the vnlearned know them to be sincere The new translation lately set foorth by the Kings authoritie defended Momus in his humor The subordination of meanes Chap. 29. Touching the obscuritie of the Scripture The necessitie of meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scripture proues not the obscuritie Traditions debarred A Councell is aboue the Pope The Scripture of it selfe easie to all that vse it as they should The certaine sence of the Scripture and the assurance thereof is not by tradition Chap. 30. Touching the all-sufficiencie of Scripture to the matter of faith It shewes it selfe to be Gods word Luthers denying S. Iames epistle How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture What they and what we hold about the authoritie of the Church How expresse Scripture is required Chap. 31. Wherein the place 2. Tim. 3.15 alledged to proue the fulnesse and sufficiencie of the Scripture alone is expounded and vrged against the Iesuites cauils Chap. 32. Touching priuate spirits that expound against the Church Such priuate expositions refused by the Protestants And yet the Papists haue no other All teaching is to be examined euen by priuate men Certaine propositions shewing how the Church teaching may be or may not be examined and refused Chap. 33. How a priuate man is assured he vnderstands and beleeues aright touching the last and highest resolution of faith Luthers reiecting the Fathers Occhams opinion that no man is tied to the Pope or his Councels The Beraeans examined the doctrine that they were taught The faith of the beleeuer rests vpon diuine infused light M. Luther sought reformation with all humilitie Scripture is the grounds of true assurance Who the Pastors were of whom Luther learned his faith His conference with the Diuel By the Church the Papists meane onely the Pope Chap. 34. The Papists pretending the Church haue a further meaning then the vulgar know The Popes will is made the Churches act Base traditions expounded to be diuine truth Chap. 35. The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope How and in what sence they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith And that the Scripture receiues authoritie from him Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not And they may iudge of that they teach The Iesuites dare not answer directly Chap. 36. An entrance into the question touching the visibilitie of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was Chap. 37. Not the Church but the Scripture is the rule The question touching the visiblenesse of the Church proceeds of the Militant Church In what sence we say the Militant Church is sometime inuisible The Papists thinke the Church shall be inuisible in the time of Antichrist Their contradictions touching Antichrist breefly noted Chap. 38. The Papists cannot proue the Church to be alway visible in that sence wherein we denie it The diuerse considerations of the Church distinguished His quarrels made for our doctrine touching the Churches seuerall states answered The faithfull onely are true members of the Church Vpon what occasion the question touching the visiblenesse of the Church first began Chap. 39. The Papists are enforced to yeeld the same that we say touching the inuisiblenesse of the Church Their doctrine touching the time of Antichrists reigne And the state of the Militant Church at some times Arguments for the perpetuall visiblenesse of the Church answered In whom the true Church consisted before Luthers time Chap. 40. Againe touching the visiblenesse of the Church and in what sence we say it was inuisible Many things innouated in the Church of Rome The complaints of Vbertine and Ierome of Ferrara All the Protestants faith was preserued in the middest of the Church of Rome A iest of the Terinthians What religion hath bred desperation Chap. 41. A narration of a popish Doctor and professor of diuinitie in the Church of Rome translated out of Acosta de temp nouissimis lib. 2. cap. 11. and Maiolus dies canicul tom 2. pag. 89. and inserted for answer to that wherewith the Iesuite reproches our Church in the last words of his precedent replie Chap. 42. An obiection against the Repliars Catalogue Diuers articles condemned by the Fathers mentioned in the Catalogue that the Church of Rome now vses What consent there is betweene antiquitie and papistrie Chap. 43. Whatsoeuer the Fathers of the primitiue Church beleeued is expressed in their bookes The Repliar is driuen to say they held much of his religion onely implicitely What implicite faith is according to the Papists The death of Zeuxis The Fathers writ that which cannot stand with papistrie Chap. 44. The whole Christian faith deliuered to the Church hath succeeded in all ages yet many corruptions haue sometime bene added how and in what sence the Church may erre A Catalogue assigned of those in whom the Protestants faith alway remained What is required to the reason of succession Chap. 45. The Fathers are not against the Protestants but with them Touching the Centuries reiecting of the Fathers The cause of some errors in the Fathers Gregories faith and conuerting England The Papists haue bene formall innouators How they excuse the matter Chap. 46. The errors broached by the later Diuines of the Church of Rome Their errors maintained by that Church and their writings to good purpose alledged by Protestants How that which they speake for the Protestants is shifted of One reason why we alledge their sayings That which is said in excuse of their disagreement answered Chap. 47. Councels haue erred and may erre What manner of Councels they be that the Papists say cannot erre It is confessed that both Councels and Pope may erre Chap. 48. Touching the Councels of Neece the second and Frankford How the Nicene decreed images to be adored What kind of Councell it was And what manner of one that of Frankford was Frankford cōdemned the second Nicene Touching the booke of Charles the Great and of what credit it is Chap. 49. The ancient Church held the blessed Virgin to haue bene conceiued in sinne The now Church of Rome holds the contrary Chap. 50. Touching Seruice and praier in an vnknowne language The text 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine The ancient Church vsed praier in a knowe language Chap. 51. The Church of Rome against all antiquitie forbids the laie people the vse of the Scripture in the vulgar language The shifts vsed by the Papists against reading spitefull speeches against it Testimonies of antiquitie for it The Repliars reason against it Chap. 52. The mariage of Priests and Bishops lawfull and allowed by antiquitie Some examples hereof in the ancient Church The restraint hereof is a late corruption Priests were maried euen in these westerne parts a thousand yeares after Christ Chap. 53. Wherein is handled the doctrine of the Church of Rome touching the
aduersarie will vrge me with this and stand vpon it that it is the doctrine of his Church I will not striue with him onely I will commend 2. things to his consideration First how he will pleade the saluation of innumerable lay people I will not say in Lancashire but in France Spaine and Italy euery where that haue no knowledge of these things but onely beleeue as the Church beleeues whom the Church of Rome hath hitherto trained vp in this implicite faith of the Colliar how will he excuse the Colliar whom Staphylus commends so that knew not these things and what if it should fall out that the Gentleman his friend whom he mentions z A person of good esteeme and place in that your country p. 39. Repl. before in this Reply being catechized by his ghostly father should be able to say no more then the Colliar Next that euen the Iesuites and these Diuines who make shew to maintaine this explicite faith yet vtter that besides that vnanswerably makes for the implicite in all articles Henriquex a De sin hom c. 17. n. 1. lit x. sayes A man may be iustified by the implicite faith of Christ * Si planè contritus cum plena satisfactione vel cum martyrio aut indulgentia plenaria decedat and if he die be saued also with a pardon b Relect. de Sacram. part 2. q. 2. concl 3. Canus and c In Tho. 22. q. 2. art 8. dub vlt. concl 1. Bannes affirme that the explicite faith or distinct knowledge of Christ is not necessary as a meanes to iustifie vs. And Bannes d Concl. 4. addes that it were neither heresie nor error nor rashnes nor scandall to auouch that a man may also in the same manner be saued because iustification being the last disposition to glory it is very probable that he which is iustified by an implicite faith may also by the same faith without alteration be saued Vasquez e In Tho. 12. q. 2. disp 121. c. 2. sayes He doubts not but many countrie people without fault are ignorant of some necessary mysteries Vega f Pro concil pag. 92. sayes as I alledged before It is to be affirmed that men are so iustified by the faith of the Mediator that yet the vnfolded faith neither of this article nor of any other must be thought requisite vnto iustice because the explicite faith of other articles belonging either to speculation or morall life suffices thereunto I could alledge many other such doctrines but these are enough to shew my aduersary that his Diuines deale but doubly in our point of implicite faith and such as make faire offer against it yet are fast friends to the Colliar 6 Note thirdly concerning the persons who they be that our aduersaries allow to beleeue implicitly who are bound to expresse knowledge Mediauillanus g 3. d. 25 p. 89. edit Venet. per Laz. Soard 1508. sayes that such as are superiors in the Church must haue a fuller knowledge concerning faith then inferiours So that I beleeue such superiours are bound to beleeue all the articles of faith expresly though euery one of thē be not bound to beleeue their number or artificiall distinction Syluester h Sum Syluest v. fides n. 6. sayes Euery one that hath cure of soules as Prelates Priests Prophets Doctors and Preachers are bound expresly to beleeue the whole distinction of the articles of faith according to their substance but others are not so bound i Direct Inquisit part 1. q. 4. n. 3. Eymericus out of k 22. q. 2. art 6. Thomas Prelats and Curats are bound to haue the expresse faith and knowledge of all the articles of faith wherefore the explication of things to be beleeued is not alike in respect of all sorts of men necessary to saluation because Superiors which haue the charge of instructing others are bound to beleeue expresly more things then others are l 22. q. 2. art 8. disp vnic sub sin Pezantius thinks thus of the matter that Bishops are bound * A hard taske for the Boy Bishops mentioned by Gerson and others see Vers sign ruin Eccl. sign 3. 8. Pic. Mirand orat ad Leo. and for some men Bishops too mentioned by Theod. Niem nemor Semita de scism p. 66. Cathar n. specul haeret p. 71. Clemang de stat Eccl. p. 15. 30. concil delect card Alliac reform Eccl. consid 3. and for some Popes also See specul Pontif. p. 110. and possible for our yong Iesuites and Seminaries to say nothing of the old Mas Priests in times past expresly to know the articles of Faith contained in the Creed and Scripture and in the definitions of the Church so that they can both expound teach and perswade them Simple Priests must know those things that belong to the making of the Sacrament and other things contained in the Creed Preachers such things as are necessary to teach the people how to beleeue and liue parish Priests are not bound to be so perfit in the knowledge of the articles of faith that they can assoile hard questions but it is sufficient if they can instruct their charge in such things as they are tied to beleeue and do and if they haue sufficient knowledge of the Cases of Conscience And so the implicite knowledge and faith is admitted onely in the vnlearned Laity and not in Clergie men of any sort if our aduersaries will hold them to their doctrine but they dubble and perseuere not in it as will appeare by viewing the places of the Archbishop and the Cardinal whom m The WAY §. 2. n. 6. I alledged in my booke 7 Note fourthly that the things which we mislike and speake against in this matter of implicite faith are these First that in teaching of it the Church of Rome seemes manifestly to seeke her owne soueraignty euen aboue the Scripture in the consciences of men rather then the true knowledge of God and his will To what purpose they do this n 2. Th. 2.4 apoc 18.7 I sit a Queene we are not ignorant but we see it tends to the stupifying of the word by blind and brutish obedience that there need be no trauell in religion it selfe but onely a religious care that the Church of Rome be not offended Whereunto whosoeuer will cleaue resolutely to obey all her drudgery and tyrannie that man by some fine distinction or other and that by the Iesuites themselues and such as talke most of explicite knowledge shall be iustified to be of an entire faith extending it selfe vniuersally to all points one as wel as another though he were as ignorāt as a sheepe or as mad as o Suid. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amphistides in Suidas that could not tell fiue nor whether his father or his mother bare him Secondly we mislike that ignorance so much condemned by the word of God should thus be bolstered out whereby true faith
faith but the illumination of Gods Spirit whereof faith is an effect 2. Himselfe in those words the Spirit of God must assist and concur with mans vnderstanding not onely in generall to preserue the faculty thereof but in a speciall manner to enable it to apprehend and yeeld confesses as much as I said or could meane taking my words in all their latitude 3. If faith be taken in one particular sence as sometimes it is for the receiuing of diuine illumination into the heart as a darke roome when the window is opened or a candle is brought in receiues light then it is true * â—rgo ante fidem absque fide intelligi Scripturas posse affirmas Hoc si tibi absurdum non videtur plus quam Pelagia nus es D. Stapl. de author script c. 8. §. 16. that the heart must be endued with faith before any man can vnderstand the rule and yeeld his assent to it vnlesse he will hold Pelagianisme neither doth my Aduersaries argument conclude any thing against this for the vsing of the rule and this faith go together as the opening of the eye and light concur to seeing Therefore as he that seekes a thing in a blind roome first opens the window and lets in light and then applies his eye with the helpe of that meanes to the obiect so though it be supposed that faith cannot be had before the rule instruct vs yet this light of Gods Spirit which is the beginning of faith as the medium whereby the rule is vnderstood goes in order before it As in all our sences * Nihil agit in distans nisi primo agat in medium Allias â—â—â—ct de anim c. 8. part 3. the way from the sence to the obiect is disposed by the medium But if faith be taken in the whole extent for the knowledge and assent of all that which is reuealed then I grant the rule must go before 2 Thirdly touching illumination of the Spirit which we both agree is necessary for the vsing and vnderstanding of the Rule he will haue 2. things noted First that this is not the Protestants spirit Whereunto I answer it is neither the Protestant nor Romish nor any priuate spirit much lesse the Popes spirit a Shewed Ch. 35. whereby alone they breathe that thus charge others with priuate spirits but the Spirit of God that is b 1 Cor. 12.6 giuen to euery man to profit withal Secondly that this Spirit of God is ready to assist all men at least sufficiently to the attaining of the truth and that no maÌ„ whoÌ„ grace hath excited to vse the rule need feare any want thereof but all men rather had need feare least themselues be wanting to concurre with this Spirit and least in stead of following the Spirit of God they suffer themselues as all they do that follow the Church of Rome to be misled by the spirit of Satan transfiguring himselfe into an Angell of light c. The which I am also well pleased to note and commend backe againe to himselfe and all of his sect who refusing the light of the Scripture that so euidently detects their errors haue suffered themselues to be seduced by the spirit of Antichrist * Apoc. 13.13 who hath transfigured himselfe into an Angell of light and broaching his owne priuate conceits yet colours all with the stile of S. Peters successour and seeming authority and spirit of the Church when the Primum mobile of all Papistry is now become the Iesuited Popes sole instinct 3 Fourthly he mislikes that besides these 3. properties of the Rule I would haue other two Vnpartiality that it be addicted to no side and Authority to conuince that there might be no appeale from it But these conditions I added for the better explication of the rest and to exclude the Church of Rome which is so partiall that it begges to be it owne iudge and so vnable to support the cause since that the clearest definitions thereof are still called in question by themselues as c Digr 36. I made demonstration The which being the true reasons of his mislike he dissembles and onely replies that these conditions are either not necessary or else included in the other 3. the former of which is not true the latter that they be included in the condition of infalliblenesse I will not contend about onely I noted them for the more distinct and particular explication of that which must belong to the Rule And so in this point there shall be no variance CHAP. XXVII 1. The Repliers terginersation 2. 3. The state of the question touching the sufficiency of the Scripture alone and the necessity of the Church Ministrie 3. The speeches of diuers Papists against the perfection of the Scripture 4. In what sence Scripture alone is not sufficient Pag. 177. A. D. Concerning the seuenth Chapter if my aduersaries did not ignorantly or wilfully peruert the state of the question they could not haue had colour to make so long discourse about this Chapter as they do both make My question was not whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether it alone be the rule and meanes ordained by God to breed in men that one infallible entire Faith which is necessary to saluation This my question my aduersaries peruert FIRST in that they would gladly as it seemeth make men beleeue that we exclude Scripture from being in any sort the rule of faith and thereupon * Pag. 10 11. M. Wootton maketh speciall opposition betwixt the Scripture which they assigne and the doctrine of the Church which we assigne for the rule of faith whereas we make no such opposition at all but hold the Scripture as propounded to vs by the Church to be part of that which in the tenth Chapter I call the rule of faith For by the doctrine of the Church which there I cal the rule of faith I do not meane any humane doctrine as humane is distinguished from Diuine but do account the same doctrine whether written or vnwritten which is called diuine because it was first immediatly reuealed by God to the Prophets and Apostles to be also Church doctrine because it is propounded interpreted and applyed in particular to vs by the Pastours of the Church This my aduersary might haue vnderstood euen by the very title of this Chapter in regard I said not the Scripture is not the rule of faith but Scripture ALONE is not the rule of faith SECONDLY they peruert the state of the question in that they take the rule of faith otherwise then I do and otherwise then according to the drift of the precedent Chapters wherupon this present Chapter doth depend they ought to do For whereas there may be distinguished in this matter First that which is a rule of faith but not the ordinary sufficient meanes ordained by God to breed faith in men viz the diuine reuealed verities as they are in themselues Secondly that which is so an
faith or needfull to be followed And so from that place to pag. 57 I disputed that the Scripture ALONE is the rule of faith that is to say That rule which my Aduersary in his fourth ground had said God had prouided whereby euery man learned and vnlearned may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for the true faith Now he complaines that the State is peruerted the question not being whether Scripture be the rule of faith but whether Scripture alone be the rule and meane ordained of God to breed all faith And he notes two points wherein it is peruerted First in that I so affirme and defend the Scripture to be the rule as if he and his sectaries excluded it from being the rule in any sort which he sayes they do not For they hold the Scripture as propounded by the Church to be part of it I answer that I knew well enough they confessed the Scripture to be part of the rule and the Diuine doctrine which is the whole rule to be some of it written But I knew also that they denied it to be the whole rule ioyning therewith vnwritten traditions and the Popes Decretals which they call Church authority I knew also they allowed it to be no part of the rule but as and in such sence as the Church of Rome should please to propound it and I saw his conclusion in termes denying the Scripture alone to be the rule whereby men may sufficiently be instructed WHAT the faith is therefore I disputed directly opposite to all this that the Scripture alone without traditions is the whole rule to shew vs WHAT is to be holden for faith and nothing but the Scripture this is close to the question For albeit he yeelds it to be the rule in a sort because as his Church propounds it it containes part of the rule yet he denies it to be that whole and entire rule that his conclusion inquires of and so is to be disputed against as well as if he denied it to be any part of the rule at all Againe he holds two things First affirmatiuely that the Scripture is one part of the rule then negatiuely that the Scripture alone is not all the rule Both these are contradictory to my assertion The Scripture alone is the rule My assertion therefore affirming what he denies and denying what he affirmes containes the true state of the question and his inuoluing the matter with all this cauilling tends onely to the couering of his doctrine the loathsome visage whereof he is ashamed should be seene 3 The second point wherein he sayes the question is peruerted is in that I take the rule of faith otherwise then he doth For whereas he by that word rule meanes such a rule as not onely is sufficient to REVEALE all diuine truths that are to be beleeued but also to BREED or produce in vs the faith whereby we beleeue them I he sayes vnderstand such a rule onely as is sufficient to reueale the diuine verities though it be not sufficient to breed in vs faith and assent thereunto And it is true that I vnderstand such a rule indeed the Church wherein I liue onely beleeuing the sufficiency of the Scripture to containe all the obiect of faith but not to enable vs to beleeue it or vnderstand it ordinarily without the ministry of the Church and other meanes But this peruerts not the question * The state of the question touching Scripture ALONâ— for about the meanes there is no question but the question is whether Scripture alone excluding all Church traditions and authority comprehend the whole obiect or matter of faith that is to say All that we are bound to know beleeue and doe for our saluation though it be granted that to breed or produce faith and knowledge of that which is in the Scripture the Ministry of the Church and the helpe of Gods Spirit and our owne industry must concurre For our Aduersaries deny this and hold their runagate traditions and Church authority to be necessary not onely for the expounding and confirming to vs that which is in the Scripture if any one chance to deny it or not to see it but for the supplying of infinite articles of faith which are no waies at all comprised in the Scripture but vpon the said authority are to be receiued as well as that which is reuealed in the Scripture The Iesuite speakes as if he thought his Church authority to consist more in breeding faith and leading men to beleeue what is written then in adding any thing to the measure of the diuine verities contained in the Scripture and indeed sometime there be of his side that will plainely say so He that writ the defence of the Censure a Def. of the Cens pag. 141. NOTE THIS and inquire whether all Papists will stand to it sayes it is to be noted that the question betweene vs and the Protestants is of EXPRESSE SCRIPTVRE ONELY and not of any far fet place which by interpretation may be applied to a controuersie For this contention began betweene vs vpon this occasion that when we alledged diuers weighty places and reasons out of the Scripture for proofe of inuocation of Saints praier for the dead Purgatory and some other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they did not plainely and expresly decide the matter Whereupon came this question whether all matters of beleefe are plainely and expresly in Scripture or not which they affirme and we deny And this he sayes is is the true state of the question Gretser b Defens Bellar tom 1. l. 4. c. 4. p. 1598. sayes These things may be proued by Scripture but not sufficiently not effectually by Scripture alone without tradition but onely probably The which if my aduersary and his Church did hold constantly and in good earnest I would confesse I had peruerted the state of the question But they do not but hold many things belonging to faith to be wanting and no way at all neither openly nor expresly nor consequently contained in the Scripture Dominicus Bannes c D. Dann 22. Tho. p. 302. All things which pertaine to Catholicke faith are not contained in the Canonicall books either manifestly or obscurely nor all those things which Christ and his Apostles taught and ordained for the instructing of his Church and confirming of the faith were committed to the holy Scriptures and the contrary is open heresie Melchior Canus d Can. loc p. 151 There are many things belonging to the doctrine and faith of Christians which are contained in the sacred Scriptures neither manifestly nor obscurely Cardinall Hosius e Hos confess Polon p. 383. The greater part of the Gospell by a great deale is come to vs by tradition very little of it being written in the Scripture Peresius f Peres de tradit p. 4. Tradition is taken so that it is distinguisht against the doctrine which is found in the Canonicall bookes of the
Scripture Bellarmine g Bell. de verb. Dei lib. 4. c. 1. The name of tradition is applied by Diuines to signifie onely vnwritten doctrine Alphonsus h Alphons à Castr adu haer lib 1. c. 5. This is to be laid for a most sound foundation that the traditions of the vniuersall Church and the determinations thereof in things concerning faith are of no lesse authority then the sacred Scripture it selfe though there be no Scripture to proue them Hessels of Louan i Hessel expli symb c. 69. p. 38. The Apostles neuer intended by their writing to commit to writing the whole doctrine of faith but as necessity vrged them what in their absence they could not teach that they committed to writing Costerus the Iesuite k Coster enchirid p. 43. It was neuer the mind of Christ either to commit his mysteries to parchment or that his Church should depend on paper writings Lindane l Lind. panopl. pag. 4. We Catholickes teach that Christians are to beleeue many things which are to be acknowledged for Gods word that are not contained in the Scripture and many things finally to be receiued with the same authoritie wherewith those doctrines of faith are receiued which are contained in holy writ Rodericus Delgado m Roderic dosm de autor Script l. vlt. p. 63 Albeit these things are not found written in the Bible yet they must no lesse be obserued by the godly that they may fulfill the precepts and firmely beleeue the mysteries of the heauenly faith Doctor Stapleton n Staplet princip doctr l. 12. cap. 5. There both were among the Iewes and are among vs very many things religiously performed in the worship of God and also necessary to saluation and necessarily to be beleeued which yet are not comprehended in the Scriptures but are approued or commended to vs ONELY by the authority of the Church Gregory of Valentia o Valent. tom 3. p. 258. D. All the controuersie is whether the Apostles by word of mouth WITHOVT WRITING deliuered any such doctrines as now affoord an infallible argument for the determining of the controuersies of faith in the Church These wordes of our aduersaries make it more then plaine that the Church of Rome holds the Scriptures vnsufficient not onely in respect of breeding faith or bringing men to know and beleeue it ordinarily which we grant but also in respect of containing it in themselues which we deny And that my aduersary holds the same thing I will prone directly For ha-laid downe 4. grounds First that true faith is necessary Secondly that this faith is onely one Thirdly that this faith must be certaine Fourthly and entire in all points he addes the fift that it must not be doubted but God hath prouided and left some certaine rule and meanes whereby euery man may in all points and questions be sufficiently and infallibly instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith and then immediately he puts the question what in particular may be assigned to be this rule wherto he answers in his first conclusion The Scripture alone especially as translated into English cannot be this rule Which I denied Therefore his question was touching the sufficiency of the Scripture as the said sufficiency is opposed to vnwrittē traditiō not as it is distinguished against the requisite condition of the meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scripture And this I confirme for my aduersary saies they hold the Scripture to be part of the rule because it is part of the doctrine of the Church immediatly reuealed by God but yet there are many substantiall points of faith not contained in them Yea p Pag. 67. Reply his expresse words are The question is betwixt vs and Protestants whether God did reueale any thing to the Prophets and Apostles necessary to be beleeued which is not now expressed or so contained in the Scripture that by euident and necessary consequence excluding all tradition and Church authority it may be gathered out of some sentence expresly set downe in the Scripture I did not therefore peruert the state of the question but my Aduersary hauing nothing else to say thought good by this shift to rid himselfe from that which he saw could not be answered 4 Neuerthelesse pleasing himselfe with his owne conceite he concludes that conuicted with the euidence of truth I haue yeelded to his conclusion in that sence wherein he meant it That Scripture alone is not the rule of faith And therefore all my discourse is idle and impertinent I answer two things first if his conclusion The Scripture alone is not this rule which almighty God hath prouided whereby euery man may sufficiently be instructed WHAT is to be holden for true faith meane no more but onely to adde the Ministry of the Church and mens owne industry to the Scripture as the meanes for the ordinary vnderstanding and beleeuing that which is written in it in this sence the Scripture alone is the rule whereby to iudge whatsoeuer matter belongs to faith but Scripture alone is not the ordinary rule and meanes by it selfe to kindle in vs the true knowledge and faith of that which it containes without the Ministrie of the Church and other things be ioyned with it for the learning of it then I grant it and require the Iesuite againe in lieu thereof either to renounce his traditions or else confesse they haue no other vse but onely to helpe to expoūd and teach that which is wholly contained in the Scripture without any power to supply any defect of doctrine that may be supposed to be therein And when he hath done the next treatise of faith he writes to distinguish a little better betweene the Rule and the Meanes of applying it and not say that is no sufficient rule whereby to be instructed WHAT is faith and WHAT not which onely is not a sufficient meanes to bring men to faith without the subordinate condition of such meanes as is required in the application of any rule Secondly I answer that his conclusion meanes more viz. That Scripture alone is vnperfect and defectiue 2. waies The first in that without other meanes it doth not ordinarily breed or draw foorth in vs assent to that it reueales nor so much as make vs see the reuelation to be And therefore there needes the Church by her Pastor to teach and perswade vs and there needes the Spirit of God and industrie in our selues This way no Protestant euer denied The second is in that it alone containes not all Gods word or all such truth as he hath reuealed necessarily to be beleeued but onely one small and obscure part thereof the best part or at least some part being by Tradition onely vnwritten This way we deny with open mouth and the Iesuite holds it and in the place now controuerted hugges it in his armes and therefore I discoursed against him as I did and in no other sense and so consequently it is
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
saluation Therefore it is sufficient How doth it now appeare so plainely that it proues nothing the first proposition is manifest of it selfe the second is as manifest for all that the Apostle affirmes is of the Scripture alone and of nothing else for of Scripture alone he saies it is able to make wise to saluation it is profitable to teach to reproue to instruct to correct that the man of God may be perfect the conclusion therfore must needs be true Secondly he saies the Apostle speakes of the old Testament yea of euery parcell of Scripture yet M. White will not say that now specially the old Testament without the New or euery parcell of the old it selfe is alone sufficient for all the said purposes whereto M. White answers that he neither speakes of the old Testament alone nor of any one parcell either of old or new separated from the rest but of the whole in this sense all the whole Scripture taken together is able c. And if the Iesuits and D. Stapleton whom this man traces had not renounced all truth they would not say it when that which the Apostle auouches of the Scripture cannot agree to euery parcel alone but to all together for what one parcell performes all these effects to make wise to saluation to teach to reproue to instruct to correct to make perfect the Scripture is so vnderstood as that all these things may truly be affirmed of it but these things cannot truely be affirmed of the parcels alone Ergo. 4 Thirdly he saies the word PROFITABLE must not expound the word ABLE or if it be the word ABLE doth not signifie that the Scripture is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most it imports a great degree of profitablenesse This is no answer to this argument But to another that he hath not expressed I said therefore thirdly though very briefly By the word able the other word profitable must be expounded Which I thus put into forme that which is PROFITABLE by being ABLE is sufficient the Scripture is so PROFITABLE that it is ABLE to make vs wise to saluation Ergo it is sufficient He first denies the Minor and saies the word profitable is not to be expounded by the word Able but he seemes to be dazeled For that which is able to make wise to saluation must needes be able to make absolute and perfect because perfection consists in being wife to saluation but the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation Ergo. Next he saies that supposing the word PROFITABLE be expounded by the word ABLE thus Scripture is able to make one absolute and perfect yet the meaning is not that it is able without other helpes and meanes concurring with it but at the most that it is very profitable and if it be sufficient yet this sufficiency is not that whereof our question is but in a certaine limited kinde to wit of written Scripture That is to say if by able to make vs wise to saluation be meant that the Scriptures are sufficient yet it is not meant that alone they are sufficient as the Protestants hold but with a limitation so far as Scripture can be sufficient In which his answer he plainely discouers himselfe to be foundred and spent For our question is not whether the Scripture alone without vsing the Ministery of the Church or our owne industry or such meanes as God hath appointed for the finding our and vnderstanding of that which is contained in it be sufficient for Bread and Drinke and all manner of food is not sufficient to sustaine mans life if he take no paines to get it or if he be not able to swallow and digest it and my aduersaries owne Church and traditions with all their royalties are not sufficient vnlesse men take paines to finde them and be so mad as to beleeue them and so blinde as to let them downe but the question is of their latitude and extent viz. whether the written Scripture containe in expresse words or sense the whole and entire doctrine of faith and good life so that the Church by her authoritie and traditions may adde no point of faith that is wanting in the Scripture This appeares to be the question by my aduersaries own words and the words of the Diuines in his Church Now the Apostle saying the Scripture is able to make one wise to saluation affirmes the sufficiency of it alone without any other helpe or meanes to supply any doctrine or matter of faith not contained therein because there is no more needfull but to be wise to saluation and that wisdome the Scripture is able to instruct vs in Which ability is not limited to certaine points but extended to all the whole obiect of faith by the word For thus I reason He speakes of the Scripture alone and nothing else therefore the Scripture alone is able to make wise to saluation therefore it is so profitable and in such sort to make absolute and perfect to euery good worke that it can do it For it is able Therefore it alone is sufficient Therefore this sufficiency is so limited to written Scripture that it is perfectly and wholy contained in it 5 The second part of my aduersaries answer in his discourse to the text alleadged was that the Scripture is said to be profitable because it commendes to vs the authority of the Church This his answer I opposed with 7. arguments But when I repeated it I put in the word sufficient thus He saies they be profitable and SVFFICIENT because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority the addition of which word you see he distasts and makes a vantage of thereby to put off the answer to sixe of my arguments That the Prouerbe might be true it s an ill winde but blowes some men profite for vnder that pretence he takes occasion to cauill and put off that he could not answer For first the word might well be put in without any preiudice to his sense For if their profitablenesse lie in commending to vs the Church authoritie then their sufficiency lyes there too and so I might well make him say they be profitable and sufficient because they cōmend vnto vs the Churches authority Secondly it is idle that he saies my obiections are ouerthrown Only by reading his words aright leauing out the word sufficient For let him looke vpon them againe and he shall finde they ourthrow his exposition of profitable as well as if he had expounded sufficient in the same manner But my aduersary will take a small occasion to shun an argument 6 Onely to the sixth he replies for whereas I said the meaning cannot be that they are profitable because they commend vnto vs the Churches authority because the Apostle saies they are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastor himselfe the Pope the Councell and all and it were absurd to say that the
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
My aduersarie therefore maintaining the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of faith * Suarez the Iesuit shames not to tell the king of England in his late writing against him that The authoritie of the Trent Councell which all the world knowes was mooued by the Pope in the same manner that Puppet motions are mooued by such as shew them is the authoritie of the vniuersall Catholicke Church Defens fid Cathol adu Angl. sect lib. 1. c. 9. nu 7. meanes nothing by the Church but THE POPE HIMSELFE and they that yeeld themselues to be led by the Romane Church must depend solely vpon his will and word 3 To the second this diuine doctrine of the Church which the Repliar saies is the rule of our faith is by himselfe expounded to include not onely the written Scripture but vnwritten traditions also and such decrees and interpretations both of Scripture and tradition as the Pope shall reueale and propound hence it followes that any Friars dreame may be thrust vpon vs as an article of faith necessary to saluation because these traditions and interpretations and this authoritie of the Pope containe many such dreames that is to say the Pope and his Church vnder pretence that they are diuine traditions and all power to propose matters of faith belongs to him may and doth require vs to beleeue lyes and errors and albeit the Iesuite affirme these traditions and interpretations of his Church to be reuealed by God to the Apostles and their successors the Doctors and Pastors of the Church as part of that diuine and Church doctrine which he would haue receaued o Pari pietatis affectu ac reuerentia suscipit veneratur Conc. Trid. sess 4. with the same obedience and affection wherewith we receaue the Scripture yet this is false For the whole obiect of our faith is contained in the Scripture alone as I shewed in the third Digression and because he denies that any such dreames can be contained in the doctrine of his Church thus I reason For whatsoeuer the Pope shall definitiuely propound to be beleeued that is the doctrine of the Church But he may definitiuely propound the very dreames of a Friar this I proue The bookes of i Baro. an 159. n 4. ind expurg Hispa p. 149. d. 15. Sanct. Romana Hermes and k Phot. Biblioth p. 156. edit Graec. Haschel Balâ—am respon p. 363 in Iure Graeco Rom. tom 1. Zâ—onar in Apost can vlt. Perer. Ioh. 13. disp 30. Clemens Constitutions are Apochryphall counterfet and vnsound writings but D. Stapleton l Hos similes libros in canoneÌ„ sacrae Scripturae si praesens Ecclesia referret nulla ratio obstat quin eos pro Canonicis admittere debeamus Relect. pag. 514. saies he may put these bookes into the Canon of the Bible and so binde men to beleeue them by diuine faith therefore he may define and make to be matter of faith that which is vnsound and no better then a dreame Againe Canus and Caietan m Refert Fra. Suar. tom 2. p. 30. a. affirme the opinion of the virgine Maries conception without sinne to be godly and probable in shew but false and vncertaine indeede Yet n Suar. ibi Vas qu. in 3. part Tho. to 2. p. 45. the Iesuits say the Pope may define it when he will Thirdly o Grego Val. analys fid pag. 325. they hold the authority of the Church in defining to be in the Pope who may determine the things of faith whether he vse care and diligence therin or not but he that defines without any care taking or diligeÌ„ce vsed may chance specially if he be a Friar p To the number of 52. Azor institut moral tom 2. l. 5. c 44. as many Popes are to thrust his Friars dreames vpon the Church Fourthly the Canon law q Gl Marg. c quanto de translatione sayes He may make something of nothing and make that a sentence which is none Lastly r Suar vbi sup the Iesuites hold that a supernaturall truth may be so implicitely contained in tradition or Scripture that * Canisius reports that in Paris in the Vniuersities of Spaine and elsewhere no man is admitted to any degree in diuinitie vnlesse he sweare that he will hold the Immaculate conception of the virgine Marial lib. 1. c. 7. Such trickes as this will make this consent swell and increase as fast as the mountaine the common consent of the Church increasing whereby oftentimes the Holy Ghost expounds traditions and Scriptures the Church may at last bring in her definition which shall haue the force of a reuelation The two doores of sleepe Å¿ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Odiss Ï„. mentioned so much in the Poets let not in more dreames then this doctrine doth lyes heresies into the world for whensoeuer the Church of Rome will bring in a new doctrine the implicite traditions and the increase of the Churches consent may be pretended 4 * Ad. 3. To the third he notes no more But what he said in his treatise and I granted in such sense as I layed downe in my answer And this noting it againe is needles and impertinent to the matter in hand which is not touching the quality but the quiddity of the rule 5 * Ad. 4. To the fourth we know well enough that the Church and the doctrine go together but it is false that the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule For the doctrine is the rule and the Church that which teaches both vs and it selfe according to it as the Iudge expounding and executing the law is not the rule together with the law but the law is the rule it selfe and the iudge is the kings officer to apply it but hauing no authority ouer or beside it And yet allowing the contrary and all that the Repliar sayes still in his conceite the Pope with his definitions shall be this Church and this doctrine which he thus conioynes to be the rule 6 To the fift to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule of saith in such sort as the Repliar hath said Ad. 5. it is not sufficieÌ„t to shew that at least once or in some one age there hath bene a company of men called the Church in one sense or other ordained by God and furnisht with conditions to teach men the faith for the Repliar hath said that the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith in such sort as it includes not onely the written Scriptures but vnwritten traditions and the interpretation of them both by Church authority Where two things are affirmed first that vnwritten traditions are part of the doctrine that is the rule Secondly that our faith is built t Non quid dicatur sed quis dicat attendendum Staplet Princ. pag. 364. Relect. p. 429. on the authority of the Church Neither of these is proued by shewing that which is
here mentioned For though there be a Church in any sense that a true Church can be meant ordained to teach vs yet it followes not that it hath any such authority or any authority at all to propound vnwritten traditions and there may be a Church and yet the iudgement thereof not be the authority whereon our faith is grounded and the same Church may be ordained to teach vs yet not allowed to teach these vnwritten verities For God hath propounded all doctrine of faith in the Scriptures and appointed his Church to reueale and expound it to his people the which doctrine thus expounded inlightens the mind begets faith and is the rule of all mens iudgement through the worke of the Holy Ghost that confirmes it in the mind Granting therefore that which the Repliar so much desires that all his meaning is that once or in one age there was a company of men who in one sense or other may be called the Church whom God hath appointed and furnished to teach all men the things of faith yet it helps not his conclusion nor makes it true in that sense wherein he meanes it CHAP. XXXV 1 The Papists pretending the Church meane onely the Pope 2. How and in what sense they vnderstand the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule of faith 3 They hold that the Pope may make new articles of faith 4 And that the Scripture receiues authority and credit from him 6Vnlearned men may see the truth when the Pope and his crew sees it not 7. And they may iudge of that they teach 8 The Iesuites dare not answer directly Pag. 204. White pag. 67. A. D. This being proued my Aduersaries may see how much they mistake when they thinke me to meane in this Chapter by the name Church onely the Pope or onely the present Pastours of the Church when as rather I meant to include these onely secondarily meaning here by the name Church principally the Apostles themselues who for the time they liued on earth were principall Doctours and Pastours of thâ— Church being by me therfore tearmed the Church which I said is the rule of faith not taking the verbe is so strictly as onely limited to this present time but â—â—ther indefinitely abstracting from all time or per ampliationem as it may extend it selfe to the by-past as well as to the present time This to be my meaning my Aduersaries might haue perceiued by the texts of Scripture which I bring for the proofe of my conclusion For those texts are by me here applied as they were by our Sauiour spoken and meant to wit principally to the Apostles being the primitiue Pastours and principall members of the Church and are onely secondarily or by consequence applied to other Pastours succeeding in their places Now taking my conclusion in this chiefly intended sense it cannot be denied to be true neither can the reason by which I proue it with any reason be denied to be good 1 IT is easie to see that he knownes not in what sense he should take his conclusion that it might be defended For if by the Church he meant no more but the Apostles and primitiue Pastours and by the doctrine of the Church no more but that which is the doctrine indeed contained in the Scripture no man would deny the doctrine and teaching faith and beleefe of the Apostles contained in the written word to be the rule of faith but he meant and still meanes otherwise that this Church which all men ought to follow is the B. of Rome alone for the time being wherein a See Chap. 34. nu 1. I mistooke him not For he meanes that which in all ages for the time being is the supreame iudge and hath subiectiuely in it all the Church authority But such is the Pope alone according to the principles of Papists Therefore he meanes the Pope alone againe he meanes that Church whereof he expounds the texts of Scripture alledged in that Chapter to proue the doctrine of the Church to be the rule but all those texts he expounds of the Pope alone for the time being Ergo. Thirdly I suppose the Repliar to be a Papist and in this place a maintainer of the Popish doctrine touching the rule of faith but that doctrine meanes the Church as I expound For the order which God hath left in his Church for the iudging and deciding of matters of faith according to the Iesuites doctrine b Staplet Princ. doctrin fid l. 6. praef 1 Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 1. 2 Staplet Princ. doctr l. 5. c. 1. 3 c. 2. 4 c. 5. 5 l. 6. c. 1. is this 1. That not the Scripture but the Church is this supreme iudgâ— of all controuersies and things of faith 2 Yet this Church as it is taken for the whole body iudges not 3. Nor lay priuate men therein 4. But the power of iudging belongs to the Bishops and Priests alone 5. And among them the B. of Rome alone as the successor of S. Peter is so the head of the whole Church and the primary and highest subiect of this Church iudgement that he hath power alone aboue all others whether Pastors or sheepe to pronounce 6 Grets def Bellar. tom 1 p. 1218. c. and determine touching the matters of faith 6. So that besides the Doctors and Pastors there must be in the Church some other supreme iudge and he is the B. of Rome either alone or with a Councell Here it is plaine that howsoeuer the name of the Church be pretended yet the whole power is limited and restrained to the Pope alone For they hold the gouernment and power of the Church not to be Aristocraticall placed in Councels or Bishops but Monarchicall where all the gouernment power and infalliblenesse is in the Pope alone Councels Bishops Priests and all other parts of the Church are but cyphers the power is eminently and infallibly and authoratiuely in the Pope alone either with them or without them Bellar. c De Rom. Pont l. 1. c. 9. §. sed nec sayes plainely Neither the Scripture nor secular princes nor priuate men are iudges of controuersies but Ecclesiasticall Prelates and Councels may iudge of the controuersies of religion but that iudgement is not firme or ratified till the Pope haue confirmed it and therefore the last iudgement belongs to him for either there must be no iudge among men at all or else he must be the iudge that is aboue the rest I haue alledged the words of Gregory of Valence diuers times d Tom. 3. in 22. pag. 24. When we say the Proposition of the Church is a condition necessary to the assent of faith by the name of Church we meane the head thereof that is to say the B. of Rome either alone by himselfe or with a Councell Syluester Prierias e In Luth. tom 1. pag. 159. fundam 1. The vniuersall Church essentially is the conuocation of all that beleeue in Christ but
whether this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors shal need to be the same that the doctrine of the Apostles was but onely affirmes that as the Apostles doctrine for the time they liued was the rule so the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors is the rule leauing roome enough for this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles that when we shew the present abuses in the Church of Rome and decrees of their latter Popes for these last 800. yeares to haue swarued from the Apostles doctrine and practise they may pleade the authoritie of their succeding Pastors And indeede it is true that the Church of Rome holds that it is not necessary the doctrine and teaching of the present and succeeding Pastors be the same in all things that it was in the Apostolicke and Primitiue Church but the Pope hath power to make a NEW CREED and NEW ARTICLES of faith For Iacobatius m De Concil p. 310. A. saies The Pope alone may make new articles of faith according to one acceptation of the word Article that is for such as must be beleeued which before needed not be beleeued and Zenzelin a Popish doctor n Gl. extr Ioh. 22. cum inter § doclaramus saies The Vicar of Christ may make an Article of faith taking an article not properly but in a large sense for that which must be beleeued when before by the precept of the Church it was not necessary to be beleeued Augustinus Triumphus writes o August Anconit sum de eccle potest q. â—9 art 1. that it belongs to the Pope alone to make a new Creed For in a Creed those things are put that vniuersally belong to Christian faith he therefore hath authority to make such a Creed who is the head of Christian faith and in whom as in the head all the members of the Church are vnited and by whose authoritie all things pertaining to faith are confirmed and strengthened And p Art 2. againe That the Pope may dispense in adding articles may be vnderstood 3. waies First in respect of the multiplication of the articles themselues Secondly in respect of expounding the things contained in the articles Thirdly in respect of the augmentation of such things as may be reduced to the articles ALL THESE WAIES the Pope may dispense in adding articles because as he may make a new Creed so he may MVLTIPY NEW ARTICLES OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER Secondly he may by more articles explicate the articles already placed in the Creed Thirdly because peraduenture all things beleeued in the Creed may be reduced after the aforesaid articles and by such reduction may be increased so that vnder each article MORE THINGS NECESSARY TO BE BELEEVED MAY BE PVT THEN ARE YET PVT The which being done marke what they say touching their authority q Roder. Dosm de auth script l. 3. c. 12. The Popes assertions ascend to the height of diuine testimony as the assertions of the Apostles did and of such as made the holy Scripture and there be who contend that they belong to the sacred Scripture it selfe which is contained in the bookes of the Bible This doctrine whereof all our aduersaries bookes are full shewes plainely that they intend not that this their Church teaching so much magnified to be the rule should alway be one and the same but such as shall follow the Popes lust and be altered with the time that so this Antichrist of Rome might abolish the whole Testament of Christ this is the first thing to be noted that the reader may see what he meanes by his Church doctrine that is the rule 4 The next thing is his distinction about this doctrine of the Church that it was the rule in the Apostles dayes and is the rule in succeeding ages but not as contained in onely Scripture but as deliuered by these Pastors Which speech containes 2. things a Negatiue and an affirmatiue the negatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is not the rule as it is contained in onely Scripture Meaning as * Ch. 27. n. 3. I haue shewed that all diuine doctrine belonging to the rule is not contained in the Scripture but much or the most of it in tradition vnwritten and that which is contained is not the rule by vertue of writing but by vertue of the Church that makes it authenticall Panormitan r Panorm tom 2. de praesumptione c. Sicut noxius sayes The words of the text of Scripture are not the Popes words but the words of Salomon in the Prouerbs but because this text is made Canonicall it is to be beleeued and induceth necessity so to do as if the Pope had set it foorth himselfe Because we make all those things to bee ours whereto we might impart our authority But whether without Canonization the sayings of Salomon be approued in the Church seeing they are in the body of the Bible say as the glosse saith and Ierom holdeth who seemes to conclude that they are Apocrypha which is to be noted and that because of this as also because Salomon had no power to make Canons This also must be obserued that the Reader may know the meaning of his conclusion and what it is that we deny therein For NO DOCTRINE EITHER OF THE APOSTELS IN THEIR TIME OR OF THE SVCCEEDING PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH IN ANY TIME IS THE RVLE OF FAITH BVT ONELY THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTVRE As I haue Å¿ In the WAY digr 3. shewed His affirmatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is the rule as it is deliuered by the Pastors or the Pastours deliuering this doctrine are the rule which is the same that he said a little before the doctrine as deliuered by the Church or the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule t Pars obiecti formalis fidei est vox Ecclesiae D. Stapler relect p. 484. Saltem aequalis est Ecclesiae Scripturae authoritas ibi pag. 494. His meaning is that the Churches testimony and authority mingles it selfe with the authority of the doctrine and is ioyntly with it or aboue it the rule of faith as when diuers simples haue their ingredience into one compound and two men equally carry betweene them one burthen Their doctrine this way is knowne wel enough how the Scriptures in regard of vs haue all their authority from the Church the sense of the Scripture is to be fetched from the Church whatsoeuer the Church of Rome shall teach is the word of God c. The which things being couched in the Iesuites conclusion as he vnderstands it we detest and spit vpon when he shall thus debarre the Scripture from being the rule to set vpon the bench his Papall Antichristian authority If the shame either of God or men or any respect of truth were with them they durst not thus presumptuously and basely steale the authority to themselues whereby both themselues and we and all the world
Orders shall be destroyed that there shall not be any in all the multitude of the people that dares freely inuocate God Vbertine e Vbertin de Casal lib. de 7. Stat. de eccl c. 8 edit Venet. per Soard an 1516. refert Oaus Eccl. pag 31. nu 19. sayes That concerning the binding of the Diuell for a thousand yeares is to be vnderstood from the time of the first state of the Church to the time that the Romane Empire was translated to the Almaines when Gregorie the fift made a new decree concerning the chusing of the Emperor whose successor Syluester the second by simonie and nigromancy got the Popedome for then the little Church which beleeued in Christ began to fall into scandals This touching the Popes being Antichrist f R. Iaco. praef monit pag. 56. inde D. Whit â—k ad demonst Sander controu de Pont. Rom. q. 5. c. 3. Sohn tract de Antichrist D. Abb. demonstrat D. Down of Antichr D. Fulk in 2. Th. 2. Apoc. 13. c. our writings haue sufficienly demonstrated and all stories make it plaine that the most violent persecutions and the greatest heresies schismes and scandals that euer were haue bene vnder the Pope and by his working since he came to his greatnesse which makes him relish so strong of Antichrist that the Iesuite with all his fellowes to helpe him cannot sweeten him And I can tell him a thing in his eare that will discourage him for euer vndertaking that matter For as learned men as euer were in the Church of Rome haue g De Antichristo dicit idem Joachim quod tam natus est in ciuitate Romana in sede Apostolica sublimabitur Rog. Houed annal pag. 681. Sedes Bestiae id est Ecclesiae peruersae est in Curia Romana Onus Eccl. c 19. n. 6. See the oration of Euerardus Abusin in Auent pag. 546. And Chaucers plow mans tale mistrusted it and h The Turke holden to be the great Antichrist by Clicton commen in Damasc de sid orth l. 4. pag. 391. Prateol Elench v. Mahom. pag 302. Henten indic de Apoc. pag. 182. Genebr chronol an 590. pag. 477. Feuardent in Irenae l. 5. c. 30. n. 10. who sayes other most learned men are of the same opinion they that will not confesse it haue yet to turne it off him made him Antichrist that cannot so be by i The common opinion holden by the Iesuites is that Antichrist shall be one singular person a Iew of the tribe of Dan c. See Acost de temp nouiss l. 2. c. 5. Bellar. de Pont. Rom. l. 3. c. 2.10 inde Suar. tom 2. disp 54. Henriq de fin hom c. 23. the doctrine now maintained among the Iesuites CHAP. XXXVIII 1. The Papists cannot proue the Church to be alway visible in that sence wherein we denie it 2. The diuers considerations of the Church distinguished 3. His quarrels made to our doctrine touching the Churches seueral states answered 6. The faithfull onely are the true members of the Church 7. Vpon what occasion the question touching the visiblenesse of the Church first began A.D. This my conclusion thus declared and proued Pag. 237. doth fore pinch my aduersaries and putteth them to pitifull straits as after we shall see For on the one side to denie the Church in such sence as here I haue declared to be at all times visible without impudencie they cannot my proofes at least some of them are so apparent and plaine on the other side to grant it to be in this sence alwayes visible they will not for feare that people do thereby plainly see that Protestants who cannot assigne a continuall visible Church or a companie of professors of their faith nor so much as one professing Protestant in euery seuerall age since Christ cannot be the true Church of which onely as of the ordinarie rule and meanes all men must learne what is and what is not to be holden for the true sauing faith My aduersaries therefore not daring as it may seeme to make direct answer White p. 100. Wotton p. 210. and yet being willing at least to make shew of an answer do distinguish two seuerall Churches that when they are hunted out of one they may runne into the other and that being pursued thither they may for refuge flie into the former they call one Church the true Catholicke Church spoken of in the Creed which they affirme to containe onely the elect to whom as they say belong the promises of the Spirit which in Scripture were made to the Church This Church both my aduersaries do account simply inuisible And truly since no man can tell who be Gods elect if they could as well proue as they boldly affirme that the Church spoken of in the Creed or in those places of Scripture where the promises of the Spirit are made to the Church doth containe none but the elect it could not be denied that it were inuisible But this they will neuer be able sufficiently to proue The other Church which they distinguish from the Catholicke Church M. White calleth the Church militant White p. 100. Wotton p. 210. containing as part of it all professors of the true faith whether good or bad beleeuers or hypocrites elect or reprobate The necessitie which driueth them to admit such a Church is as I guesse because if no companie of men did in any sort pertaine to the Church but onely the elect whom none can know it would follow that since as hath bene proued no man can ordinarily attaine true faith but by instruction receiued from the true Church euery man ordinarily might despaire of attaining true faith and consequently of attaining saluation which is not had without true faith in regard he could neuer know the companie or Church to whom he must repaire for instruction in faith Besides therefore the companie of the elect my aduersaries hold that there is another Church White pag. 87. the which as M. White saith is alwaies vpon the earth holding the whole faith without change and containing a certaine number that constantly professe it This Church which other Protestants commonly call the visible Church M. White will needs defend to be sometimes inuisible 1 FIrst he sayes his conclusion pinches vs but he is deceiued we feele no paine nor vtter any voice that tastes of paine Because whatsoeuer he sayes and declares yet he proues nothing and nothing pinches that is not proued nay he is so farre from pinching that he and his fellowes make vs smile and yeeld vs good pastime to talke thus of the visiblenesse of the Church and yet when things come to scanning to doubt of it themselues as much as we I alledged the confessions of diuers Papists in the 17. Digr why hath he not answered thereto and shewed what or how they say lesse then we Next he shewes what the strait is we are put to For on the one side he sayes
AND IN THE WRITINGS OF THESE MEN TOVCHING THE SCRIPTVRES SACRAMENTS CHVRCH POPE COVNCELS TRANSVBSTANTIATION IMAGES INVOCATION OF SAINTS IVSTIFICATION GOOD WORKS c. WAS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHVRCH AND PROFESSED BY THE BISHOPS OF ROME FATHERS AND COVNCELS EXPRESSED IN THE FIRST 800 YEARES OF THIS CATALOGVE this is our obiection whereto the Replier answers that he can retort it more strongly against the Protestants c. But this is but wind and so let it passe and come we forward to the substance of his answer CHAP. XLIII 1. Whatsoeuer the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued is expressed in their bookes 2. The Replier is driuen to say they held much of his religion onely implicitely What implicite faith is according to the Papists The death of Zeuxis The Fathers write that which cannot stand with Papistrie Pag. â—67 A. D. Secondly I answer that to say there be diuers points held by vs whereof no mention is made in those ancient Fathers is no good argument to proue that which we hold was not holden by them For this is Argumentum ab authoritate negatiua which argument is of no force to proue this point vnles it be first proued that those Fathers held nothing explicitè or implicitè which is not expresly to be fouÌ„d in their writings But this my aduersaries will neuer be able to proue Now on the contrary side we can shew good reasons or at least probable presumptions sufficient to proue first that they held more then is expressed in their writings Secondly that they held explicitè or implicitè the same in all points of doctrine which we hold First I say we haue reason to thinke that they held more then is expressed in their writings because since ordinarily the writings of these Fathers were not by them set out of purpose to expresse in particular euery thing that they held implicitè or explicitè concerning all matters of faith but rather were written vpon some speciall occasion it is to be thought that their writings contain only some parts of the doctrine to wit so much of it as was that requisite to be written vpon that special occasion The which is confirmed euen by experience of these our times in which although learned men do ordinarily set downe more expresly in Catechismes bookes of controuersies c what the Catholik faith is in diuers points then formerly it hath bin set downe as they haue more occasion by reason of more heresies daily arising then learned men of former ages when those heresies were not haue had Yet no learned man now adaies writeth euery thing which explicitè or implicitè he beleeueth to be the Catholick faith For euery Catholicke man beleeueth explicitè or implicitè all that is contained in Scriptures and traditions in that he beleeueth whatsoeuer was reuealed by God to the Apostles deliuered by them in word or writing to the Catholicke Church and which the Church in Scriptures and vnwritten traditions propoundeth and deliuereth to vs diuers particulars whereof are not necessary to be expresly knowne to or written by any particular learned man of any age but are alwaies preserued at least in the implicite or infolded faith of the Church the which infolded faith of the Church may and shall be vnfolded the holy Ghost still assisting and suggesting all the aforesaid reuealed truth as necessitie shall require that the truth should be in any point expresly declared which necessitie chiefly is when some new heresie ariseth oppugning particularly the truth of that point 1 HEre he sayes the Fathers named in his Catalogue might hold what the church of Rome holds though there be no mentioÌ„ therof in their writings because they might hold that which is not expresly in their writings We had thought vntil now that this had bin a plain demonstration The ancient Fathers in all their writings make no mention of diuers points of the Popish religion Ergo they held them not Or thus What religion the Fathers held that they mention in their writings But the Popish religion they mention not in their writings Ergo they held not the Popish religion But he hauing good experience that the second proposition is true denies the first and will shew either by good reasons or probable presumptions that they held more then they mention and expresse in their bookes Wherein at once he hath destroyed his Catalogue and laid his religion open to the scorne of women and children For if the Fathers in all their writings handled nothing but the cause of religion teaching expounding and defending it against Iewes Gentiles hereticks schismatickes whereby they could not but mention what they held and yet neuer mentioned diuers points of Poperie it is plaine they neuer held them But the Iesuite sayes this is Argumentum ab authoritate negatiua which is not good they might hold either explicitè or implicitè that which they haue not expressed Wherein you must marke his tergiuersation For to shew a visible Church in all ages professing openly his Romane faith that all men may see it he tenders this catalogue But when we bid him proue that the Fathers of the first 600 or 800 yeares beleeued and professed that part of his Romane faith which the Church of England reiects that it may appeare so to vs and we may see it he sayes he can shew good reasons and presumptions that they beleeued more then is expressed in their writings whereas he should shew by their WRITINGS that they held and beleeued as the Romish Church now doth because it is impossible to shew what they held but by their writings and himselfe sayes in another place We cannot haue any certaintie of things past but by the writings of those times And if he will haue his Church to be so visible in the Fathers time and those Fathers to be so eminent members thereof good reason men see it yet see it they cannot by presumptions but by their writings 2 But he sayes We haue reason to thinke that they held more then expressed in their writings forsomuch as no man writes euery thing which explicitè or implicitè he beleeues I answer though it be granted that both they and we in all our writings may omit some things not belonging to faith or religion yet many articles of faith such as our aduersaries say theirs are the deniall whereof they call schisme and damnable herersie and persecute with fire sword and gun-powder cannot but be expressed for so much as such articles are simply needfull vnto saluation and are the grounds and conclusions of all theologicall writing and discourse Secondly it is impertinent to the obiection which denies the Fathers of the first 600 yeares to haue done that which the Catalogue sayes they did professed VISIBLY as the Romane Church now doth which obiection is not satisfied by saying they might explicitè or implicitè professe that they neuer writ because no man writes all he beleeues but by shewing in their writings this
writings confesses c Grets defens Bellar. de verb. Dei l. 2. c. 16. pag. 850. c. pag 918. A. If you speake of the whole Chapter Bellarmine acknowledges the Apostle to speake not onely of spirituall songs and preaching and exhortations but of the reading the Scripture likewise and publicke Seruice Hence it followes that the Apostle condemnes the reading of the Scripture or prayer and Church-seruice in a language not vnderstood as well as he doth preaching collations and hymnes for vers 26. he requires all things that he speakes of be done to edifying and vers 6. he sayes If I come vnto you speaking with tongues that is in a language you vnderstand not what shall I profit you And vers 9. Except ye vtter words that can be vnderstood you shall speake in the aire And vers 11. If I know not the meaning of the voice he that speakes shall be a Barbarian vnto me And vers 14. For if I pray in an vnknowne tongue my vnderstanding is vnfruitfull And vers 16. How shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say AMEN at thy giuing of thanks when he vnderstands not what thou sayst Thou giuest thankes well but the other is not edified Hence I thus reason The Apostle condemnes euery thing in the Church whatsoeuer it be that edifies not But prayer reading the Scripture and Seruice in the Church as well as preaching and spirituall songs in a language that the people present vnderstand not edifie not Ergo he condemnes prayer reading the Scripture and Seruice in the Church in a language that the people present vnderstand not as well as preaching and spirituall songs The first proposition is in vers 12.19.26 the second in vers 6.14.16.17 the conclusion therefore is the Apostles And indeed if our aduersaries could haue shewed that the prayers mentioned ver 15 had bin such spirituall songs or preaching onely as they expound and then that the Apostle in all his discourse had onely spoke of such songs and preaching and not of prayer reading the Scripture or Seruice in the Church also they had had some colour for themselues though not enough to auoid our argument but when he speaks of these things also by their owne confession and the whole intent of his doctrine is that ALL THE THINGS HE SPEAKES OF be done with edification it is desperate peruersnesse to say the text proues nothing against them 3 In the second place therefore when Bellarmine cannot auoide it but it is manifest the Apostle at least in some part of his discourse speakes of singing and prayers and reading of the Scripture which belong to Church-seruice he fals to answering and layes downe foure answers whereof he casts off three and betakes himselfe to the fourth The first is that by singing and praying mentioned verse 19. where the Apostle sayes I will pray and sing with the spirit and I will pray and sing with vnderstanding also else how shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say AMEN when he vnderstands not what thou sayst is meant preaching and exhorting not praying a hard exposition when the common notion of the words is against it and the Apostle manifestly distinguishes the one from the other and men vse not to say Amen to preaching yet most vntruly and dishonestly he fathers it on Basil Theodoret and Sedulius a For Basil reg contract q 278. Theodor 1. Cor. 14. v. Quid ergo est expound the place of prayer as well as of exhortation Sedulius onely expounds it of exhortation alone being deceiued through ignorance of the Greeke word who neither all of them expound it so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil qu. cont q. 178. nor allow prayer in an vnknowne tongue His second exposition is that the Apostle requires not all the people to vnderstand what is prayed and sung but onely that he vnderstand who supplies the roome of the people in answering meaning the Parish clark b Quidam ex Catholicis ita hunc locum intellexerunt Grets p 971. B. But Seâ—ulius sayes Jdiotae id est nuper baptizati qui nullam praeter propriam intelligit linguam p. 237. Theodoret says Qui in laicorum ordine constitutus est This answer is made by some Papists and went for good till necessitie draue the Iesuites to find a better For it was too grosse to bring the pedegree of a Parish clarke vp to the Church of Corinth in S. Pauls dayes His third is that by him that occupies the roome of the vnlearned is meant he that answers for the people belike some that vnderstands the tongue but not a Parish clarke by office and takes vpon him to answer for the rest that vnderstand it not These three answers he casts off and deuises a fourth whereto the Replier in this place referres me 4 Fourthly therefore c §. Vera igitur he sayes The Apostle in this place speakes neither of diuine Seruice nor of the publicke reading of the Scriptures in the Church but of certaine spirituall songs which the Christians composed for the praising of God and giuing him thankes and for their owne and others comfort and edification This answer allowes the Apostle to condemne the vse of such hymnes and canticles in an vnknowne tongue and the like vse of preaching and collations but it denies the vse of prayer and Seruice and the rest of the publicke Liturgie in an vnknowne tongue to be condemned because the Apostle in these words of the 15 and 16 verses speakes nothing concerning them d Antid Apostolic in 1. Cor. 24. v. 16.17 D. Stapleton and e On 1. Cor 14. §. It is as certain the Rhemists also affirme it to be certaine that he meanes not nor writes any word in this place of the Churches publicke Seruice Prayers or ministration of the holy Sacrament but onely of a certaine exercise of mutuall conference wherein one did open to another and to the assembly miraculous gifts and graces of the holy Ghost and such Canticles Psalmes secret mysteries sorts of languages and other reuelations as it pleased God to giue to certaine both men and women This answer containes two parts an affirmatiue and a negatiue The affirmatiue is that he meanes such spirituall songs and exercises of conference I will not sticke with the Iesuite for the vse of such exercises in the Church at that time it being agreed of all hands that there was such a custome and the Apostles owne words report it in the 26 v. When you come together euery one of you hath a Psalme hath a doctrine hath a tongue hath a reuelation hath an interpretation But that he so meanes such hymnes and such extraordinarie exercises alone that he meanes not praier also I vtterly denie For that which he brings out of Eusebius Dionysius and Tertullian will serue to proue that the custome of those times was to sing in the congregation but it proues not that S. Paul here speakes of
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
may define contrary to that they all writ as the B. Virgin not to be conceiued in sin and so they shall beleeue iust that they beleeued not and the direct contrary CHAP. LVII 1 Touching the first coming in of errors into the Church with the persons Time and Place 2 Purgatory and pardons not knowne in the ancient Church nor in the Greeke Church to this day 3 The true reason why the ancient praied for the dead Pag. 287. A. D. To conclude it is not enough for M. White to name these eight or any other points of our doctrine and to say that we hold or practise contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church but I must require him to set downe the time place persons and other circumstances of this supposed innouation which circumstances are commonly noted in Histories when any such innouation against the vniuersall doctrine of the Church did arise This my demand 1 White Digr 5. pag. 374. M. White who will it seemeth sticke at nothing taketh vpon him to satisfie by naming seauen points of our religion offering to shew the time when and manner how they got into the Church And thereupon first he nameth pardons and purgatory the vse whereof he sayeth came lately into the Church To this I answer first that he nameth not the particular Time Place not Persons that first brought in the vse of pardons and purgatory and so he saieth nothing to the purpose Secondly I answer that our questions is not so much about the vse of pardons and purgatory as whether the doctrine which holdeth purgatory to be and pardons duely vsed to be lawfull came in of late contrary to the former doctrine of the Church Now M. White will neuer be able to shew that that Church did at any time vniuersally beleeue that 2 Concerning praier for the dead which supposeth the beleefe of Purgatory learned Protestants grant it to haue bene general in the Church long before S. Austins time as may be seene in the Protest Apol. tract 1. sect 2. nu 4. purgatory was not or that pardons duely vsed were vnlawfull or that the doctrine concerning the substance of these points was first brought in of late naming the first time place or persons which brought it in contrary to the former faith and shewing who resisted it as an heresie and who continued to resist it 1 HAuing no power to answer the examples I gaue of the Church of Romes now holding contrary to the ancient Church he concludes that it is not enough to name the points or to say they hold contrary to the doctrine of the ancient Church vnlesse I set downe the Time Places Persons and other circumstances of the innouations as Histories vse to note them when any such innouations arises and therefore he must require me to set them downe I answer it is sufficient that I haue shewed the points not to haue bene holden by the ancient Church For if the ancient Church held them not what skills it when or by whom they were brought in when they were brought in since the times of the ancient Church for that which was not at the first is not Catholike but by some at some time was brought in contrary to that which is Catholicke And a THE WAY §. 50. n. 5 6. I haue shewed that there be many confessed changes wherein these circumstances cannot bee shewed Neuerthelesse for example b THE WAY Digr 51. I named him seauen points and the circumstances of Time Place and Persons of their getting in whereof the vse of PARDONS was the first He replies that I haue not named the particular time place nor persons that brought them in and therefore say nothing to the purpose Here let the Reader iudge whether hauing shewed out of the confession of his owne writers that they are not from the Apostles times not expressed in the Scripture or Fathers nor brought to our knowledge by their authority but lately come into the Church this be not enough for what is not from the Apostles times came in since there is the Time when What came in lately was not vsed in the Primitiue Church There is the Time againe what is not mentioned by the Scripture Fathers and ancient Church was deuised by innouators there is the Persons What the Scriptures and Pastors of the Church reueals not that growes vp as cockle and weed in the Church there is the place Let me adde to the rest whom I alledged in the Digression the words of B. Fisher c Art 28 p. 86. b. Pardons therefore began AFTER men had a while trembled at the torments of Purgatory I haue therefore brought euidence sufficient to proue pardons to be an innouation because it proues they were not vsed in the ancient Church nor reuealed by the Apostles 2 He replies that the question is not so much about the VSE of pardons and purgatory as whether the DOCTRINE that holds them came in of late CONTRARY to the doctrine of the Church And I answer againe affirmatiuely that it did For the vse is founded on the doctrine and the doctrine cannot be without vse There was no vse ergo there was no doctrine But M. White will neuer be able to shew that the Church beleeued there was no Purgatory or that pardons were not lawfull This is follie for how should M. White shew the Church condemned that which was not yet in rerum natura no man being able to speake of that which is not in being If pardons therefore were not M. White must be pardoned if he cannot shew how the Church condemned them And touching Purgatory though it be much ancienter yet neither did the Catholicke Church beleeue it There were some in the Church that conceited such a thing and the Fathers began in Saint Austines time but a Non redarguo quia forsitan verum est c. Aug ciuit l. 21. c. 26. see Enchirid. c. 69. and the Apol of the Gre. p. 132. waueringly and without any resolute certainety to mention it but it was not beleeued in their daies as a matter of faith that he which denied it should be an hereticke as it is now beleeued in the Church of Rome Besides the East Church beleeued it not to this day therefore the vniuersall Church beleeued it not Heare their owne words in an Apology written touching this matter b Apol. Graec. p. 119. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We haue not receaued from our Doctors that there is any such Purgatory or temporary punishment by fire and we know the East Church neuer thought so Heare also what the B. of Rochester c Art 18. p. 86. b. saies No true beleeuer NOW doubts of Purgatory whereof notwithstanding among the ancient there is very litle or no mention at all The Greekes also to this day do not beleeue there is a Purgatory Let whose will reade the commentaries of the ancient Greekes and so farre as I see he shall finde very rare
make them pale for feare and therefore he would affixe it though I for my part will thinke he doe it not so much to terrifie vs as to gull his owne with the name of the Church If he had in any good fashion defended the exposition and application he made of it k THE WAY § 15. Reply pag. 223 in his Treatise he might haue vsed it the better and it would haue made vs the more afraid but hauing left it in the lash where I answered it he is not worthy so faire a text should come vnder his title Neuerthelesse there is good vse to be made of it against himselfe For if the Church be the pillar of truth and the Papacie which he striues for in his Reply be the pillar of lies then it will follow the Papacie is not the Church The first proposition is his text The second neither his Reply nor Treatise can put by The conclusion therefore is the truth And so the Text may keep his place to good purpose 5 On the backside of the same page hee hath placed in Latin and English this sentence of Saint Austin de vtil cred c. 8. If thou seeme to thy selfe to be sufficiently tossed to wit in doubts questions or controuersies of faith and wouldest make an end of these labours follow the way of the Catholicke discipline which did proceed from Christ himselfe by the Apostles euen vnto vs and from hence shall be deriued to posteritie I guesse his minde was to allude to the title of my booke which I called THE WAY and because therein I defend the way of the Scripture followed by the vniuersall Church which he likes not therefore he brings S. Austin reuoking vs to the way of Catholicke discipline This man sure hath a strange apprehension * Denique addimus Ecclesiam quae nunc Pontifici Romano obtemperat ture ac merito Catholicae nomen sibi vendicare eademque ratio ne fidem eius Catholicam esse censendam appellandam Suar. de fens si◠Cathol aduers Anglic. sect err l. 1. c. 12. nu 9. to thinke that wheresoeuer the Fathers vse the word Catholicke they vnderstand thereby this New-Roman-Catholicke and when they speake of Catholicke discipline they vnderstand his Church proposition determined by the Pope when they affirme nothing else but the doctrine contained and written in the Scriptures to be Catholicke and the discipline whereby men are directed both in faith and manners So S. Austin expounds himselfe l Cap. 6. in the same place Beleeue me whatsoeuer is in those SCRIPTVRES is loftie and diuine THERE is altogether IN THEM the truth and discipline most accommodate for the renewing and repairing of our mindes and so qualified that there is NO MAN BVT FROM THENCE HE MAY DRAW THAT WHICH IS SVFFICIENT for him if to the drawing he come deuoutly and godly as true religion requires So also Theophilus Alexandrinus m Epist 1. Pas chal pag. 377. cals the medicines taken out of the holy Scriptures for the curing of heresies the ecclesiasticall discipline The WAY to the Church therefore and S. Austins WAY of Catholicke discipline are both one because they both are the way of the Scripture and that sufficient and easie way which the simplest that is may finde though the Pope with his authoritie and traditions intermeddle not and he that will seeke the Catholicke discipline by Saint Austins consent must do it in the SCRIPTVRE which I doubt will not greatly please this Iesuite who hath spent all his time in groping for it about the Popes stoole he being the man when all is done that must determine this discipline and * Cum Pontisex definit Ecclesia per caput suum loquitur Suar. vbi sup c. 2◠nu 7. the mouth whereby their Catholicke Church must vtter and expound it 6 In the next page followes a Table of the contents of his booke and after that a short Preface to the Reader wherein first he commends his booke that I confuted and his Method vsed therein to bring men to resolution and then shewes how he was vrged by our writing against it to this Reply excusing himselfe for the plainesse of his stile and concluding with a grieuous complaint of our vnsincere dealing which he proceeds to shew in that which followes The Commendation that he giues his Method may not be denied for we allow Apes to hugge their yong ones and heretickes to conceit their owne deuices and I must confesse it is good round Method indeed for the purpose and profitable for them to be followed For if you will see it this it is Good Eue for your soules health I were readie to shed my best bloud and therefore haue ventured my life as you see vpon the entertainment you know of such as I find in the hiding roomes to bring you home to the Catholicke Church your Method is this Close vp your eies and examine nothing but obstinately renouncing the Protestants and stopping your eares against the Scriptures in all things beleeue vs who on my owne word are the Church of God and submitting your selfe to the direction of your ghostly father without more adoe be resolute and you shall easily be perswaded of our Roman faith This is a good sure Method to resolution and makes many resolute indeed and the Iesuite hauing found by experience how kindly it works with good natures had reason to commend it though in any indifferent iudgement it be a poore one as will appeare The rest of his Preface is trash come we to that which is materiall 7 After the Preface to shew my vnsincere dealing whereof he complaines he makes a title of examples of grosse vntruths gathered out of M Woottons and M. Whites bookes by which the discreete reader may see how little sinceritie or care of truth they haue had and consequently how little credit is to be giuen to their writings and hauing dispatched M. Wootton he comes to me with these words Now to come to M. White whose booke is said to do much more harme among the simple then M. Woottons doth I hope I shall lay open such foule want of sinceritie and care of truth in him as it will plainly appeare that those which shall hereafter take harme by giuing credence to his words or writings shall shew themseluis to be very simple indeed So that in all probabilie he should haue some great matter to shew that makes so large an offer and yet euery one of these examples will proue in the scanning so many testimonies of his owne weaknesse and immodesty when hauing had the book foure yeares in his hands and so many of his consorts to ioyne with him in replying all which time their rage against it and desire to discredit it and vowes to confute it appeared well enough yet now at the last can obiect no other examples of vntruth then these And that we may know he comes furnished he cals for a railing roome to brawle in
d Syllog Whatsoeuer he taught by word of mouth the same by his Epistles he reuoked to their memory But he taught al things belōging to faith by word of mouth Therefore by his Epistles he reuoked the same to memory But his Epistles are written therfore by writing he reuoked to their memorie all things belōging to faith Therefore all things belonging to faith are written is from the demonstration of holy inspired Scriptures b Iren. l. 3 c. 1. For the disposing of our saluation we haue not knowne by any other but those by whom the Gospell came vnto vs the which then they preached but afterward by Gods appointment they deliuered vnto vs in the Scriptures to be the foundatiō and pillar of our faith And c Ibid. c. 2. Whē hereticks are conuinced out of the Scriptures they fal to accusing them as if they were not right nor from authoritie because they are variably spoken and from them the truth cannot be found of those that know not Tradition inasmuch as this truth was not deliuered by writing but by word of mouth Thus speakes the ancient Church in expresse termes pointing to our aduersaries whereby the Reader may iudge which of vs beare most good will to the Church and Scriptures and if the Iesuite will yeeld to that Nicephorus q writes in his Ecclesiasticall historie that whatsoeuer S. Paul being present taught by word of mouth among the Corinths Ephesians Galatians Colossians Philippians Thessalonians Iewes Romanes and many other townes whereunto the holy Ghost sent him and whom he begat in the faith of Christ the same being absent by his Epistles sent to them he compendiously reuoketh into their memorie Then forasmuch as the Apostles preached nothing to any but what they set downe in the Epistles the Protestants haue good reason to admit onely Scripture because it containes all the preaching of the Apostles whatsoeuer Let the Iesuite in the course of his studies and all Papists in the heate of their zeale marke these and such like our grounds and well consider them Pag. 32. A.D. As concerning his second mark wherein he says the very face of our Church is cleane contrary to the first antiquitie if he mean that there is some accidentall difference either in personall qualities of particular men or in some point of outward estate and manner of gouernment betwixt the first primitiue age or infancie of the Church and that other estate which after it had and now hath when it is at full growth this is not an argument sufficient to make men doubt of our religion more then to see some accidental alteration betwixt the infancy elder age of a man is any argument sufficient to make one doubt whether he be substantially the same man or no but if he meane that there is any substantiall difference in any doctrine of faith his assertion is very false as I declare in the Appendix annexed to this my Reply where particular answer is made to the chiefe matters against which here he taketh exception 8 I meane and expresse so much that betweene the present Roman Church and the ancient there is a substantiall difference in many doctrines of faith and not such an accidentall difference onely as the Iesuite mentions And because I desire no man to credit my bare word I named the Hierarchie of the Church of Rome consisting in the state and iurisdiction of the Roman cleargie which is simply the substantiallest point that they count of and foure other points and my speech was of that latitude that it chargeth them with innouation in all the rest the booke it selfe afterward shewing it in particular so fully and directly that all the Iesuites in England dare not lay railing and cauilling aside and answer what I said temperately and ingeniously for that which the Iesuite sayes in the Appendix he hath made particular answer is vntrue he hath answered particularly to nothing nor can he But knowing his sectaries were either so slothfull that they would not reade his booke so far or so forgetfull that when they came to the Appendix this matter would be out of their head he was bold in this place to promise what he neuer meant there to pay though whatsoeuer he say there is sufficiently answered I am sorie at my heart for my countrimen that haue these tricks put vpon them to seduce and peruert them I beseech them by the mercies of Iesus Christ that as I penned my booke out of my loue to them and desire of their saluation for the which I would sacrifice my life and all the hopes I haue in this world so they will faithfully examine how the contents thereof are answered by this Reply who if I be not deceiued is farre vnable to meddle with these things CHAP. X. 1. The practise of the Papists in purging bookes 2. The sacrifice of the Masse and Reall presence denied 4. Points of Papistrie absurd 6. The Pope Lords it ouer all Papists need pay no debts May be traitors to murther Princes 7. Iesuites plotters in the Powder-treason The Popes dispensing with sinne 8. A meditation for all Papists A. D. M. Whites third marke is set downe by him in these words Pag. 31. There is no point of our faith but many learned in their owne Church hold it with vs. And no point of Papistrie that we haue reiected but some of themselues haue misliked as well as we And this saith he may be demonstrated in all the questions that are betweene vs and they know it c. Thus farre are M. Whites words The which containe in them so many blacke lies as there are instances which may be giuen of particular points both of Catholicke doctrine reiected by Protestants and not misliked by any of our selues and of Protestant doctrine not patronized nor held by any learned men of our Church And to omit other instances I aske M. White how many learned men of our Church haue denied the Masse to containe a Sacrifice in such sort as Protestants do denie How many also will he finde to affirme that Christ his blessed bodie is onely figuratiuely in the Sacrament or in such sort that the reall substance of it is no nearer them that receiue the Sacrament then heauen is to earth as by the Caluinists is held against the Romane Church Let M. White for his credit produce if he can many or any learned men of our Church which hold in these points with Caluinists against the Romane faith As for the Index expurgatorius which M. White mentioneth and the practise and vse of it our Authors haue sufficiently answered namely N.D. in his Warnword and the author of the booke called the Grounds of the old and new religion in his answer to M. Crashaw annexed to the said booke 1 THat which I said I shewed in my book where in euery controuersie that fell out betweene vs I haue produced popish writers one against another either iustifying our doctrine or crossing
ours are prohibited in popish countreys that if any ignorant or malicious Minister would falsely report what the Church of Rome holds yet they may heare the aduersaries tell their owne tales hauing partly through their policie partly through the conniuencie of the Superiour that libertie to publish their writings that our selues haue not much more Next the Ministers of England both in their preaching writing and conference report the doctrine of Papists as truly as it is deliuered in their owne bookes and obserued out of their conuersation but many of them are so foule and vile that they may not endure the reporting and therefore when we mention them they denie them and are ashamed of them as many are of their bastards an euident example whereof the Iesuite giues in this place for the points here mentioned are truly related and are neither shamelesse nor slanderous not yet vntruths but the sincere and faithfull report of that execrable doctrine that Papists and none but Papists haue taught and practised and because the Iesuite is somewhat peremptorie in denying this I must put him in minde that I shewed in THE WAY euery one of these points out of their bookes and for the clearer discharge of my selfe and all others that obiect these things to them I will yet againe shew them one by one 6 First they hold the Popes Lordship ouer the Scripture Cardinall Cusanus b Ep. 2. writes 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 sence of the Scripture is also changed c Ep. 3. Againe When the Church changeth her iudgement God also changeth his And d Ep. 7. no maruell seeing the letter of the Scripture is not of the essence of the Church if the practise of the Church at one time interprete the Scripture of this fashion and another time on that The Councell of Trent hath anathematized him that shall denie this his Lordship a Sess 24. can 3 If anie man say that onely those degrees of consanguinitie and affinitie which are expressed in Leuiticus can hinder mariage to be contracted and dissolue that which is contracted and that his Lordship the Church cannot dispense in many of them or ordaine more degrees to hinder and dissolue let him be anathema D. Stapleton b Princip fid pag. 351. Relect pag. 514. affirmes that the Church his Lordship may adde other bookes to the Canon of the Scripture which yet belong not thereunto Cardinall Hosius c De autor sac Script lib. 3. pag. 169. defendeth that the Scriptures were of no more authoritie then Aesops Fables but that the Church and Popes approoued it Augustinus Anconitanus d Qu. 60. art ◠sayes that his Lordshippe may dispence in the Law of Moses Delgado e De auth scrip pag. 47 48. writes that the assertions of the Pope in matters of Faith reach as farre as the teaching of the Apostles or the holy Scripture and he sayes There are who allow them to appertaine to the diuine Scripture f Trac de iurisd pag. 64. part 1. Idem Capistrā de auth Papae concil p. 95. D. Marta sayes The Pope in his administration is greater then Paul and may dispense against him in things not concerning the articles of faith Secondly they hold his Lordship ouer the Fathers D. Marta sayes g De iurisdict par 4. pag. 273. The common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when another contrarie opinion fauours the power of the keyes or a pious cause Thirdly touching Councels h Azor. instit tom 2. pag. 574. Bellar. de conc l. 2. c. 13. 17. Antonin sum mor. par 2. tit 3. c. 11. §. 10. Turrecr sum de eccl l. 3 c. 63. concl 1. l. 2. c. 104. Caiet tract de autho Pap. concil c. 6. 7. 10. 11. apol eius tract par 2. c. 7. 8. 9. 10. Capist p. 104. b. Allan de potest dup n. 74. the Iesuites hold that the Popes iudgement is to be preferred before a whole Councell Dominicus Iacobatius a Cardinall i Tract de concil l. 6. art 2. pag 337. B. Romae per Ant. Blad an 1538. in fol. sayes that in causes of faith if the Pope haue the iudgement of his Cardinals concurring with him then without doubt albeit the doubt arising were most difficult yet the Popes opinion were to be preferred before a generall Councell And that no man thinke the Cardinals haue power to ouer-rule or sway him so that he should not Lord it ouer them also Palaeotus himselfe a Cardinall and practised in the Consistorie many yeares k De consist part 5. q. 4. pag. 295. iude tels vs that when the Pope hath once determined a thing and is come to the end of his consultations the Cardinals must be so farre from dissenting that as obedient sonnes they must giue example to others of obedience yea subscribe to his Bull though it be against their conscience For the Popes authoritie depends not on the counsell giuen by Cardinals but rests on his owne will who of diuers opinions propounded to him may choose that which serueth rightest to himselfe Fourthly touching Scriptures Fathers Councels Church and all the world together Suarez the Iesuite l Tō 1. disp 44. sect 1. p. 677. B. sayes I grant therefore the Popes determination is the truth and were it contrarie to the sayings of all the Saints yet were it to be preferrrd afore them Nay if an Angell from heauen were opposed against him the Popes determination were to be preferred Fiftly they maintaine him to be aboue the Church as appeares by that hath bene said of his eminencie aboue and against Councels Palaeotus m De consist par 1. q. 2. p. 61. sayes that as a vniuersall agent he contains vnder his authoritie all Ecclesiasticall powers as particular agents and without exception he alone may forgive all mens sinnes and exercise iurisdidiction over all Sixtly he Lords it over Kings Iacobatius n Tract de Concil in fin vlt. c pag. 778. sayes The Emperor holds his Empire of the Church of Rome and may be called the Popes Vicar or Officiall Capistranus o De Authors Pap. concil pag 94. that to him as to Christ let euery knee be bowed and Emperors the greatest Princes submit their heads Bozius p De temporal Monarch pag. 52. hath written a booke to defend that the supreme temporall iurisdiction belongs to the Pope so that he is vniuersall Monarch of all the world D. Marta q Part. 1. pag. 45. de iurisdict sayes The Pope hath the same power that Christ had to rule ouer all nations and kingdomes Seuenthly that to Pay no debts to such as they count heretickes is the doctrine of our aduersaries r The way pag. 317. I shewed in the expresse words of
if I had not he would neuer haue fallen to this vile and wretched shift whereto now he betakes himselfe 2 First he sayes many times ouer that though they vse the same words to the Saints they do to Christ yet they do not really and formally giue them the same worship and so thinkes he hath excused his Church from idolatrie whereof let the Reader iudge by that I haue said * Cha. 13. immediatly before Next he answers that whatsoeuer titles and formes of speech they vse in their seruice of the Saints or Friar Francis yet their meaning is not to attribute vnto them the same holinesse and merits that they ascribe to Christ but an inferiour and such as depends vpon his holinesse and merits thus as all idolaters do flying from the words to the meaning Whereto I answer that it becomes the true Church of Christ not onely to meane well but to speake well and such therein as will keepe the Catholick faith must also hold the Catholick forme of words The Apostle b 2. Tim. 1.13 charging Timothy to keepe the true patterne of wholesome words which he had heard of him Now let the Reply shew any one patterne of these inuocations and narrations in all the Scriptures Saint Austin hath a golden speech to this purpose c De ciuit l. 10 c. 23. Thus spake Plotinus as he was able or rather as he listed For Philosophers speake with freedome of words in the difficultest things that are to vnderstand neuer fearing the offence of religious eares but it is lawfull for vs to speake but after a certaine rule lest the licentiousnesse of words bring any wicked opinions as touching the things that are signified thereby Then I answer againe that this is but a shift to hide the odiousnesse of their blasphemie for albeit it be granted that by such words they meane not such merits and dignitie as belongs to Christ yet they meane more then of right appertaines to any mortall creature For there is no merit or dignitie in any creature capable of these speeches or of any other that are vsed in their Saint-inuocations but the least that is meant is more then belongs to any but the Lord Iesus Thirdly the words alledged and all other whereof any question is if we allow them that immediate grammaticall construction that belongs to all words can import no lesse then the same seruice that is giuen to Christ both really and formally Let the Iesuite take these for example part whereof d Pref. of THE WAY n. 14. I alledged e Hâ—t secund chor August de commem B. Virginis Reioyce O mother celestiall magnifie thy God that made thee singular thou wouldest call thy selfe the handmaid of Iesu Christ but as Gods law teaches thou art his Ladie mistris for right and reason will the mother be aboue her sonne therefore pray him humbly and command him from aboue that he leade vs to his kingdome at the worlds end Thou alone without example art shee whom God hath chosen to be the Mediator of God and men the repairer of the world the end of our exile the washing away of our sinne the ladder of heauen the gate of Paradise Such idolatrie as this were fitter to be purged with an humble confession then to be excufed with these vaine distinctions 3 But M. White he sayes vnderstands not wherein the formall reason of worship doth consist But he tels him the inward estimation of the minde is it Words as prayers and actions as adoring with the bodie be signes whereby this worship is outwardly yeelded and therefore they follow the inward estimation of the minde and import no more then he meanes that vses them and therefore though we vse the same words and actions to creatures that we do to God yet meaning them in one sense to the creature and in another to God this is no idolatrie This is the full summe of his barbarous and confused discourse but I answer again that thus all idolaters in the world may excuse themselues in the worship of their idols for when the Iew to his calfe and the Gentile to his image bended the knee and called it God they did not esteeme it in that degree that they did God himselfe but onely gaue it an inferiour honour such as they thought an image capable of and when they were put to it would answer as the Reply doth f For they did not think their idols to be God but resemblances of the true God Athenag Leg. pag. 20. Dio Chrysost p. 145 Peres de tradit pag. 225. Andr. orthod expl pag. 289. 294 Act. 17.23 though the word or action were one yet the honour was farre different but as I would answer them so I do the Iesuite that the inward estimation opinion of the mind determining the said words prayers and gestures to such an inferiour worship as is mentioned doth not remoue the reason of idolatrie thereby from the said words and prayers because such as it is it remaines diuine worship attributed to a creature For all religious inuocation of a creature in what opinion soeuer is diuine adoration and a part of Gods proper worship Besides our meaning and intention limiting our words cannot dispense with the commandement that forbids the vsing of g Abusus ille reprehensibilis est si praedicara quae secundùm vsum ecclesiae sâ—li Deo Patri Mediatori Christo attribuuntur vt Omnipotens Saluator c. etiam Sanctis applicantur Henr. de Hass quem refert sequitur Gabr. Lect. 32. lit 2. such words to a creature with any meaning whatsoeuer For Christ teaching vs how to pray bids vs pray Our Father which art in heauen Forgiue vs our trespasses Deliuer vs from euill For thine is the kingdome the power and the glorie We must pray to such a one as is our Father which is in heauen c. this is a commandement and Rom. 10. How shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued This is the doctrine of Saint Paul which commandement and doctrine are violated as well when we pray to a Saint with estimation that he is but an intercessor through Christs merits as when we call vpon him with an opinion that he can helpe vs without them The reason is because the commandement doctrine of the Scripture ties vs to God alone which being transgressed there is the reall and formall reason of superstition whatsoeuer the opinion and intent of the minde be 4 But the Iesuite replies that like as we kneele to God and call him our Father so do we the same things to our earthly parents and yet the honour we giue them hereby is farre different from that we yeeld to God therefore we may vse the same inuocations and words to the Saints that we doe to God when the minde acknowledges not that excellencie in them that it doth in him as children vse the same kneeling and words to their fathers
of all this vehemencie against the authoritie of the Scripture it selfe is but vnder the name of Church-authoritie to make roome for their Antichristian tyrannie and by outfacing vs from that which we sensibly feele wrought in our conscience by the holy Ghost to abandon our selues ouer to the most hereticall and damnable authoritie of whatsoeuer the Pope and his creatures shall thrust vpon vs. 7 But that which my aduersarie infers vpon my speech that hence because we say the children of God and particular men are assured of the Scriptures and sense thereof by the Spirit of God for I said no more nor any way denie the iust authoritie of the true Church proceeds our audacious and impudent neglect of the authoritie of ancient Fathers generall Councels and whatsoeuer stands against vs I can scarce paste ouer with any reasonable patience for the Fathers and Councels in things that they held certainly and determinately with consent a THE WAY §. 44 p. 3. ibi D gr 47. I purposely shewed we allow and follow and in euery question will stand to but when our aduersaries themselues cannot denie that there is not onely the diuine truth but a heauenly light also whereby to see iâ— in the Scriptures themselues that is not put into them by any testimonie of the Church whereby a simple man may be able to discerne an error in any Father or Councell what fault is it in vs by this light to iudge of Fathers and Councels Occham b Dial. pag. 18â— sayes Catholicke men may learne many truths not knowne before by the sacred Scriptures although the Pope and Cardinals haue not formerly attempted to declare them And whereas possible some may say that the simple people are to beleeue nothing but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer to be beleeued expresly nor ought to search the mysteries of the Scriptures but be content with common things not presuming of their owne vnderstanding to beleeue any thing expresly but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer BVT HE THAT SHOVLD SAY THVS WERE AN INVENTER OF NEW ERRORS for though the simple people be not ordinarily bound to beleeue expresly any thing but that which by the Cleargie is already declared to be beleeued expresly yet these simple people BY READING THE SCRIPTVRES and THE SHARPNESSE OF THEIR REASON which simple people do not altogether want may finde something EVIDENTLY to follow of the diuine Scriptures which the Pope and Cardinals haue not declared in which case they may and must expresly beleeue it and are not bound to enquire of the Pope and Cardinals because they are bound to preferre the Scripture before them And the reason of this is for THE POPE AND CARDINALS ARE NOT THE RVLE OF OVR FAITH The Diuines of Venice in their late writing against the present Pope lay downe these conclusions c Tract de in terdict prop. 8. The law of God is the rule of the Popes power d Prop. 12. Christian men may not obey the Popes command vnlesse they first examine it and he that inconsiderately obeyes before such examination sinnes e Prop. 13. It excuses not a Christian man though the Pope constantly affirme his commandement to be iust but it behoues him to examine it and to direct himselfe according to the rule giuen aboue Gerson f Part. 2. recom licent pag. 832. sayes The spirit of a iust man now and then giues warning of the truth better then seuen watch-men set in a high place to watch Do not g Quis enim sant capitis diceret sententiam amplectendam solius Papae quae potest errori subesse postponendam sententiam Ecclesiae Anton. de Rosell monarch pag 67. Dico quod postqâ—am Concilium est congregatum Papae authoritas in teruenit authoritas Papae postea confundi tur cum Concilio remanet forma Concilij authoritas Papae congregantis finitur facta congregatione Iacobat de Conc. l. 10. art 6. pag. 614. D. Cum agitur de fide Synodus est maior quà m Papa Zabarell de schism pag. 701. A. The same is directly holden by Almain de author eccles cap. 7. pag. 725. F. Occham compend erro cap. vlt. sub fin And the Diuines of France at this day Lib. de eccl polit Pet. de Alliaco de eccles author part 3 cap. 2. pag. 924. Mariana sayes Multi viri prudentes graues eruditione maxima Pontifices Romanos Ecclesiae vniuersae subiecerunt de Reg. l. 1. cap. 8. pag. 74. Note the speech of Almain Determinatis per summum Pontificem non est necessario credendum quamuis non sit oppositum publicè dogmatisandum nisi manifestum sit ea sacris literis c. Quest in Vesperg pag. 133. the strongest champions the Church of Rome hath limit the Popes authoritie making it subiect to the Church and allowing men to examine it afore they obey it which shewes vnanswerably that in the Scripture it selfe for that also is granted at the last to be the the rule whereby to trie him is a light which may be seene by a priuate person against the Popes commandement and vnlesse they assume an vnlimited authoritie and such as is subiect to no triall to their Church and Pope which the violentest aduersary we haue dare not do they shall though they be wrangled till dooms day be enforced to grant the same authoritie and light in the Scripture that we affirme 8 Againe before my aduersary had charged vs with audacious and impudent neglect of Fathers and Councels he should haue answered the 47 Digression of my booke where I haue related those practises of Papists in contemning reiecting eluding purging abusing both Fathers and Councels that if they had any sparke of grace in them they would be ashamed to charge others with that impudency and audaciousnesse which none are guilty of so much as themselues I will rehearse nothing of that which there I writ but adde something to it whereby the Reader shall iudge who they be that most impudently and audaciously neglect antiquity D. Marta in a booke dedicated to the present Pope h D. Marta de iurisdict part 4. pag. 273. sayes the common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when the other opinion contrary to them fauours the power of the Keyes or the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or a pious cause This man speakes plaine that one may vnderstand him the Fathers all of them must crouch to the Keyes and pious cause of the Pope which Keyes and cause when they come to scanning will prooue as partiall as any priuate spirit in the world And touching the interpretation of the Scripture Baron i An. 34. n. 213 sayes the Bishops all of them who succeeded in the roome of the Apostles attained not the sence and vnderstanding of the Scriptures for the Catholicke Church now turned Protestant and priuate doth not alway and in all things follow them How then I am no lesse delighted k
c Orat. cont Gent. sub init saies The holy Scriptures are * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficient by themselues to shew the truth Isiodore Pelusiota d L. 2. Epist 369. The sacred volumes hauing the testimony of the diuine Scriptures are the stayres whereby we ascend to God All therefore brought out of them in the Church of God receiue as proued gold tried in the fire of the Spirit of Gods truth * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whatsoeuer things without these volumes are carried about though they haue shew of probability leaue to those that plot the fables of heresies S. Basil e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de fid pag. 394. edit Basil an 1551. It is manifest presumption and apostasie from the faith either to abrogate any of the things that are written or bring in any thing that is not written And Vincent Lirin f Monito c. 2. 41. The rule of the Scripture is perfect and in it selfe sufficient and more then sufficient vnto all things And g 3. d. 25. qu. vnic a. Gab. Biell his owne Schoolman All things necessary to be beleeued are contained in the Canonicall Scripture it belonges therefore to the perfection of the Scripture to containe all things 2. Against this he obiected the stale and threadbare argument it is not contained in the Scripture that it selfe is the word of God My answer was that the vertue and power that shewes it selfe in euery line and leafe of the Bible proclaimes it to be the word of God and the sheepe of Christ discerne the voice and light of it as men discerne sweete from sowre light from darkenesse Now he demandes in this Reply How then it chances that our illuminated Luther could not see the Epistle of S. Iames to be diuine Scripture I answer readily to the point if the Scripture be so easily and infallibly knowne to be Gods word by the authority of the Church how chances it that his illuminated Caietan h Catharin cont Nov. dog Caiet S xt Senens Biblio l. 6. annot 337. denied the same Epistle of S. Iames to be diuine Scripture how chances i Noted afore so many Papists deny the Apocrypha to be Canonicall as well as we how comes it about that Genebrard k Genebrard chronol p. 181. Posseuin appar verb. Gilb. Genebrard affirmes the third fourth Bookes of Esdras to be Canonicall Scripture which the Chuch denies Thus my Iesuit is fallen vnawares into the same pit he made for me Secondly my aduersarie l Verum est doctorem quidem Lutherū quosdam alios exemplum veteris Ecclesiae imitatos de libris modo dictis non ita praeclare sensisse sed tamen jidē postea re diligentius perpensa priorem sententiam mutare non dubitarunt Eckhard fascic pag. 21. cannot proue that M. Luther perseuered to the end in the deniall of this Epistle The iudgement of m Nonnul i antiquitus de epistolae huius authoritate dubitarunt Passeuin appar v. Iacob Apost see Euseb hist. Eccle l. 3 c. 25. Ieron Doroth de viris illust v. Iacobus so many in the Primitiue Church refusing it dazeled Luthers eyes and made him to doubt for a time but that he neuer saw and beleeued it to be Scripture to the end my aduersary will scarse be able to shew Thirdly Luthers not seeing this light proues not that there is no such light or voice in the Scripture for all faith thereof is not in an instant but successiuely and by degrees and all men at all times haue not eyes and disposition alike to see it as the Apostles at the first saw not Christ to be that he was though he were the light that came into the world Saint Austine n Tract 35. Ioh. sayes The Scriptures are lighted vp to be our Candle in this world that we walke not in darknesse Therefore they are seene by their owne light For the same Saint Austine n saies will you light a Candle to see a burning Candle for a burning Candle is able both to make manifest other things that are hidden in darkenesse and to shew it selfe to thy eyes The Scripture therefore by it owne light shewes it selfe as I said to be the word of God and if any see not this light the defect is in themselues and is remoued by no other light added but by the same light at such time as pleases God to open the eyes Theophilus Antiochenus o Orat. 1. ad Antolych sayes we must not say there is no light because the blind see it not but let them that see it not accuse their owne eyes For as in all other matters of faith it falls out among the children of God that p 1. Cor. 13.9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost ibi hom 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scol graec ibi some see and know more and some vnderstand and beleeue lesse then othersome yet the matters of faith themselues are one and the same and the beleeuers are inlightened with Gods Spirit though not all in the same measure so may it fall out about this obiect that some particular men may not at the first or alway perfitly see the light of euery part of Scripture or perfitly heare the voice of Christ founding therein for here in this life we know but in part and prophecy but in part though the light of the Scripture shine fully forth vnto all 3 This light of the Scripture my aduersary grants but yet to bring in his traditions and Church-authority marke how he replyes What light soeuer there be in the Scripture yet it shines not to our vnderstanding till it be illuminated with faith which the elect themselues at all times are not the which I grant and thereupon inferre that this light was neuerthelesse in the Scripture though Luther saw it not in one place thereof and the reason why he saw it not was because euery one of the elect is not at all times indued with all faith but my Iesuite addes that this light whereby the Scriptures shew themselues to be the word of God shines not to the vnderstanding illuminated with faith neither vnlesse it be propounded by the authority of the Church vpon which as vpon a Candlesticke the light of the Scripture must be set or else it will not sufficiently shine vnto vs to giue vs of it selfe infallible assurance that it is the word of God q Concedimus igitur sacras liteteras quae diuinae doctrinae continent lumen tanquam lucernam esse per seipsam splendidissimam atque fulgentissimam sed nobis tamen non in se lucidam sed quatenus est diuinitus in Ecclesiae Catholicae authoritate tanquam in candelabro positum vt luceat omnibus qui in domo sunt Errant igitur aduersarij cum scripturam esse lucernam ac illuminare nos idem esse existimant quod eam non egere Ecclesiae infallibili authoritate vt
is so able as to worke that effect without any other meanes or helpes concurring with it but at the most doth import a great degree of profitablenesse Or if it import sufficiency it is not meant that alone sufficiency of which our questiō is but at the most sufficiency in suo genere in a certaine limited kind to wit of written Scripture Against the second part of my answer first M. White either had a corrupt copie of my treatise or else himselfe his writer or printer corrupteth euen my words and sense For I do not say as he maketh me the Scripture is sufficient because c. But I say onely that it is profitable the rather because it commendeth the authority of the Church By which corruption he maketh himselfe matter to worke vpon but very idlely most of his obiections being ouerthrowne only by reading my words aright as I set them downe His chiefe obiection is this The Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect that is the Pastours the Pope Councell and all but it cannot send these to the Church because these be the Church I answer that it sendeth euen these also to the Church First in that it sendeth them to the interpretation of Councels and Fathers of the ancient Church Secondly it sendeth them as they are priuate men needing instruction to themselues as authorized Pastours who by the assistance of Gods Spirit shall be enabled as neede shall require for their owne and other mens instruction to define rightly which is the right doctrine of faith in any point wherein Controuersie shall arise The answer of his other obiections may without difficulty be gathered out of that which here I haue said already and which I am after to say when I do shew how Church authority is prooued out of Scripture Whence followeth not that other places of Scripture either are superfluous or not to be accounted part of the rule or that Church doctrine is to be opposed to Scripture or to be accounted humane traditions or doctrine of men The sentences of Fathers and others which M. White bringeth to proue alone sufficiency of Scripture either proue nothing against me to wit being explicated that the Scriptures with other meanes prouided by God namely the authority of the Church are able to instruct vs or else they proue against him and his fellow M. Wootton as well as against me if the Fathers words be taken without limitation that the Scriptures alone without any meanes ioyned to thē are able to instruct vs in all things And it is maruaile that these men haue so little iudgement to alledge such authorities which make no more againe Church-authority required by me then against Church-ministery which is required by themselues as the ordinary meanes to instruct men in faith 1 The Apostle 2. Tim. 3.15 hath these words The holy Scriptures are ABLE to make thee wise TO SALVATION through THE FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST IESVS For the whole Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable to TEACH to IMPROVE to CORRECT to INSTRVCT IN ALL RIGHTEOVSNESSE That the man of God may be ABSOLVTE and made PERFECT VNTO ALL GOOD WORKES This text we alledge to proue the sufficiency of the Scripture whereto my Aduersary in his discourse a In the WAY §. 11. answered two things First that the Apostle doth not say in these words that the Scripture is sufficient to instruct a man to perfection but that it is profitable but I shewed that he affirmes it to be SVFFICIENT by three reasons the first because the Apostle sayes They are able to make vs PERFECT and that to EVERY good worke now that which doth this is sufficient inasmuch as God requires no more at any mans hand but perfection to euery good worke My Aduersary in this his cōfused Reply wherin he durst not deale openly and distinctly that I might perfectly discerne which part of my argument his words properly concerne seemes to deny the consequence because S. Paul sayes also that Piety is profitable to euery thing and yet it is not sufficient in such sort that there needs no other helpe or meanes to be ioyned with it to attaine whatsoeuer thing Whereto I reply againe First that euen this Piety being the totall and whole effect that the study of the Scripture works in mē is sufficiēt without the ioyning of any thing else to it that is not Piety for it followes in the next words that this Piety hath the promises of this life and of the life to come that is to say whatsoeuer is promised vs in this world or in the next is obtained by Piety Therefore Piety is sufficient Therefore any thing in this example notwithstanding the Scriptures being affirmed to be profitable to euery thing are affirmed also to be sufficient Secondly we do not maintaine the Scripture to be sufficient in that sense that without all helpe and meanes to learne them they will suffice for who euer denied the ministery of the Church the illumination of Gods Spirit and a mans owne syncere indeuour to be also requisite But when we say they are sufficient we do it against the assertion that sayes they containe not the substāce of al things needful to be knowne but besides the meanes to vnderstand and learne them we need Church authority and vnwritten tradition to supply diuers articles of faith that they reueale not Thirdly my Aduersary may possibly finde some formes of speech where a thing is called profitable to all things yet other things are as necessary as it for the profitablenes of one thing excludes not the necessity of another thing But wheresoeuer it is said that any thing is profitable not simply to this or that purpose but to make persect to euery thing in the same kind there the sufficiency thereof is absolutely concluded and thus the Apostle speakes of the Scripture that it is profitable to make PERFECT to EVERY good worke The said perfection being an effect of their profitablenesse for that profitable thing is sufficient of it selfe that makes and produces the effect perfect 2 My second reason whereby I shewed the sufficiency of the Scripture was this All that we need to saluation is either to be taught or reproued or instructed or corrected but the Scripture alone doth all this Ergo they are sufficient to this he answers nothing 3 Thirdly I reasoned thus That is sufficient and containes all things needfull to be knowne which is able to make a man wise to saluation but the Scripture is able to doe this Ergo it is sufficient this argument he hath tumultuously repeated as he hath all the rest and answered I know not how First he sayes if the word alone had bene put in it would more plainely appeare how it proues nothing let the world therefore be put in That which alone is able to make a man wise to saluation is sufficient but such is the Scripture that alone it is able to make a man wise to
all the gates of hell not onely ouer the sayings of men though holy men or deceitful custom Gods word is ouer all The diuine Maiestie is of my side that I care not if a thousand Austins a thousand Cyprians a thousand King Harry-churches stood against me God can neither deceiue nor be deceiued Austin and Cyprian as all the elect may erre and haue erred In all these words there is nothing spoken simply against the Fathers but comparatiuely if a thousand Fathers were against the Scriptures he would rather stand to the Scripture wherein he speakes most godly and honestly that d Gal. 1. if an Apostle or an Angell from heauen farre greater then a thousand Austins and Cyprians should preach otherwise let him be accursed Neither Saint Paul nor Luther granted the Angels or Doctors of the Church to preach otherwise then they did but if any man would pretend and oppose their names and preaching against the Scripture let them be accursed the word of God is aboue all that I care not if a thousand Austins and a thousand Cyprians stood against me which is the truth and our aduersaries say as much themselues Baronius e An. 31. n. 213. Though the Fathers whom for their high learning we worthily call the Doctors of the Church were endued with the grace of the holy Ghost aboue others yet in expounding the Scripture the Catholicke Church doth not alway and in all things follow them D. Marta f De iurisdict part 1. pag. 273. The common opinion of the Doctors is not to be regarded when the contrary opinion fauours the power of the Popes keyes or a pious cause And I haue shewed g THE WAY digr 47. elsewhere that this is the common practise of our aduersaries They speake not alway so zealously and plainly as Luther doth but for substance they say the same that he doth h Yesterday Ecchius brought against me Gregory Ambrose Chrysostome to whom I then answered nothing I will therefore now say what I then forgot opposing the rule of diuine Augustine that the savings of all writers must be iudged by the sacred Scripture whose authoritie is greater then the authoritie of all men Not that I condemne the iudgement of the most illustrious Fathers but I imitate those that come nearest to the Scriptures and if the Scripture be plaine I embrace it before them all Tom. 1. disput Lips cum Ecch. pag 263. Wittemb I mention the opinion of Austin not to defame or detract froÌ„ that holy man but because it is good necessary that these holy Fathers be sometime found like our selues men that the glorie of God may stand firme c. Jâ— Genesc 21 pag. 255. tom 6. Wittemb who thought also as reuerently of the Fathers as any man is bound to do 3 But it was not Luthers going against the Fathers that discontented our aduersaries it was his resisting the Popes Canons and the faith of the Church of Rome which they shrowded vnder the name of the Fathers wherein by their owne diuinitie he might be guiltlesse Peraduenture i Dialog tract 2. part 2. c. vult pag. 180. col 3. edit Lugdun per Ioh. â—rech an 1494. saith Occham one might say that simple men ought to beleeue nothing but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer to be beleeued explicately and should be content with things common not presuming vpon their owne vnderstanding to beleeue any thing explicitely but what the Pope and Cardinals deliuer vnto them but HE THAT SHOVLD AFFIRME THESE THINGS WERE AN INVENTOR OF NEW ERRORS For though simple men be not ordinarily tied to beleeue explicitely but onely those things which are by the Cleargie declared to be so beleeued yet SIMPLE MEN READING THE DIVINE SCRIPTVRE BY THE SHARPNES OF REASON MAY SEE SOME THING THAT THE POPE AND CARDINALS HAVE NOT DECLARED EVIDENTLY TO FOLLOW OF THE SCRIPTVRE in which case they can and must explicitely beleeue and ARE NOT BOVND TO CONSVLT WITH THE POPE AND CARDINALS FORASMVCH AS THEY ARE BOVND TO PREFERRE THE HOLY SCRIPTVRE BEFORE THEM ALL. If all the Papists in the world can shew Luther did any more then Occham here allowes euery simple man to do I am much deceiued And if he did no more then by their owne iudgements he might doe then away with these friuolous and emptie exclamations against Luther and let vs heare no more of them A. D. But saith M. White Scripture promiseth Pag 201. that euery doctrine is of God which consenteth to it and this consent a man may know infallibly or else in vaine had the Bereans searched c. I answer that I do not denie but a man may know doctrine to consent to Scripture but I aske how he may know this by onely Scripture interpreted by ones owne iudgment or priuate spirit I hope I haue shewed the contrary neither will M. White be euer able to proue that the 1 Act. 17.11 Beraeans had infallible certaintie onely by the Scripture interpreted by their owne priuate iudgement or that 2 Es 8.20 the Prophet sent any for infallible certaintie to the law and testimonie expounded onely by priuate iudgement or that 3 Luc 1 4. Saint Luke or f Col. 2.2 Saint Paul whom he alledgeth meant that men should haue infallible assurance by onely Scripture interpreted by priuate iudgement or spirit 4 I neuer intended that any man could haue infallible assurance of that he beleeues onely by Scripture interpreted by his owne priuate iudgement all that I affirme is that priuate men may examine any doctrine that is publickly taught by whosoeuer and by Scripture alone as by a certaine rule they may be assured of the truth This is plainly euinced by the texts alledged For the Beraeans hearing the Apostles preach yet searched the Scripture dayly whether those things were so and therefore beleeued In which example the matter examined is the things that the Apostles preached The rule whereby this was examined is the Scripture alone which in the text is distinguished from the Apostles preaching and ministery and authoritie and opposed against them for by it the Beraeans examined them The persons that did this were a priuate people subiect to the Pastors of the Church as much as any can be The end why they did thus examine the doctrine was to see if it consented with the Scripture The euent and issue of their examining was Therefore many of them beleeued Whereby it is cleare that a priuate man by the Scripture alone may be able to iudge of any thing that is publickly taught and by the Scripture alone be infallibly assured if he hold the truth Not the Scripture alone excluding the condition of the meanes whereby God makes the sense thereof knowne but the Scripture alone as the rule of faith excluding all authoritie of the Church and Pastors Nor the Scripture interpreted by a mans owne iudgement and priuate spirit but by it selfe truly according to the manifest rule
of faith contained and reuealed in Scripture it selfe 5 The difficultie is when I vpon the authoritie of the Scripture as I verily perswade my selfe beleeue contrary to the Church of Rome or any other presumed to be the true Church how it shall appeare to my selfe and others that I expound and vnderstand the Scriptures aright and not according to my own priuate spirit For answer whereto note first that this demand lies as well against the Beraeans and the rest of Gods people mentioned by Luke and Paul in the texts alledged as against the Protestants For they reiecting something that they were perswaded was not in the Scripture or receiuing that which they saw agreeable to the Scripture might be demanded how they were infallibly assured they had the true sence of the Scripture And a false Apostle when they should by the Scripture examine and reiect his doctrine might cauill as A.D. here doth and say they expounded it after their owne priuate spirit In which case the godly beleeuers could refer themselues to no other rule but onely leaue the truth still to be iudged by the Scripture by all such as would examine it Note secondly that the same difficultie presses our aduersaries For when they haue shewed and vrged the authoritie of the Church and their chiefe Pastor therin what they can yet this authoritie they cannot maintaine to be such as they hold but by the Scripture k Vbi sup liâ— b. Pezantius and k Vbi sup liâ— b. Greg. of Valence You wil ask how the proposition of the Church is known to be infallible Let him that is thus demanded answer He beleeues it by an infallible faith for the authoritie of the Scripture giuing witnesse to the Church which authoritie and reuelation he beleeues for it selfe albeit the proposition of the Church as a requisite condition be needfull thereunto I know not many of our aduersaries some l Durand 3 d 24. qu. 1. d. 25 q. 3. ibi Scot. Alm. Gabr. few Schoolmen excepted that hold the authoritie of the Church to be the formall reason of faith or the first and last cause of beleeuing but the authoritie of God himselfe reuealing these things which authoritie being something distinguished from the Church and aboue it can be no where manifested but in the Scripture Now when they alledge Scripture we may tell them againe they alledge it after their owne spirit which obiection may be multiplied as often as they multiply their discourses out of Scripture Thirdly therefore for satisfaction of the difficultie I beleeue and am assured of that I hold by infused faith God by a supernatural light reuealing and infusing the certaintie of that I beleeue partly by shewing to my vnderstanding out of the Scripture partly by stirring vp and inclining my will to assent vnto it and en brace it The which knowledge and assurance of mind when any man challenges as if it were but a priuate conceit subiect to error I can say no more but that which euery man sayes for his faith that so all true faith may be destroyed in that m For the beleeuer assents not by discourse to the matters of faith reuealed as by the formall reason of beleeuing but by simple cleaning adhering to theÌ„ faith neuer drawing forth her act by meanes of discourse but if discourse be vsed it is rather a conditioÌ„ helping to apply faith to it obiect Mat. 16.17 2. Cor. 10.5 Heb. 11.1 Fides secundùm se coÌ„siderata quod attinet ad causaÌ„ efficientem reuocanda est in motioneÌ„ diuinaeÌ„ lumenque diuinuÌ„ siue in habitum fidei Christiana fides etiam vt est in nobis reuocatur in DeuÌ„ mouentem diuinuÌ„que lumen Lud. Carb sum tom 3. c. 3. l. 1. pag. 6. no mans faith ascends aboue this infused illumination or can be demonstrated to be certaine by euident reasons n Tho. 1. part q 1. art 8 DuraÌ„ prolog sent qu. 1. pag 4. h. that shall conuince all gainsayers but onely there be forcible motiues to induce vnto it though when his reasons that thus beleeues shall be examined and his grounds of Scripture duly weyed by true Christians in a Councell or otherwise all that gainsay him may easily be confuted And this is the thing that we say for Luther and Scripture against the Papacie A. D. Yet saith M. White the Papists cannot denie but there is a heauenly light c. It is true Pag. 201. that Catholicks grant inward testimony of the Spirit to giue infallible assurance But what spirit is that which they thinke giueth this infallible assurance Not priuate spirit but the Spirit which is common to the Church the Spirit which inclineth men to humilâ—tie order and vnitie as in * Qu 6. the Introduction I haue shewed To whom also do they think infallible assurance to be giuen by the Spirit Not to euery one that presuming himselfe to be elect and to haue the Spirit shall rush without reuerence into the sacred text expounding it as he listeth or as it shall be suggested by priuate spirit but to such as with order humilitie and respect of vnitie reade and interprete Scripture as they learne it to be interpreted by the infallible authoritie of the Pastors of Gods Church Those that do otherwise though they may seeme to themselues to be infallibly sure yet indeed they are not as not hauing any substantiall ground to assure them which may not in like maner and with as probable colour be alledged by others whom although perswading themselues to be infallibly sure M. White himselfe wil grant to be deceiued in this their perswasion M. White * White pag. 62. 63. saith that his priuate men be assured by Scripture So say they M. White saith his men haue the witnesse of the holy Ghost So say they M. White saith his men were taught by the Pastors of the true Church This he saith indeed and so if they would be impudent they might say But whereas M White saith that his priuate men let Luther and Caluin be examples were taught by the Pastors if he meane they were taught by the Pastors those speciall points wherein they dissent from vs it is maruell that euen his owne blacke face blusheth not to vtter such a shamelesse vntruth Let M. White name if he can what Pastors those were that taught Luther and Caluin these new doctrines vnlesse he will allow the Diuell to be a Pastor whom Luther * Luth. de miss angul confesseth to haue taught him his doctrine against the Masse 6 If there be as the Replier grants a heauenly light in the things themselues that are beleeued and an inward testimonie of the Spirit that can giue infallible assurance to the beleeuer this is as much as we require for then this light and testimonie wheresoeuer and in whomsoeuer it be is sufficient as I said to assure the conscience of the truth of the things beleeued whosoeuer gainsay them and
virtually it is the Church of Rome and the Pope the Church of Rome representatiuely is the Colledge of Cardinals but virtually the Pope who is the head of the Church Pelaeottus f De consist part 1. qu. 3. pag. 19. The Pope alone may do not onely that which is granted to all and singular Prelates in the Church but also more then they all g Respons moral p. 44. n 4. Comitol The power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is not in the vniuersality of the Church as in the true subiect but in the Prelates thereof and in the Bishops of Rome as in the fountaine whence it flowes vnto all other Ministers of the new Testament Albertine h Coroll pag. 251. saies The Bishop of Rome is the rule of faith into which Rule all the articles of our faith are lastly resolued as into the formall reason whereby they are propounded to vs. Gretser i Defens Bell. to 1. p. 1450. B. saies when we affirme the Church to be the iudge of all controuersies of faith by the Church we vnderstand the Bishop of Rome who for the time being gouernes the ship of the militant Church and by liuely voice doth clearely and expressely expound his iudgement to them that seeke to him Zumel k Disput var. tom 3. p. 49 D. saies I beleeue that the chiefe Priest and Bishop of the Church the Pope who is the master of our faith cannot but attaine the truth of faith nor can be deceaued or erre if as chiefe Bishop and master of the faith he set downe his determination so that vnlesse a man be afraid of the truth there is no cause why he should feare the Popes determination It is idle therefore and sordid that the Repliar saies by the Church he meant the Pope but secondarily as it is ridiculous to say the Church is the rule indefinitely and abstracting from all time or per ampliationem which are termes deuised onely to besot the ignorant that they should not smell his heresie for if his Church be the rule he must needes meane such a Church as he thinkes in all ages and times successiuely to haue bene inuested with that authority and that Church is the Pope alone that miserable iudge of whom their owne men say h Do. Bann to 3. p. 106. b. It is no Catholicke faith but an opinion very probable that he is S. Peters successor and the most iudicious confesse i Alph. l. 1. c. 4. Hadrian pag. 26. ad 2. he may erre * August Anconit sum qu. 5. art 1 Iacobat de conc l. 4. art 1. Occh Dialog 1. part l. 6. 2. part c. 69. inde Cusan de concord cath l. 2. c. 17. Panorm de elect C. signif not 7. Zabarell tract de schismat Gerson de auferibil Pap. consid 10. inde and be deposed for heresie A.D. § 1. Pag. 205. That the doctrine of the Apostles was for their life time the rule and meanes First I say that my conclusion being vnderstood as in this Chapter I principally meant cannot be denied to be true for it cannot be denied but that the doctrine as deliuered by the Apostles themselues being for the time they liued the Church in such sense as here I take the name Church was such a rule and meanes as here we seeke for For first it is knowne to be infallible Secondly it was easie to be vnderstood c. Thirdly it was vniuersall c. Since therefore these 3. conditions requisite in the rule of faith are found in the doctrine and teaching of the Apostles it cannot be denied but that the diuine doctrine as deliuered by them in their life time either by word or writing was the rule and meanes which God ordained to instruct men in faith Taking therfore my conclusion in the chiefely intended sense I suppose that my aduersaries will neither deny it to be true nor the reason by which I proue it to be good 2 This discourse needed not for no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Apostles to be the rule either for their time or the time succeeding to the world ende I graunt therefore the Repliar his assertion and inferre thereupon that his Popes determinations and the doctrine of his Romish Church is not the rule of faith because they agree not with that which he here confesses was the rule in the Apostles time vnlesse he will maintaine when he replies againe that the rule is not one and the same at all times as k Cusan ep 2.7 his Cardinall writes that the Scripture is fitted to the time and variably vnderstood so that at one time it is expounded according to the fashion of the Church and when that fashion is changed the sense of the Scripture is also changed Againe Magalian a Iesuite I thinke yet liuing l Magal op Hierarch in tit p. 61. n. 6. saies Though it were granted that the wordes of Paule Tit. 1.6 containe a precept to marrie yet seeing Paule gaue it by his owne authority it were no diuine but an Ecclesiasticall precept which the Church may change yea abrogate and much more dispense with Marke what trickes heretickes haue to change the Apostles doctrine when it fits not their Church then the Apostles gaue it by their owne authority which I note that the Reader may perceaue there is no sincerity in the Repliars words For albeit he grants here the Apostles doctrine be the rule yet he meanes it to be the rule but for their owne time because the Pope may vnder colourable pretences expound it that is in plaine English change it when he will as his Cardinall and Iesuite here affirme A D. § 2. That the doctrine of the succeeding Pastours of the Church Pag. 207. is the rule and meanes The chiefe controuersie is about my conclusion as in a secondary sense it may be meant of the succeeding Pastors of the Church In which sense I affirme that like as the diuine doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture or as gathered thence by natural wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by the Apostles or the Apostles as deliuering this doctrine was the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in their daies in all matters of faith So the same doctrine not as contained in onely Scripture nor as gathered thence by naturall wit or priuate spirit but as deliuered by Pastors of the succeeding Church or those Pastors as deliuering this doctrine is the rule and meanes ordained by God to instruct all men liuing in succeding ages in all points of faith 3 This assertion I will grant as I did the former namely that the doctrine of the Pastors of the true Church such as succeed the Apostles is the rule and meanes of faith but the reader shall note two trickes that the Iesuite puts vpon him in the Proposition hereof First that affirming the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors of the Church to be the rule he saies not
should be iudged Pag 210. A. D. Thus therefore we see that those texts which I alledge do not onely pertaine to the Apostles and men liuing in that age as my Aduersaries ignorantly White pag. 72. 73 74. and absurdly make answer to some of the texts but that they pertaine also to men liuing in other ages and consequently as my reason drawne out of them proueth infallibility and other conditions requisite in the rule and meanes to be in the Apostles doctrine so it proueth also infallibility and the said other conditions in the doctrine of succeeding Pastours 5 The texts alledged were these Math. 28 20. Ioh. 14.16 and the 16.13 Math. 28.19 Luc. 10.16 The thing he would proue by them was that the doctrine of the Church is infallible which conclusion in a good sense u §. 13. n. 1. §. 14 n. 2. in the WAY by me set downe I granted But when he meant it otherwise * Ecclesia docere potest aliquid extra praeter verbum scriptum D. Staplet relect p. 431 Eius doctrina quoque est infallibilis pag. 463. according to the doctrine of Rome that the Church can erre in nothing it teaches albeit it teach that which is not in the Scripture I answered the texts he brought out of the Scripture and to these foure I said that they belonged either onely or properly to the Apostles I answered them sufficiently otherwise all which the Repliar here conceals if they were applied to the whole Church but that also was one part of my answer Therefore here he replies that ignorantly and absurdly I make answer because they belong to the Church Pastours in all ages as he hath shewed Yet x The same word may be applied in the Apostle◠and to the succeeding Pastors so far foorth as to proue the substance of the thing signified to agree to both although in circumstance of measure manner or degree there be great difference A. D. Reply p. 208. 217. his owne confession is that this is onely secondarily or by consequence but primarily and principally they pertaine to the Apostles which is as much as I said For I do not so restraine them to the Apostles but that I allow part of the sense therein contained to concerne the Church and therefore I answered them also otherwise whereto the Repliar replies neuer a word And if they had proued the infallibility of his Church so pregnantly let him giue ouer his confidence and tell vs how then comes it to passe that so many in his owne Church hold some that y Occh. dial part 1. l 5. c. 25. Turtecrem sum de eccl l. 3. c. 58. concl 2. Caiet apol part 2. c. 21. Councels some that z Mic. Cezen lit ad Imperat. c. vlt. Hadrian 4. p. 26. Alphons l. 1 c. 4 Onus eccl c. 15. n. 34. the Pope himselfe may erre and let him not talke of erring definitiuely and è Cathedra for that distinction is in none of the texts alledged The priuiledge of not erring is by no words thereof tied to the chaire but that which is promised is tied to the persons So that the persons of these Pastors not being made infallible by these texts it followes that no such infallibility at all as the Repliar dreames of is giuen them therein A. D. As by the promise of Christ we be assured that the Apostles Pag. 214. and consequently in some sense the Pastours of the Church are taught all truth by the Holy Ghost so by the commission warrant commandement and threat ioyntly considered as here I consider them we are assured that the same Holy Ghost doth so assist them as not to permit either the Apostles or the Pastours vniuersally to teach authoratiuely false doctrine or their owne deuices in regard otherwise men should be bound sometimes to beleeue false doctrine which inconuenience cannot be auoided by saying as M. White saith White pag. 75. that the band hath a limitation that we heare them so farre as they teach agreeable to Scripture and no further and by those Scriptures we may releeue our selues if they chance to teach falsely Because first that conditionall limitation is no where expressed nor in M. Whites sense to be necessarily gathered out of any place of Scripture Secondly I aske how those should releeue themselues who cannot reade much lesse vnderstand Scripture 6 The limitation whereof I spake that we heare the Pastors of the Church NO FVRTHER THEN THEY TEACH AGREEABLE TO THE SCRIPTVRE is expressed and necessarily gathered out of Scripture euen in M. Whites sence For the Scripture bids a 1. Th. 5.21 trie all things and hold that which is good And b 1 Ioh. 4.1 beleeue not euery spirit but trie the spirits whether they be of God And that we may know the Scripture alone is the rule whereby this triall must be made it sayes againe c 2. Pet. 1.19 We haue a more sure word of the Prophets whereto we do well to take heede as to a light that shines in the darke till the day dawne and the day star rise in our hearts d Ioh. 5.39 And search the Scriptures for in them we thinke to haue eternall life and they be they that testifie of Christ And the mē of Beraea e Act. 17.11 searched the Scriptures daily whether those things which the Apostles preached were so There were nothing more harsh then these speeches of the Holy Ghost if the Scripture were not allowed and appointed as a sufficient and the last outward meanes to preserue the faithfull from false teaching And as I haue often heretofore affirmed the Papists themselues cannot auoid this limitation For the Pope and Councels and particular Pastors may all erre and teach false Adrian that himselfe was a Pope and therefore best knew what belongs to Popes f Vbi sup sayes It is certaine the Pope may erre euen in such things as touch the faith auouching heresie by his determination or decree Touching Councels not confirmed by the Pope Azorius the Iesuite g Azo instit moral tom 2. l. 5. c. 12. sayes All Catholickes are agreed that they may erre touching particular Pastors and Bishops Waldensis h Doctrinal fid l. 2. c. 19. sayes we know that all these both Cleargy and Prelates of the Church haue often erred If all these may erre then it followes that their teaching must be examined accepted with this limitation if it consent with the Scripture Gerson i De exam doctr part 1. confid 5. tom 1. saies Euery man sufficiently learned in the Scriptures is an examiner of doctrines put case there be a simple man not authorised excellently seene in holy writ then in the point of doctrine his assertion is more to be beleeued then the Popes declaration For it is plaine the Gospell is more to be beleeued then the Pope if therefore such a learned man teach any verity to be contained in the
vbi sup Fourthly the Feast of the Conception which imports she was without sinne is celebrated 5 Vasq vbi sup In which regard sayes Vasquez it would seeme verie strange to me if the Church should euer define she was conceiued in sinne when by her authoritie she hath alreadie commaunded the Feast of the Conception in token she was not conceiued in sinne and the common consent of Catholicks both vulgar and Diuines contending for the immaculate conception without sinne Suarez q Vbi sup prop. 4. sayes Sixtus Quartus did much fauour it whose decree the Councell of Trent approues and the whole Church doth vehemently leane to it that now the contrarie can haue either none at all or no firme or euident foundation But the truth is it is fully defined in the Councell of Basill Hitherto r Sess 36. sayes the Councell a difficult question hath bene made touching the Conception of the glorious Virgin We hauing diligently seene and examined the reasons define and declare that the doctrine which teaches her neuer to haue bene actually subiect to sinne but alwayes free from it and from all actuall sinne to be consonant to the religion OF THE CHVRCH AND CATHOLICKE DOCTRINE and that it shall be lawfull for no man hereafter to teach the contrarie moreouer we renew the ordinance made for the celebrating of this holy conception on the 6. of the Ides of December Whereby we see how false it is that it is not held as a point of faith For building themselues vpon this decree and vpon Å¿ Cum Praeexcelsa Graue nimis in extrau comm another of Sixtus Quartus whereto the t Sess 5. §. Declarat tamen Councell of Trent manifestly giues way by confirming the conceit u Almain Clictouae Titlem reported by Vasq Suar. vbi sup the forwarder sort of our aduersaries affirme it resolutely to be a point of faith defined by the Church But whether it be true or no that the faith of their Church is nothing but what this froward generation will confesse to be defined by the Pope by this it is plaine that touching this point the Pastors and Doctors and people of the Romane church differ from antiquitie Vasquez w Communis consensus Catholicorum non solùm imperiti vulgi sed etiam Doctorum Theolâ—gorum pro immaculata conceptione pugnat Vasq vbi sup sayes expresly Not onely that vnskilfull vulgar but the Doctors and Diuines and all Catholickes with one consent fight for the immaculate conception What immodestie is it now to denie that to be the Churches faith which is thus holden and to say it is not diligently digested that is thus concocted in the conceits not onely of the vulgar but of the Doctors and Diuines and all Catholickes with one consent in the Church of Rome CHAP. L. 1. Touching Seruice and Prayer in an vnknowne language 2. The Text of 1. Cor. 14. expounded and defended against Bellarmine 7. The ancient Church vsed prayer in a knowne language A. D. Secondly touching Latin Seruice although M. White say as it is easie to say that all antiquitie is against vs in this point Pag. 279. White p. 343. yet he will neuer be able to proue solidely that the ancient Church did condemne this our practise The words of the Apostle which he alledgeth proue nothing to the purpose as is shewed by Bellarmine and as for other authors which he citeth they do not disallow this this our practise Bellar. l. 2. de verb. Del. c 16. or account it vnlawfull whereas both by reason and authoritie our authors shew it to be both lawfull and laudable See Bellarmine lib. 2. de verbo Dei cap. 15. 1 THe vse of the Church of Rome to haue the publicke Seruice and Prayers and ministration of Sacraments in an vnknowne tongue is well enough knowne This I affirmed to be against antiquitie and a point wherein they haue altered the faith of the ancient Church And first I alledged the words of Saint Paul then the testimonie and confession of other Ecclesiasticall writers to all which he answers nothing but referres me to Bellarmine In which absurd course if I would imitate him I might also referre him to such as haue answered Bellarmine and the reader that expected to see the thing tried betweene vs should be deluded Neuerthelesse I will doe my best to bring this broode of darknesse to the light and euery thing that I haue said to the triall that the truth may appeare and the shame be theirs that turne their backes 2 First he sayes I will neuer be able soundly to proue that the auncient Church condemned this their practise I answer the Apostle condemnes it in the words a 1. Cor. 14.7 alledged If an instrument of musicke make no distinction in the sound how shall it be knowne what is piped or harped So likewise you vnlesse by the language you vtter words that haue signification how shall it be vnderstood what is spoken for you shall speake in the aire I will pray and sing with the spirit and I will pray and sing with the vnderstanding also Else when thou blessest with the Spirit how shall he that occupies the roome of the vnlearned say Amen at thy giuing of thankes seeing he knowes not what thou sayest I had rather in the Church to speake fiue words with my vnderstanding that I might also instruct others then a thousand words in a strange tongue No enemie that the Church of Rome hath can more fully condemne Seruice in an vnknowne language nor in more effectuall termes speake against it For be requires all that which is done in the Church be it Exhortation Prophecie Singing Expounding or Praying to be done in a language that the people present vnderstands and rebukes the contrary All that the Replier sayes hereto is that Bellarmine hath shewed these words proue nothing Which is his policie to auoide the scanning of them for he knowes all the learned of his side be so deuided in their answer to these words that whatsoeuer he should say would fall out to be contrary to that which others affirme For the auoiding of which inconuenience he referres vs to Bellarmine as if in him we should find a iust answer and full satisfaction But he abuses the Reader as shall plainly appeare by propounding the summe and substance of all that Bellarmine sayes to the place First he sayeth It is certaine the Apostle in a great part of this chapter speakes not of the reading of the Scripture nor concerning the Seruice of the Church but of certaine spirituall exhortations and conferences then vsed Touching this point how true or false soeuer it be I will not greatly stand with him but then it is as certaine that in a great part of this Chapter he speakes of Church-seruice and prayers and of reading the Scripture as well as of spirituall conferences and collations So his patron Gretser that hath lately vndertaken to defend all his