follow that the Scripture ALONE euen in those plaine places is the rule because no man without some other meanes besides the plainenesse of the words can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands them right the which he proues first because some places seeming plaine are vnderstood otherwise then they seeme Secondly because the plainest places that are may be wrested to a wrong sense as that plaine place This is my body is wrested by the Caluinists to a figuratiue sense I answer his reason why Scripture alone could not be the rule of faith was because it is not plaine the which obscurity I denied to be in that which is necessary to be knowne affirming the Scripture in such places to be plaine now he replies that though such places be plaine yet still it cannot be the rule Thus first he denies the Scripture to be the rule because it is not plaine and then allowing it againe to be plaine yet still he denies it to be the rule What will this man stand to I maruell But they be not plaine enough because without some other infallible meanes besides the seeming plainenes of the words no man can be infallibly assured that he vnderstands aright euen those plaine places This absurd cauill I haue answered twenty times first that the meanes whereby this is done are the helpe of Gods Spirit our owne diligence the Church-teaching the light of nature and these meanes are infallible And these meanes I admit either coniunctim or diuisim to be necessary as a condition and medium for the full assurance of vnderstanding these places but this condition takes not away the true motion and reasons of plainenesse from them for as I answered in my booke to this argument that is not obscure which by ordinary and easie meanes may be vnderstood but which either hath no meanes at all to open it or onely such as are not ordinary to his confirmation d THE WAY p. 36. n. 2. I answered likewise But to his instances of the Caluinists wresting a plaine place This is my body to a figuratiue sense I reply first it is plaine and euident that it is a figure by the circumstances of the place when he that said the words This is my body that is giuen for you at the same instant held nothing but bread in his hand and liued and was neither yet glorified nor crucified and spake of a sacrament wherein it is ordinary to speake figuratiuely Secondly the Papists do the same in the next words This cup is the new Testament and yet they hold them to be plaine words if my aduersary will be smattering about the exposition of these words let him giue a reall answer to the place of my booke e Digr 49. n. 8. where they are handled of purpose for him 6 Next he sayes though the letter of the Scripture be neuer so plaine yet to haue infallible assuraÌ„ce of the sence there is required some other rule and meanes the which rule is not in the bare letter of the Scripture but is to be learned of the Church as Vincentius saith The which being the same he said before without difference or augmentation let it briefly receiue the same answer That the requisite coÌ„dition of vsing ordinary easie meanes wherof the ministry of the Church truly expounded is one I neuer denied but this proues not the Scriptures to be obscure nor remoues infallible assurance froÌ„ the Scripture to the Church but onely shewes that the Scripture infallibly out of it selfe giues vs this assurance by this meanes and VinceÌ„tius his words affirme no more for by the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence according to the which he requires the line of propheticall and apostolicall interpretation to be directed he meanes no vnwritten Church-tradition or doctrine that is wanting in the Scripture for he holds the Scripture it selfe to be sufficient for euery thing but onely that that which is in the Scripture be so vnderstood as agrees with the rule of faith which the true Church hath alwaies holden now that which the Church hath alwaies holden is contained in the Scripture alone that the Reader may see the Iesuites treachery in alledging Vincentius against the sufficiency of the Scripture who in that very place which belike he neuer saw with his owne eyes begins thus Here possible one may demand when the rule of the Scripture is perfect and in it selfe more then enough sufficient vnto all things Note here whether he thinks as the Iesuite doth that many substantiall points of doctrine needfull to saluation are not contained in them and that it is but a part of the rule what need is there to ioyne vnto it the authority of the Churches sence and he answers as the Iesuite hath alledged that this is because all men do not take it in one sence therefore it is necessary that the line of interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence In which manner he speakes also in f Diximus in superioribus hanc suisse semper esse hodie Catholicorum consuetudinem vt fidem veram duoâ—us his modis approbent Primum diuini canonis authoritate Deinde â—cclesiae catholicae traditione Non quia canon solus non sibi ad vniuersa sufficiat sed quia verba diuina pro suo plerique arburatis interpetantur cap. 41. another place not supposing any thing to be wanting in the Scripture so much as to giue infallible assurance of it owne sence much lesse any articles of faith needfull to saluation but onely supposing that some heretikes would not yeeld to that it gaue or possible through their owne default did not see it and thereupon aduises to oppose against them the rule and practise of the Church as a man by witnesses would conuince him that denies the truth the which practise as it hinders not the Scriptures to containe the perfect rule of faith so we will allow it and require no sence or exposition of the Scripture nor no point of religion to be receiued vnles it be thus directed 7 It is therefore vntrue that he concludes with one cannot infallibly be assured when the words of the Scripture are to be vnderstood properly and when not without the authority of the Church vnlesse it be by reuelation I say this is false vpon two points first because this assurance may be had as from the externall meanes by the Scripture it selfe though the Church say nothing Next because this Church authority he vnderstands to be the externall testimony of the Church reuealing if not making the said sence out of tradition which is not written and not out of the Scripture it selfe so that the vnderstanding which I haue of the sence and my perswasion that it is the true sence shall not be founded on the Scripture but on the authority of the Church of Rome that sayes it which g THE WAY §. 8. n. 7. digr 11. I confuted affirming that this
dayes Thirdly that diuerse particular points of our doctrine are acknowledged by learned Protestants to haue bene taught by the ancient Fathers namely Vowes Reall presence c. For all which the said Protestant Apology citeth the names and bookes and oftentimes the very words of the learned Protestants as may be seene and I wish the Reader for his more satisfaction to see Lastly that our Church holdeth the very same and no other faith in substance then that which was held by the ancient Church may appeare by the very nature as I may say of our Church whose property and condition is not to inuent of new or to alter any doctrine in any matter of faith but to receiue humbly and obediently at the hands of our present Pastours what they in like manner learned of their predecessors and still to hate and resist all innouation in any matter of faith no lesse then a deadly poison as knowing that the least infection of any new inuented heresie or alteration in matter of faith doth corrupt and adulterate the whole faith and taketh away infallible authoritie and credite from the Church Wherefore our Pastors haue bene like men appointed to watch very vigilant in noting reprehending resisting and condemning all innouation in faith and sometimes casting incorrigible members out of the Church euen for a word or two profanely innouated contrary to the custome and faith of the Church The which course being duly obserued as chiefely by Gods prouidence and partly by humane diligence it hath bene and shall be still obserued it is not possible that there should be such alteration in religion or difference betwixt the faith and doctrine of the ancient and present Pastours of the Church as our aduersaries ignorantly or maliciously obiect For as Vincencius Lyrinensis saith Vincent Lyr. l. aduersus haereses Vincentius Lyr. contra haereses c. 32. the Church of Christ is a carefull keeper of religion committed to her charge she neuer changeth or altereth in any thing she diminisheth nothing nothing she addeth to wit as a doctrine of faith True it is that by reason of heresies arising the Pastors and doctors of the Church in latter ages haue had occasion to write more largely and expressely about diuerse points then was done in former times when no such heresies were and that for confutatiō of those heresies and more explication of the formerly receiued faith these Pastours and Doctors haue vsed some kinde of more significant words then formerly were vsed in which sort the terme of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was brought in against those who denied Christ our Sauiour to be true God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against those who denied our blessed Lady to be the mother of God and transubstantiation against those who denied the conuersion of the substance of bread into the substance of the body of our Lord. The which tearmes although they may seeme to smell of noueltie yet indeed are not of that prophane sort of nouelty of voices or wordes which the Apostle wisheth to be auoided because the sence of these wordes is not different from the faith and phrase vsed formerly by the Church but do onely explicate more plainely or signifie more fully and clearely that which was formerly beleeued and taught by the Church which kinde of explication of the ancient faith to be lawfull and allowable Vincent Lyrin cont haer c. 2. we may learne out of Vincentius Lyrinensis who although a most true louer of antiquitie alloweth such new explicatiō of the faith as we may see in his goldē Treatise where hauing declared excellently by that saying of the Apostle Cap. 28.29 30. O Timothy keepe the Depositum c. that nothing is to be innouated in faith he sheweth how this notwithstanding Cap. 32. the ancient faith may in processe of time be more explained and that for more easie vnderstanding of it to an old article of faith we may giue a new name 1 HEre are foure reasons to proue that the ancient Fathers held the same doctrine of faith that is now professed in the Church of Rome and one obiection answered that he thinkes will be made against him His first reason is the testimony of Coccius a Cum ab ineunte aetate incidisset in praeceptores Lutheranos adhuc inuenis in eiusmodi haereticorum Academijs versatus c. Posseuin ap v. Iod. Cocc an apostata who in his Thesaurus settes downe the Fathers point by point with vnanime consent testifying against the Protestants Wherein he much forgets himselfe for if Coccius set downe the Fathers point by point what needed the Repliar haue graunted b Ch. 44. a little before that there be diuers points held by his side now adaies whereof there is no mention in the writings of the Fathers yet they held them because either explicitely or implicitely they held many points that they haue not expressely mentioned let these two be reconciled They held some things onely implicitely by an infolded faith not mentioning them expressely and yet Coccius sets them downe point by point testifying against the Protestants For those points which they held onely infoldedly Coccius cannot set downe in their owne wordes point by point I answer therefore that Coccius with his * Spatio 24. annorū Posseu twenty foure yeares studie hath not done this that my Repliar reports he hath collected together the wordes of the Fathers and such places as his side vses for the confirmation of their hereticall opinions but the vnanime and certaine consent in the now current Romane faith he hath not shewen and the Reader shall know it by this that in the controuersies betweene vs they many times deny the authority of the Fathers and c Ind. expurg Belg pag. 12. professe so to do yea to excuse and extenuate their errors by deuising shifts and to fainesome fit sense for their owne purpose vnto them when they are opposed against them by vs in our disputations And why haue they thus purged and corrupted their writings and why do they allow nothing to be the sense of their wordes but what the Pope and his Clergy allowes to be the sense Is it not palpable hypocrisie to do all this and yet to bragge of their vnanime consent against vs Coccius therefore out of the Fathers whom they haue CORRVPTED PVRGED COVNTERFETTED and COINED may bring places which being fraudulently expounded and shuffled may giue colour to Papistrie but by the true writings of the true Fathers truely expounded as themselues meant the present faith of Rome in the articles which they hold against vs and as they expound them cannot be confirmed no not in one point and let no man hope the contrarie as may appeare by these examples following Of the sufficiency of the Scripture without traditions Saint Basil d De Fid. p. 394. graec Basil sayes It is a manifest falling from the faith and an argument of arrogancy either to abrogate any of
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
sufficient for the vnderstanding of Latin because it is not sufficient vnlesse the learner go to schoole and heare his master teach him And though it be granted that the ministery of men and rules of art and knowledge of tongues be all subiect to error yet doth it not follow that by them we cannot attaine infallible assurance of our translations as I haue shewed in * THE WAY §. 6. n. 3. my answer to this argument where it was first propounded whither I referre my aduersary that if he would haue dealt really should not haue here repeated his old argument but haue ingenuously replied what he had to say to it but that had bene labour CHAP. XXIX 1. Touching the obscuritie of the Scripture 2. The necessitie of meanes to be vsed for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures proues not their obscuritie 3. Traditions debarred A Councell is aboue the Pope 4. 5. The Scripture of it selfe easie to all that vse it as they should 6. 7. The certen sence of the Scripture and the assurance thereof is not by Traditiō Pag. 183. A. D. § 2. That Scripture alone is obscure Concerning the second reason about the obscuritie of Scripture it is to be vnderstood that I do not speake of the obscuritie of Scripture as though I meant that it could not by any meanes be vnderstood Wottō pag. 74. as M. Wotton seemeth willing to mis-vnderstand me neither do I charge the Scripture it selfe with any fault or imperfection when I say it is obscure but do acknowledge rather that it is the perfection of Scripture the highnesse and maiestie of the matter and the strangenesse of the stile on the one side and the weaknesse and ignorance and sometimes peruersnesse of mens wits on the other side which maketh it obscure But whence soeuer the cause of obscuritie proceedeth which is impertinent to my purpose the onely thing which I am to proue is that de facto it is obscure or at least not so easie as the rule and meanes that should ordinarily breed infallible faith in all sorts ought to be And this my second reason conuinceth it being most euident that Scripture alone is not so easie neither to vnlearned nor learned men The which White pag. 25. 39. 36. M. White seemeth to grant when he requireth so many other euen outward meanes and helpes besides the inward spirit to the vnderstanding of the Scripture Among which outward meanes and helpes I enquire for one which is on the one side infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance and on the other side so easie to be determinately knowne and vnderstood of all sorts as that all men may grace supposed ordinarily direct themselues in matters of faith onely by diligent attending and yeelding assent vnto it For such is that which for the present I call the rule of faith or the rule and meanes by which all sorts may without other meanes ne detur processus in infinitum be sufficiently instructed in all matters of faith If M. Wotton and M White impertinently to this our purpose wil needs striue to haue the Scripture called in some other sence the rule of faith I will not striue with them but do freely grant it may be so called as good written lawes are or may be called the rule of manners in a commonwealth But as besides good written lawes in a commonwealth there are required ordinarily both good vnwritten customes and a good liuing Magistrate hauing authoritie to propound and interprete both written lawes and vnwritten customes without which the written lawes alone were not a sufficient rule and means to preserue good manners in a commonwealth in regard the lawes cannot be so plaine but that considering the weaknesse ignorance and peruersitie of men they may and would be misunderstood and wrested to a wrong sence which inconuenience is remedied partly by vnwritten customes which do best interprete the written lawes partly by the authoritie of the liuing magistrate who may by authoritie declare which is the right sence and may compell men to execute written lawes according to that sence Euen so in the Church besides the diuine infallible written Scriptures there must be admitted some diuine infallible vnwritten traditions and some alwayes liuing magistrate hauing infallible authoritie to propound and expound the Scriptures without which the written Scriptures alone were not a sufficient rule and meanes to preserue infallible faith in the Church because the Scriptures are not so plaine but that considering the weaknesse ignorance and peruersnes of men they may be and as experience ordinarily teacheth are misunderstood and wrested to a wrong sence which inconuenience without miracle cannot be remedied vnlesse we admit vnwritten traditions which are the best ordinary interpreters of Scripture and some liuing magistrate hauing infallible authoritie who may when controuersies arise infallibly declare which is the right sence and who by that authoritie may compell men to take them in that sence M. Wotton and M. White both grant the obscuritie of Scriptures in some places but they both affirme that in some other places the Scripture is perspicuous and plaine Wotton pa 70. White pag. 33. 36. in so much that M Wotton saith Many places of Scripture are so euident that a child cannot mistake the meaning of them And M. White saith citing S. Chrysost euery man of himself by reading may vnderstand To this I reply first that although some places of Scripture be more plaine then others and are and may be called absolutely plain partly for that they be set downe in proper and not figuratiue speech partly in that to them who haue once learned the true interpretation of the Church they seeme so plaine as they need nothing but reading or hearing to make them plaine partly for that some places are so plaine as they need nothing to make them plainly vnderstood of a very child but this generall rule told vs by the Church that the words in such places are to be plainly vnderstood as they sound yet this notwithstanding it doth not follow that the Scripture alone euen in those most plaine places is the rule and meanes which should instruct men in faith because sith some places seeming proper and plaine are not to be taken as the words sound but are oftentimes to be vnderstood by a figure what man without some infallible meanes besides seeming plainnesse of the words can be infalliby assured euen in most plaine places that he vnderstandeth the right sence especially when the most plaine places that are may be and ordinarily are either by weaknesse ignorance or peruersnesse of men wrested to a wrong sence as we see that most plaine place where our Sauiour pronounceth This is my bodie to be by Caluinists wrested to a figuratiue sence Besides therefore the bare letter of Scripture though neuer so plaine to haue infallible assurance of the sence there is required some other infallible rule and meanes to assure vs when and where the