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
Ecclesiam Dei posse de assertione non vera facere veram aut de non non falsam Turrecâ—em sum de Eccl. l 4. part 2. c. 3. ad 6. our aduersaries denie the latter is not sufficient to make the Scripture onely probable in that howsoeuer for want of Church authoritie a man may not see such texts to proue the virginitie of Marie or the Baptisme of children yet the proofe is in them within their owne latitude and if there be any such matter in them at all then is it in them more then probably because no diuine testimonie is probable but necessarie but Gretser and the Church of Rome vse their traditions as Alchymists do the Philosophers stone with the touch of it they turne any mettall into gold or as Painters do Allum to giue tincture to their colours CHAP. XIX 1. 2. How the Churches authoritie proues the Scripture 3. The Iesuits plainely confesse that the Scriptures alone prooues it selfe to be Gods word 4. The Scriptures are Principles indemonstrable in any superior science 6. All other testimony resolued into the testimony of the Scripture 7. Touching Euidence and the Compossibility thereof with faith A. D. I will insist in that example which I propounded Pag. 68. in the treatise and thus I dispute All sorts both Catholickes and Protestants do beleeue and hold it a point necessary to be beleeued that S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. are true diuine Scripture and that these particular bookes which the Church vseth are the same true Scripture at least in sense and substance which was set downe by those holy writers But these points are not expressed in Scripture nor secluding Church authority and tradition so contained as that they can be proued euidently and necessarily out of any sentence of Scripture Ergo all points necessary to be beleeued are not so contained in Scripture as Protestants say they are M. Wotton and M. White both struggle with this argument as other Protestants haue done before theÌ„ but when they haue done said all one may easily see how they sticke fast in the mire To omit their impertinent speeches there are onely two things which to the purpose they do or can directly say viz. either they must deny these to be points of faith necessary to be beleeued or else they must shew how one may prooue these points euidently out of some sentence of Scripture For if they admit that these be points of faith necessary to be beleeued and that these cannot be prooued out of Scripture it followeth ineuitably that all points of faith necessary to be beleeued cannot be prooued by Scripture and that their Principle is false which saith nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of saith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture M. White saith that like as in other sciences White pag. 47. there are some Principles indemonstrable so in matters of faith it is a Principle to be supposed that Scripture is Diuine and so no maruell if it cannot be prooued as other points of faith are To this I reply that Principles in sciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of terms or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superior science by some other Principle more euident to vs. But that these books which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is * If it were euident how is it onely beleeued by faith For S. Paul calls faith argumentum non apparentium Heb. 11. v. 1. not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other Principle more euidently vnto vs that these books which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture Secondly I aske whether this point of doctrine that S. Mathewes Gospell c. is diuine Scripture be such a Principle of faith as it selfe is also a point necessary to be beleeued and that by the same infallible faith by which we beleeue the blessed Trinity Or that it is so a Principle as it selfe is not to be beleeued at all by faith or by the same faith by which wee beleeue the blessed Trinity If the first be said then either the opinion of Protestants who say nothing is to be necessarily beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued out of the Scripture is false or else this is not a Principle indemonstrable as M. White affirmeth If rhe second be said then it followeth that Protestants do not beleeue by faith S. Mathewes S. Marks Gospell c. nor any other booke in the Bible to be diuine Scripture and consequently not hauing assurance of diuine faith in this point they cannot haue any faith at all in any other points since other points being not otherwise in a Protestants iudgement points of faith then as they are conclusions prooued out of Scripture cannot be more assuredly knowne then Scripture it selfe which is the onely Premise or Principle whence Protestants deduce all other points of their faith 1 MY Aduersary in a In THE WAY §. 9. but in his printed booke cap. 7. his treatise that I answered to shew that the Scripture is not the Rule whereby to find and iudge of true faith obiected the insufficiencie and imperfection thereof because there be diuers questions and points of faith not contained and determined therein Which he endeuours to proue by this argument here set downe Whereto I answered directly and in forme as b THE WAY §. 9. n. 3. inde the booke will shew The which my answer in this place he replies to as you see after his ordinary manner with bragging and saying nothing and casting out a few insolent speeches The Protestants struggle with this argument One may easily see how they sticke in the mire Onely two things to the purpose It seems M. White saw the weakenes of his answer c wherto I answer 2 First he sayes we struggle with this argument and sticke in the mire which in some sense I may not deny for when I vndertooke this Iesuit I struggled with a dunghill and therefore * Hoc scio pro certo quod si cuÌ„ stercâ—re c. no maruell if for my penance I sticke in the mire both here and in many other places of this reply his bragging and railing and facing it out with nothing when yet all this with many shall be accepted for sound diuinity being such as will bemire and weary any man in the world that desires nothing but the truth Otherwise my answer was direct and plaine for the point he is to proue is that the Scripture alone containes not nor determines the whole obiect of our faith but diuers points needfull to be beleeued are wanting in it and must be supplied by the authority and tradition of the Church his reason to proue this is the
demonstration by some other principle in a higher art more euident to vs. Here are two vntruths For first there is no higher art then themselues Thomas i Vbi supra sayes The sacred Scripture hath no higher science The setting vp of the Pope and his Church aboue it to giue it authoritie as a higher science giues to a lower is a blasphemous practise of Antichrist Bozius k Boz de sign eccl tom 2. pag. 439. writeth that the Scripture is not to be reckoned among such principles as before all things are to be credited but it is proued and confirmed by the Church as by a certaine principle which hath authoritie to reiect and allow Scripture Let the Reader by these words of Bozius a famous Papist conster my aduersaries meaning in this place if he chance to say he meanes not as I charge him Againe it is false that the Church is more euident to vs then the Scripture in that sense that belongs to this question I see indeed the Church that teaches me before I beleeue the Scripture to be diuine supposing I were a Pagan that as yet had not receiued the Scripture but I beleeue the Scripture to be diuine and am conuinced in my conscience that it is the word of God before I can beleeue the Church sayes true For I cannot beleeue it sayes true but vpon the grounds of Scripture which it offers me and therefore consequently the truth of the Scripture is more euident then the truth of the Church In which case it is as when a man stands in the doore with a torch in his hand to giue light to such as need where he holds out the torch indeed yet he puts no light into it nor does any thing but onely hold it before them The Church-authoritie in ministring to vs doth no more to the Scripture then this man doth to his torch I wil yet vse a more familiar conparison whereby the Reader shall see how absurdly my aduersary holds the Church to be more euident then the Scriptures and to giue them authoritie which they haue not of themselues because it propounds and perswades them vnto vs. Seius owes Caius mony vpon a bond that vpon trust and for the better keeping thereof is put into the hands of Titius For the proofe of this debt it is necessary that Titius bring forth the bond but when he hath done I demand whence hath the bond his credit How is it proued to be Seius his true deed rather then a counterfet Not by Titius his authoritie because he brings it forth but by it self in that the hand and seale thereof manifest themselues to be Seius his Titius that keeps it is but a means to bring it forth But what if Seius denie the debt that Caius be enforced to sue him and by law to cast him who giue Caius the right and makes Seius his debtor and who makes the bond of force doth the Iudge before whom the cause is tried The simplest man in the countrey will not say so for the bond both proues it self and giues Caius his right and make Seius a debtor when the Iudge onely giues it execution and declares no more but that which was in the bond before Let the Scripture be compared to this bond and let my aduersary put me to proue that it is the word of God as Caius is put to proue his bond and it wil manifestly appeare that though the Church haue some ministery in propounding it yet that ministery or authoritie call it what you will doth no more then the Iudge in this case doth It is not a principle aboue the Scripture or more euident whereby the truth thereof is proued as the Iudges authoritie proues not the bond 6 Our aduersaries when they haue wrangled what they can are inforced to confesse thus much in that they grant the last and highest resolution of our faith to be into the authoritie of the Scripture And let the Reader diligently obserue how it comes about In euery controuersie and article of faith they say they are moued by the authoritie of the Church they beleeue the Trinitie the Incarnation the Scripture to be Gods true word because God hath so reuealed by the infallible authoritie of the Church But how come they to know this authority to be infallible by what motiue doth the spirit of God induce them to beleeue it l Can loc p 48. Stapl princip doctr pag. 318. Tripl aduer Whica pag. 184 188. Greg. Val. tom 3. pag 31. Rodeâ— Delgad de auth Script pag. 51. Pezant comm in Tho. pag. 479. They confesse expresly it is the reuelation of the Scripture giuing testimonie to the Church which reuelation is beleeued for it selfe and for no other therfore the highest and last reason light authoritie mouing a man to beleeue the things of faith the sence of the Scripture the authority of the Church and al is contained in the Scripture it selfe For thus I reason The reuelation of the Scripture is beleeued for it selfe therefore the Scripture is a principle indemonstrable by any other and euident in it selfe therefore it is not beleeued by Tradition vpon the authoritie of the Church but for it selfe therfore this point that the Scripture is Gods word is contained in the scripture therfore the Scripture is al-sufficieÌ„t wants nothing that is needful to be beleeued 7 Hitherto I haue expounded the maner how the Scriptures are said to be Principles that are to be admitted immediatly without discourse of other arguments and how this their authoritie is not founded vpon nor demonstrated by the authoritie of the Church and how Church-authoritie is onely a condition and ministery to offer them vnto vs. Now I come to answer his argument wherby he would proue them not to be euident to vs the which is but a poore one For S. Paul doth not say Faith is the argument of things not euident as the vulgar Latin cited in the margent translates but of things that are not seene Now things may be euident and appeare manifestly to the vnderstanding though they be not seene when they are euident otherwise by any light or discourse to the vnderstanding The which kind of euidence and that also which is by sence may stand with faith for the declaration whereof note first that a thing is euident m Jn assensis principiorum scientiae humanitus inuentae est coactio propter euidentiam speculationis quia in eu intellectus euidenter conclusionem intuetur speculatur August Anconit q. â—9 arâ— 4. ad 1. when it moues the vnderstanding so sufficiently that it cannot chuse but assent vnto it note secondly that a thing may be euident three wayes first when it is sensible as that which we apprehend by our outward sense secondly when by the light of nature it is manifest by it selfe as two equall numbers put together make an equall Thus the first principles and notions of nature are euident Thirdly when it
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
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
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
HOC NOBIS SIT SATIS INDVBIVM APVD LITERATOS HABERI NVLLVM ESSE IN TERRIS IVDICIVM QVOD ERRARE LABI DECIPI NON POSSIT Pic. Mirand apolog pro Sauanarol l. 1. c. 1. infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance and so easie to be knowne and vnderstood of all sorts that all may ordinarily direct themselues thereby onely by diligent attending and assenting to it and this is the rule of faith that in this place he meanes wherein if he meane good earnest this question is at an end and the Scripture is granted to be the rule for he will allow that to be the rule which by the helpe of grace supposed is sufficient to direct all sorts onely by diligent attending and yeelding assent to it now such is the Scripture alone that the grace of God supposed onely by diligent attendance and assent vnto it it is sufficient and therefore also you see the necessitie and requisite condition of vsing diligence by my aduersaries owne words hinders not the Scriptures from being the rule of faith euen in his owne sence as himself vnderstands the rule of faith for such as is both infallible and sufficient to breed infallible assurance in vs and so easie to be knowne and vnderstood that all sorts of men may direct themselues in all points of faith onely by diligent attending and assenting to it because onely diligent attention and assenting being added on our behalfe to the helpe of Gods grace it may thereby be determinately vnderstood of all sorts in all things needfull to be knowne 3 But he sayes that as in a common wealth besides the written lawes there are vnwritten customes which interprete the written law and liuing magistrates that haue authoritie to interprete both written and vnwritten lawes and to compell men to his sence without which the written lawes were not a sufficient rule and meanes to preserue good order in the state because through the peruersnesse of men they would be misvnderstood so in the Church beside the written Scriptures there must be admitted some vnwritten traditions to interprete the Scriptures and some liuing magistrate the Pope to propound and expound the Scriptures and to compell men to take the sence that he giues because the Scriptures are not so plaine but they may be misvnderstood c. This comparison and the conclusion of it I denie for albeit meanes must be ioyned with the Scripture yet this Church-authoritie and these vnwritten traditions are none of the meanes but onely that which I haue named for there needs no meanes to supply any matter of faith that is wanting in the Scripture but onely to open our eyes that we may see what is therein whereas these traditions and this Church-magistracie are supposed to be necessarie for the adding of innumerable things to be beleeued that are not contained in the Scripture as I haue * Ch. 27. n. 3. shewed My aduersarie therefore plainly shewes the difference that is betweene vs and discouers what he meanes when he pretends the Church and her authoritie for this rule of faith he expounds transparently to be the Pope with his traditions and to him giues that which is denied in the Scriptures plenarie power partly out of the Scripture partly out of his Decretals to propound to all men the matter of their faith and compell them to take his sence be it true or false This is the Antichristian bondage whereinto the man of Rome will bring all the world and the hellish pride wherin he aduanceth himself to sit as God in the Church exalting his owne will lawes aboue the wil and lawes of the eternall God and subiecting Gods blessed word to his cursed will which his base a Coâ—ceruauâ—runt sibi magistros ad desideria sua non vâ— ab eu discerent quod facere deberent sed vt eorum studio calliditate iâ—â—â—niretâ—r ratio qua licereâ— id quod liberes Spoken of the Popes clawbacks by Concil delect Card. sub init Parasites for their backes and bellies so much striue for which we execrate as hell and leaue to the Diuell from whence it first appeared vnto the world ciuill states and the commonwealths of this world may haue such vnwritten customes and allow this authority to magistrates but God hath left no such traditions to his Church nor set any such head ouer it thus to expound the Scriptures or to determinate the sense thereof but all his whole will is written and out of the Scripture it selfe is to be reuealed imparted to particular men when any doubt arises by the ministry of the Church either in ordinary preaching or in the Councels of godly orthodoxall Bishops b That a Councel is the highest tribunall vpon earth and aboue the Pope affirmed by Iustinian in praetermiss per Anto. Cont. p. 11. Phot. Nomocan tit 9 c 1 6. The Councels of Pisa Const Basil and the Vniuersity of Paris to this day See to this purpose Card Florent tract de Scism Anto. de Rosell monarch tract de concil Mich. Cezen lit ad imperat part 12. sub sin Ioh. Fran. Pic. Mirand apol pro Sauanaro l. 1. c. 1. to the which the Pope and his rabble if they will know the truth and be saued ought to subiect themselues as well as the poorest Christian that liues and the written word is so absolute and sufficient to direct them herein and his spirit so infallibly ready to guide them if they will vse the meanes that there is no more to be required for the full manifestation of any thing needfull for any man whatsoeuer and c CertuÌ„ est quod possit errare etiam in ijs quae tangum fidem haeresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo Hadrian 4. de sacra consit p. 26. see below this authority of the Pope it selfe when all is done is faine to be reiected 4 Thirdly whereas I said out of Chrysostome that howsoeuer some part of the Scripture be obscure yet some places are so plaine and easie to vnderstand that euery man by reading may know the meaning which speech I extend to so many places as are sufficient to teach vs all things needfull to saluation in this sense that the whole rule of faith is set downe in plaine places of Scripture which any man of himselfe by reading may vnderstand requiring still the grace of God and diligence in searching he replies three things The which afore I answer the Reader must note that the words he opposes are Chrysostomes and what I said I proued by many arguments the last whereof was the testimonie of the ancient Fathers who say in expresse words as much as I. The which arguments he answers not a word to and therefore replying vpon my conclusion he opposes through me the plaine Scripture the ancient Church and his owne writers by all which I confirmed that I said 5 First he sayes that albeit some places are plaine yet it doth not
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-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
assurance and the assurance of all other things beleeued is wrought and bred in the heart by the Spirit of God principally and then by the alone words of the Scripture ioyned therewith as by the formal beginning of that my assurance and by the ministry of the Church onely as Gods ordinance appointed to helpe me to attaine and recouet that sence and assurance that by meanes of this helpe arises in me from the Scripture it selfe though many times and very ordinarily this is done without all motion of the Church whatsoeuer by onely reading as I haue often said in case when men are either conuerted from Athisme or confirmed in the truth without hearing or knowing of the Church by onely reading CHAP. XXX Touching the Al-sufficiency of the Scripture to the matter of faith 2. It shewes it selfe to be Gods word Luthers denying Saint Iames his Epistle 3. How the Papists expound the light of the Scripture 4. What they and what we hold about the authority of the Church 6. How expresse Scripture is required A. D. § 3. Pag. 187. The Scripture containeth not all points of faith concerning my third reasō I wish the reader to obserue that I do not attribute any imperfection to the Scripture when I proue that it containeth not all points of faith For want of perfection in a thing is not to be accounted an imperfection vnlesse it can be shewed that the perfection which wanteth doth necessarily pertaine to the nature of the thing or at least is due and ought to be in it as my aduersaries will neuer be able to shew that to containe all points of faith doth necessarily pertaine to the nature of Scripture or is due or ought to be in it This being noted I need say little in confirmation of this argument as hauing vrged it sufficiently against M. Wootton and M. White in the introduction in such sort as they will neuer be able sufficiently to answer it Onely here I will aske one question of M. White White p. 48. who telleth vs that the Scripture manifesteth it selfe to be diuine in regard the vertue and power that sheweth it selfe in euery line and leafe of the Bible proclaimeth it to be the word of the eternall God and the sheepe of Christ discerne the voice and light thereof as men discerne light from darkenesse c. If this be so how chanceth it that his illuminated Luther whom doubtlesse M. White will account one of the sheepe of Christ could not see that S. Iames his Epistle was diuine Scripture by the vertue and power that sheweth it selfe in euery line and leafe of it no lesse then in other places of Scripture shall he be accounted illuminated or rather starke blinde that could not discerne light from darkenesse And shall not M. White also be accounted not so much blinde as braine-sicke that fancieth to himself such a light to shine in euery leafe and line of the Bible that euery one that is the sheepe of Christ discerneth it no otherwise then he that hath corporall eye-sight discerneth outward light from darkenesse True it is there is the vertue and power of God in the Scripture there is puritie and perfection of matter maiestie of speech power ouer the conscience certaintie of Prophecies c. but these do not shine like light to our vnderstanding till it be illuminated with the light of faith as euery one euen of the elect is not at all times indued with faith nor then neither vnlesse those things be propounded duly mediatè or immediatè by the authoritie of the Church vpon which being like a candlesticke the light of the Scripture must be set or else it will not according to the ordinary course of Gods prouidence sufficiently shine and appeare vnto vs in such sort as to giue infallible assurance Wootton p. 89. White pag. 46. that it is the word of God It troubleth M. wootton M. White both that I say there be diuers substantiall points which are not expressely set nowne and determined in Scripture which they being conuinced with euidence of the matter cannot deny to be so but say they this is not the question But by their leaues this was first the question when their Grandfather Luther was so hoate to haue expresse Scripture See Gretz in defens Bellar. tom 1 in li. 4. de verbo Dei non scripto cap. 3. See introduct q. 2. as that he would haue all expressed euen in wordes Afterwards indeed when his fury cooled a litle he thought it sufficient if all were expressed though not in so many sillables yet in sense And now of late our new Ministers seeing that this also cannot be defended haue made the question whether all be contained in Scripture that is either expressely or so as without Church authoritie or Traditions al necessary points of doctrine may be necessarily euidently or by good consequence deduced out of that which is expressed in Scripture In which sense also they will be neuer able to shew that all points and namely those which I mentioned in my third argument Wootton p. 93. are contained in onely Scripture but must be forced to run to tradition and Church authority if they will haue sufficient assurance of them 1 THe third thing obiected against the Scripture was Imperfection that it containes not the whole matter of faith but many things else are needfull to be knowne and beleeued that are not written therein For though he spake somwhat reseruedly There be diuers questions of faith which are not EXPRESSLY set downe yet his meaning is There be diuers particular points to be beleeued which are contained therein neither expressely nor anyway at all but receiued vpon sole Tradition and Church authoritie as I haue a Ch. 27. n. 2. shewed and his Introduction here mentioned affirmes which being a grosse and blasphemous assertion therefore to couer the odiousnesse of it here in the first place he saies that by affirming the Scripture not to containe all points of faith he doth not attribute any imperfection to it And how I maruell will he perswade vs this when it is impossible it should be perfect that leaues vs vnperfect in the faith and reueals but a portiō of that which yet of necessitie must be known to saluation his reason is because his aduersaries will neuer be able to shew that to containe all points of faith doth belong to the nature and perfection of Scripture But I answer it pertaines to the perfection of the Scripture and is due to the nature thereof to containe all things because it selfe sayes so and there can be no other infallible or conuenient reuelation And b Propounded in the WAY Digr 3. 13. many testimonies and arguments euince it which my aduersary not being able to answer hath well and wisely passed by with silence And therefore denying this they attribute imperfection to it For to deny that which the Scripture is is to make it imperfect Athanasius
nos certos faciat Grego de Valent tom 3. pag. 117. c. Verus Scripturae sensus inest Scripturae sicut signatum signo sed media certa explorata infallibilia quibus sensus iste eruitur non est ipsa Scriptura sed traditio Ecclesiastica vox definitio Ecclesiae seu eius qui Ecclesiae vice Christi praesidet Grets defens Bellar. tom 1. p. 1970. c. This is the finall euasion that the Iesuites vse against this argument in defence of their traditions and Popes authority against the sufficiency of the Scripture that the Scriptures haue in them a shining light and are as the Protestants say able to proue themselues to be the word of God and containe their true sense in themselues but this light we see not and this true sense we know not and this assurance that they are Gods word or that this is the true sense we cannot haue in the Scripture it selfe but by the meanes of Traditions and the Popes authoritie shewing and propounding these things to vs. As a candle though hauing light in it selfe yet shewes light to none when it is hid vnder a bushell but when it is set vpon a Candlesticke I answer 2. things First as I haue often said this authority and teaching of the Church is not alway nor simply necessary to shew all men the light of the Scripture or so much as to point to it for either by the immediate light of Gods Spirit or by the light of nature it may be knowne to be Gods word as by the light of nature it is knowne that God is whereupon it followes plainely that the Scripture alone as the Rule hath this light in it selfe and from it selfe shewes it else it could not in this manner without Church proposition shine to any Secondly I grant that ordinarily for the seeing and discerning of the euidēce perfection purity power sence all this light that is in the Scripture the proposition of the Church is necessary as a candlesticke to hold it forth but then this proposition may be expounded two waies one way to signifie such authority as by and from it selfe induces me to beleeue afore I see any authority in the Scripture and together with the authority of the Scripture the twofold authority of the Church and Scripture concurring to the moouing of my vnderstanding as when two men concurre as one formall beginning to the carrying and moouing of a blocke This Church proposition thus expounded I vtterly deny to be either needfull or possible Secondly it may be expounded for the Ministry of the Church by her Pastors and people reuealing the Scriptures to them that know them not and teaching the nature sense and meaning thereof But this ministry is but a bare condition adding no light sense authority or matter to the Scripture but onely leading vs to see it Of which Ministery there is no question betweene vs for all Protestants grant The authority or ministery of the Church supposes no want of light in the Scripture and vse it but the question is whether all the articles and whole nature of faith be contained in Scripture alone excluding vnwritten traditions though the Ministery of the Church be needfull as an instrument to shew teach and expound the Scripture as a candlesticke is needfull to shew the candle For the vse of this Ministry and requisite condition of all other meanes that are to be vsed supposes no want or defect in the obiect whereabout they are applied but onely produces it to his operation as the setting of a candle vpon the socket addes no light to it that was wanting in it selfe but onely remoues some impediments that hinder the standers by from seeing and the opening of a window to let in light makes not the Sunne imperfect or but a partiall light And if our aduersaries intended no more but this there were an end of the controuersie for no Protestant euer denied the necessity of Church ministry in this sense but freely confesse it although the authority * See it expounded Chap. 35. n. 1. inde and here immediatly after in nu 4. mentioned we renounce 4 For the better explication of this my answer and that the Reader may see how impertinent it is that my Aduersary sayes Note FIRST that o The quest betweene vs the Papists about the Churches authority the question is not whether some meanes be ordinarily required to the vnderstanding of the Scripture and the producing of faith in such as reade and vse it nor whether the Scripture worke infallible assurance immediatly in all men for in some it doth without the operation and coming betweene of the Church ministery For we hold it doth not But the point is whether this authority of the Church supply any article of faith or matter needfull to saluation that is wanting in the Scripture so that it may be said as my Aduersary alway speaketh the Scripture alone is but a part of the rule of faith which God hath left to instruct men what is to be holden for faith and there be many substantiall points belonging to faith which are contained in Scripture alone nether expresly nor thence to be deduced by consequence but to be supplied by tradition and Church authority and so the question is not about the expediency or condition of the meanes but about the perfection and sufficiency of the thing it selfe Note SECONDLY that my aduersary from the necessity of the means concludes the insufficiency of the thing thus The light of the Scripture shines not to vs the true sense of the Scripture is not infallibly assured vnto vs without the meanes of the Church The Scripture therefore is vnsufficient not containing all things needfull not instructing vs WHAT is to be holden for matter of faith as if a man should say the light of the candle appeares not to vs but when it is set on a candlesticke therefore there is much light that is wanting in the candle and is supplied by the candlesticke Note THIRDLY what the things properly are which our aduersaries attribute to the Church in comparing it with the Scripture They are there first to be a meanes to reueale and expound the Scripture to vs and to breed the faith thereof in our consciences Secondly to be the Foundation of our faith in this sense that we do beleeue this to be Scripture and this to be the true sense of the Scripture and this to be the matter of faith onely because the Church expounds the Scripture so Thirdly to supply vnto vs many articles of faith absolutely needfull to saluation that are wanting in the Scripture out of tradition and by the said tradition to expound the Scripture These two latter points they infer on of the first which is the incroching consequence that I except against in that the authority wherein God hath placed his Church is not in respect of the Scripture but in respect of vs being a bare Minister to the
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
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
vpon their authorities of Scripture prouing it no otherwise then thus 2 The same is to be said of his Fathers who will proue as little vnlesse as the Scripture is allowed the Church declaration so they also be allowed their c Ind. Exp. Belg c. vt liber Bertrami pious and commodious and deuised expositions so that for all the Replies confidence the ground that Transubstantiation hath either in the Scripture or antiquitie shall be this in the end There is for it sound authoritie both of Scripture and Fathers if you will allow the church of Rome who is a partie to declare the sence of the Scripture and her Diuines the Iesuites a facultie to giue the Fathers a sence if not true yet fit and pious and to deuise tricks which they neuer meant thus it may be proued soundly though when all is done it may still be doubted whether it be so or no as the learnedst and acutest in the Church it selfe still do doubt it Which being the case then the coniectures will no longer be M. Whites but his aduersaries and the best ground he can yeeld for his doctrine And whereas he addes in his margent that Briarly hath shewed in his Prot. Apolog. that euen Protestants far better learned then M. White will be in hast grant Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councel M. White answers that the parenthesis touching his learning is true neither can he refuse the comparison but he renders to God his most humble thankes that he so farre inferiour to so many yet hath done that which is sufficient for the maintenance of the truth against Romish heresies and the Replier finds himself so galled with it that it may be he will say to his fellowes as b Iud. 9.54 Abimelec wounded by a woman did to his page Draw thy sword and slay me that it be not said a woman slue Abimelec But yet the rest is false as c Prot. ap p. 94. n. 3. inde ad 22. the Deane of Winchester hath fully shewed in his answer and the vttermost that either the Centuries or the other Protestants alledged say is not that Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councell but that before that time in the writings of some particular Doctors there are some formes of speech which possible they like not so well as seeming to giue courage aâ—â—â— boldnesse to them who afterward abusing euery thing to their owne errors would vse them to confirme their Transubstantiation but that they grant the doctrine now taught in the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation was beleeued is a base vntruth no way to be gathered from their words For Transubstantiation had his growth by degrees First the Fathers without so much as dreaming of it onely to increase the reuerence and to suppresse the prophanation thereof vsed vehement and hyperbolicall speeches of the Sacrament Secondly in time a kinde of reall presence began to be conceited Thirdly then what these men could finde in antiquity that sounded that way they wrested to their opinion Fourthly till at the last in the Councell of Lateran it was confirmed as an article that must be receiued and had a name giuen it in token it was new borne 3 The reason assigned in the Replie for that which Lateran did containes matter worth the marking First before contrary heresies rose the Church had no occasion to make expresse determination This fully ouerthrowes himselfe For if no determination were made then was it no article necessary to be beleeued if no article nor necessary how could there be any heresie against it when a Dico hactenus nihil esse in hac controuersia ab Ecclesia definitum ideoque sententiam non esse de fide Suar. 2. to p. 30 e. nothing is an article that is not defined nor b Postquam autem propositio aliqua patefacta est per determinationem Ecclesiae esse contratia fidei secundum se quoad nos haeretica denominatur Caict. 22. q. 11. art 1. See Silu. v. haec 1. n. 4 can loc l. 12. c. 12. nothing heresie but what is against a definition Secondly men were not bound to know it so expresly as they were after the determination Therefore it was not determined till the Lateran Councell therefore it was no article of the ancient Church faith therefore it is not expresly or manifestly conceiued in the Scripture or Fathers Therefore they do but trifle that alledge them for it These consequences proceed in the thing as well as the name cannot be auoided But all did and all were bound euen from the beginning to beleeue it at least implicite But this is a beggarly shift for if it was beleeued but in the vertue of that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church then the Church was but with child of it for 1200 yeares till the Pope her midwife brought her abed of it and so the Fathers had neither faith nor knowledge of it then but beleeued whatsoeuer the Church should hereafter define this they neuer beleeued but held constantly the Church of Rome and a generall Councell might define an error and if they beleeued no more what treachery is it to proue by their writing what they neuer knew and what they could not mention but lay hidden in the bosome of the Church to be reuealed at the Councell of Lateran But what will not this man say that auouches such as held contrary to Transubstantiation as indeed the ancient Church did yet did also beleeue it by implicite faith How doth a man belieue that which he beleeues not he answers by resolution and readinesse to yeeld to the church they might beleeue that which in their ignorance they erred in Let vs make an end then the Reply hath got the victory The Fathers and the Church her selfe might for 1200 yeares be ignorant of Transubstantiation yea hold contrary to it or not expresse it in their writings and yet beleeue it too and their writings be full of testimonies for it in euery age because they were not obstinate but had implicite faith infolded in the generall assent that euery Catholicke giues to that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church By which faith they beleeued contrary to that they writte This Reader is our Aduersaries case and the last end of their antiquity not in this point of Transubstantiation alone but in all the rest they boast of succession and Doctors and Councels and Antiquity and Catalogues and yet these D D. and Councels in the Catalogue held these things but implicite and that must be enough to stop the Protestants mouth Sure this is one of the wittiest and acutest distinctions that euer I read For thereby I can proue all the ancient D D. to haue taught and beleeued flat contrary to all they writ For first I will make the present Church of Rome the Catholicke Church Then I will say they beleeued that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church Now the Church of Rome
them c. And it cannot be answered saith he that these are the customes of a few simple people for this which I say is generall through the countrey the whole body of the common people Popishly addicted practising nothing else vntill it please God by the Ministry of the Gospell to conuert them yea the most men and women deuoted to Papistrie though well borne and brought vp for ciuill qualities and of good place in the countrey yet lie plunged in this ignorance This is the Ministers lying relation which I thought fit to recite something at large as being such and so grosse of it selfe as it will without any thing said by me sufficiently discredit it selfe And I maruell with what face he that in his last Marke hath so soberly preached against intemperate and vnchristian proceeding grosse lying vncharitable railing c can now come sit as it were on an Ale-bench and relate such notorious ridiculous and slanderous vntruthes Vnto which first I say that notwithstanding all the conuersation I haue had this many yeares with Catholicks of diuers sorts rich and poore old and yong learned and vnlearned in the South and in the North I may protest that vntill I read them in M. Whites booke I neuer heard of any one of these examples to be vsed by any Catholike nor indeed did I euer before here of any one of these absurd formes of prayer to be so much as extant in the world Secondly I say that diuerse Catholikes of far better credit then M. White liuing in that very countrey where M. White liueth and hauing farre more inward conuersation with Catholikes which liue thereabouts then he is like to haue haue bene demanded what their knowledge was about this point and no one of them did know any Catholike man or woman that did vse to say their prayers in such a ridiculous sort But admit the Minister had met at the Ale-house some drunken old man or some doting old wife of whom he might perchance receiue this ridiculous rotten stuffe to say nothing of what better knowledge of the necessary points of Faith such persons in their better wit and sense might haue I aske M. White whether he thinke that these few examples be sufficient to iustifie this generall assertion wherein he saith their praiers and traditions of this sort are infinite and the ceremonies they vse in all their actions nothing inferiour to the Gentiles in number and strangenes What Haue we infinite prayers and traditions like the white pater noster little creed c Do we vse also ceremonies not onely in some but absolutely in all our actions And are these ceremonies nothing not a iot inferiour to the Gentiles in number and strangenes Surely this is strange and so strange that he were a strange man who would beleeue it especially hauing neuer seene nor obserued any such matter but what man is there who although he liued neuer so long in company of Catholikes did or could see or obserue any such matter yet M. White forsooth will needs perswade vs that any man that conuerseth with Catholikes may easily obserue it Well let vs go forwarward and beleeue if we can that M. White with Lynceus eies hath seene or obserued that which no other person nor we our selues haue seene nor possibly can see and obserue At least good M. White giue us leaue to answer that if you haue seene and obserued some such matter yet it is not in all of vs nor in the most of vs nor in many especially of eminent qualitie or note among vs but at the most in some one or few simple people whose ignorance to attribute to vs generally or indefinitely would smell rankely of brutish ignorance or aboundant malice Nay saith M. White it cannot be answered that these are the customes of a few simple people for this that I say is generall throughout the countrie the whole body of the people Popishly addicted practising nothing else vntill it please God by the ministrie of the Gospell to conuert them yea the most men and women deuoted to Papistrie though well borne and brought vp for ciuill qualities and of good place in the countrie yet lie plunged in this ignorance And say you so Sir Minister indeed Do you say that these customs be generall throughout the coūtry Do you also say that the whole body of the common people popishly addicted do practise nothing else but Creezum zuum little creed white pater noster c And this not for some short while till themselues by their owne wit or some other of the wiser sort of Catholickes perceiue and correct this foolish custome but absolutely all the while they continue Catholikes vntill which seldome happeneth to sound Catholikes they be conuerted or rather peruerted by the Protestant Ministry Do you also say that besides the whole bodie of the common people yea euen the most men and women deuoted to Papistrie though well borne and brought up for ciuill qualities and of good place in the countrie yet lie plunged in this ignorance Do you Sir Minister say all this Surely if you say it and will stand to it you deserue the whetstone For if this be not a grosse lie I know not what is If you haue a face to affirme this worthily may your countrymen wonder and say as a person of good esteeme and place in that your country hath affirmed that many of your countrimen hauing read this part of your booke haue wondered and said What truth may we thinke can be expected in the processe of this mans booke whilest he citeth Authors which few haue meanes sufficiently to examine or when he telleth of things done in former times or forraigne countries when we finde him so shamelesse and impudently false in relating home matters so contrary to our certaine and direct knowledge 1 LEt the contumelies and intemperance be swept out and the matter be considered our Seminaries haue their disease that voide their excrements at their mouth and Rome that breeds them is a a Apoc. 17.1 19.2 Pro. 30.20 whore that neither can blush nor abide with any patience to heare of her qualities That which I writ touching this prodigious ignorance of the people that liue in Papistry and the manner of their prayers is true when all the Iesuites in England haue railed at it what they can and all the faces that they can set vpon it shall neuer outface that which for 17. yeares together I had daily experience of and saw with my eies I protest in the words of Bernard b Epist 42. pag. 804. of naked things I haue spoken nakedly nether do I vncouer secrets but reprooue shameles filthines Would God these things were done privately and in chambers would wee alone saw and heard them would we might not be credited when we vtter them would the Noes of our time had left vs any thing wherewith we might couer them Now when the word round about sees these things
they do to God I answer two things first granting that words and outward gestures are qualified and conditioned by the meaning of him that vses them as he that called the Prophet h 2. Reg. 2.12 13.14 my Father my Father meant not that hie degree of Honor that he did when he called God his Father and therefore I will not deny but Papists vsing these inuocations mentioned to the Saints may meane them otherwise then they do to God as for example calling the virgin Mary their Aduocate their Hope their Sauiour they may meane she is so not of her selfe but vnder Christ and not principally by her owne merits but subordinarily by the merits and grace of her Sonne This I will easily grant may be the meaning of their wordes but then I answer secondly that it doth not follow that therefore we may with such reseruation of our meaning in the same wordes inuocate and worship the Saints departed first because the said inuocation is diuine honour from what minde soeuer it proceed whether the Saint be called vpon as the supreme and eternal beginning or whether onely as the friend of God that by reason of his nearnesse to him can sooner intreate him then my selfe If he be inuocated with the titles of Aduocate Sauiour Redeemer though the intent be but onely to vse him as a friend to intreate yet this is diuine honour belonging to Iesus Christ For all prayer is diuine honour and such titles as are giuen them in their worship Mediator Hope Aduocate Confidence Sauiour Redeemer Ladie Queene of heauen c. exceed the measure of all ciuill reuerence and adoration whatsoeuer and therefore are not like the calling of our earthly parent father or kneeling to him Secondly the worshipping of a creature is idolatrie though he that worship it acknowledge it to be but a creature subordinate to God a thousand times because the commandement is i Mat. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely thou shalt serue When the diuell tempted our Sauiour to fall downe before him he did not require him to perswade himselfe that he was Iehouah or that he had those things of himselfe for he confessed vnto him k Luc. 4.6 he had receiued them but onely that he would kneele vnto him and accept those things at his hands And our Sauiour refused it not onely because he was the diuell but also because the commandement forbids the giuing diuine honour to a creature with any opinion estimation or iudgement whatsoeuer l Apoc. 19.10 22.8 When S. Iohn would haue fallen downe and worshipped the Angell he was not so ignorant or stupid as to thinke he was God or to intend him that highest honour that belongs to God but onely by that office he wold present his loue to the Angell and possible procure some fauour at his hand yet the Angell forbad him by a reason that proceeds vnanswerably against the inuocation of all Saints See thou do it not for I am thy fellow seruant and one of thy brethren which haue the testimonie of Iesus Worship God For it is a generall rule in the Scripture that no creature may with any estimation be worshipped with diuine honour A.D. If M. White insist and vrge Pag. 43. that outward words and actions are signes of inward meaning therefore where words and outward actions are the same towards Christ and towards his Saints at least ignorant people haue cause giuen them to thinke we haue the same inward meaning and so by our example are encouraged to commit formall idolatrie I answer that inward meaning is indeed gathered by outward words and actions ordinarily but not alwayes nor ordinarily by the bare outward shew of the action or by that precise sound of one or other word or sentence but by the whole connexion and circumstance of the matter and person about which the speech and action is and by the presupposed and knowne conceit of the partie which speaketh the said words or doth the action Now although in some of our prayers one or other word or sentence may seeme harsh as it is considered precisely in the outward sound especially to those that are not acquainted with the like as also to those who neuer had seen men kneele to any but to God himselfe nor to call any Father besides him it would seeme very harsh to see one kneele to his earthly parent and to call him Father yet when we consider the whole connexion of the words of our prayers hauing respect also to the different circumstances of the persons and matters spoken of and to the commonly knowne conceit of the speaker the sense of our prayers are found neither to be idolatrous nor superstitious nor scandalous none being ordinarily among vs so simple or ill instructed but they know that there is a different inward conceit and more estimation had reuerence done when the words are applied to our Sauiour Christ being God and man then when they are applied to Saints who are knowne to be not Gods but onely men 5 That which the Iesuite still assumes for his defence is still false He presumes that intending their prayers to the Saints no otherwise then they do they are lawfull And as long as God is confessed to be the first beginning of mercie and goodnesse and Christ the Mediator of redemption and the Saints no more but aduocates and friends to present our prayers all is well and those Saints may be inuocated as they are but the answer is that euen this kind of inuocation with no further opinion touching them is vnlawfull as I haue shewed And let the Reader alwayes remember that it is m Mat 6.9 Luc 11.1 Nam quaÌ„libet alia veil a dicamus nihil aliud dicimus quaÌ„ quod in ista Dominica oratione positum est si rectè congruenter oramus Quisquis auteÌ„ id dicit quod ad istam preceÌ„pertinere non possit etiamsi non illicitè orat carnaliter orat c. Aug. op 121. c. 12. Neque ensm propria tantuÌ„ orationis officia complexa cit venerationem Dei aut hominis petitionem sed om nem pene sermoneÌ„ Domini omnem commemorationeÌ„ disciplinae â—t â—â—â—era in oratione Breuiarium totius Euangelij comprehendatur Tertul. de orat c 1. no lawfull prayer that is not according to Christs rule When ye pray do it after this maner Our Father which art in heaueÌ„ c. Let your praiers be made to him that you may say is your Father that is in heauen who forgiues vs our sinnes and to whom belongs the kingdome and power and glorie for euer 6 But that which he chiefly intends in this place is to excuse the harshnesse and scandalousnesse of the words of their prayers albeit if a man should view them well he might maruell what excuse could be deuised for them Yet the Reply not onely excuses them that they must not be measured by their sound and outward
bad vnder pretence of aduancing the Gospell or the glory of God especially if they thinke that they may lawfully maintaine it by writing apparent and knowne vntruthes the better to defend it If I say there be any Protestant writers of such seared consciences I would wish they would plainely tell vs this their minds that so those poore soules who haue bene hitherto seduced may the better see how vnsound the Potestant Religion is which cannot be maintained but with apparent vntruths vttered by their writers either without due care of conscience or against their knowledge and conscience or with hauing such bad consciences as to thinke it lawfull to lie in this their cause pretended by them to be for the aduancement of Gods glory and of the Gospell or which is all one or worse to thinke one cannot lye too much in defence of this their Protestant cause or Gospell 5 This is a poore motion and proceeds from no great conceit yet I will satisfie it vpon condition he will rest satisfied with my answer Let this content you and beare not your selues in hand to the contrary we know our cause to be Gods owne truth which you haue corrupted with innumerable heresies patched thereunto and we not onely defend it as we do with a good conscience against you but wee would thinke it our greatest happines if the cause should so require to shed our blood in defence of it and it ioyes our hearts to see the weapons wherewith you fight against vs lying railing pride rage treason sedition fire and powder which is a signe that you are not of God this our cause we will maintaine with zeale and synceritie which shall be tried not by your calumnies but by the thing it selfe And I am so far from seduâ—ing any that I would giue my life for the reclaiming of those whom you haue seduced and bewitched with meere cozenage and impostures And as I hate lying to defend Gods truth so can I not but vpbraide them that run headily into Papistry afore they know how things stand betweene vs when vpon iust triall it will fall out that in the maine question betweene the Church of Rome and vs our aduersaries vphold themselues with meere imposture To the Reader HItherto reaches that which my Aduersary hath written against the Epistle and Preface of my booke now in the next place before he fall to replying vpon the booke it selfe he inserts an Introduction as he calles it containing a Declaration of the word Faith the which bebeginnes pag. 49. where his exceptions to the said Preface and epistle end And forasmuch as it is a new discourse intended * Since I see M. A Wotton to be either of so dull capacity of wit that he cannot conceiue or rather of so captious disposition of will that he will needes doubt and make a question what I meant by the word faith I haue thought good not onely to declare what I meant by the word but also by this action to set downe certaine points of doctrine pertaining to the thing signified by the word pag 49. of his Reply as it should seeme against M. Wotton and is no Reply to me but a superfluous and impertinent collection rudely and obscurely peeced together for the outfacing of that which he was not able formally to answer I would therefore cast away no time in medling with it but onely defend my selfe against such places thereof as touch my Booke because I will not be in his debt for a word Those places onely I haue here set downe in order as they lie in his Discourse with my Answer to them CHAP. XVI Touching assurance of Grace and Beleeuing a mans owne saluation 1. Perfection of the Scripture and necessitie of the Church Ministrie 2. 3. How the iustified conclude their saluation from the Scripture 4. The iustified haue the assurance of faith This is declared Full assurance voide of doubting taught by the most in the Church of Rome 5. Touching Perseuerance A. D. Now that it doth not at all appertaine to that kind of verities Pag. 57. which are to be beleeued by faith I proue out of the Protestants owne Principles to wit that * That this proofe must be by necessarie consequence without all authoritie of the Church is insinuated by White pag. 46 nothing is to be beleeued by faith but what is expressely set downe in Scripture or so contained that without all Church authoritie it may be euidently and by good consequence proued out of Scripture But the promise of Gods speciall mercie applied absolutely and in particular to Luther Caluine c. is neither expressed nor in manner aforesaid contained in Scripture Therefore it is not a verity to be beleeued by faith by the Protestants owne Principles 1 IN this Chapter where these words lye he discourses of the obiect of faith and inquires what the things are which belong to it and must be beleeued to no purpose intruding himselfe vpon an impertinent question touching the beleefe of a mans owne saluation and in this period he affirmes that it is against the Protestants owne Principles to beleeue it Because by their Principles nothing may be beleeued but what is set downe in Scripture either expressely or by good consequence which the saluation or remission of sinnes to Luther Caluine White or any particular man is not And to shew this to be our Principle he saies in the margent that M. White in such a place insinuats that nothing may be receiued as a point of faith vnlesse it can be proued by necessary consequence of Scripture without all authoritie of the Church meaning as I suppose that I require no Church authoritie to assure a man any thing but intend such things onely to be beleeued as may be proued at least by consequence of Scripture without the authoritie of the Church I answer 2. things First that in the place alleadged I deny no authority of the Church that is dâ—e vnto it but onely against them that charge the Scripture with insufficiency as if they wanted many things needfull to be beleeued which must be supplied by the Tradition and Authority of the Church I affirme that whatsoeuer is needfull to be knowne beleeued or done is contained in Scripture and by the same ALONE may absolutely be determined The meaning whereof is that what Ministrie and power soeuer the Church hath to teach and rule vs in the vse of the Scripture and points of faith which authority no Protestant will deny to belong to the true Church or to be needfull yet all things whatsoeuer belong to faith and the Church by any authoritie may propose vnto vs are contained in the Scripture and may be proued thereby alone the said Church authoritie being onely a requisite condition subordinate for the readier attaining to the sence and vse of the Scripture but no rule or principle either aboue or with the Scripture whereinto any mans faith in any point is resolued so that it
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
affirme that the hatred of the Romish faith brought Castalion or Nenser or Aleman to that which they did The like is reported by x Hasenmull hist Iesuit c. 11. Hasenmuller one that liued among the Iesuites and * Historiā hanc quam bona fide recitani sicuti eam audiui vidi dum rebus Iesuitarum interfui saw the things that he reports of diuers Iesuites falling into the like terrible desperation among whom one despairing like Spira because he had renounced the truth to become a Papist complained that he was damned for the same calling vpon them them that stood by to kill him because he felt nothing in himselfe but hel the torture of diuels tormenting him for putting confidence in Masses images crosses beades suffrages the merits of Saints and such like The dotage of Postellus who sometime was so famous among our aduersaries and his impiety about the Messias is inferior to none of these But because Acosta the Iesuite hath written a memorable example of one liuing in Peru I will translate the History and so let the Repliar himselfe say if his owne religion breed not Iudaisme Turcisme doubtings and desperation as grosse as euer Ochin or any other fell into CHAP XLI A Narration of a Popish Doctor and professor of diuinity in the Church of Rome trāslated out of Acosta de Temp. nouiss l. 2. c. 11. Maiol 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 Reply THere was in the kingdome of Peru a man at that time greatly esteemed a learned Diuine and a professor of diuinitie who a long time together was accounted Catholick and godly and almost the oracle of all this part of the world This man was so linked in familiarity with a certaine woman who boasted of herselfe that she was taught great mysteries by an Angell and like another Philumena or Maximilla whom Montanus followed was rapt out of her selfe or at least seemed so to be that he often vsed to consult with her about the greatest questions in diuinity In all things he esteemed her as an Oracle reporting her to be full of great reuelations and to be dearely beloued of God who otherwise was but a base creature and of small sense vnlesse it were to deuise lyes Whether therefore she were possessed by the Diuell which is most likely or whether she counterfetted the matter when she fell into her extasie as many wise men thought this Diuine hearing great and strange things that in her exstasies she would speake of him and conceauing that farre greater would afterward be spoken addicted himselfe thereupon to be her disciple whose ghostly father indeed himselfe was The man at length was so transported that he would assay to worke miracles and perswaded himselfe that he did worke them when no signe of any miracle appeared for which cause as also for receauing from this woman certaine propositions contrary to the sense of the Catholike Church he was apprehended by the iudges of the most holy Inquisition where by the space of fiue yeares he was heard and examined and at last detected to be the proudest and maddest man that liued He would auouch that he had an Angell sent from God of whom he learned whatsoeuer he pleased and that he had immediate conference and familiarity with God and fell into those toyes that no man in his right wits would vtter yet all this while his vnderstanding as concerning his brains was so sound that my owne is no sounder He would therefore say he should be a King and in very good earnest tell how he should be Pope and that the Apostolicke Sea should be translated into these kingdomes that God had giuen him holinesse aboue the Angels and beyond all the Apostles yea offered him the Hypostaticall vnion but he would not receiue it That he was giuen to be the redeemer of the world in regard of the efficacie whereas Christ was the redeemer but in regard of sufficiencie That all Ecclesiasticall states should be abrogated and he would giue new lawes that should be plaine and easie whereby the single life of the Cleargie should be taken away and many wiues allowed and the necessitie of shrift be abrogated These and many such like things he affirmed with such confidence and earnestnes that we were amazed to see a man imagining these things yet not to be out of his wits At the last when we had a long time considered his doings and condemned aboue 120 propositions of his that were hereticall and dissonant from the doctrine of the Church we were commanded to dispute with him to see if we could bring him backe to a right mind and the true faith To which purpose the Iudges and the Bishop of Quita with others of vs met together where the man being brought in before vs he maintained his cause with that libertie and eloquence of tongue that I my selfe to this day am astonished to think that euer a mans mind should be filled with that pride He professed his doctrine to be such that it could not be demonstrated but by the Scriptures and miracles being farre beyond all humane reasō that by the testimonies of the Scripture he had proued his matter far more manifestly effectually then S. Paul had proued Christ to be the true Messias and that he had wrought such and so many miracles that the resurrection of Christ was no greater miracle for he said that he had bin dead and was risen again and by euident testimonie had shewed the same And whereas he had no book but had his very Breuiarie taken from him yet he would rehearse the Scriptures without book such and so long places out of the Prophets the Reuelation the Psalmes and other parts that his memorie was admirable but then he so applied or allegorized them to his conceit that it would haue made any either to haue laughed or wept Finally if we would handle the matter by miracles he would presently he said shew them These things he spake so as if he had taken vs for mad men or had bin mad himselfe He told vs that it was reuealed vnto him how Don Iohn of Austrich was ouercome in a fight at sea by the Turk and that K. Philip had almost lost his kingdome of Spaine and that they were in hand at Rome with a Councell for the deposing of the present Pope and the creating of a new Which things he said he would tell vs that we knowing them by certaine intelligence might perceiue they came to him by diuine reuelation The which things being most false yet he auouched them as matters that we had certainly knowne At the last when in two daies conference with him we could do no good according to the maner of Spaine we brought him with others to the publick spectacle of the people where looking vp to heauen and expecting fire that from thence
VISIBLE profession of the Romish faith for so much as nothing is VISIBLE that cannot be shewed in their writings Thirdly this answer debarres our aduersaries for euer from alledging the Fathers for their Romish faith which I shew thus First the Iesuites promise is that he will assigne a continuall visible Church professing his now Romane faith for that is the thing vndertaken to name in all ages the names of such as successiuely professed the religion now maintained by the Church of Rome Secondly to effect this he sets downe his catalogue containing the Bishops Doctors and Councels that were in the first 600 yeares Thirdly we obâ—ect that these Bishops Doctors and Councels in diuers things that is to say in all the substantiall points wherein the Church of Rome and we dissent beleeued not as the now Church of Rome doth because such points are not mentioned in their writings To this he answers that they held more either explicitè or implicitè then is expresly to be found in their writings This answer supposeth one of these three things either that they both held and writ expresly those diuers things which we denie or that they writ them not but held them explicitè or that they writ them not nor held them explicitè but held them onely implicitè The first he grants they did not but answers that they beleeued diuers things they writ not Neither is the second for what they held explicitè they writ But the third that they held diuers points of Papistrie onely implicitè is the answer Now this is it that laies all those points of Papistrie on Gods cold earth and shewes them not to haue bene knowne to the Fathers For a Rosel v. Fides n. 2 Altisiod l 3 tract 3. c. 1. q. 5 Dionys 3. d. 25. qu. vnic to beleeue implicitè is to beleeue as the Church beleeues as when a man is demanded whether Christ be borne of the virgin Marie or whether there be one God and three persons he answers that he cannot tell but beleeues touching these things as the Church holdeth And as the Repliar himselfe here expounds it To beleeue whatsoeuer was reuealed by God in word or writing to the Church diuers particulars whereof are not necessary to be knowne or written expresly at all times but this vnfolded faith shall be vnfolded as necessity shall require that is when some heresie arises oppugning the truth of the point which is thus implicitely beleeued Hence it followes that he confesses these Fathers Doctors and Bishops mentioned in the first 600 yeares of this catalogue knew not professed not defended not taught not diuers points of the now Romane faith because in their times they were not points of faith but made so since and therfore by his owne confession they held them onely in this sence that they beleeued and taught whatsoeuer the Church should after their time vnfold by which deuice they may also be said to haue beleeued and visibly professed that the Moone is made of a greene cheese or any thing that the Church of Rome shall hereafter deuise whatsoeuer it be for they implicitely beleeued all the faith of the Church and this coyning of new doctrines shall be but vnfolding some part of the Churches faith that was infolded before and so the Fathers shall be iustified to haue beleeued any thing and the Romane Church to haue bin visibly succeeding in them that neuer vnderstood her doctrine Is this then the meaning of the catalogue that so gloriously he displaies and are all those brags shew vs a visible Church in all ages as we do you our faith is no other but what the ancient Doctors held what they held I hold what they taught I teach what they beleeued I beleeue resolued into this poore shift They beleeued as we do at least implicitely Is this the antiquitie of our Romish Church and can her age be painted no better then thus Were so many diuerse points of her faith beleeued by the ancient Church onely infoldly and vpon condition If this Romane Church after 600 or 1000 yeares should vnfold them where then is the visibilitie of these things in the Church of the Fathers and the light thereof that shined so clearly in their daies Zeuxis the painter b Zuing Theat pag. 1201. they say choked him selfe with laughing at the picture of an old woman that he had drawne in a table His owne conceit with beholding the wrinkles and shadowes and lookes he had set vpon her face so affected him that he which had but a little before drawne the beautie and youth of Helena to the admiration of others with a foolish counterfet of old age killed himselfe And I am perswaded that our aduersaries this Replier and his fellows when they behold the picture of this good old wife their mother the Papacie how ridiculously they haue drawne it making her to looke elder then she is by so many hundred yeares and hanging it forth for the counterfet of antiquitie cannot at the least but smile at their owne deuice to thinke how they mocke both others and themselues if they make not others burst with laughter But to quit this deuice of the Fathers holding implicitely that which is not expressed in their writings let my replier consider that they not onely make no mention of the things which we denie but they write that which by all consequence and discourse ouerthrowes them Though therfore we allow them a litle of the implicite faith which God wot they neuer dreamed of it being a deuice of the latter School-men to serue another purpose yet they could not implicitè beleeue any thing which would be opposite to that they mention and hold expresly as those things are opposite which the Replier confesses to be the diuers things they beleeued implicitè and their Church hath now vnfolded against new heresies that are arisen Thus I reason the Fathers held contrary to that which the Church of Rome now holds ergo they beleeued it not implicitly For implicite faith holds nothing that is coÌ„trary to that which is explicite Again if they only held implicitely what the Church of Rome now holds and not explicitely hence it followes that the Romane faith in such points cannot be visibly shewed in the Fathers for to be visible and to be onely implicitè are contrary in as much as no man can see or discerne that which is implicite so the Romish faith may be shewed in a catalog of Turks as wel as in a catalog of the Fathers by the Iesuits distinctioÌ„ CHAP. XLIIII 1. The whole Christian faith deliuered to the Church hath succeeded in all ages yet many corruptions haue sometime bene added How and in what sence the Church may erre 2. A Catalogue assigned of those in whoÌ„ the Protestants faith alway remained 3. What is required to the reason of successioÌ„ Pag. 268. A. D. Secondly I said that the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church did hold explicitè or
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
may be said This I must or I may beleeue vpon the tradition and authority of the Church though it be not any way reuealed in the Scripture The which assertion of ours hath 2. parts the one affirmatiue that the Scripture alone and absolutely considered in it owne Latitude and extent containeth all things belonging to faith without defect This is proued a Digr 3. 1 2. in the way The other Negatiue that the Churches authoritie is neither needfull nor able to supply any necessary or new point of faith that is not contained in the Scripture I deny it not to be ordinarily a necessary condition for the knowing and beleeuing that which the Scripture reueales for b Ro. 10.14 How shall they heare that they may beleeue without a Preacher c Act. 8.31 How can we vnderstand except we haue a guide d Mal 3.7 for the Priests lips should preserue knowledge and at his mouth they should seeke the Law for he is the Messenger of the Lord of hoasts I onely deny it to be the rule and foundation of faith or so much as the last infallible and cleare ground whereupon the beleeuer in any point that he beleeues restes himselfe The which to hold proportion with the Iesuit in this place I onely proue by the Papists owne principles to wit that the proposition of the Church is e Grego Val. tom 3. disp 1. q. 1. punct 1. pag. 32. §. sit nunc Sexta neither the last and clearest motiue whereupon our faith staies but there are higher and clearer then it which can be nothing but the immediate supernaturall light of the verities beleeued themselues shining vpon our hearts from the Scripture whereunto the light of Church authority when it hath reuealed the doctrine contained in Scripture to vs giues place as all lesser lights do when a greater begins to shine 2 Secondly I answer that from this Principle of ours Nothing may be beleeued but what is set downe in Scripture expressely or may be gathered from thence by good consequence it doth not follow that a particular man as Luther or White cannot beleeue the promises of Gods speciall mercie touching his owne saluation because though Luther or Whites name be not expressely set downe in the promise yet that which is set downe is so offered to vs that being penitent beleeuers and iustified and standing in grace whereof there is an infallible assurance f THE WAIâ— Digr 43. by our aduersaries owne confession we may conclude our owne particular Saluation from thence and must indeuour to beleeue it This part of my answer affirmes 2. things First that a penitent sinner iustified and eleuated into the state of grace may infallibly proue or gather the assurance of his Saluation by good consequence from the Scripture Secondly that this assurance thus to be gathered appertaines to those verities which are beleeued by the habite of faith I do not say any man can at all times so firmely and without feare of the contrary beleeue his owne reconciliation with God as he can the first articles of faith that are expressely and immediately reuealed I onely affirme that he beleeues it by the habite of supernaturall faith and is bound to endeuour and vse the meanes that he may beleeue it 3 The first point I haue purposely shewed g Digr 40. n. 39. 4â— n. 10. in the THE WAIE and confirmed by the confession of diuers of our Aduersaries whither I referre the Iesuit that he may see how and in what manner this assurance is gathered Onely I will here admonish the reader that if the penitent beleeuer could not by necessary consequence of Scripture and true application of the generall promises of the Gospell to his owne particular person conclude his saluation he were in no wise bound to beleeue it but now when he hath receiued the Testimony of Gods Spirit within him crying Abba Father the power of the same Spirit in his body and soule renuing him and producing the effectes of sauing grace the Faith of Christ whereby he giues consent to the Gospell the life of Christ whereby he liues not himselfe but Christ liues in him the power of his death whereby he dies to the world and sinne when finally in truth and conscience he performes all the conditions that the Scripture requires and feeles within him those very signes whereby the Gospell describes the elect it may not be doubted but by good consequence both in matter and forme he may conclude his owne saluation It is no where written in the Bible that Luther or Caluine shall rise at the last day yet the Reply will allow them to beleeue it by consequence from that which is written All men shall rise It is no where written that this Iesuite shall come into Iudgement and giue an account of this his faith and the waies wherein he walkes yet I presume he beleeues it by faith in that by consequence it necessarily followes of that Article He shall come to iudge the quicke and the dead In the same manner a penitent sinner examining himselfe concludes his owne saluation from the Scripture that sayes h Marc. 16.16 Rom. 10.9 Euery one that repents and beleeues shall be saued Therefore if there be any certainty of a mans owne repentance of his being in Grace of the testimony of Gods Spirit and i Paret Lombarâ—um nec vâ—luâ—sse nec doâ—â—isse vt doâ—erentur Christian de peccatorum remissione gratia Dei vita aeterna perpetuo dubitare aut diffidere quemad modum re vera nec vllus Orthodoxus sani iudicij Ecclesiastes inter Pontificios quod equidem sciam vnquam illud docuit Mart. Eisengren defens Concil Trid. de cert grat p. 216. fie vpon that mouth that will say there is none when the Scripture k 2. Co. 13.5 biddes vs Try our selues touching them it must needes be yeelded that there is a certainty likewise of his saluation 4 The second point that the remission of our sinnes and eternall life is beleeued by Faith is cleare vpon 4. points 1. because in the Creed those 2. Articles are made the obiect of Faith therefore the penitent sinner applies them to himselfe by the same habit 2. l Aliqui Catholici existimarunt posse vnumquemque credete fide diuina sine peculiari reuelatione dimissa sibi esse peccata Vasqu 12. disp 200. n. 5. Many learned Papists confesse so much Fisher of Rochester m Roffenf opusc de fid miserecord dei axiom 10. If we will enter into heauen we must not come with a double heart or wauering Faith but with that which is ALTOGETHER VNDOVBTING and MOST CERTAINE For to doubting minds there is no way open Gropper and the Diuines of Collen n Antididag c. de iustif §. proditum est p. 29. We are iustified by Faith whereby WITHOVT DOVBTING we firmely beleeue that our sinnes who are truely penitent are forgiuen vs for Christ