seemeth to yeeld me for he saith that the rule must be easie White pag. 10. and plaine to all sorts of men learned and vnlearned to wit which vse the meanes and are diligent in attending to it and be enlightened with the Spirit of God to all such saith he it is plaine be they neuer so vnlearned to the rest it is not Neither is it saith he a necessary condition of the rule so to be not because it is obscure at any time but for that sometimes men haue not eyes to see into it c. This which he hath said of being enlightened with the spirit had need to be declared If he meane that one must be first endued with faith and in that sence lightned with the Spirit before he can vnderstand the determinate sence and meaning of that which is appointed by God to be the ordinary rule and meanes to instruct men in faith then it is false that to be enlightened with the Spirit is required as a necessary condition for so one must be supposed to haue faith before he can by the ordinary meanes be first instructed in faith so the ordinary meanes were needlesse for the end to which it was appointed For what need were there of an outward ordinary meanes to instruct men first in faith when they are already supposed to be by the spirit sufficiently enlightned with faith If he meane onely that the Spirit of God must assist and concur with mans vnderstanding in a speciall manner to enable the vnderstanding to apprehend the instruction propounded by the meanes and to make it yeeld assent of faith so I shall not striue with him as hauing in * Introd q. 6. the Introduction affirmed as much Onely I would haue him note FIRST that it is not the Protestants spirit whose illumination is required to true faith as o Ibid. there I haue shewed SECONDLY that the true Spirit of God whose assistance is necessary is ready through the merits of our Sauiour Christ to assist all men sufficiently to the attaining of the truth and that no man who hath receiued exciting grace to moue him to seeke find and attend vnto the ordinary rule and meanes appointed by God for mens instruction in matters of faith need feare want of necessary assistance of Gods Spirit to concurre with him but rather had need to feare least himselfe be wanting to the gracious assistance of Gods Spirit in being negligent to concurre with it so much as he may and ought and least in steed of following Gods Spirit he suffers himselfe to be misled with the spirit of Sathan transfiguring himselfe into an Angell of light whose propertie is to withdraw men from the secure ordinary meanes of the doctrine of the Church to follow priuate instincts so coloured with seeming sentences of Scripture as though they were the very instincts of the holy Ghost The third propertie to wit vniuersality is meant that the rule and meanes doth extend it selfe to all points of faith so far as it is or may be necessary to saluation In which sence I do not perceiue my Aduersaries to gainesay Onely the question is WHETHER and HOW all points of faith be necessary to saluation The which question I haue resolued in the Introduction and in the fourth Chapter where I do determine all points of faith to be necessary to be beleeued explicitè or implicitè of all sorts and that none is indifferent or such as may be lawfully misbeleeued especially obstinately at any time by any persons and that although all be not necessary to be knowne at all times expresly by all persons yet they are or may be necessary so to be knowne at least at sometimes and by some persons in the Church and consequently there must be an vniuersall ordinary rule and meanes sufficient to instruct and to resolue all sorts of men in all points of faith at such times and in such sort as need shall require thereby to hinder men from misbeleeuing any and which may tell them determinately when controuersies arise whether this or that point be necessary to be knowne and beleeued expresly by all or onely some of the Church and by whom Besides these three properties of the rule and meanes White pag. 10. M. White would haue other two But either they are not necessary or else they be sufficiently included in these which I haue set downe For if the rule bee knowne to be infallible it little skilleth to our present purpose whether there be any higher rule whereupon it doth depend or no or whether the case which is to be ruled by it concerne the thing it selfe which is assigned for the rule or some other thing for where infallibility is partiality need not be feared neither need one seeke a higher rule when he knoweth the rule which he hath to be infallible 1 MY Aduersaries last conclusion was that the rule of faith must haue three properties 1 To be infallible that shall not deceiue vs. 2 Easie to be vnderstood of all sorts of men learned and vnlearned 3 Vniuersall to shew what is the truth in all points Touching my answer hereto he sayes foure thing FIRST that I grant these three properties to be required in the Rule in some sence The first that it must be infallible and the last that it must be vniuersall I grant simply without any limitation and this is true SECONDLY touching the second condition of being easie he expounds himselfe that he meanes so easie that without miraculous illumination or extraordinary and excessiue difficulty any sort of men may vnderstand the meaning of it and sayes M. White seemes also to yeeld him this The which I did in these words The rule is easie and plaine to all sorts of men learned and vnlearned that vse the meanes and are diligent in attending it and be inlightned by the Spirit of God to such it is plaine be they neuer so vnlearned to the rest it is not nether is it a necessary condition of the rule so to be not because it selfe is obscure at any time but for that sometimes men haue not eyes for want of diligence or Gods illumination to see into it for all meanes and rules are vaine vnles God giue eyes to see This exposition wherby I declared in what sence the rule must be vnderstood to be easie he distinguishes and sayes If I meane no more but that the Spirit of God must helpe our vnderstanding in a speciall manner to enable it to apprehend and yeeld to that which the rule propounds he will not contend with me But if my meaning be that a man must first haue faith and in that sence be inlightned before he can vnderstand the meaning of the rule then he sayes my saying is false and sets downe a proposition against it that to be endued with faith is not required as a necessary condition to the easines of the rule which is a needlesse limitation For first I mentioned not
of faith contained and reuealed in Scripture it selfe 5 The difficultie is when I vpon the authoritie of the Scripture as I verily perswade my selfe beleeue contrary to the Church of Rome or any other presumed to be the true Church how it shall appeare to my selfe and others that I expound and vnderstand the Scriptures aright and not according to my own priuate spirit For answer whereto note first that this demand lies as well against the Beraeans and the rest of Gods people mentioned by Luke and Paul in the texts alledged as against the Protestants For they reiecting something that they were perswaded was not in the Scripture or receiuing that which they saw agreeable to the Scripture might be demanded how they were infallibly assured they had the true sence of the Scripture And a false Apostle when they should by the Scripture examine and reiect his doctrine might cauill as A.D. here doth and say they expounded it after their owne priuate spirit In which case the godly beleeuers could refer themselues to no other rule but onely leaue the truth still to be iudged by the Scripture by all such as would examine it Note secondly that the same difficultie presses our aduersaries For when they haue shewed and vrged the authoritie of the Church and their chiefe Pastor therin what they can yet this authoritie they cannot maintaine to be such as they hold but by the Scripture k Vbi sup liâ— b. Pezantius and k Vbi sup liâ— b. Greg. of Valence You wil ask how the proposition of the Church is known to be infallible Let him that is thus demanded answer He beleeues it by an infallible faith for the authoritie of the Scripture giuing witnesse to the Church which authoritie and reuelation he beleeues for it selfe albeit the proposition of the Church as a requisite condition be needfull thereunto I know not many of our aduersaries some l Durand 3 d 24. qu. 1. d. 25 q. 3. ibi Scot. Alm. Gabr. few Schoolmen excepted that hold the authoritie of the Church to be the formall reason of faith or the first and last cause of beleeuing but the authoritie of God himselfe reuealing these things which authoritie being something distinguished from the Church and aboue it can be no where manifested but in the Scripture Now when they alledge Scripture we may tell them againe they alledge it after their owne spirit which obiection may be multiplied as often as they multiply their discourses out of Scripture Thirdly therefore for satisfaction of the difficultie I beleeue and am assured of that I hold by infused faith God by a supernatural light reuealing and infusing the certaintie of that I beleeue partly by shewing to my vnderstanding out of the Scripture partly by stirring vp and inclining my will to assent vnto it and en brace it The which knowledge and assurance of mind when any man challenges as if it were but a priuate conceit subiect to error I can say no more but that which euery man sayes for his faith that so all true faith may be destroyed in that m For the beleeuer assents not by discourse to the matters of faith reuealed as by the formall reason of beleeuing but by simple cleaning adhering to theÌ„ faith neuer drawing forth her act by meanes of discourse but if discourse be vsed it is rather a conditioÌ„ helping to apply faith to it obiect Mat. 16.17 2. Cor. 10.5 Heb. 11.1 Fides secundùm se coÌ„siderata quod attinet ad causaÌ„ efficientem reuocanda est in motioneÌ„ diuinaeÌ„ lumenque diuinuÌ„ siue in habitum fidei Christiana fides etiam vt est in nobis reuocatur in DeuÌ„ mouentem diuinuÌ„que lumen Lud. Carb sum tom 3. c. 3. l. 1. pag. 6. no mans faith ascends aboue this infused illumination or can be demonstrated to be certaine by euident reasons n Tho. 1. part q 1. art 8 DuraÌ„ prolog sent qu. 1. pag 4. h. that shall conuince all gainsayers but onely there be forcible motiues to induce vnto it though when his reasons that thus beleeues shall be examined and his grounds of Scripture duly weyed by true Christians in a Councell or otherwise all that gainsay him may easily be confuted And this is the thing that we say for Luther and Scripture against the Papacie A. D. Yet saith M. White the Papists cannot denie but there is a heauenly light c. It is true Pag. 201. that Catholicks grant inward testimony of the Spirit to giue infallible assurance But what spirit is that which they thinke giueth this infallible assurance Not priuate spirit but the Spirit which is common to the Church the Spirit which inclineth men to humilâ—tie order and vnitie as in * Qu 6. the Introduction I haue shewed To whom also do they think infallible assurance to be giuen by the Spirit Not to euery one that presuming himselfe to be elect and to haue the Spirit shall rush without reuerence into the sacred text expounding it as he listeth or as it shall be suggested by priuate spirit but to such as with order humilitie and respect of vnitie reade and interprete Scripture as they learne it to be interpreted by the infallible authoritie of the Pastors of Gods Church Those that do otherwise though they may seeme to themselues to be infallibly sure yet indeed they are not as not hauing any substantiall ground to assure them which may not in like maner and with as probable colour be alledged by others whom although perswading themselues to be infallibly sure M. White himselfe wil grant to be deceiued in this their perswasion M. White * White pag. 62. 63. saith that his priuate men be assured by Scripture So say they M. White saith his men haue the witnesse of the holy Ghost So say they M. White saith his men were taught by the Pastors of the true Church This he saith indeed and so if they would be impudent they might say But whereas M White saith that his priuate men let Luther and Caluin be examples were taught by the Pastors if he meane they were taught by the Pastors those speciall points wherein they dissent from vs it is maruell that euen his owne blacke face blusheth not to vtter such a shamelesse vntruth Let M. White name if he can what Pastors those were that taught Luther and Caluin these new doctrines vnlesse he will allow the Diuell to be a Pastor whom Luther * Luth. de miss angul confesseth to haue taught him his doctrine against the Masse 6 If there be as the Replier grants a heauenly light in the things themselues that are beleeued and an inward testimonie of the Spirit that can giue infallible assurance to the beleeuer this is as much as we require for then this light and testimonie wheresoeuer and in whomsoeuer it be is sufficient as I said to assure the conscience of the truth of the things beleeued whosoeuer gainsay them and
implicitè all points of faith that we hold This will appeare by these ensuing considerations First it is certaine that the Apostles taught the whole corpse of Christian doctrine partly by word partly by writing which as a sacred depositum was commended by S. Paul to S. Timothy and other succeeding Bishops and Pastors of the Church to be maintained alwaies in the Church against all profane innouation of heresies in these words O Timothy keepe the depositum auoiding the profane nouelties of voices oppositions of falsly called knowledge which diuers promising haue erred about the faith The which words * Aduers haer c. 17. Vincentius Lyrinensis expoundeth thus Who saith he at this day hath the place of Timothy but either the whole Church or especially the whole bodie of Prelats who ought themselues to haue the whole knowledge of diuine religion and also to instruct others And a litle after What is meant by this Depositum it is saith he that which is committed to thee not that which is inuented by thee that which thou hast receiued not that which thou hast deuised a thing not of wit but of learning not of priuate vsurpation but of publicke tradition a thing brought to thee not a thing brought forth of thee wherein thou must not be an author but a keeper not an institutor but a secretor not a leader but a follower Keepe the Depositum preserue the talent of the Catholicke faith pure and sincere that which is committed to thee let that remain with thee and that deliuer vnto the people To the same purpose S. Irenaeus saith * l. 3. c. 14. We must not seeke the truth among others which is easie to receiue from the Church when the Apostles haue most fully laid vp all the truth in it as in a rich treasure house Also the same Irenaeus saith * l. 4. c. 43. We must heare and obey those Priests who haue succession from the Apostles who with succession of their Episcopall function haue receiued the Charisma of truth Now supposing that this sacred depositum of the whole corpse of the reuealed truth is preserued in one or other succession of Pastors of one or other companie of Christians called the Church either it must be granted that it was preserued in that succession of Pastors which my catalogue sheweth or else I must require my aduersaries to set forth another catalogue of Pastors vnto whom this sacred depositum was committed and from whom we may receiue it as need shall require For to say that the diuine truth committed to the custody of the Pastors whom God hath appointed to be alwaies in the Church of purpose to preserue men from wauering in faith Eph. 4 v. 13.14 and from being caried about with euery wind of false doctrine did at any time wholy or in part by contrary error faile in them vniuersally in such sort that there should not in all ages be sound one or other company of Pastors and Priests whom we could know still to keep the Depositum inuiolate and entire and whom consequently according to Irenaeus his saying we ought to obey as being men l. 4. ◠4. who with succession of their Episcopall function receiued also the Charisma of truth if I say this were so that Gods truth all or in part had explicitè and implicitè perished from the mouth of all knowne Priests and Pastors Gods ordinance it selfe who for the generall good of the Church appointed these Pastors had bin deficient or had failed of the intended effect Eph. 4. v. 13.14 For how should men be preserued from wauering in faith or from being caried about with euery wind of false doctrine by Pastors appointed to be for that purpose vnto the worlds end if in some ages no such Pastors were or were not to be knowne or being knowne to be the Pastors yet did vniuersally faile to preserue the entire formerly receiued truth by beleeuing and teaching and so making the people beleeue contrary errors If this were so the holy Ghost had failed to teach the Church all truth and consequently Christs promise had not bin performed which said that the Spirit of truth shall teach all truth Ioh. 16. v. 13. Some Pastors therefore alwaies are in the Church who without spot or wrinkle of any error in faith shall preserue the entire truth and by the assistance of Christ and his holy Spirit shall be able as need shall require to vnfold and deliuer to the people the same truth thereby to preserue them from falling into error and from wauering in faith 1 THat the Apostles taught the whole bodie of Christian doctrine and commended the same to the succeeding Pastors of the Church to be alway maintained without innouation and that as Vincentius and Irenaeus speake the faithfull people of the Church were to be taught the truth by these Pastors shall be granted for what the Apostles reuealed and deliuered from Iesus Christ the same they intended should be continued for euer in the Church But this proues not that the ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church held all things that the Church of Rome now holds vnlesse my aduersarie can shew that euery thing holden in the Church of Rome is part of the Bodie of that Christian doctrine which the Apostles commended to their successors For ouer besides the truth reuealed by the Apostles the church of Rome successiuely by degrees in these last 800 years especially hath brought in diuers pernicious and damnable errors and corruptions touching Traditions Transubstantiation Images Iustification the Masse the Popes primacie the worship of Saints innumerable other points wherin we haue forsaken it the which corruptions not belonging to the bodie of Christian doctrine which the Apostles taught but being a disease that bred in the body of the Church must not be said to haue bin the faith of the Fathers who receiued nothing from the Apostles but that doctrine which is contained in the canon of the Bible besides which doctrine if either the Fathers or Pastors of the Church succeeding taught any thing it must be reiected as no part of the Depositū mentioned Thus my answer is plain that the Apostles deliuered to their successors to be preserued against all innouation the whole Christian doctrine but the seuerall articles of the now Romish faith which we haue cast off are no part of that Christiā doctrine Secondly my aduersarie replies that it was the mind of the Apostles and the ordinance of God not onely that the whole bodie of the truth should be preserued in some successiō or other but also that it should be preserued so inuiolate and entire that no contrary error should be taught with it which being supposed he sayes it must be granted that it hath bin so preserued in that succession of Pastors which his Catalogue sheweth because the Protestāts are able to shew no other Pastors His whole discourse affirmes two things the first that the bodie of Christian
Euangelij nullum ex hac parte impedimentum erit quo minus qui alia praecepta naturalia seruauerint iustificentur saluentur Pro Concil pag 59. l. 6. c. 19. 20. D. WESTON sayes of this opinion susceperunt eam nonnulli sententiam etiam orthodoxi iuxta ac doctissimi viri de Tripl hom offic l. 3. c. 22. pag. 324. Whereby a man may see what account they make of the repliers proposition Note S. Austins censure of this opinion An forte istis qui exhibuerunt terrenae patriae Babilonicam dilectionem virtute ciuili non vera sed verisimili daemonibus vel humanae gloriae seruierunt Fabricijs videlicet Regulis Fabijs Scipionibus Camillis ceterisque talibus sicut infantibus qui sine baptismate moriuntur prouisuri estis aliquem locum inter damnationem regnumque coelorum vbi non sint in miseria sed in beatitudine sempiterna qui Deo non placuerunt cui sine fide placere impossibile est quam nec in operibus nec in corde habuerunt NON OPINOR PERDITIONEM VESTRAM VSQVAM AD ISTAM POSSE IMPVDENTIAM PROSILIRE introducens genus hominum quod Deo placere possit sine Christi fide lege naturae HOC EST VNDE VOS MAXIME CHRISTIANA DETESTATVR ECCLESIA l. 4. cont Iul. cap. 3. are the principall men that haue liued of late times in the Church of Rome i Nec hactenus aliquid sit determinatum per sanctam matrem Ecclesiam Cassal pag. 51. neither hath the Church determined to this day any thing against them The Iesuites conclusion therefore that faith is necessary to saluation is not beleeued among his owne but he sets it downe against vs partly to insinuate that we thinke the contrary and partly to lay a ground for his Roman heresies which afterward he assumes to be this faith Neuerthelesse my granting it to be true hath pleased him because in his ignorance he knew not the contrary to be so currant as it is and so he sayes no more to me about it A. D. Concerning the second Chapter The conclusion of this Chapter to wit that faith necessary to saluation is but one Pag 133. was meant against them that thinke they may be saued in any religion or with whatsoeuer faith without care whether it be this or that Protestant or Catholicke c. This conclusion is granted by both the Ministers 2 This conclusion as the former was laid as a ground to build the Papacy on which afterward is made the thing whereby this one faith is defined and therefore it was intended against vs who yet abhorre the opinion that allowes saluation to any Religion more then Papists do and leaue it to k Alcho p. 10. 40. Cantacuzē in Maho. orat 2. n. 10. Turkes and l Philastr Brixiens de haeres in Rheto. p. 28. Hereticks requiring our aduersaries not by such aequiuocating insinuations as this is to traduce vs but to speake the truth of vs and in such points as we truly differ in modesty to confute vs which though it be difficulte yet the enterprising thereof is not so odious as this base and abiect aequiuocating is but whosoeuer the conclusion was bent against I deny it not and so he saies no more to me about it Pag. 135. A. D. Concerning the Third Chapter The conclusion of this Chapter to wit that Faith is infallible was directed against such as thinke this or that to be true faith but do not rest infallibly assured thereof This conclusion is graunted as the former were by both my aduersaries saue that M. Wotton mislikes c. 3 My granting of this conclusion you see contents him that he leaues me and turnes vpon M. Wotton as he did in the two former chapters and this he doth stilly without any noise as if there were no more worke for him in the rest that I said and so he goes slily forward to another matter But in the place cited besides the granting of his conclusion I noted in the proofe he brought for it a Romish tricke that makes Gods word whence faith hath infallibility to be the Popes decretals and Traditions and I so noted and shewed in a Digression that if my aduersary would haue dealt really and haue had his conclusion truly vnderstood he should in this place haue confessed whether the Traditions I mentioned were not part of that word that makes faith certaine and infallible The which he might not deny and therefore he saies nothing to it because if he should discouer the Popes Traditions to be equall with the Scriptures in supporting faith then what he said in his conclusion he should vnsay in the explication of it For though faith must be certaine yet all men know that if it be grounded on Traditions that are vncertaine it cannot be so and therefore he goeth slily forward and stirs not this point And in this fashion he turnes his backe vpon all my Booke and onely at randon pickes out from the rest that goes with them such parcels as he thought himselfe best able to deale with CHAP. XXIII Touching the implicite faith that is taught in the Church of Rome 3. How defined by them 7. In what sense the Protestants mislike or allow it 9. Arguments made for it answered 11. The ancient Church allowed it not A.D. Concerning the fourth Chapter * Pag. 137. My principall conclusion in this chapter to wit that Faith must be intire is against such as thinke it sufficient to beleeue one or two or some few articles of Christian faith thinking it not needfull vnder paine of damnation to beleeue all but rather thinke they may doubt of or deny other points although knowne to be held as points of faith by the Catholicke Church Against whom I affirme that Faith must be intire and it must extend it selfe vniuersally to all points either expressely or implicitely and that it is damnable to deny rashly especially obstinately any one point which one either knoweth or in regard he hath it sufficiently propounded by the Church ought to know to be reuealed by God Against this my conclusion both my aduersaies do oppose themselues Againe * Pag. 139. Secondly whereas I insinuate a generall or implicite beleefe of some points of faith to suffice some persons at least in some cases M. Wotton admitteth it which I gratefully accept but cannot see how this will please his fellow M. White who so hoatly disputeth against implicite beleefe as it seemeth of any point of faith 1 White pag. 7. when he asketh to what purpose should God propound all the points of our faith one as well as another if his will were not that we should learne all This opinion of M. Whites if he meane it so vniuersally as his wordes sound is intollerable and such as might driue at least vnlearned men to despaire of saluation in regard it is impossible for them without miracle to get expresse knowledge of
words seeming plaine are to be vnderstood properly as they sound and when they are to be taken in a figuratiue or improper sence This say I is not to be learned sufficiently in the bare letter of Scripture alone but is to be learned of the Church according to that worthy saying of Vincentius Lyrinensis Vincent Lyr. cont haeres c. 2. Because all men do not take the holy Scripture for the height of it in one and the same sence but diuers men interpret the sayings of it diuersly in so much that almost so many different sences may seeme possible to be drawne from it as there are diuers men c. Therefore it is very necessarie that the line of Propheticall and Apostolicall interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiasticall and Catholicke sence True it is that by other probable meanes viz. rules of art knowledge of tongues obseruation of circumstances conference of places c. one but not euery lay-man woman and childe euen of M Wotton and M. Whites owne parish may probably finde out when the words are and when they are not to be vnderstood properly but infallibly in such sort as to build thereupon infallible assent of faith one cannot without infallible interpretation had either immediatly by reuelation of the Spirit which is not ordinarily to be expected or by infallible authoritie of the Church True it is also that ordinarily Diuines hold it for a certaine rule that words of Scripture are to be vnderstood properly as they sound vnlesse to auoide some absurditie we be compelled to interprete by a figure But when such an absurditie occurreth that ought to compell vs to interprete plaine words of Scripture by a figure and when not although reason it selfe may probably know which probable knowledge may suffice for direction of manners yet infallibly in such sort as is required to the assent of faith reason alone not assisted by Church authoritie cannot at the least alwayes tell sith many things may seeme absurd to our priuate sence and reason which in truth are not absurd as in the mystery of the blessed Trinitie may plainly appeare and contrariwise many things may seeme in reason not absurd which in true Diuinitie are absurd and most false 1 HIs second reason against the Scriptures being the rule of faith was their obscuritie because they faile in the second condition of the rule being of themselues alone so obscure and vnknowne both to the vnlearned and learned that no man can thereby alone be sufficiently directed This reason was handled § 7 and 8. where I answered the argument whereby he prosecuted it and euery word also that he replies here which makes me to wonder with what conscience he followes his cause when that he sayes here being answered he shrinks from replying and onely repeates his old argument againe and yet intitles his booke a Reply when he replies nothing but conceales all from his Reader that I answered neuerthelesse that he sayes I will answer againe 2 First he tels in what sence he holds the Scripture to be obscure and how farre forth Not that it cannot by any meanes be vnderstood or that it is any imperfection in the Scripture to be obscure but the perfection rather the onely thing he goes about to proue being that de facto it is obscure or at the least not so easie as the ordinary rule of faith ought to be which is denied and confuted not denying some parts to be obscure as many prophecies and mysteries therein nor affirming any of it to be so effectuall to our vnderstanding that without the motion of Gods Spirit and vse of the meanes euery man can effectually vse it to his saluation for I neuer denied the requisite condition of Gods grace and the Churches teaching and our owne endeuour to open our vnderstanding euen in the plainest Scripture that is but I onely affirme all things concerning faith and good life needfull to be knowne to be so plainly set downe therein that the vnlearnedst man aliue vsing the meanes which is not the Church-authoritie intended by my aduersary and being enlightned with Gods Spirit may sufficiently vnderstand them to his saluation which is enough to make it a rule perfect entire and as easie as is possible for a rule to be for the finding out and deciding whatsoeuer matter belongs to faith For howsoeuer some things in the Scripture the knowledge whereof is not simply necessary to saluation be very obscure and doubtfull yet the whole rule of our faith needfull to all men is set downe so plainly that it may be vnderstood of all men allowing them some eleuation and onely supposing them to haue the light of grace and to take that paines in searching that is ordinarily required in the vse of any rule and in the execution of any meanes whatsoeuer It seemes my aduersarie would conclude from hence that therefore I grant Scripture alone not to be so easie as the rule of faith ought to be because I require so many euen outward meanes and helpes for the vnderstanding thereof beside the helpe of Gods Spirit within vs. But he is deceiued and deceiues his Reader for I expounded my selfe that it is not necessarie the rule be so easie and effectuall that no helpe shall be needfull for the applying it to our conscience but the perfection and easinesse of it stands in this that a man vsing diligence and eleuated by grace from his naturall ignorance shall finde therein absolutely and plainly all things whatsoeuer he is bound to know and beleeue and needs not that the Church by her authoritie and traditions should adde any thing to it that is not contained in it And that this condition of vsing meanes and outward helpes takes not away the reason of a rule he must confesse by his owne principles for let his Church-teaching and authoritie his owne Helena be the rule yet afore any man can determinately know it or vnderstand and yeeld to it he must I hope haue the grace of the Spirit and seeke it out and diligently attend what it teaches him which is as much as we require for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures This therefore is a vaste partialitie in my Iesuite that he will conclude a thing cannot be a sufficient rule or meanes that requires the helpe of grace and a mans owne industrie in the applying it when themselues holding their Church to be the rule yet confesse that no man can heare the voice thereof not vnderstand nor yeeld assent to it without the very same meanes that we require for the vnderstanding of the Scriptures What voice what complaint what querimonie shall we vtter against this peruersnesse against this spirit of contradiction But my aduersarie sayes that among these outward meanes and helpes which M. White requires to the vnderstanding of the Scripture besides the Spirit of God there must be one an outward meanes which is * There is no such outward infalible means in this life
Scriptures make the Church perfect by cōmending it to it self for thē the Apostles should speak thus by my aduersaries exposition the Scriptures are profitable to make the Church perfect by commending to it the authority of the Church and yet he defendes it First because it sendes them Pastors Pope Councell and all to the interpretations of Councels and Fathers of the ancient Church But then I demand how did they make perfect the ancient Church it selfe the first Councels and Fathers of whom the Apostle speakes as well as of the latter for they had none to retire to but the Scripture onely Secondly because the Pastors of the Church sustaine two persons one as publike Pastors authorized to teach another as priuate men needing instruction themselues and so the Apostle saies the Scripture sends them as priuate men to themselues considered as publike men inabled as need shall require to define the truth in any point the which is an irkesome answer to any that shall consider it for although a Pastor be considered these 2. waies yet it is false that is assumed that he which as a priuate man erres and is ignorant yet as a publike person is able to direct himselfe and others and define the truth this I say is a trick to mocke an ape with though it be all the shift they haue to defend the Pope from being a formall hereticke and yet admitting it to be true that the Pastors of the Church considered as priuate men are sent to themselues considered as publike men yet it cannot be true that the Scripture makes thē perfect this way by sending and commending them to themselues because the perfection auouched is the effect of that teaching that reprouing that correcting that instructing which is contained in the Scripture it selfe and not in the authoritie of man whither the Scripture is imagined to send vs. For all that the Apostle in this text affirmes is of the Scripture alone as appeares 7 Besides my argument I alleadged some testimonies of Chrysostome and certaine Papists to iustifie my exposition wherein they affirme as much out of the text as I doe whereto he replies that the said testimonies must either be explicated to mean that the Scriptures are able to instruct vs with the meanes of Church authority or else be taken without limitation if they be thus explicated they proue nothing against him if they be taken without limitation they proue as much against vs as against him I answer to the first the testimonies are to be seene and the words thereof are so full that they cannot be thus explicated as for example Chrysostome in his words expounds S. Paul to distinguish the Scripture against his owne ministry Thou hast the Scripture to teach thee in steed of me if thou desire to know anything there thou maiest learne it that which can teach vs in steed of the Church Pastours can teach vs without their authority if God as Antonin says hath spokē but once that in the Scriptures that so fully that he speakes no more how can the meaning be that other authority should be ioyned with them for so God should speake twice once in the Scriptures another time in the Church and in the Scripture so far from fully that he needs speake againe in the Church The like may be said to the other testimonies but I refer the iudgement to the conscience of the Reader To the second if these words be taken without limitation that alone without any means ioyned to thē they are able to instruct vs they proue as much against me as against him that its maruell I should haue so little iudgement I demand and why so I pray because then they will make as much against our Church ministery as against his Church authority which had bene spoken to the point if we by Church ministry had meant either the same or as much as he doth by Church authority but when his Church authority intends a supply of that which is wanting in the Scripture by traditions our Church ministry no more but a simple cōdition of vsing the meanes to make vs see that which is contained in thē which ministry also we do not hold to be alway vnto all persons necessary he may let our iudgements alone and take a new reckoning of his owne that is so simple as to make alike things that are so far vnlike his Church authority and our Church ministry CHAP. XXXII Touching priuate spirits that expound against the Church 1. Such priuate expositions refused by the Protestants 2. And yet the Papists haue no other All teaching is to be examined euen by priuate men 5. Certaine propositions shewing how the Church teaching may be or may not be examined and refused Pag. 196. Wootton p. 110 White pag. 62. A.D. Concerning the ninth Chapter M. Wootton and M. White both seeme to disclaime from immediate teaching of priuate spirits and consequently seeme to grant the substance of the conclusion of this Chapter in such sense as it was principally intended by me yet wheresoeuer they be vrged to tell how they infallibly know that there is any Scripture at all and that these and no other bookes be Canonicall Scripture and that this or that is the true interpretation and sense of this or that text of holy Scripture vpon which questions well resolued the whole frame of their faith doth depend after alledging other reasons drawne from rules of art and knowledge of tongues c. which they know to be infallible they must be forced finally to flie for infallible assurance either to the immediate teaching of their priuate spirit or else to run the round betwixt Scripture and priuate spirit in such sort as I haue shewed in the Introduction Introd q. 6. and hence it seemeth to proceed that they both thought fit to make answer to my reasons which they needed not to haue done if the conclusion of this Chapter had no waies bene contrary to their doctrine White pag. 59. 60. M. White before he begin to answer my reasons distinguisheth a double meaning of the word priuate which I put in my conclusion and saith that if I meant it as it is opposed ô strange opposition to diuine and spirituall I said well but vsing it as we Catholickes do as it is opposed to common he saith that a priuate man may so be assisted with the Holy Ghost that he may interprete Scripture truely and infallibly against a company as big as the Roman Church 1 HIs third conclusion touching the rule of faith was that no priuate man who perswadeth himselfe to be specially instructed by the spirit can be this rule of faith specially so far foorth as he teaches or beleeues contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church the which I granted to be true but admonished the Reader withall that he had a further reach therein then yet he made shew of For his intent was to condemne all particular men and
AND IN THE WRITINGS OF THESE MEN TOVCHING THE SCRIPTVRES SACRAMENTS CHVRCH POPE COVNCELS TRANSVBSTANTIATION IMAGES INVOCATION OF SAINTS IVSTIFICATION GOOD WORKS c. WAS THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHVRCH AND PROFESSED BY THE BISHOPS OF ROME FATHERS AND COVNCELS EXPRESSED IN THE FIRST 800 YEARES OF THIS CATALOGVE this is our obiection whereto the Replier answers that he can retort it more strongly against the Protestants c. But this is but wind and so let it passe and come we forward to the substance of his answer CHAP. XLIII 1. Whatsoeuer the Fathers of the Primitiue Church beleeued is expressed in their bookes 2. The Replier is driuen to say they held much of his religion onely implicitely What implicite faith is according to the Papists The death of Zeuxis The Fathers write that which cannot stand with Papistrie Pag. â—67 A. D. Secondly I answer that to say there be diuers points held by vs whereof no mention is made in those ancient Fathers is no good argument to proue that which we hold was not holden by them For this is Argumentum ab authoritate negatiua which argument is of no force to proue this point vnles it be first proued that those Fathers held nothing explicitè or implicitè which is not expresly to be fouÌ„d in their writings But this my aduersaries will neuer be able to proue Now on the contrary side we can shew good reasons or at least probable presumptions sufficient to proue first that they held more then is expressed in their writings Secondly that they held explicitè or implicitè the same in all points of doctrine which we hold First I say we haue reason to thinke that they held more then is expressed in their writings because since ordinarily the writings of these Fathers were not by them set out of purpose to expresse in particular euery thing that they held implicitè or explicitè concerning all matters of faith but rather were written vpon some speciall occasion it is to be thought that their writings contain only some parts of the doctrine to wit so much of it as was that requisite to be written vpon that special occasion The which is confirmed euen by experience of these our times in which although learned men do ordinarily set downe more expresly in Catechismes bookes of controuersies c what the Catholik faith is in diuers points then formerly it hath bin set downe as they haue more occasion by reason of more heresies daily arising then learned men of former ages when those heresies were not haue had Yet no learned man now adaies writeth euery thing which explicitè or implicitè he beleeueth to be the Catholick faith For euery Catholicke man beleeueth explicitè or implicitè all that is contained in Scriptures and traditions in that he beleeueth whatsoeuer was reuealed by God to the Apostles deliuered by them in word or writing to the Catholicke Church and which the Church in Scriptures and vnwritten traditions propoundeth and deliuereth to vs diuers particulars whereof are not necessary to be expresly knowne to or written by any particular learned man of any age but are alwaies preserued at least in the implicite or infolded faith of the Church the which infolded faith of the Church may and shall be vnfolded the holy Ghost still assisting and suggesting all the aforesaid reuealed truth as necessitie shall require that the truth should be in any point expresly declared which necessitie chiefly is when some new heresie ariseth oppugning particularly the truth of that point 1 HEre he sayes the Fathers named in his Catalogue might hold what the church of Rome holds though there be no mentioÌ„ therof in their writings because they might hold that which is not expresly in their writings We had thought vntil now that this had bin a plain demonstration The ancient Fathers in all their writings make no mention of diuers points of the Popish religion Ergo they held them not Or thus What religion the Fathers held that they mention in their writings But the Popish religion they mention not in their writings Ergo they held not the Popish religion But he hauing good experience that the second proposition is true denies the first and will shew either by good reasons or probable presumptions that they held more then they mention and expresse in their bookes Wherein at once he hath destroyed his Catalogue and laid his religion open to the scorne of women and children For if the Fathers in all their writings handled nothing but the cause of religion teaching expounding and defending it against Iewes Gentiles hereticks schismatickes whereby they could not but mention what they held and yet neuer mentioned diuers points of Poperie it is plaine they neuer held them But the Iesuite sayes this is Argumentum ab authoritate negatiua which is not good they might hold either explicitè or implicitè that which they haue not expressed Wherein you must marke his tergiuersation For to shew a visible Church in all ages professing openly his Romane faith that all men may see it he tenders this catalogue But when we bid him proue that the Fathers of the first 600 or 800 yeares beleeued and professed that part of his Romane faith which the Church of England reiects that it may appeare so to vs and we may see it he sayes he can shew good reasons and presumptions that they beleeued more then is expressed in their writings whereas he should shew by their WRITINGS that they held and beleeued as the Romish Church now doth because it is impossible to shew what they held but by their writings and himselfe sayes in another place We cannot haue any certaintie of things past but by the writings of those times And if he will haue his Church to be so visible in the Fathers time and those Fathers to be so eminent members thereof good reason men see it yet see it they cannot by presumptions but by their writings 2 But he sayes We haue reason to thinke that they held more then expressed in their writings forsomuch as no man writes euery thing which explicitè or implicitè he beleeues I answer though it be granted that both they and we in all our writings may omit some things not belonging to faith or religion yet many articles of faith such as our aduersaries say theirs are the deniall whereof they call schisme and damnable herersie and persecute with fire sword and gun-powder cannot but be expressed for so much as such articles are simply needfull vnto saluation and are the grounds and conclusions of all theologicall writing and discourse Secondly it is impertinent to the obiection which denies the Fathers of the first 600 yeares to haue done that which the Catalogue sayes they did professed VISIBLY as the Romane Church now doth which obiection is not satisfied by saying they might explicitè or implicitè professe that they neuer writ because no man writes all he beleeues but by shewing in their writings this
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
doctrine coÌ„mitted to the Pastors of the church doth not at any time faile either in whole or part but is preserued inuiolate and entire from all errors growing thereto The second that the Protestants can shew no other succession of Pastors whereto this doctrine was committed then is contained in his catalogue Hence he concludes that his now church of Rome holds nothing but what the ancient Fathers held I answer to the second touching the Catalogue that for the first 600 yeares we approue it confessing the Pastors and Christians mentioned therein to haue bin the true Church And for the rest of the ages to this day we will allow the Catalogue with three limitations first that the Pastors and people therein named be confessed to haue kept the faith lesse purely then they of the former ages so that the lower they succeeded the more they were corrupted Secondly that from the 800. yeare specially such Pastours and people be added euery one in their place as misliked and resisted the corruptions of the Church of Rome growing on and vpheld the purer doctrine in such manner as I briefly touched in THE WAY Digress 52 Thirdly that the legend Saints Antichristian Popeâ— lying stories and the Popes creatures whose succession we need not be wiped out and the ordinary Pastors liuing in communion with the Church of Rome Greece Armenia and such like though we allow not euery singular and speciall man be supplied Let the Catalogue be reformed and vndertaken in this manner and the Pastors and the people contained therein shall be yeelded to be the same that Christ and his Apostles committed the truth to and in the meane time the Repliar doth but trouble himselfe and seduce his Reader wheÌ„ he beares him in hand that we desire to shew other Pastors or people besides these all Protestants freely affirming their faith to haue succeeded euen in the Church of Rome it selfe though the errors thereof were no part of their faith but the inuentions of men added thereunto 2 But the first thing affirmed that the Christian doctrine committed to the Pastours of the Church cannot faile in any degree or part thereof but is alway preserued inuiolate and entire from all error is false For albeit it be the commandemeÌ„t of God and were the desire of the blessed Apostles that it should be so How the Church cannot erre yet as I haue shewed the euent teaches that sometime it falls out otherwise in the same manner that it is Gods ordinance that no man should sinne and yet all men do sinne So that all that can be said of the Church and the Pastors thereof by vertue of the promise is that neither it nor they shall vniuersally all of them at any time faile in the beleefe profession of those truths which are absolutely and simply necessary to saluation though many Pastors and people reputed for the best part of the Church may erre and sometime also persist in ioyning mortall errors with the truth many ages together what time no Pastors or people at all shall appeare to hold the faith so entire but some corruptions not hindering saluation shall be holden therewith the which assertion as it ouerthrowes all the Iesuites discourse in this place so is it true that our Aduersaries grant neither the whole nor any part of the Church to be free from error but so far forth as it followes the Pope who himselfe by their like confession may erre and be deposed for herâ—sie Beside if Gods ordinance or the Apostles intendiment did warrant the Pastors of the Church that they should not erre at least vniuersally how comes it to passe that euen euery Doctor in his Catalogue from Dyonisius and Ignatius to Stapleton and Bellarmine haue had their errors all his Councels haue had theirs and the most of his Popes haue decreed one against another and there is not one Diuine in all his Catalogue not his dearest Thomas of Aquin but he will confesse him to haue erred yet erre he should not if the prouidence of God were to preserue the Doctors of his Church from all error in the degree that the Replie sayes The truth therefore succeeds continually in the Church without ceasing but first Not alway in all nor in the highest Pastors Secondly Nor alway without corruption Thirdly Nor at all times entire and inuiolate from all error but sometime a vniuersall apostasy may so ouerflow the Church that nothing shall remaine free from error but onely the necessary and fundamentall points of faith the which points do not therefore lose their succession because many corruptions are receiued taught with theÌ„ much lesse do those corruptions succeed with the truth from the Apostles but the Pastors people thus corrupted shew themselues not to haue kept his couenant who will saue them that haue perseuered in the foundation and be merciful to them that haue erred of inuincible ignorance and forgiue them that haue repented of their errors and damme them whether Pastors or people that with tyranny and contumacy haue maintained the corruptions 3 The Iesuites reasons to proue that the Pastours of the Church cannot erre and that the true faith cannot be corrupted are answered already in THE WAY § 14. A.D. Wherefore if my Aduersaries will deny the catalogue of Pastors Pag. 270. which I haue set downe to be of such as haue alway preserued the foresaid sacred Depositum of the truth entire and inuiolate I require first that they will assigne another Catalogue of such as did continually preserue it whole and without change Also I require that they assigne the first Pastour of my Catalogue which failed in preseruing the truth setting downe â—hall the point of doctrine wherein he erred and naming other Pastâ—â—â—s who resisted and continued to resist Lastly I require that they assigne not as their manner is White digr 51. 52. and as M. White doth such particulars as they may see ordinarily answered and refuted by Catholicke Authors but some plaine instances which neuer were yet nor cannot be answered or refuted Which my demands if they cannot satisfie as I am sure they cannot euery discreet man carefull of his soule will see that it is not safe to forsake this reuerend ranke and orderly succession of knowne Pastours to follow such a phantasticall Platonicall Idaea of an inuisible company of professing Protestants White p. 338. which M. White imagineth to haue alwaies bene as euery other Hereticke might imagine the professors of his sect to haue bene or to run after such a rabble of ragged hereticks as the same M. White assigneth for emineÌ„t meÌ„bers of the ProtestaÌ„t Church White ib. pag. 394. the which neither haue interrupted succession or continuance in time or place nor vniformity in doctrine with the ancient Church or one with another or with the Protestants of his age This foresaid consideration may suffice to let any indifferent man see that the same doctrine of faith which the ancient
Fathers held is holden at this day by Pastors of our Church or at least may stay him from thinking that the same faith is not holden If all that view his foresaid considerations proue indifferent either to the cause or of indifferent iudgement that which is holden this day by the Pastors of the Repliars Church will not be deemed the same doctrine which the ancient Fathers held I say vpon his foresaid considerations it cannoy be deemed so he may haue new considerations or something else in store to stay men and if I meet it it shall be answered but this foresaid is too absurd for first I deny not the Catalogue of Pastors for the first 600 yeares whereof the question in this place is to be of such as preserued the truth inuiolate but affirme those very persons to haue bin the true Pastors of the true Church would my selfe giue them vp for a catalogue of such assigne no other but I require the Repliar to make it manifest against the obiection that they held as their iudgment and professed as their faith those speciall points of Popery that we renounce And let him not reply that they held and professed them at least implicitè but say ingenuously whether they be to be found in their books for example Transubstantiation the sacrifice of the Masse the worship of images the Popes primacy and Monarchy ouer the world The which point not being shewed in his foresaid considerations but directly auoided by a cōceit of their beleeuing at least implicitè how may an indifferent man see or by staying neuer so long hope to see the Papacy in the Fathers 4 Againe he sayes if his aduersaries will deny the Catalogue of Pastors which he hath set downe to be of such as haue preserued the truth he must require them to assigne another of their owne And Secondly to note the first Pastor in his Catalogue that failed in preseruing the truth And Thirdly in assigning our Catalogue not to assigne such as are ordinarily answered by Catholicke authors but some plaine instances which his demand if it cānot be answered as he is sure it cannot then the Repliar concludes euery discreet man may if he will driue out his owne wit to make roome for Ad 1 his To the first all the Papists aliue cannot by good discourse driue vs to assigne a Catalogue it being sufficient to say that no doctrine wants lineall succession that accords with the Scripture neuerthelesse for the first 600 yeares we assigne the Church wherein the Fathers liued and for the rest to this day we will assigne no other Catalogue thē the Church of Rome it selfe wherin many of those whom the Repliar hath couched in his Catalogue professed the foundation of the truth that wee Ad 2 maintaine To the second I answered in THE WAY so fully Ad 3 that the Iesuite had no list to reply To the third those particular men whom we name and this blatant beast calls a rabble of ragged heretickes were Gods deare children and better professors of the truth then the reuerend ranke of his Popes and Friars who were and yet are nothing else but the great Antichrist that was prophesied should fit in the Church of God among whom these men and many ordinary Pastors and people of the Church of Rome liuing and holding the foundation of faith and in the agony of their conscience renouncing the damnable heresies of the Papacy it cannot be denied but the Church of Rome it selfe affoords vs a Catalogue sufficient For the Repliar is too simple and deceaues himselfe if he thinke we place the Church onely in Berengarius Wickliffe Husse Ierome the Waldenses and the rest of that sort But we name them as some particular eminent members in the Church of Rome for so we terme all these westerne parts by reason of the Patriarchie lesse corrupted then were many others and vnto them we adde all others in the said Church that held the articles of faith either in solid or in part though it were Occham Gerson Armachanus Cesenas Ardeus Potho Sauanarola or any such for albeit they held many errors yet the truth among their errors was preserued and I affirme that it is sufficient for the succession of the Church and being of the faith if the parts thereof and all the seuerall particulars belonging to saluation can be shewed to haue bene held in any Church albeit no one man in the same or in the world can be shewed to haue holden them all entirely himselfe That * Prot. Apolog. tract 2. c. 2. sect 3.4.5.6 7. our aduersaries may see they do but trifle away the time when they labour so contentiously to shew that Wicklife or Husse or the Albingenses differed in some things from vs no member of the Church in the world being at all times free from euery spot and wrinkle of error CHAP. XLV 1. The Fathers are not against the Protestants but with them 2. Touching the Centuries reiecting of the Fathers The cause of some errors in the Fathers 3. Gregories Faith conuerting England 4. The Papists haue bene formall innouators 5. How they excuse the matter A. D. In which point if he desire to be more fully satisfied Pag. 271. let him reade Iodocus Coccius his Booke intituled Catholicus thesaurus controuersiarum in which he shall see particularly set downe point by point the ancient Fathers with vnanime consent testifying for vs against Protestants The which to be so in many points the Magdeburgians being themselues famous Protestants do likewise testifie who hauing taken great paines in seeking ancient histories and monuments of the Fathers writings to see if they could finde any testimony of authority to countenance their cause are forced at last to acknowledge the ancient Fathers to testifie in many things against them and for vs all which their testimonies they thinke to wipe away with saying that these were the errors or blemishes of these Fathers which is as good a iest as if a guilty person being desirous to cleare himselfe at the barre by the witnesse of honest men and hauing diligently sought and finding that all honest men will beare witnesse against him yet to make a shew wil needs bring in a number of honest substantial men bidding them to giue their verdit of purpose that when they all haue deliuered the truth See the Protestants Apology where these points are hādled largely Tract 1 sect 1. deinceps he may forsooth say they all lie or are deceaued This also to be so is shewed in the Protestants Apologie where particularly is proued out of diuerse learned Protestant writers first that the faith we professe is the same that Saint Gregory professed and by Saint Austine the Monke taught vs English men at our first conuersion Secondly that the same faith was vniuersally professed for sundry ages before and namely that it agreed in substance with the first faith to which the Brittans were conuerted in the Apostles
in all things that so what the Apostles taught and antiquitie held we also may keepe Thirdly this canon was moued b Sed canones illos spectantes ad continentiam clericorum quoniam ea esse statuta apparent ex admonitione Siritij Romani Pontificis ea de re scribentis ante decennium ad episcopos Affricanos dignum est existimare fuisse alicuius alterius Coneilij Carthaginensis eo tempore post acceptas eiusdem Siritij Papae litteras celebrati Baro. an 397. n. 46. by the suggestion of Siritius and therefore most strongly iustifies my assertion For if the Councell of Carthage restrained Priests mariage and Siritius by his letters and suggestion drew the Councell thereunto then it is plaine Siritius made the restraint The Reply possible will say But the Councell saies the Apostles taught it and antiquity kept it and so the restraint was long before Siritius euen from the Apostles But I answer that he which suggested the motion suggested also the reason and so consequently Siritius mouing the restraint is the author of those words wherein he innouated as well as he did in the canon it selfe All this is plaine against the Replie and most sensibly demonstrates Siritius to be the author Fourthly I answer yet closer to the point that so much as the Bishops consented to was that Clergie men should liue honestly and chastly whether in the state of mariage or single life and not come at their wiues at certaine seasons This I proue First by the answer of the B B. It was said to Aurelius his motion by all the BB. it seemes good to vs all that Bishops Priests and Deacons or such as handle the Sacraments the maintainers of chastity abstaine also from their wiues It is said of all it seemes good that chastitie be maintained in all and of all that serue at the altar Here is no canon that they shall haue no wiues but that contrary their wiues are mentioned and they commanded chastitie which I hope the Replie c Heb. 13.4 dares not deny to be in cohabitation with a mans owne lawfull wife Secondly either the same or another Councell of Carthage at the same time d See Baro. vbi sup Balsam Who puts this canon into the 6 Councell of Carth. p. 310. for many things are printed in one Councell of Carthage that belong to another e Placuit vt presbyteri Episcopi Diaconi proprijs terminis etiam à suis abstineant vxoribus can 74. Synodi Carth. apud Balsam ordained that Priests Bishops and Deacons should abstaine from their wiues AT SET TIMES but other Clergie men should not be vrged thereto but keepe the custome of their Churches It was therefore no part of the Councels minde that they should be restrained mariage or the vse thereof out of those SET TIMES Thirdly Balsamon expounding these canons hath these words f In can 4. Out of this canon which I last cited it is shewed that Priests Deacons and Bishops liued with their wiues neither did the Synod forbid their companie with them but in THEIR SET TIMES that is in THE SET DAIES OF EVERY MANS COVRSE when he was to attend on the altar g In can 74. and note that in the time of this Councell Bishops had their wiues without preiudice with whom yet they did not conuerse in the time of their course for the ministery of Priests was deuided into weekes If therefore the Replie had deuised with long deliberation he could not haue giuen me a better weapon against himselfe then this canon of the Councell of Carthage made by the suggestion of Siritius himselfe and yet obtaining nothing of the Councell but onely abstinence of Priests from their wiues at certaine times 3 Fourthly touching images I shewed two things Both that images of the Trinity were not vsed and that the beginning of image worship was in the second Nicen Councell Touching the images of the Trinitie he bids me see Bellarmine but there is nothing to be seene to the purpose for he alledges neither example nor testimonie that there were any in the Primitiue Church but onely stands to proue them lawfull Now this is not the question but whether the Primitiue Church vsed or permitted them I shewed no by the testimonie of a Pope and a Councell and must be answered againe by disproouing the authority which if he cannot do I will not giue much for Bellarmines prouing of the lawfulnesse when it appeares the Pope and a Councell 800 yeares agoe misliked it and himselfe confesses That it is not so certaine whether the images of God or the Trinitie may bee made as it is that the images of Christ and his Saints may be made and that a Abul in Sent. 4. q. 5. Durand 3. d. 9. q. 2 Peres tradit 3. tract most learned Doctors in the Church of Rome vtterly condemne it For if this be true himselfe had a good steele conscience when he would take vpon him to iustifie that which was not certaine but onely an vnsetled opinion gainesaied by as learned as himselfe in his owne Church Touching the Nicen Councell he saies it was so far from being the first author of image worship that it saies expresly it followed in this point the doctrine of the holy Fathers and tradition of the Church Now sure this is a poore answer and like the former of Siritius For is it therefore the doctrine of the Fathers and tradition of the Church because they say it could not they that decreed idolatrie learne of their images to tell a lie Is there any more truth in their pretence of antiquitie then in the image worship it selfe This is like the former example of the Councell of Cathage where the restraint of mariage must be by the Apostles because Siritius that made the restraint suggests so much to the Councell But let the Repliar heare me a word with patience of this paltrie Nicen Councell b Ch. 48. I haue said enough already and to giue him some taste of that which it decreed a great Bishop of his owne Church c Claud Espencae 2. Tim. pag. 151. a. hath lately confessed That they who in that Councell defended the worship of images did abuse thereto the apparitions of Diuels and old wiues dreames as may be seene in the 4. and 5. actions of the Councell I suppose the doctrine of the Fathers and traditions of the Catholicke Church vses not to be supported with such stuffe And what impudencie was it for them to say it and yet be able no better to shew it 4 The fift point was the Merit of workes Which his owne Waldensis calles Pelagianisme and charges to be a late inuention To this he replies his accustomed argument It is false as our Diuines abundantly testifie But was not Waldensis his owne Diuine and is not his testimony enough to discharge me who professe no more but what I say to make good by the confession of my owne