he so quotes Gretser that a man would thinke Gretser had shewed out of Luthers writings some places wherein Luther required expresse Scripture euen in wordes which he doth not nor Bellarmine whō he defends could do but be reports in English what Gretser lied in Latine and then biddes see Gretser when there is as little in Gretser to this purpose as in himselfe If M. Luther and the Diuines of our Church confesse many things not to be written verbatim in expresse syllables as it is not thus written that infants must be baptized or that Christ is consubstantiall with his Father do they therefore confesse they are not written at all or will himselfe conclude the Scripture wants that which is not written in so many words Is the true sense and meaning of the words nothing are they not as well conclusions of Scripture which are deduced by true discourse as which are expressed verbatim doth not Picus e Theorem 5. sub sin say such are most properly conclusions of faith which are drawne out of the old and new Testament or by good connexion depend on those that are drawne doth not the Cardinall of Cambrey f 1. q. 1. art 3. p. 50 h. say They are conclusions of diuinity not onely which formally are contained in Scripture but also which necessarily follow of that which is so contained And before him g Prolog sent qu. 1. art 2 pag. 10. f. Rom. edit Aureolus another Cardinall In the second manner of proceeding when we goe forward from one proposition beleeued and another necessary or from both beleeued to inquire of any one that is doubtfull no other habite is obtained but the habite of faith the contrary whereof are heresies in which wordes we see he affirmes a going forward from that which is certainely beleeued because it is expresly written to that which is gathered by discourse and makes this latter also to belong to faith I know few of the schoolemen deny this whereupon it followeth manifestly that it is reputed to be within the contents of the Scripture not onely which is expressed in words but also which is so in sense and good consequence In which manner I haue prooued vnanswerably that all the whole obiect of faith is expressed CHAP. XXXI Wherein the place of 2. Tim. 3.15 alledged to proue the fulnes and sufficiencie of the Scripture alone is expounded and vrged against the Iesuites cauills A. D. To my answer of the Protestant obiection whereas I say Pag. 190. the Apostle affirming the Scripture to be profitable doth not auouch the alone sufficiency of it Whereas also secondly I say it is rather profitable in that it commendeth the authority of the Church which is sufficient M. White replieth against the first part of this my answer White pag. 55. that when the Apostle saith the Scripture is profitable c. he meaneth that it is so profitable that a man by vsing it may be made perfect to euery worke and thereupon thus he reasoneth We do not say Scripture is profitable Ergo sufficient but it is profitable to euery thing Ergo sufficient I answer that this consequence is not good Piety is by S. Paul said to be profitatable to euery thing doth it therefore follow that it is sufficient in such sort that there need no other helpe or meanes to be ioyned with it to attaine whatsoeuer thing M. Wootton and M. White seeme to reason more strongly yet weakely enough to this effect That is sufficient which is able to make a man wise to saluation and which is profitable taking the word profitable as expounded by the word able to make one absolute and perfect c. But the Apostle affirmeth Scripture to be able and profitable to the foresaid purposes Ergo. To this I answer that if they had put into the argument the word alone of which all the question is it would more plainly appeare how it proueth nothing Secondly I might say that the Apostle speaketh of the old Testament Wootton p. 97 as M. Wootton granteth yea of euery parcell thereof as the word Omnis signifieth yet I hope that neither M. Wootton nor M. White will say that now the old Testament without the new and much lesse euery parcell of the old is of it selfe alone sufficient for all the foresaid purposes For if so what need were there of the new Testament or of the other parts besides any one parcell of the old Thirdly I say that the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word able and if it were the word able doth not signifie that the Scripture
Scriptures make the Church perfect by cōmending it to it self for thē the Apostles should speak thus by my aduersaries exposition the Scriptures are profitable to make the Church perfect by commending to it the authority of the Church and yet he defendes it First because it sendes them Pastors Pope Councell and all to the interpretations of Councels and Fathers of the ancient Church But then I demand how did they make perfect the ancient Church it selfe the first Councels and Fathers of whom the Apostle speakes as well as of the latter for they had none to retire to but the Scripture onely Secondly because the Pastors of the Church sustaine two persons one as publike Pastors authorized to teach another as priuate men needing instruction themselues and so the Apostle saies the Scripture sends them as priuate men to themselues considered as publike men inabled as need shall require to define the truth in any point the which is an irkesome answer to any that shall consider it for although a Pastor be considered these 2. waies yet it is false that is assumed that he which as a priuate man erres and is ignorant yet as a publike person is able to direct himselfe and others and define the truth this I say is a trick to mocke an ape with though it be all the shift they haue to defend the Pope from being a formall hereticke and yet admitting it to be true that the Pastors of the Church considered as priuate men are sent to themselues considered as publike men yet it cannot be true that the Scripture makes thē perfect this way by sending and commending them to themselues because the perfection auouched is the effect of that teaching that reprouing that correcting that instructing which is contained in the Scripture it selfe and not in the authoritie of man whither the Scripture is imagined to send vs. For all that the Apostle in this text affirmes is of the Scripture alone as appeares 7 Besides my argument I alleadged some testimonies of Chrysostome and certaine Papists to iustifie my exposition wherein they affirme as much out of the text as I doe whereto he replies that the said testimonies must either be explicated to mean that the Scriptures are able to instruct vs with the meanes of Church authority or else be taken without limitation if they be thus explicated they proue nothing against him if they be taken without limitation they proue as much against vs as against him I answer to the first the testimonies are to be seene and the words thereof are so full that they cannot be thus explicated as for example Chrysostome in his words expounds S. Paul to distinguish the Scripture against his owne ministry Thou hast the Scripture to teach thee in steed of me if thou desire to know anything there thou maiest learne it that which can teach vs in steed of the Church Pastours can teach vs without their authority if God as Antonin says hath spokē but once that in the Scriptures that so fully that he speakes no more how can the meaning be that other authority should be ioyned with them for so God should speake twice once in the Scriptures another time in the Church and in the Scripture so far from fully that he needs speake againe in the Church The like may be said to the other testimonies but I refer the iudgement to the conscience of the Reader To the second if these words be taken without limitation that alone without any means ioyned to thē they are able to instruct vs they proue as much against me as against him that its maruell I should haue so little iudgement I demand and why so I pray because then they will make as much against our Church ministery as against his Church authority which had bene spoken to the point if we by Church ministry had meant either the same or as much as he doth by Church authority but when his Church authority intends a supply of that which is wanting in the Scripture by traditions our Church ministry no more but a simple cōdition of vsing the meanes to make vs see that which is contained in thē which ministry also we do not hold to be alway vnto all persons necessary he may let our iudgements alone and take a new reckoning of his owne that is so simple as to make alike things that are so far vnlike his Church authority and our Church ministry CHAP. XXXII Touching priuate spirits that expound against the Church 1. Such priuate expositions refused by the Protestants 2. And yet the Papists haue no other All teaching is to be examined euen by priuate men 5. Certaine propositions shewing how the Church teaching may be or may not be examined and refused Pag. 196. Wootton p. 110 White pag. 62. A.D. Concerning the ninth Chapter M. Wootton and M. White both seeme to disclaime from immediate teaching of priuate spirits and consequently seeme to grant the substance of the conclusion of this Chapter in such sense as it was principally intended by me yet wheresoeuer they be vrged to tell how they infallibly know that there is any Scripture at all and that these and no other bookes be Canonicall Scripture and that this or that is the true interpretation and sense of this or that text of holy Scripture vpon which questions well resolued the whole frame of their faith doth depend after alledging other reasons drawne from rules of art and knowledge of tongues c. which they know to be infallible they must be forced finally to flie for infallible assurance either to the immediate teaching of their priuate spirit or else to run the round betwixt Scripture and priuate spirit in such sort as I haue shewed in the Introduction Introd q. 6. and hence it seemeth to proceed that they both thought fit to make answer to my reasons which they needed not to haue done if the conclusion of this Chapter had no waies bene contrary to their doctrine White pag. 59. 60. M. White before he begin to answer my reasons distinguisheth a double meaning of the word priuate which I put in my conclusion and saith that if I meant it as it is opposed ô strange opposition to diuine and spirituall I said well but vsing it as we Catholickes do as it is opposed to common he saith that a priuate man may so be assisted with the Holy Ghost that he may interprete Scripture truely and infallibly against a company as big as the Roman Church 1 HIs third conclusion touching the rule of faith was that no priuate man who perswadeth himselfe to be specially instructed by the spirit can be this rule of faith specially so far foorth as he teaches or beleeues contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church the which I granted to be true but admonished the Reader withall that he had a further reach therein then yet he made shew of For his intent was to condemne all particular men and
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
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
those songs nor determines what kinde of songs they were whether such as they vttered by miracle or ordinarie Psalms ordinarily vsed in all assemblies without miracle much lesse doth it proue that the custome was so to sing that there was no praier vsed besides whereas the Text is plaine I will sing and I will pray distinguishing two seuerall actions singing and praying And because Gretser answers that singing is praying therefore the saying Amen is mentioned which was not so properly vsed when they sang but when they prayed without singing For who vsed to say AMEN at a Psalme Besides he wills them to vnderstand what they do that vnderstanding they may be able to say AMEN now that which he would haue vnderstood is not the songs onely but the praiers also First because the reason why songs should be vnderstood holds in praiers also Secondly because Bellarmine confesses that in some part of this Chapter the Apostle speakes of praier and Church Seruice But whatsoeuer he speakes of he requires to be vnderstood for the reason why he speakes of all that he mentions is because the Corinthians vsed them when the people vnderstood not which abuse he reproues admonishing them to ioine vnderstanding with their gifts Their songs therefore their reading Scripture their collations their praiers and all must be vnderstood Therefore in this place of the v. 15.16 not spirituall songs alone are meant but the Church praiers and Seruice also because in other places it is meant If Bellarmine replie that S. Paul speakes in other parts of the Chapter of praier and Church Seruice but no where in the Chapter that they should be vnderstood who sees not the falsehood when the reason that drew him on to speake of them was the abuse that they were not vnderstood which abuse he corrects by willing them to vse them that they may be vnderstood a Antidot apost in 1. Co p. 723. 727. inde D. Stapleton therefore answers that the Apostle in this place speakes of prayer but not such praier as we ordinarily vse in our Church but such as they vsed by miracle and the gift of tongues and admits that he rebukes this but not that This is follie for giue a reason why he rebukes this It was because the people vnderstood them not The same reason holds in that For the people vnderstand not If the Apostle would take this reason to condemne the vse of a miraculous gift when vnderstanding went not with it of necessitie he must also condemne ordinarie praiers when they offend against the same reason b P. 724. D. Stapleton answers that praying by gift was ordained for the profit of others therefore it was meet it should be vnderstood but the Church Seruice he saith is not to teach the people but to inuocate God for the people which may sufficiently be done when they vnderstand it not I replie that the praiers in the Church Seruice are not onely to inuocate God for the people but for the people to inuocate God for themselues as appeares first because God hath appointed not onely the Priest to pray for them but with them and themselues to ioine with him in the praiers and with one mind and heart to vtter with him that which he pronounces which cannot be when they vnderstand not what he saies Againe the Church praiers are conceiued and pronounced not onely in the name of the Priest for the people but also in the name of the people for themselues Heare thy people that calls vpon thee ô Lord open our lips and our mouth shall set foorth thy praise and such like therefore there is the same reason why the people should vnderstand them that there is why the Priest should do it Thirdly its false that the Church praiers are not to teach the people For their end is not onely to intreate God a Ro. 8.26 but to teach how to do it with what affection with what contrition with what faith with what vnderstanding and to forme in the minde the signes of the things framed that their being may shine in the vnderstanding Which is not done when the praier is conceiued in a language they know not They may say AMEN with a kind of brutish deuotion * Carent tamen eo fructu quem perciperent si orationes eas quas ore proferunt etiam intelligerent nam speciatim intenderent animum mentem in Deum ab eo impetrarent speciatim ea quae ore petunt magis aedificarentur ex sensu suo earum orationum quas ore proferunt Carent ergo hoc fructu Contaren Christ Instruct interr vlt. but these sighs and gronings which ought to accompanie all praier they feele not the mind meditates not the sense of the words that are vttered nor contemplates nor penetrates the things that are necessarie in all praier by reason of which defect Card. Caietan b In 1. Cor. 14. §. Sed alter non aedificatur p. 158. sayes that by the doctrine of Paule It is much better for the edification of the Church that the publicke praiers in the hearing of the people be said in a common language then in Latine 5 Gretser the Iesuite to this point c Def. Bell. de verb. Dei l. 2. c. 16. saies that the Church praiers in Latine profite two waies First in that the Priest praies for the people Secondly in that they stir vp deuotion and affection in the people though they vnderstand them not and he seemes to affirme that other profit then this is not needfull to be sought in praier But this is false for neither do they stir vp the deuotion mentioned which being an act of the will cannot be formally exercised without knowledge in the vnderstanding going before nor is such deuotion as the profite that God hath ordained praier for taking this profite in the true latitude thereof For the end and vse of praier is not onely to kindle some kinde of deuotion but to bewaile and vtter our wants to him we praie to vnfold our sinnes with particular feeling to breed in our hearts remorse compunction repentance by opening our miserable state To informe our vnderstanding by frequent meditations To increase our faith c. in which regard we are required to be attentiue and diligent in the time of praier The Emperor Iustinians law was d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Varin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nouell Justin pag. 181. that all B B. and Priests should celebrate the Seruice and praiers vsed in Baptisme not with a low but a loud voice which the people might heare whereby their minds might the better be stirred vp to vtter the praises of God Therefore diligent attention and eleuation of the minde being to bee brought by all that come to Church it is manifestly intended that they shall vnderstand what is said The Repliar I presume e Cum enim aliquis venit
audire sacrum poste◠raptus alijs cogitationibus parum aut nihil aduertit dicitur quidem praeceptum missam audiendi implere nec tenetur audire aliam dummodo non sit affectata diuagatio Tol. sum l. c. 6. c. 6. vide Nauarr man c. 21. n. 8. de orat p. 431. concl 16. n. 2. if he hold him to the doctrine of his owne side will require no such attention but that must not greatly mooue vs when f Quae autem segnitia est alienari capi ineptis cogitationibus profanis cum dominū deprecaris quasi aliud sit quod magis debeas cogitare quam quod cum Deo loqueris◠Cypr. de orat Dom. sub fi◠it were the most barbarous thing in the world for the people in time of Gods Seruice not to ioine heart and tongue and countenance and all with the Minister Secondly that the Priests praying for the people is that profite which is sufficient for the people in publike praiers or any profit at all when it is in an vnknowne language is likewise false as I haue said And there can no reason be assigned why then S. Paule should condemne the praiers vsed in the Church of Corinth in a strange tongue when they also were conceiued for the people as well as ours 6 The negatiue part of Bellarmines answer is that the Apostle speakes not of Diuine Seruice nor the publicke reading of the Scripture I grant he speakes not of such Diuine Seruice as is now vsed because I suppose there was either no set forme of Seruice at all the Church being yet vngrowne and in persecution or no such forme as now is vsed But of that forme that was then vsed he speakes that is to say whatsoeuer forme of Seruice and manner of praiers was vsed in the congregation he commands euen in those words be done in a knowne language The which if the Repliar denie I must put him in mind of that I haue said before out of Gretser that in this Chapter he speakes of reading the Scripture and the publicke Seruice But it is certaine that whersoeuer he speakes of it he requires they be done to edification and expounds the edification by vnderstanding the language wherein they are done in the same manner that here he speakes of singing and praying For therefore he mentions them wheresoeuer it be because they were abused and that abuse was the vsing them in an vnknowne tongue and this abuse he condemnes wishing them to speake with edification which is al one whether he speake of them in this place or in another But let vs heare how Bellarmine proues the Apostle not to speake of diuine seruice or publike reading the Scripture in this place it is proued saith he by this that the Scriptures were read and the seruice done in Greeke because it was a Greeke Church But the Apostle speakes of something that was done not in the Greeke but in some other vnknowne tongue This auoids not our argument for he cannot proue they had any set forme of liturgy at all g Mos Apostolorum fuit vt ad ipsam solummodo orationem dominicam oblationis hostiam consecratent Greg. l. 7. ep 64. see Amulat Fortun. l. 3. Pref. Cusan ep 7. All writers consenting that in those daies they vsed to consecrate the Sacrament by saying the Lords prayer it is as likely they would haue had a set forme for the Sacrament as for any other part of the seruice But whether they had a set forme or no we grant they had a forme of seruice at least praier and reading and Sacraments formed at the choise and liberty of the Pastors But how doth the Iesuite proue that de facto it was done in the Greeke that all vnderstood we graunt de iure it ought but this is that we say that when these men indued with the gifts of tongues came into the congregation they would do it in strange tongues and not in Greeke which is part of the abuse that the Apostle speakes against requiring that if such would omit the ordinary common language and do the Church seruice such as it was in a strange language as the spirituall songs mentioned were done then let him speake and another interpret Besides the singing mentioned cannot be shewed to haue bene other then a part of the Church seruice For whatsoeuer shew Bellarmine make with the names of Eusebius Dionysius and Tertullian yet as I haue said h Yea Tertull. in the place cited apol c. 39 mentions nothing else but the Hymnes which Christians sang altogether in their assēblies instituted by the Apostles whereof we reade so much in antiquitie that the Christians in their meetings vsed to sing Psalmes together Ephes 5.19 Col. 316 Epiph. l 3 sub fin Plin l. 10. ep 2. Nicep l 3 c. 17. Euseb hist l. 3 c. 33. Tert apol c. 2. Aug. conf l. 9. c. 6. 7. Jgnat Ep ad Rom. sub init Basil ep 63. Dionys de diuin nom c. 3. 4. pag. 281. mentions nothing but singing of all together and in another place eccl Hier. c. 3. reports the custome of singing Psalmes by all the cleargy mē together at the Altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 132. the which to haue bene such spirituall songs as the Iesuite here conceites that were no part of the Church seruice he can neuer proue but the place looked into will shew the contrary that they were part of such Church seruice as they vsed they do not distinguish the singing they speake of frō that which belongs to the liturgie or was of the same order and albeit it were granted that such as the Apostle mētions sang by miracle as they praied and prophecied by miracle yet why might not this singing praying and reading be part of the Church seruice that at such times was vsed Thirdly let it be granted that he speakes not of the seruice but onely of that which was done extraordinarily by miracle then haue our aduersaries to shew how the Apostles argument against preaching and singing in a strange tongue holds not likewise against Church seruice in a strange tongue Bellarmine and Gretser say the principall end of those spirituall and miraculous songs was the instruction and consolation of the people and therefore it was meete they should vnderstand them but the principall end of Church seruice being to worship God and the Priest hauing in charge to teach the people what they vnderstand not it is not needfull the said seruice should be in a knowne tongue But this latter that the Priest had in charge to teach the people what they vnderstood not is vntrue for the Apostle will haue both Priest and people ioyned together Thou verily giuest thankes well but thy brother is not edified Neither would I require any better argument for my assertion then this For if the end of Church seruice be Gods worship therefore the people must vnderstand it that they may worshippe God For this
people liuing in mariage yet haue not their secret cohabitation much reported but whether they companied together or no the examples shew they were married they dwelt together in one house they had children and brought them vp together which liberty the Church of Rome now denies The Councell of Constantinople p Est auâ—em etiam vniuersalis Bals p. 194. which was vniuersall q See Simanch institut tit 4. n. 38. and the canons thereof legitimate r Can 13. allowes both the marriage and cohabitation and saies it is the ancient Apostolicall constitution Å¿ Socr. l 1. c. 11. gr Zozom l. 1. c. 23. gr the like did Paphnutius in the first Councell of Neece t The WAY 2. edit p. 344. I alledged a place in Zonaras vpoÌ„ the canons which here I will put into English The Apostles in the canon say that if a Priest vnder the pretence of religion put his wife he shall be excluded excommunicate till he receaues her againe but if he perseuere and will not receaue her againe he shall be degraded because it seems to be done in reproch of marriage as if the mixture of man and wife were vncleannesse Whereas the Scripture saies marriage is honourable and the bed vndefiled The cannon also mentions Bishops hauing wiues because AT THAT TIME THE LAVVFVLL COHABITATION OF BISHOPS WITH THEIR WIVES WAS NOT FORBIDDEN Our aduersaries answer that this custome was but in the Greeke Church and not in the West But what was not the Greeke Church especially in those times the Church of God and haue not they altered the ancient faith that haue altered that which was vniuersall in the most famous Churches of the world and hath not the Pope in the West hereby shewed himselfe to be an Antichristian hereticke that condemnes the vniuersall doctrine of so famous a Church But the West Church also allowed the same liberty till the tyranny of the Pope as u The WAY digr 51. n. 10. I shewed exstinguist it * Scot. 4. d. 47. Ios Angl. Flo. ril in 4 p. 386. Antidid Colon. p. 128. Coster Enchir. p. 517. Greg. Val tom 4. d. 9. q 5. punct 5. All Papists I thinke will grant that maried Ministers were ordained in the Apostles * Mariana pro edit vulg p. 47. times and after yea such as had bene twise maried So to maior y Comment in Tit. c. 1. §. vnius vxotis saies it must be confessed and graunted that of old in the Primitiue Church reason of the small number of Ministers maried Bishops and Priests were vsed by indulgence That indulgence is Sotoes conceit and not the truth as I haue shewed for it is true that the faction against Priests mariage began betimes as appeares by the story of Paphnutius and the Nicene Councell but it was resisted by the godly BB. Dionysius for example the famous Bishop of Corinth a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb p. 41. b. called it a heauy burtheÌ„ not to be imposed on the brethren And therefore b Non horruit illa Tempestate Deus thalamos cunabula taedas Mant Fast 1. and the example of Simplicius before alledged still they maried euen in the West vnder the Romane Patriarchate Marius a Papist c De schism Concil part 3. c. vlt. saies he knowes right well that in the time of Pope Formosus which was 800. yeares after Christ it was permitted and lawfull for Priests to marrie wiues and when the restraint came in he cannot tell though he haue most diligently inquired d Cromer de Orig. gest Polon l. 7. p. 517 In Poland they had their wiues till almost 1200. yeares after Christ e Henr. Hunting p 378. prohibuit ante non prohibitas In England as long f Auentin l. 5. see the WAY pag 377. In Germany France and Italy as long Which I presume the Christian world would not so stiffely haue mainetained if it had bene against the sounder practise of the g See 26. q. 2. sors Clictou de contin c. 4. Church But when they saw it was not forbidden by any law of God but onely opposed first by faction and then by tyrannie they stood as long as they could till they were oppressed by tyrannie Aureolus h 4. d. 37. p 185. saies the common way of holding is that Orders haue the vow of continency annexed by the institution of the Church This is somewhat to shew that God by no diuine law made it so but if he had added that the Church which made this institution had bene a faction first of superstitious persons and then of Antichristian heretickes conducted by the Pope he had said the truth and opened the whole pedigree of it but if he had added further that which i Istud onus quod adhuc quamplurima monstra fecit ab audaci sertur pietaâ—e repertum Mant. Fast l. 1. see Joh Mar. vbi sup not a few of his fellowes supply for him that by leading from Gods ordinance it hath filled their Clergy with all maner of vncleannesse and villanny he had said no more then all the world knowes to be true and will subscribe to CHAP. LIII Wherein is handled the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the worship of images and the distinctions whereby the same is maintained are examined and our aduersaries finally conuicted of giuing Gods honour to their images The Ancient Church was against image worship A. D. Fiftly touching images whereas M. White * White pag. 344 of the first edit 345. in the second edition Where for shame he addeth a limitation saying some of them hauing in the first edition absolutely said without limitation The Church of Rome worshippeth c saith Pag. 281. that the Church of Rome worshippeth and coÌ„mandeth men to worship them with the very same diuine honour which is due to God himselfe first no man holdeth that the images of Saints are to beworshipped with the very same diuine honour which is due to God because the Saints themselues being more honoured of vs then their images are not honoured with diuine honour Secondly although some say that the image of Christ is to be worshipped with the same honour that the Prototypon is yet these be but some and that which is said by these some is not so to be vnderstood as M. White seemeth willing to make his Reader beleeue as though they meant that the verie honour due to our Sauiour should be giuen to the image it selfe which cannot be vnlesse we should be so foolish as to conceaue and iudge that the image it selfe were indeed Christ the Sonne of God which none that hath learned the first rudiments of Christianity can conceaue and iudge Those therefore that vse that manner of speech do onely meane that the image is worshipped with the same worship onely improperly and per accident or at the most Analogicè All which manners are farre from giuing any
therfore with more then the same in name likenesse or proportion Secondly the words of the Popish DD. import more Coster the Iesuite c Pag. 370. Ench saies All the honour which is due to the samplar may also be giuen to the image if All then more then the name and proportion seeing as himselfe d Pag. 368. a little before said All kinde of honour is giuen to Christ For if all contained within the definition of diuine honour be giuen to Christ and all that is giuen Christ be due to his image it followes that all contained within the definition of diuine honour is giuen to his image Suarez e To. 1. d. 54. s 4. §. Secundo infero saies By this adoration * In his conclu §. dicendum whereby the sampler in the image and the image for the samplar is worshipped the image also is adored not onely with the externall act as of kneeling or creeping or capping which is not sufficient for adoration but with the internall motion and intention also of him that adores and that not abusiuely only but TRVLY PROPERLY f §. Alij vero And hauing reported the opinion of Biel Cordubensis and others who distinguish as the Reply doth that the worship is but analogicall he confutes them and saies they neither speake to the purpose nor according to Thomas his minde but cleane beside it It is false therefore that the Reply sayes they worship Christs image improperly and at the most but analogically D. Saunders g Treat of imag c. 17. p. 185. b saith the adoration of the image so passeth immediately to the first sampler and patterne that it becometh not first one in the image and then afterward another in Christ but it passeth altogether remaining still one and the same from the image to Christ himselfe He addes * because he was not of the Thomists and Iesuites opinion Being then in the image doulia it is doulia in Christ but by his leaue if this be so being diuine honour in nature properly and definition in Christ it must needes be the same in his image But Thomas his conclusion and the ground thereof is so plaine that it will not admit these distinctions h Vbi sup q. 25. art 3. see Caiet vpon the place His conclusion is seeing Christ is to be adored with diuine worship his image also must be adored with the same worship His ground is Because the motion of the minde is one and the same to the image and the samplar And expounds how when the minde conceaues the image onely as a meere thing then the motion is two-fold one to the image and another to the thing but when it conceaues it as an image of another thing then the motion is one and the selfe same both to the image and to the thing signified by it Hence I thus reason So as Thomas intended the motion of the minde to be one and the same both to the image and the samplar so and in the same manner did he intend the adoration to both to be the same But its cleare he intended the motion of the minde to be one and the same to both not improperly or accidentarily or analogically but the same to both in nature and definition Therefore it is cleare he inteÌ„ded the adoration to both to be one and the same not improperly accidentarily or analogically but in nature and definition You will possible demand what it is then that Thomas and his sectaries truely hold touching this matter I answer they hold 4. things First that images are to be adored with the same honor that is due to the samplar Secondly that therefore the images of Christ and his crosse must be adored with diuine honour the same that belongs to Christ himselfe Thirdly that this diuine honour is not diuine onely in name and analogy but indeed and vniuocally For that being the exposition of i 3. d. 9. qu. vnic concl 6. Gabriell is reiected of all hands Fourthly that this honour is giuen the image respctiuely for Christ thereby to honor him to conuey their seruice to him not for the images own sake He that reades Thomas and the Iesuites shall finde this to be true wherein they haue onely the last point to helpe themselues and wherewith to excuse their idolatry But it doth them no good forsomuch as the Iewes worshipping the calfe and the Gentiles adoring their idols did it not for the images owne sake but respectiuely and intentionally to God vsing the image but as an instrument to conuey their seruice to him yet notwithstanding for so much as in this manner they imparted diuine adoration to the image by creeping bowing capping kneeling informed also by religious motions of the heart k Psal â—06 19 20 Rom. 1.23 God without respecting their intention vpbraids them with idolatrie 6 Neuerthelesse to shew that images may be adored with the diuine honour of Christ improperly accidentally and analogically as he hath distinguished he reasons thus the worshipping of a crucifixe or image in this maner and the creeping to the crosse as in Catholicke countries it is vsed on Good-fridayes is no more then kneeling to the chaire of estate or to one that in a Play represents the Kings person But to kneele to the chaire of estate or to one that in a play represents the Kings person is no treason or preiudiciall to the honor of the King Therefore the worshipping of Christs image in this maner is no idolatrie nor preiudiciall to the honor of Christ I answer denying the proposition there is not the like reason in worshipping the image of Christ that there is in kneeling to the chaire of estate or to him that represents the Kings person they are not equall The comparison doth well shew and explicate how it is possible to worship Christ in the crucifixe and the crucifixe for Christ but it doth not proue this to be lawfull For it is true that the chaire of estate is in a sort vnited to the person of the King and the person of the King is by a certaine habitude vnited to him that represents him But how will the Replier proue that so also Christ is vnited to the image I know the idolater in his conceit vnites them but who hath taught him so to do what law what word what promise of God hath repealed any such vnion or allowed him to conceiue it Secondly it is true the chaire of estate or he that represents the King and the King himselfe may be conceiued both together with one thought and they may be reuerenced both together with one worship the one properly the other improperly but thus to conceiue and thus to worship Christ and his image together is the thing that I say is forbidden and was condemned in the Primitiue Church Thirdly it is also true that the chaire of estate or the embassador are not worshipped properly because they are not worshipped at al
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
Ecclesiam Dei posse de assertione non vera facere veram aut de non non falsam Turrecâ—em sum de Eccl. l 4. part 2. c. 3. ad 6. our aduersaries denie the latter is not sufficient to make the Scripture onely probable in that howsoeuer for want of Church authoritie a man may not see such texts to proue the virginitie of Marie or the Baptisme of children yet the proofe is in them within their owne latitude and if there be any such matter in them at all then is it in them more then probably because no diuine testimonie is probable but necessarie but Gretser and the Church of Rome vse their traditions as Alchymists do the Philosophers stone with the touch of it they turne any mettall into gold or as Painters do Allum to giue tincture to their colours CHAP. XIX 1. 2. How the Churches authoritie proues the Scripture 3. The Iesuits plainely confesse that the Scriptures alone prooues it selfe to be Gods word 4. The Scriptures are Principles indemonstrable in any superior science 6. All other testimony resolued into the testimony of the Scripture 7. Touching Euidence and the Compossibility thereof with faith A. D. I will insist in that example which I propounded Pag. 68. in the treatise and thus I dispute All sorts both Catholickes and Protestants do beleeue and hold it a point necessary to be beleeued that S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. are true diuine Scripture and that these particular bookes which the Church vseth are the same true Scripture at least in sense and substance which was set downe by those holy writers But these points are not expressed in Scripture nor secluding Church authority and tradition so contained as that they can be proued euidently and necessarily out of any sentence of Scripture Ergo all points necessary to be beleeued are not so contained in Scripture as Protestants say they are M. Wotton and M. White both struggle with this argument as other Protestants haue done before theÌ„ but when they haue done said all one may easily see how they sticke fast in the mire To omit their impertinent speeches there are onely two things which to the purpose they do or can directly say viz. either they must deny these to be points of faith necessary to be beleeued or else they must shew how one may prooue these points euidently out of some sentence of Scripture For if they admit that these be points of faith necessary to be beleeued and that these cannot be prooued out of Scripture it followeth ineuitably that all points of faith necessary to be beleeued cannot be prooued by Scripture and that their Principle is false which saith nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of saith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture M. White saith that like as in other sciences White pag. 47. there are some Principles indemonstrable so in matters of faith it is a Principle to be supposed that Scripture is Diuine and so no maruell if it cannot be prooued as other points of faith are To this I reply that Principles in sciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of terms or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superior science by some other Principle more euident to vs. But that these books which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is * If it were euident how is it onely beleeued by faith For S. Paul calls faith argumentum non apparentium Heb. 11. v. 1. not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other Principle more euidently vnto vs that these books which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture Secondly I aske whether this point of doctrine that S. Mathewes Gospell c. is diuine Scripture be such a Principle of faith as it selfe is also a point necessary to be beleeued and that by the same infallible faith by which we beleeue the blessed Trinity Or that it is so a Principle as it selfe is not to be beleeued at all by faith or by the same faith by which wee beleeue the blessed Trinity If the first be said then either the opinion of Protestants who say nothing is to be necessarily beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued out of the Scripture is false or else this is not a Principle indemonstrable as M. White affirmeth If rhe second be said then it followeth that Protestants do not beleeue by faith S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. nor any other booke in the Bible to be diuine Scripture and consequently not hauing assurance of diuine faith in this point they cannot haue any faith at all in any other points since other points being not otherwise in a Protestants iudgement points of faith then as they are conclusions prooued out of Scripture cannot be more assuredly knowne then Scripture it selfe which is the onely Premise or Principle whence Protestants deduce all other points of their faith 1 MY Aduersary in a In THE WAY §. 9. but in his printed booke cap. 7. his treatise that I answered to shew that the Scripture is not the Rule whereby to find and iudge of true faith obiected the insufficiencie and imperfection thereof because there be diuers questions and points of faith not contained and determined therein Which he endeuours to proue by this argument here set downe Whereto I answered directly and in forme as b THE WAY §. 9. n. 3. inde the booke will shew The which my answer in this place he replies to as you see after his ordinary manner with bragging and saying nothing and casting out a few insolent speeches The Protestants struggle with this argument One may easily see how they sticke in the mire Onely two things to the purpose It seems M. White saw the weakenes of his answer c wherto I answer 2 First he sayes we struggle with this argument and sticke in the mire which in some sense I may not deny for when I vndertooke this Iesuit I struggled with a dunghill and therefore * Hoc scio pro certo quod si cuÌ„ stercâ—re c. no maruell if for my penance I sticke in the mire both here and in many other places of this reply his bragging and railing and facing it out with nothing when yet all this with many shall be accepted for sound diuinity being such as will bemire and weary any man in the world that desires nothing but the truth Otherwise my answer was direct and plaine for the point he is to proue is that the Scripture alone containes not nor determines the whole obiect of our faith but diuers points needfull to be beleeued are wanting in it and must be supplied by the authority and tradition of the Church his reason to proue this is the
Syllogisme here set downe Whereto I answered First granting the maior and acknowledging it to be a point of faith necessary to be beleeued that the Canonicall bookes which the Church vses are true diuine Scripture but I denied the second proposition that they cannot be proued so to be by themselues secluding Church authority and tradition And I distinguish for the Authority and direction of the Church is Gods outward ordinance to teach vs as a condition how to see the Scripture to be diuine but not the thing whereby they are prooued so to be and whereon our faith leaneth but this diuinity the Church as a bare Minister out of the Scripture it selfe prooues to be in the Scripture not by her owne authority that vpon her word and testimony either onely or particularly it should be taken for Scripture rather then the books of other men In the same manner that a man shewes a star giuing light to it selfe which yet another cannot see till the man point to it Or as a dead mans will kept in the Register of necessity must be sought there and thence receiued yet all the authority of that court which is great and ample specially in preseruing records neither makes nor prooues the will to be legitimate but is onely a requisite condition to bring it forth and vs to the sight and knowledge of it the will proouing it selfe by the hand and seale of him that made it affixed to it So it is with the word of God which we do not ordinarily see to be the word of God vntill the Church teach and traine vs vp therein But when it hath done the arguments whereby it is proued so to be and the authority whereupon I beleeue it are contained in the word it selfe which I expound and confirme by this that euermore and perpetually the Church by the Scripture it selfe and by no other argument prooues it to be diuine to those she teaches and vpon that ground at the first receiued them for such her selfe and many times it fals out as with some Atheists and Pagans that where no Church authority ministry or perswasion is vsed by onely reading of the Scripture it selfe in respect of the outward meanes a man coms to faith which could not be if the Scripture it selfe had not conuinced him forsomuch as an Atheist or vnbeleeuer will not be perswaded by any thing but that which he euidently sees to be Gods owne word and this perswasion arises in him from the very booke it selfe without Church authority 3 And this is yet confirmed by that which the Iesuites teach against the Anabaptists Swinkfieldians holding the motions of their inward spirit to be Gods word for Bellarmine c De verb. Dei l. 1. c. 1. 2. sayes that to the faithfull acknowledging the Scripture to be Gods word it may be prooued out of the Scripture it selfe that the Scripture is the word of God Molhusine and Gretsers d Gretser def Bellar. l. 1. c. 2. pag. 34. D. words are these It is manifest that Bellarmine onely affirmes that it may be prooued OVT OF THE SCRIPTVRES THEMSELVES and the Canonicall books thereof onely TO THE FAITHFVLL who receiue and reuerence them for such that the word of God is not the inward spirit whereof fantasticall men boast but the word of God is truly it which is contriued in those books which the faithfull hold for Canonicall In which words they say three things First that the faithfull who acknowledge the Scripture to be Gods word are they persons of whom they speake not such as receiue it not Secondly that to such it may be prooued that not the inward spirit of fantasticall men but the Canonicall Scripture is the word of God Wherein they affirme two things may be prooued A Negatiue that the inward spirit is not Gods word and an Affirmatiue that Gods word is truely it which is contained in the Canonicall books of the Scripture Thirdly that both this Negatiue and this Affirmatiue may be proued out of the Scriptures themselues Hence I reasō thus To the godly that receiue and acknowledge the Scripture this affirmatiue that Gods word is it which is contained in the Canonicall Bookes of the Scripture may be proued out of the Scriptures themselues therefore the Scripture it selfe can proue it selfe to be the word of God Therefore that the Scripture it the very word of God is contained in the Scripture because otherwise it could not be proued so to be out of the Scripture it selfe Therefore all things needfull are contained in this Scripture No wrangling can auoid this If to such as receiue them it may be proued out of themselues that these Bookes are the word of God then this point that these bookes are diuine Scripture is contained in Scripture and the cause why some see it not is their owne indisposition and vnbeleefe wherewith the Scripture must not be charged but to such as receiue these Bookes the Iesuits affirme it may be proued out of themselues that they are the word of God that is without all Church authoritie which is externall and not in the Scripture 4 Secondlie this being admitted that it is a a point of faith necessary to be beleeued that the Canonical Books are diuine and then againe that they could not be shewed so to be out of themselues yet doth it not follow ineuitably that all points of faith are not contained in them for the question is not whether the Scripture be Gods word or no which is granted of all hands but whether being confessed so to be it containe all such verities as a Christian man is bound to know in such measure that there is no point to be beleeued that is not contained therein The reason is because the Scriptures are the principles of diuine knowledge and the faith thereof * Not in nature but in proportion like the credite we yeed to the rules of humane sciences which are knowne and beleeued of themselues without any further demonstration And as the kings lawes containe all things whatsoeuer the subiect is bound to do and yet the said lawes not prouing themselues to be of authoritie but supposing it to be known before and otherwise are not thereby proued to be vnperfect or defectiue but being receiued then there is nothing wanting in them that is necessary for the common-wealth and as in all arts and sciences that we learne the rules and precepts thereof need not proue themselues for that which is the generall rule of other things is not ruled it selfe in the same kinde and yet it were folly to say they were therefore imperfect So may it be said to be in the Scripture supposing it had no more light thereby to authorize it selfe then Princes lawes and humane principles haue that it containes all points of faith though it were not expressed that it selfe is the word of God For the readier vnderstanding whereof let the Reader againe cast his eie vpon the occasion