but the King onely in them but the worship giuen to the image is bounded in the image it self as it is an image and if it were not but Christ onely were worshipped before the image as God was before the Arke yet that practise hath no warrant Albeit therefore there be as the Reply speakes no danger in kneeling to the embassador or chaire of the King but it may be done without treason or preiudice to his honor yet is it not so in the worship of images first because the one is ciuill the other religious worship and that may be done without treason in the one that cannot be done without idolatry in the other Secondly Gods word permits the one but no where the other Thirdly the chaire and embassador are signes of the Kings presence but the image is no signe ordained or allowed so to be of Christs presence neither is Christ any way vnited to it by his own ordinance but onely by the worshippers idolatrous intention And it is so true that nothing may be adored with God that is not really vnited to him a Alexan. 3. par q. 30. m. 2. Tho. 3. q. 25. ar 1. 2. Scot. 3. d. 9 q. vnic ibi communit Scholast Suar. to 1. d. 53. sect 2. that if the humanitie of Christ were separated from his person and did not subsist in the word it might not be adored with diuine honour for no cause but because then it should not be one with him 7 This I haue answered allowing the Papists to do no more to their images then courtiers do to the chaire of Estate or then is done in a play to him that represents the person of a King But they do more and to take the repliers owne example they do not onely on Good-fridays exhibite their crosse-creeping to Christ but they pray grosly to the Crosse it selfe b Primer of our Ladie tit the Hymnes p. 10. O thou right faire and comely tree Whose worthy chosen stocke was such As kingly purple did adorne And did so holy members touch Blest be the tree vpon whose bowes This worlds valew did depend His bodie made the price so iust To free from hell it did intend All haile ô Crosse our onely hope Now at this present passion time Vprightnesse in the good increase And quit the guilty of their crime In which prayer many things are that can be said of nothing but the wood it selfe as c Pontifex imponit thuâ— in thâ— ribulum deinde aspergit crucem aquae benedicta mox eam incensat Tum Pontifex flexis ante crucem genibus ipsâ—m deuote adorat osculatur Jdem faciunt quâ—cunque alij voluerint Pont. Ro. p. 164 the bowing of the knee kissing incensing it are too soule to be washed off with this distinction And all the instruction that popish Pastors vse to giue who themselues speaking thus not with their eyes fixed on the crucifix but to the crucifix it self euen in their pulpits all ouer Italy and Spaine and teaching withall that it must be adored at least improperly or analogically as wel as Christ himselfe euen with diuine honor may not for shame be said to keepe the people from falling into idolatry when by this meanes they teach them and embolden them in it 8 His second reason is this The thing wherewith Christ is vested and wherein he shines as a Prince clothed in his robe and without which he cannot so easily be conceiued may and must necessarily be worshipped with him But such is the image of Christ that he is vested with it c. Ergo. This argument lies couched in his second note or if it do not then all he sayes there is to no purpose for to what end should he shew by the vesture and robes wherewith a Prince is vested and by the phantasmes mentioned whereby things are conceiued how the image may accidentally be conceiued and adored with Christ if by the same things he intend not to proue the lawfulnesse of that adoration I answer therfore first as I did before that these examples will serue to shew how it is possible to worship an image onely accidentally but not how it is lawfull Secondly the doctrine of the Church of Rome is that all images are worshipped more then accidentally or improperly a Bel. c. 21.2 seÌ„t They are worshipped of themselues properly so that themselues are the obiect of the worship as they are considered in themselues and not onely as they are vicegerents of the samplar He meanes not they are thus worshipped with diuine honor but with some honour of another kind yet he shewes the Replier to say false that they are worshipped onely accidentally Nay by this conclusion it must be holden that they are worshipped for themselues as images and properly with diuine honour because all the worship giuen them is to worship Christ withall and no man may worship Christ but with diuine honor Now if the Church of Rome honor the crucifix in a higher degree then the Kings robe is honored what facultie is there in the robe to proue the honor of the crucifixe Thirdly it is vtterly false that an image is the vesture of Christ or that his maiestie shines to vs in it it is rather the vesture of Satan wherein he shewes himselfe to all that worship it whose image soeuer it be Fourthly allowing that by phantasmes I come to the conceiuing of things and see not the King but vested in his robe and in my vnderstanding the image is not conceiued without Christ but the motion of my mind is one to both as to the phantasmes and the things to the robe and the King yet I do not conceiue them as one but as distinct things conceiuing the robe to be a robe the king to be a king the image to be an image and Christ to be God whereupon it followes that the adoration following the conception I need not nor must adore any more then I conceiue to be capable of adoration which the robe and the image is not Durand whom Gerson b To. 1. p. 559. e. thinkes to be one of them that haue written most purely and substantially c 3. d. 9. q. 2. sayes Though the motion of the minde be one and the same to the image and the thing whereof it is an image yet the mind neuer says the image is the thing but alway distinguishes between them and therefore the worship giuen to the thing is neuer giuen to the image The Repliers argument therefore may wel proceed in that opinion that holds Christ to be worshipped only before an image though so also it iustifies it not but it cannot conclude that worship either diuine or any at all must in any sence be giuen to the image because the mind conceiuing both at once yet vnderstands the image to be a block and Christ to be God To the same effect writes Peresius a professor of Diuinitie among our aduersaries a
Baronius takes him vp b An. 60. n. 20. You may see for it must necessarily be spoken his words are so full against our inuocation of Angels Theodoret by his leaue hath nothing happily attained the sence of Pauls wordes when in his Commentaries vpon this Epistle he sayes these things were written by Paule because heretickes then came in who boasted that Angels should be worshipped For who these heretickes were let him say himselfe and being once fallen into an error he stumbled presently vpon a worse that he sayes the Canon of the Laodicen Councell is to be vnderstood of such hererickes as taught the worship of Angels and erected an oratory to Michael the Archangel too inconsiderately attributing that to heretickes which of ancient time was done by Catholikes 11 This opinion of vsing the mediation of Angels and Saints departed arose from the Gentiles and specially the followers of Plato c Alcino de doctri Platon c. 15. pag. 79. Porphyr de abstinent animal l. 2. pag. 40. Apul. de deo Socrat. pag. 91. August De ciuit l. 8. c. 18. 19. l. 9. c. 9. whose doctrine it was that the spirits of men departed and Angels imploy themselues in carrying our prayers to God and therefore it is a good way to inuocate them Eusebius d Praeparat Euang l. 12. c. 3. p. 338. graec reports the wordes of Plato Certainely the soules of the Dead departed haue a certaine power and are carefull about the businesse of men These things are true but the reasons containing them are long it is the best way therefore to credite that which others haue reported concerning them the reports being so manifold and ancient The which words of Plato e lac Ziglir quem refert Chemnit Iesuitism pag. 100. cited sometime by a Papist as Eusebius owne to proue the inuocation of the dead shew not onely the affinity of the opinions of the Papists and Gentiles touching this point but also the foundation whereupon they both stand the ancient tradition of their elders Afore I leaue the point I must according to my professed method shew the confession of some Papists touching this matter f In 2. Tim. digr 17. pag. 118. Espenceus a Sorbonist Are they well and godly brought vp which being children almost a hundred yeares old that is to say old and ancient Christians do no lesse attribute to the Saints and trust in them then to God himselfe and thinke God himselfe harder to be pleased and intreated then they Would God I lied and there were no such g Consult pag. 154. George Cassander This false and pernitious opinion is too well knowne to haue preuailed among the vulgar while wicked men perseuering in their naughtinesse are perswaded that onely by the intercession of the Saints whom they haue chose to be their patrons and worship with cold and prophane ceremonies they haue pardon and grace prepared them with God which pernitious opinion hath bene confirmed in them as much as was possible with lying miracles And there is another error that men not euill of themselues haue chosen certaine Saints to be their patrones and keepers and put confidence in their merits and intercession more then in the merite of Christ so farre that the onely office of Christs intercession being obscured they haue substituted into his place the Saints and specially the Virgine his mother c. h In Augu. De ciuit l. 8. c. 27. pag. 494. Lodouicus Viues There are many Christians which most an end sinne in a good matter when they worship Saints both men and women no otherwise then they worship God and I cannot see in many that there is any difference betweene the opinion they haue of the Saints and that which the Gentiles had of their gods A. D. The which is more easily seene Page 4â— when as all the intercession which we craue Saints departed or liuing men to make for vs doth depend wholy vpon Christs merits and mediation and so to depend as acknowledged by vs when in the ordinary Collects of the blessed Virgine and other Saints vsed by our Church there is added per Christum Dominum nostrum through Christ our Lord. So that for this part of M. Whites accusation I need say no more 12 This is his second reason whereby he excuses praying to Saints and would make it seeme to be nothing against the Mediatorship of our Sauiour because they acknowledge the intercession of Saints to depend vpon the merites and mediation of Christ and therefore in their praiers and Collects to them there is added Per Christum Dominum nostruÌ„ Through Iesus Christ our Lord so that for this part of M. Whites accusation he need say no more but this answer is vnsufficient For first per Christum Dominum nostrum is added in none of their praiers vsed by their Church that I alledged nor in any of that sort as wil appeare to him that will take the paines to searâ—h their Primers and Portuisses That clause being added to praiers made to God where the merits and mediation of a Saint are mentioned therein but not in such praiers as are directed to the Saints themselues for then the abomination were greater to make Christ their mediator to a creature Next the adding of per Christum Dominum nostrum hath no place in their idolatrous protestations touching the merits and excellency of Friar Frauncis Friar Dominicke the holy Virgine and others to whom I shewed what monsters of merits they attribute making them equall to Christ himselfe The which may yet more fully be seene in their doctrine touching Friar Frauncis wherein Christ in all things that are written in the Gospell of him is paralleled with him in his Birth in the Prophecies forerunning him in his life temptations Disciples doctrine Miracles Transfiguration Passion Ascension and what not as may be seene in the Booke of his Conformities a An. 1590. at Bonony lately printed that we may know the present Church of Rome and the Pastors thereof at this day stand in the same damnable idolatrie which we hoped had bene but the priuate superstitioÌ„ of some paltry Friars That booke doth containe the most blasphemies against Christ that euer did any since Iulian and Porphyry gaue ouer writing and I do verily thinke that as the Diuell stirred vp of old b Philostrat vita Apolon Tyanae him that writ the like of Apollonius Tyanaeus thereby to ouerthrow the Gospell by writing a story of a damned Necromancer that should in all things match Christ the Sonne of Marie so the same Diuell set the Friar a worke to write this Conformity that the merits of Christ might be suppressed and a stinking idoll set vp in his steed and yet the same is newly set foorth and at this day by open c Henr. Sedul apologet pro li. conform Antuerp 1607. Apologies iustified But to leaue this Romane Alcoran what do they talke of the Virgine Maries intercession depending on
if I had not he would neuer haue fallen to this vile and wretched shift whereto now he betakes himselfe 2 First he sayes many times ouer that though they vse the same words to the Saints they do to Christ yet they do not really and formally giue them the same worship and so thinkes he hath excused his Church from idolatrie whereof let the Reader iudge by that I haue said * Cha. 13. immediatly before Next he answers that whatsoeuer titles and formes of speech they vse in their seruice of the Saints or Friar Francis yet their meaning is not to attribute vnto them the same holinesse and merits that they ascribe to Christ but an inferiour and such as depends vpon his holinesse and merits thus as all idolaters do flying from the words to the meaning Whereto I answer that it becomes the true Church of Christ not onely to meane well but to speake well and such therein as will keepe the Catholick faith must also hold the Catholick forme of words The Apostle b 2. Tim. 1.13 charging Timothy to keepe the true patterne of wholesome words which he had heard of him Now let the Reply shew any one patterne of these inuocations and narrations in all the Scriptures Saint Austin hath a golden speech to this purpose c De ciuit l. 10 c. 23. Thus spake Plotinus as he was able or rather as he listed For Philosophers speake with freedome of words in the difficultest things that are to vnderstand neuer fearing the offence of religious eares but it is lawfull for vs to speake but after a certaine rule lest the licentiousnesse of words bring any wicked opinions as touching the things that are signified thereby Then I answer againe that this is but a shift to hide the odiousnesse of their blasphemie for albeit it be granted that by such words they meane not such merits and dignitie as belongs to Christ yet they meane more then of right appertaines to any mortall creature For there is no merit or dignitie in any creature capable of these speeches or of any other that are vsed in their Saint-inuocations but the least that is meant is more then belongs to any but the Lord Iesus Thirdly the words alledged and all other whereof any question is if we allow them that immediate grammaticall construction that belongs to all words can import no lesse then the same seruice that is giuen to Christ both really and formally Let the Iesuite take these for example part whereof d Pref. of THE WAY n. 14. I alledged e Hâ—t secund chor August de commem B. Virginis Reioyce O mother celestiall magnifie thy God that made thee singular thou wouldest call thy selfe the handmaid of Iesu Christ but as Gods law teaches thou art his Ladie mistris for right and reason will the mother be aboue her sonne therefore pray him humbly and command him from aboue that he leade vs to his kingdome at the worlds end Thou alone without example art shee whom God hath chosen to be the Mediator of God and men the repairer of the world the end of our exile the washing away of our sinne the ladder of heauen the gate of Paradise Such idolatrie as this were fitter to be purged with an humble confession then to be excufed with these vaine distinctions 3 But M. White he sayes vnderstands not wherein the formall reason of worship doth consist But he tels him the inward estimation of the minde is it Words as prayers and actions as adoring with the bodie be signes whereby this worship is outwardly yeelded and therefore they follow the inward estimation of the minde and import no more then he meanes that vses them and therefore though we vse the same words and actions to creatures that we do to God yet meaning them in one sense to the creature and in another to God this is no idolatrie This is the full summe of his barbarous and confused discourse but I answer again that thus all idolaters in the world may excuse themselues in the worship of their idols for when the Iew to his calfe and the Gentile to his image bended the knee and called it God they did not esteeme it in that degree that they did God himselfe but onely gaue it an inferiour honour such as they thought an image capable of and when they were put to it would answer as the Reply doth f For they did not think their idols to be God but resemblances of the true God Athenag Leg. pag. 20. Dio Chrysost p. 145 Peres de tradit pag. 225. Andr. orthod expl pag. 289. 294 Act. 17.23 though the word or action were one yet the honour was farre different but as I would answer them so I do the Iesuite that the inward estimation opinion of the mind determining the said words prayers and gestures to such an inferiour worship as is mentioned doth not remoue the reason of idolatrie thereby from the said words and prayers because such as it is it remaines diuine worship attributed to a creature For all religious inuocation of a creature in what opinion soeuer is diuine adoration and a part of Gods proper worship Besides our meaning and intention limiting our words cannot dispense with the commandement that forbids the vsing of g Abusus ille reprehensibilis est si praedicara quae secundùm vsum ecclesiae sâ—li Deo Patri Mediatori Christo attribuuntur vt Omnipotens Saluator c. etiam Sanctis applicantur Henr. de Hass quem refert sequitur Gabr. Lect. 32. lit 2. such words to a creature with any meaning whatsoeuer For Christ teaching vs how to pray bids vs pray Our Father which art in heauen Forgiue vs our trespasses Deliuer vs from euill For thine is the kingdome the power and the glorie We must pray to such a one as is our Father which is in heauen c. this is a commandement and Rom. 10. How shall they call vpon him in whom they haue not beleeued This is the doctrine of Saint Paul which commandement and doctrine are violated as well when we pray to a Saint with estimation that he is but an intercessor through Christs merits as when we call vpon him with an opinion that he can helpe vs without them The reason is because the commandement doctrine of the Scripture ties vs to God alone which being transgressed there is the reall and formall reason of superstition whatsoeuer the opinion and intent of the minde be 4 But the Iesuite replies that like as we kneele to God and call him our Father so do we the same things to our earthly parents and yet the honour we giue them hereby is farre different from that we yeeld to God therefore we may vse the same inuocations and words to the Saints that we doe to God when the minde acknowledges not that excellencie in them that it doth in him as children vse the same kneeling and words to their fathers
his faith of the Scripture resteth 5 Let our aduersaries therefore leaue this custome of forging and misreporting and let them acknowledge the truth No matter to this point whether Protestants or Papists be the elect that haue this spirit but say directly and shrinke not is there not a Spirit euen the Spirit of God enlightning the conscience whereby euery one that beleeues is assured without which the authoritie and perswasion of the Church can do no good Then if there be such a Spirit why may it not be called the voice of Christ the light that shines in the Scriptures themselues and what defect is there in saying that by this Spirit true Scripture and true doctrine too is discerned o The soule hath it taste it feeling it smelling sayes Gers serm de Bern. tom 2. pag 750. edit Paris 1606. as the taste discernes sweet from sower such as know not the Scripture haue not this Spirit The word of God speakes in the Scripture openly though none but Gods children beleeue it Here I challenge my aduersarie and all his sect let them denie this if they can I would not haue them with gesture to out-stare it but as Christian men ought to do shew some reason if it be false which they cannot do D. Stapleton that laboured in this matter beyond all others yet p Triplicat in admonit confesses the internall perswasion of the Spirit to be so necessarie and so effectuall for the beleeuing of euery obiect of faith that neither without it can any thing of any man be beleeued though the church should beare witnesse a thousand times and by it ALONE any thing that should be may be beleeued THOVGH THE CHVRCH ALTOGETHER BE SILENT OR BE NOT HEARD q Princip l. 8. c. 3. Let our aduersaries know we do no way so extoll the outward voice of the Church that we should teach * There can be no faith absolutely without it sine ea nullam fidei rationem posse absolutè consistere Here we see D. Stapleton grants that by the Spirit of God inwardly perswading we may be and are and without it are not assured of any thing to be beleeued and that such as haue this Spirit doe by IT discerne which is the true Scripture and the true sense thereof and which is not as our taste discernes sweet from sower as our eyes light from darknesse doth euidently follow of his words And to let the Reader see how this ignorant Iesuite censures that he vnderstands not his owne Canus r Loc. l. 2 c. 8. pag. 43. edit Colon. an 1605 sayes that as the taste well affected easily discernes the difference of tastes so the good affection of the minde makes that a man can discerne the doctrine of God from error It is therefore true that the beleeuer in himselfe doth taste and see by it owne maiestie the Scripture to be Gods word when the Church hath testified it a thousand times and this taste and light of the Spirit in the heart is a thing distinct from the Churches authoritie and aboue it though ordinarily this Church-authoritie in ministring leade vs to the attaining it and help to open our eyes that we might see it 6 And the reason why some do not thus discerne the true Scripture or any truth is not because the Scripture is not euident enough of it selfe but because such as discerne it not want their taste and such as see or heare it not want their senses in the same maner that they do which cā neither taste the sweetnesse of hony nor heare the sound of a bell nor see the light of the Sunne because they are senslesse for the Sunne hath light in it selfe and honey sweetnesse in it selfe which are discerned by the sense it selfe but some haue no such sense and therefore Saint Austin ſ Prolo de doctr Christia sayes They which vnderstand not the things I write must not reprehend me because they vnderstand not like as if I should shew them with my finger the Moone or a starre which were not very bright and they had not eye-sight enough to see my finger wherewith I point they ought not therefore to be incensed at me So they who vnderstand ng these precepts that I giue cannot yet perceiue the obscure things which are in the sacred bookes must not blame me but pray that some light may be giuen to their eyes from God aboue For though I can with my finger point at a thing yet I can kindle light in no mans eyes to make them see that I point at And againe t Tract 35. in Ioh. in another place he sayes that as our eyes though whole and open yet need the helpe of outward light to see so our minde which is the eye of the soule vnlesse by the light of truth which illuminates other things but it selfe is not illuminated it be enlightned can come neither to wisedome nor righteousnesse In which words Saint Austin affirmes all this that we say that the Scripture and euery truth therein contained shines as a light and by proportion tastes of it selfe and speakes publickly to all as the Sunne shines openly to all and the reason why men discerne it not is not any defect in themselues which must be supplied by Church-authoritie and tradition but onely the def ct of disposition in themselues whereof the want of Church-ministery may be one cause And a little more to shew my aduersaries presumption in denying this let the words of u Ad Antolych l 1 pag 285. 289 edit Basil Henrico Petr. an 1555. Theophilus Antiochenus that liued two hundred yeares afore Austin be obserued If thou who art a Gentile say to me that am a Christian shew me thy God I will bid thee againe shew me that thou art a man and then I will shew thee my God Let me see the eyes of thy soule and the eares of thy heart open For as with carnall eyes we see the things belonging to this life so * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the eyes and eares of the soule onely it is possible to behold God who is not seene of all but of such onely as can behold him hauing the eyes of their soule opened All haue eyes yet some are so dimme sighted that they see not the Sunne * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet the Sunne hath neuerthelesse light albeit the blinde see it not who must accuse themselues for their owne blindnesse In like manner O man are the eyes of thy soule possessed with blindnesse c. This therefore which our aduersaries so scurrilously call bold presumption of hauing and being taught by the Spirit was beleeued in the Church from the beginning and it was neuer called either audacious or impudent till this Romane Church and her creatures most audaciously and impudently renounced the authoritie maiestie and euidence of Gods blessed Spirit to aduance the tyrannie heresie and pride of Antichrist For the intended drift
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-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
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
whether this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors shal need to be the same that the doctrine of the Apostles was but onely affirmes that as the Apostles doctrine for the time they liued was the rule so the doctrine of the succeeding Pastors is the rule leauing roome enough for this doctrine of these succeeding Pastors to vary from the doctrine of the Apostles that when we shew the present abuses in the Church of Rome and decrees of their latter Popes for these last 800. yeares to haue swarued from the Apostles doctrine and practise they may pleade the authoritie of their succeding Pastors And indeede it is true that the Church of Rome holds that it is not necessary the doctrine and teaching of the present and succeeding Pastors be the same in all things that it was in the Apostolicke and Primitiue Church but the Pope hath power to make a NEW CREED and NEW ARTICLES of faith For Iacobatius m De Concil p. 310. A. saies The Pope alone may make new articles of faith according to one acceptation of the word Article that is for such as must be beleeued which before needed not be beleeued and Zenzelin a Popish doctor n Gl. extr Ioh. 22. cum inter § doclaramus saies The Vicar of Christ may make an Article of faith taking an article not properly but in a large sense for that which must be beleeued when before by the precept of the Church it was not necessary to be beleeued Augustinus Triumphus writes o August Anconit sum de eccle potest q. â—9 art 1. that it belongs to the Pope alone to make a new Creed For in a Creed those things are put that vniuersally belong to Christian faith he therefore hath authority to make such a Creed who is the head of Christian faith and in whom as in the head all the members of the Church are vnited and by whose authoritie all things pertaining to faith are confirmed and strengthened And p Art 2. againe That the Pope may dispense in adding articles may be vnderstood 3. waies First in respect of the multiplication of the articles themselues Secondly in respect of expounding the things contained in the articles Thirdly in respect of the augmentation of such things as may be reduced to the articles ALL THESE WAIES the Pope may dispense in adding articles because as he may make a new Creed so he may MVLTIPY NEW ARTICLES OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER Secondly he may by more articles explicate the articles already placed in the Creed Thirdly because peraduenture all things beleeued in the Creed may be reduced after the aforesaid articles and by such reduction may be increased so that vnder each article MORE THINGS NECESSARY TO BE BELEEVED MAY BE PVT THEN ARE YET PVT The which being done marke what they say touching their authority q Roder. Dosm de auth script l. 3. c. 12. The Popes assertions ascend to the height of diuine testimony as the assertions of the Apostles did and of such as made the holy Scripture and there be who contend that they belong to the sacred Scripture it selfe which is contained in the bookes of the Bible This doctrine whereof all our aduersaries bookes are full shewes plainely that they intend not that this their Church teaching so much magnified to be the rule should alway be one and the same but such as shall follow the Popes lust and be altered with the time that so this Antichrist of Rome might abolish the whole Testament of Christ this is the first thing to be noted that the reader may see what he meanes by his Church doctrine that is the rule 4 The next thing is his distinction about this doctrine of the Church that it was the rule in the Apostles dayes and is the rule in succeeding ages but not as contained in onely Scripture but as deliuered by these Pastors Which speech containes 2. things a Negatiue and an affirmatiue the negatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is not the rule as it is contained in onely Scripture Meaning as * Ch. 27. n. 3. I haue shewed that all diuine doctrine belonging to the rule is not contained in the Scripture but much or the most of it in tradition vnwritten and that which is contained is not the rule by vertue of writing but by vertue of the Church that makes it authenticall Panormitan r Panorm tom 2. de praesumptione c. Sicut noxius sayes The words of the text of Scripture are not the Popes words but the words of Salomon in the Prouerbs but because this text is made Canonicall it is to be beleeued and induceth necessity so to do as if the Pope had set it foorth himselfe Because we make all those things to bee ours whereto we might impart our authority But whether without Canonization the sayings of Salomon be approued in the Church seeing they are in the body of the Bible say as the glosse saith and Ierom holdeth who seemes to conclude that they are Apocrypha which is to be noted and that because of this as also because Salomon had no power to make Canons This also must be obserued that the Reader may know the meaning of his conclusion and what it is that we deny therein For NO DOCTRINE EITHER OF THE APOSTELS IN THEIR TIME OR OF THE SVCCEEDING PASTORS OF THE CHVRCH IN ANY TIME IS THE RVLE OF FAITH BVT ONELY THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE SCRIPTVRE As I haue Å¿ In the WAY digr 3. shewed His affirmatiue is that the doctrine of the Church is the rule as it is deliuered by the Pastors or the Pastours deliuering this doctrine are the rule which is the same that he said a little before the doctrine as deliuered by the Church or the Church as deliuering doctrine is the rule t Pars obiecti formalis fidei est vox Ecclesiae D. Stapler relect p. 484. Saltem aequalis est Ecclesiae Scripturae authoritas ibi pag. 494. His meaning is that the Churches testimony and authority mingles it selfe with the authority of the doctrine and is ioyntly with it or aboue it the rule of faith as when diuers simples haue their ingredience into one compound and two men equally carry betweene them one burthen Their doctrine this way is knowne wel enough how the Scriptures in regard of vs haue all their authority from the Church the sense of the Scripture is to be fetched from the Church whatsoeuer the Church of Rome shall teach is the word of God c. The which things being couched in the Iesuites conclusion as he vnderstands it we detest and spit vpon when he shall thus debarre the Scripture from being the rule to set vpon the bench his Papall Antichristian authority If the shame either of God or men or any respect of truth were with them they durst not thus presumptuously and basely steale the authority to themselues whereby both themselues and we and all the world
such a rule say againe whether it be not something distinct from the teaching and authority of the teachers for so much as that wherby the teaching and authority is discerned and tried cannot be confounded with the teaching and if there be such a distinct rule what can it be but the Scripture which onely is the thing that all Church teaching must agree with Thus therefore I reason ad hominem In the doctrine taught by the Pastours of the Church it sufficeth that I can distinguish the priuate from the publicke that which is taught with authority from that which is without authority Therefore I MAY yea must thus distinguish I may DISTINGVISH therefore I may EXAMINE for by examining things we distinguish them We may examine therefore we must haue a RVLE whereby we do it we must haue a rule therefore it must either be the Scripture or the teaching it selfe of the Church that is examined for a third cannot be giuen But it cannot be the teaching of the Church for that is the thing it selfe examined It must of necessity therefore be the SCRIPTVRE ALONE And for so much as it belongs to euery priuate man thus to distinguish therefore it is true also that I said Euery priuate man inlightned with Gods grace which must alway be supposed and our aduersaries necessarily require it may be able to guide himselfe and to discerne of the Church teaching by the SCRIPTVRE Pag. 223. 1 Tim. 3. v 15. Wootton pag. 154. White p. 80. A. D. Wherefore it is not without cause that S. Paule called the Church the pillar and ground of truth not onely as my aduersaries expound that truth is found in it or fastened to it as a paper is fastened to Pasquin in Rome which is M. Whites grosse similitude but also in that it selfe is free from all error in faith and Religion and is to vs a sure although a secondary foundation of faith in that it doth truely yea infallibly propound to vs what is and what is not to be beleeued by faith it being therefore vnto vs a pillar and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine and an assured ground or establishment of verity whereupon we may securely stand against all heresies and errors It is not also without cause that S. Augustine said whosoeuer is afraid to be deceaued with the obscuritie of this question let him require the iudgement of the Church signifying that to require the iudgement of the Church is a good meanes to preserue one from being deceaued not onely as M. Wootton expoundeth in that particular question which there S. Augustine mentioneth and such like of lesser moment and much lesse doth he meane as M. White minceth the matter to wit in that particular question at this time but also and that à fortiori in other questions of greatest weight and most concerning saluation and at other times c. 8 I find 2. faults in this place with the Repliar 1. that he doth not report the whole expositions that I gaue to these places but onely part of them and yet tels me of mincing Next that hauing confirmed my exposition of the wordes of the Apostle by foure reasons and my exposition of Saint Austine by as many and hauing confuted his sense that here he repeates by manifest arguments he stands dumbe to all and onely repeates the places againe no otherwise then when I answered them I need not therefore trouble my selfe with confuting him here but referre * THE WAY §. 15. me to that I writ much accusing my selfe for medling with so base a trifler that hath neither heart nor strength to go forward in the argument nor wit nor grace to hold his tongue this one passage is the liuely image not onely of all this his Reply but of all his fellowes writings now in request to bring in authority of Scripture and Fathers as a Bride is led into the Church with state and ceremony and some grauity and furniture of words but when they should reply to that we answer and maintaine their expositions then to tergiuerfate and onely repeate that which is confuted CHAP. XXXVI An entrance into the question touching the visibility of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was A. D. Concerning the eleuenth Chapter Hauing proued in the precedent Chapter that the doctrine of the Church is the rule Pag. 227. and meanes to instruct all men in faith in this Chapter I vndertake to shew that the Church whose doctrine is the rule and meanes White pag. 86. Wootton p. 104 White pag. 86. continueth in all ages Both my Aduersaries grant that the Church continueth in all ages M. White saith We confesse the Church neuer coased to be but continueth alwaies without interruption to the worlds end M. Wootton saith the truth of your assertion needeth no proofe and findeth great fault with me for making such a question as though Protestants did deny the Church to continue As concerning this their granting the continuance of the Church I gratefully accept it especially with M. Whites addition who yeeldeth that if we can proue that the very faith which Protestants now confesse hath not * If Protestants faith so far as they differ from vs continued alwaies I aske whether in the aire or in some faithfull men if in men who be those men successiuely continued in all ages since Christ or that it was interrupted so much as one yeare moneth or day it is sufficient to proue them no part of Gods Church For which he citeth in the Margent Dan. 7. ver 27. Psal 102. v. 26. Mat. 16.18 Luk. 1 v. 33. 1 AS no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Church to be the rule taking the Church for a So Waldens doctrinal tom 1. l. 2. c. 19. Haec est Ecclesia Symbolica Ecclesia Christi Catholica Apostolica mater credentiū per totum mundum dispersae à Baptismo Christi per Apostolos ceteros successores eorum ad haec tempora deuoluta quae vtique veram fidem continent c. pag. 99. the whole company of beleeuers which haue bene from Christ to this day so neither do they deny this Church to continue in all ages the which because I granted the Repliar in my answer to his booke you see how he ioyes in himselfe as if he had wonne the cause touching his visiblenesse of the Church But as I noted to him the question is not whether the Church continue in all ages to the worlds end for that we grant but whether the outward state thereof free from all corruption be alway so visible as the Papists say I shewed the Negatiue and in the 17. Digression made it plaine that our Aduersaries themselues cannot deny it the Repliar therefore in this place was to quit his owne D. D. whom I alledged and not to stand gratefully accepting that which no man denies The marginall question is
Tradit p. 224. Though we may be caried with one and the same knowledge to the image and the samplar yet is it not hence concluded that the same may be done in worshipping and adoring them for there is great dissimilitude betweene this and that For it is not repugnant to an image as it is an image to be conceiued with the same knowledge wherewith the thing represented is knowne but it seemes to be against the nature of an image as it is an image that it should be reuerenced with the same reuerence wherewith the samplar is seeing it exceeds not the limits of an insensible creature and of this comparison of a Kings robe he sayes There is no likenesse betweene an image and the robes of an Emperor 9 In his third note the Reply hauing explicated his analogicall adoration which he sayes is the most they giue to images he sayes thereupon the worship giuen to images in the Church of Rome is not the same in nature substance or equalitie of perfection to that is giuen to God but farre inferiour demonstrating it by two reasons Thus he distinguishes because the Digression had said The Church of Rome worshippeth images with diuine honour the same that is due to God But I haue sufficiently adswered that euen this analogicall honour thus giuen as he distinguishes and proues is condemned by the Scripture and authorities alledged in the Digression for two causes first because it is some kind of worship and all kinds of worship are condemned secondly it is diuine worship though not of the highest degree yet diuine in analogie and in some sort also of the nature and substance of diuine worship because as I haue said before it can be reduced to any other kind then that which by the image is giuen to God Secondly I answer and haue shewed before that the Church of Rome worshippeth images in a higher degree then with analogicall worship For it was c Omnia coniuncta adorandu siue vt partes praesentes vel praeteritae siue vt alias specialem ordinem ad ipsae habeâ—tia propter se â—â—o adorabiliat adoranda sunt eadem specie adoratâ—onis analogice 3 d. 9 q. vnic concl 6. id lect 49. Biels opinion they ought indeed to be worshipped no otherwise but the Iesuites as I haue shewed confute him For there are three opinions whereof this of the analogicall worship is one but the Iesuites and others in the Church of Rome hold it not but go further 10 Now followes that which is worth the noting For the Replier hauing distinguished the maner how diuine honour is giuen to images sayes Perhaps it is too subtill for euerie ones capacitie being intended onely for the satisfaction of more pregnant and iudicious wits But this latter clause he should haue left out For Bellarmine d De imag c. 22 sayes It is not to be said at all that the worship of Latria which is diuine adoration is due to images First because the Councels do not affirme it but simply denie it then it is not without great danger to say so For they who defend images are to be adored with diuine honour are enforced to vse most subtill distinctions which THEMSELVES hardly vnderstaÌ„d much lesse the rude people c. This is a notable dog-trick thus to teach the adoration of images and when they haue done to confesse it is not fit to vtter it What shall the doctrine be then that men shall hold them to It may suffice for the simple sort to vnderstand that IN TRVTH and SPEAKING PROPERLY not the same but a farre inferiour kind of honour is due to the image then is due to the thing whose image it is If this be the truth then e Azor. tom 1. l. 9. c. 6. that which is the constant iudgement of the Romish Diuines is a lie and comes from the father of lies and shall be punished accordingly by him that hates all lies pestilent hypocrites thus to maintaine that in whole volumes which themselues know not to be the truth But now the doctrine of Thomas and the Iesuites and so many great School-men and the constant iudgement of all Diuines is cast off and this inferiour kind of worship is supplied how shall it appeare this also is not to be misliked he answers that as a man bearing respect to the picture of his friend yet is not counted iniurious to him though he respect not the picture so much as his friend but rather so much the more gratefull so this inferior religious reuerence giuen to images is so farre from hindring the respect we owe to Christ that it shewes and practises it the more and increases it and so cannot be thought iniurious but gratefull to Christ and his Saints So he But let him take heed that while he labours to please Christ and his Saints he displease not Thomas and his disciples for he knowes they cannot abide this inferiour worship but seeing the motion of the mind is one and the same to Christ and his image they will haue the worship to both be one and the same And howsoeuer they take the matter let the Replier go roundly to the point and shew how this gratifying Christ with his inferiour worship was gatefull to the ancient Church And let him make demonstration where Christ hath commanded it For a man may make and vse the picture of his friend as he pleases though f Paleot imag l. 2. c. 20. a great Cardinall be somewhat strait-laced in the matter and allowes not all that libertie that we see vsed But where is any allowance to gratifie Christ by worshipping his picture and where is the word of God permitting to make the pictures of the Trinitie let this be shewed and there is an end in the controuersie for that is the point which the Digression affirmes the ancient Church to haue holden against the now-church of Rome whose words against such things he should haue answered and not with an vnlike comparison of a humane picture haue imposed vpon the vulgar But his owne picture for this tricke shall neuer be made because he flies out of the field and leaues the matter behind him For no man will make the picture of a coward that flies and dares not abide it g In 3. Ps sayes S. Chrysostome 11 For the testimonies both of the Scriptures and Fathers though briefly pointed to yet very clearly shew that images in religion might no wayes be vsed vnder any pretence but all worship of them they condemne so farre that they will not admit it with any distinction be it religious worship diuine or ciuill proper improper accidentall analogicall inferiour the same that is giuen to God or not the same if it be worship seruice adoration kneeling kissing crouching capping vowing they condemne it all and the second Nicene Councell 800 yeares after Christ was the first that confirmed it to the great discontent of the godly in the Church as I haue