A Trial of the Romish Clergys Title to the Church, Text and commentary · Quoted chapter 9
A. D.
CHAP. IX. That a priuate ſpirit cannot be the rule of faith.
A. W.
A man may eaſily perceiue that you chuſe to ſay any thing, rather then nothing: and therefore you make your ſelfe worke, Chapter after Chapter. I ſhall not need to repeate that which I hauehave noted before; this Chapter giueth ſufficient euidence of that I ſay. What a ſtrange kind of ſpeech is this, that a priuate ſpirit is the rule of faith? No ſpirit, neither priuate nor publick, is ordinarily the rule of faith, no not the moſt holy ſpirit of God, but onelyonly as he ſpeaketh in the Scripture, who alwayes teacheth one and the ſame truth publickly and priuately.
A. D. §. 1.
The third concluſion is, that no priuate man, who perſwadeth himſelfe to be ſingularly instructed by the ſpirit, can be this rule of faith; eſpecially ſo farre forth as he beleeueth or teacheth, contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church.
A. W.
This is the interpretation of the title of your Chapter: No priuate ſpirit, that is, no priuate man, who perſwadeth himſelfe to be ſingularly inſtructed by the ſpirit, &c. I cannot tel whether I ſhold thinke you hauehave forgotten to ſpeake Engliſh, or purpoſely affect, as ſtrange doctrine, ſo ſtrange ſpeech alſo. To be ſingularly inſtructed, with vsus plaine Engliſhmen, is to be taught in rare and excellent ſort; not to be apart, or ſeuerally alone inſtructed, which is your meaning. I grant mens priuat opinions are called ſingular, and the men themſelues, that hauehave ſuch conceits, are alſo ſo termed; but he that profeſſeth plainneſſe to teach all kind of men, ſhould labour to ſpeake ſo, that all might vnderſtand him. But to the matter. Whoſe opinion is it, that any ſuch man as you conceit, or any man at all, can be the rule of faith? Sure not ours; who (as it hath often bene ſaid) giuegive this honour only to the word of God. If any man hold that opinion (vnleſſe perhaps the ſenſleſſe Anabaptiſts, with whom we hauehave nothing to do) you are they, who as it ſeemeth by the exception you adde, grant that with limitation, a man may be the rule of faith. For you ſay, he cannot be the rule of faith, eſpecially ſo farre forth as he beleeueth or teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church. Do you not imply in this ſpeech, that ſo farre forth as he agreeth with the doctrine of the Catholick Church, he may be the rule of faith? But I obſerue one rare thing in your courſe of diſputing; that you ordinarily propound your matter in ſuch ſort, that you are faine preſently after to make one exception or other. xChap. 7.Scripture alone (ſay you) cannot be the rule of faith: is this all you meane? No: a limitation followeth: Especially as it is tranſlated by Proteſtants into Engliſh. yChap. 8.No naturall wit or learning can be the rule of faith. What? by no meanes? except they be infallibly aſſisted by the holy ſpirit of God. In this Chapter we hauehave the like courſe held by you. But leaue we this, and be take our ſelues to conſider your proofe.
A. D. §. 2.
This I proue: first becauſe Saint Paul ſaith, Si quis vobis euangelizauerit Gal. 1. 8.praeter id quod accepiſtis, Anathemaſit: pronouncing generally, that whoſoeuer teacheth or preacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, ſhould be held Anathematized or accurſed.
A. W.
Your reaſon is thus to be framed.
He that must be accurſed for his teaching, cannot be the rule of faith.
But a priuate ſpirit, that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, muſt be accurſed for his teaching.
Therefore a priuate ſpirit that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, cannot be the rule of faith.
Firſt, I deſire all men to obſerue, that this argument of yours doth not proue that a priuate ſpirit cannot be the rule of faith, but onelyonly ſo farre forth as he doth diſagree from the doctrine of the Church; otherwiſe, for all this reaſon, he may be. Wherein you ſpeake abſurdly and falſly. Abſurdly, in propounding ſuch a queſtion to refute, as neither we whom you profeſſe to refute, nor any reaſonable man would euer once imagne, viz. that a priuate ſpirit teaching an vntruth, might be the rule of faith. For, how can that be but an vntruth, which is contrary to that the Apoſtle deliuered by his preaching and writing? Further, it is falſe, that a priuate ſpirit agreeing with the Catholicke Church in doctrine, can be in that point of agreement, the rule of faith. For although the doctrine he teacheth be true, yet is it not the rule of faith (much leſſe is he himſelfe) becauſe of his authoritie; but either as you ſay, by reaſon of the authoritie of the Church, or indeed, as we truly affirme, for that it is agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture, called canonical, becauſe it is zforeign. A rule. To the Aſſumption.the rule of faith and manners.
Now for anſwer to your Syllogiſme; I ſay your Aſſumption is not ſimply true, but onelyonly ſo farre forth as the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church (I ſpeake as you do) agreeth with the truth in the Scripture reuealed. Neither doth aGal. 1. 8.Saint Paul ſpeake of whatſoeuer doctrine receiued by your imagined Catholicke Church of Rome; but of that which he himſelfe or ſome other of the Apoſtles had taught the Galatians, to whom he writeth that Epiſtle. This it ſhould ſeeme you ſaw well enough, and therefore in your craſtie diſcretion, for bare to tranſlate the Apoſtles words, which for the moſt part you ſet downe alwayes as well in Engliſh as in Latine. The reaſon lieth thus:
He that teacheth contrary to the doctrine which the Galatians had receiued of the Apoſtles, is to be accurſed for his preaching ſo.
But a priuate ſpirit that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, teacheth contrary to the doctrine which the Galatians had receiued by the Apostles.
Therefore a priuate ſpirit teaching contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, is to be accurſed for his preaching ſo.
Who ſeeth not, that the truth of this Aſſumption dependeth vponupon this point, that the Catholicke Church hath receiued no other doctrine then that which the Apoſtles taught the Galatians? But this hath as much need of ſound proofe, as that, for the proofe whereof it is brought: and therefore to diſpute thus againſt any man that would hold a priuate ſpirit to be the rule of faith, were to giuegive him occaſion to laugh at you, for begging the queſtion in ſtead of prouing it. But to make all men ſee, how ſmall force there is in this your reaſon, for the keeping of a priuate ſpirit from being the rule of faith, I will frame two other ſyllogiſmes againſt a publick ſpirit or Councel, and againſt the Pope.
1.
He that muſt be accurſed for his teaching, cannot be the rule of faith.
But a publicke ſpirit or Councell, that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholick Church, muſt be accurſed for his teaching.
Therefore a publicke ſpirit or Councell, that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, cannot be the rule of faith.
2.
He that muſt be accurſed for his teaching, cannot be the rule of faith.
But the Pope that teacheth contrarie to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, muſt be accurſed for his teaching.
Therefore the Pope that teacheth contrarie to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, cannot be the rule of faith.
HaueHave you not ſpun a faire threed (thinke you) to choake the Popes and the Councels authoritie withall? Call your wits about you, and deuiſe ſome cleanly ſhift for the matter, or I can tel you, all wil be naught. For your Religion is no more able to hold vp head, if the Popes authoritie be caſt downe, then a man that hath neuer a leg, is able to ſtand vpright. It will go the harder with you in this matter, becauſe if I grant that the Pope cannot erre, you are neuer a whit the nearer, for the anſwering of my ſyllogiſme: as you may perceiue, if you will but aſſay to apply that point for anſwer to either part thereof. There is no other way, but to giuegive ouer this your firſt reaſon againſt a priuate ſpirit, and to make amends for it in the ſecond, if you can.
A. D. §. 3.
Secondly, the rule of faith muſt be infallible, plainly knowne to all ſorts of men, and vniuerſall; that is to ſay, ſuch as may ſufficiently inſtruct all men in all points of faith, without danger of errour: (as hath bene proued before.) But this priuate ſpirit is not ſuch. For first, that man himſelfe cannot be vnfallibly ſure, that he in particular is taught by the holy ſpirit. For neither is there any promiſe in Scripture, to aſſure him infallibly that he in particular is thus taught: neither is there any other ſufficient reaſon to perſwade the ſame. For ſuppoſe he hauehave ſuch extraordinarie motions, feelings or illuſtrations, which he thinketh cannot come of himſelfe, but from ſome ſpirit; yet he cannot in reaſon ſtraightwayes conclude, that he is thus moued and taught by the ſpirit of God. For ſure it is, that eueryevery ſpirit is not the Spirit of God. As there is the ſpirit of truth: ſo there is a ſpirit of errour. As there is an Angell of light: ſo there is a Prince of darkneſſe. Yea ſometimes Ipſe Sathanas transfigurat ſe in Angelum lucis: Sathan himſelfe doth 2. Cor. 11.transfigure himſelfe into an Angell of light. Wherefore he had need very carefully to put in practiſe, the aduiſe of Saint Iohn, who ſaith. Nolite credere omni ſpiritui, ſed probate ſpiritus, ſi ex Deo ſint, 1. Iohn. 4.Doe not beleeue euerie ſpirit, but prooue and trie them, whether they be of God or no. Neither doth it ſeeme ſufficient, that a priuate man trie them, onelyonly by his owne iudgement; or by thoſe motions, feelings or illuminations, which in his priuate conceit, are conformable to Scripture; becauſe all this triall is verie vncertaine, and ſubiect to errour; by reaſon that our owne iudgement (eſpecially in our own matters) is verie eaſily deceiued: and that Sathan can ſo cunningly couer himſelfe vnderunder the ſhape of a good Angell; and ſo colour his wicked deſignements with pretenſe of good; and ſo gild his darke and groſſe errours, with the gliſtering light of the words, and ſeeming ſenſe of ſcripture, that hardly, or not at all, he ſhall be perceiued. VVherefore the ſafeſt way were to trie theſe ſpirits, by the touchſtone, of the true Paſtours of the Catholicke Church, who may ſay with S. Paul. Nō ignoramus cogitationes Satanae, we are not ignorant of the cogitations of Sathan: and who may alſo ſay with 2. Co. 2. 11.S. Iohn. Nos ex Deo ſumus, qui nouit Deum, audit nos: qui non 1. Iohn. 4. 6.eſt ex Deo, non audit nos. In hoc cognoſcimus ſpiritum veritatis, & ſpiritum erroris. VVe are of God, he that knoweth God, heareth vsus: he that is not of God, doth not heare vsus. In this we know the ſpirit of truth, and the ſpirit of errour. Now, if any will not admit this manner of trying, & diſcerning the ſpirit of truth, from the ſpirit of errour, but will truſt their owne iudgement alone, in this matter: feare they may iuſtly, nay rather they may be ſure (as Caſſian ſaith) Collat. 61. c. 11that they ſhall worſhip in their thoughts, the Angell of darkneſſe for the Angel of light, to their exceeding great harme. And, at leaſt, how ſoeuer their priuate affection & ſelfe-louelove encline them to think well of themſelues, and of that ſpirit, which they permit to teach them thoſe ſinguler points of new & ſtrange doctrine: yet ſure it is, that this their perſwaſion of the goodneſſe of their ſpirit, is not infallible, as the rule of faith muſt be: ſith diuers now adaies, perſwade themſelues in the ſame manner to be taught by the holy ſpirit: and yet (one of them teaching againſt another) it is not poſſible, that all, that thus perſwade themſelues, ſhould be taught by this ſpirit; ſith this ſpirit doth neuer teach contrarie to it ſelfe. And therefore ſome in this their perſwaſion, muſt needs be deceiued. And therefore duplicate page duplicate page who, hauing no teſtimonie of euident miracle, or ſome other vndoubted proofe, dare arrogantly affirme, that he onelyonly is not deceiued, eſpecially in ſuch ſort, as to condemne all other, and to propoſe himſelfe to himſelfe and others, as the onelyonly ſufficient rule of faith, conſidering that others, who preſume, & perſwade themſelues altogether in like manner, are in this their perſwaſion, deceiued.
A. W.
I muſt againe put the Reader in minde, that no Proteſtant maintaines, that a priuate ſpirit is the rule of faith; neither will I vndertake the defence of any ſuch matter: but onelyonly examine his reaſons againſt it, as I hauehave done in the former chapters, in the like caſe. His reaſon is thus to be concluded.
The rule of faith muſt be infallible, plaine, knowne to all ſorts of men, and vniuerſall.
A priuate ſpirit is not ſuch.
Therefore a priuate ſpirit is not the rule of faith.
Of the propoſition, I ſpake at the ſixth chapter, and ſhewed b Chap. 6.the fault of it, in reſpect of the ſecond propertie, which is eaſineſſe c Chap. 7.to be vnderſtood of all men, as it is expounded by your ſelfe. All the doubt now is in the aſſumption, of the three points, wherin you go about to prooue but only the firſt, of infallibility. It ſhould ſeeme your ſtomacke is greater againſt the ſcripture, then againſt either natural wit & learning or priuate ſpirit. For you diſprooue the abilitie of theſe two, but in reſpect of one property, namely the firſt, as if for the other two, they or either of them were ſufficient enough. But you allow the Scripture neuer a one of the three, you condemne it of obſcuritie, you accuſe it of defect for wanting diuers points neceſſarie to ſaluation. And although you do not ſimply denie the infallibilitie of it, yet you make all knowledge, that can be had out of our Engliſh tranſlation, verie vncertaine; ſo that none of our people can hauehave any benefite by the ſcripture, as by the rule of faith, or word of God, but onelyonly ſome few, that vnderſtand Hebrew or Greeke. But I perceiue you were more afraid that the ſcripture would be taken for the rule of faith, then you were, that either of the other would. Let vsus ſee how you proue your aſſumption, ſince you wil needs put your ſelfe to more paines then was looked for.
He (ſay you) that cannot aſſure himſelfe, and other men, that he is taught by the holy Ghoſt, cannot be the rule of faith.
But a priuate ſpirit cannot aſſure himſelfe, and other men, that he is ſo taught.
Therefore a priuate ſpirit, cannot be the rule of faith.
There is ſome cauſe to doubt of your maior. For it is not neceſſarie, To the propoſition.that the rule of faith ſhould know it ſelfe to be the rule. The Pope, you thinke, is the rule of faith: Put caſe that ſome Pope ſhould doubt, whether himſelfe were infallibly directed in all his determinations by the holy Ghoſt or no: ſhould he, by reaſon of this doubting, ceaſe to be the rule of faith? I dare ſay, you thinke not ſo. Neuer vrge me with the impoſſibilitie of this matter. For both it is poſſible, if dDeclarat. mot. VVisbic. pag. 29.he, that is no Chriſtian may be Pope of Rome, If Iohn the 22 doubted of the immortalitie of the ſoule, if Leo 10. counted the hiſtory of our Sauiour Chriſt a fable: and it is all one to my anſwer whether it may be or no; it is enough for me, if the Pope may be the rule, though he ſhould ſo doubt.
You ſhould hauehave done well, if you had kept your former To the aſſumption.warie courſe of adding ſome exception to your aſſumption. It had not bene altogether without need. For out of queſtion, a priuate ſpirit may be ſo aſſured by reuelation, as the Prophets and Apoſtles were. And by ſuch meanes a man may come to aſſurance, for all the ſubtiltie of Sathan; the Lord being able to make the motions of his ſpirit knowen to whom he pleaſe, what ſhift ſoeuer Sathan vſe to the contrarie. The Minor therefore Holkot. in 2. q. 4. ad 7. arg. princip.without this exception be either expreſſed or vnderſtood, is vntrue, otherwiſe it is true.
As for the triall you propound, by the touchſtone of the true paſtors of the Catholicke Church, it is vtterly inſufficient in this caſe. It may be, and is indeed a meanes of great authoritie, and vſe to direct a man in finding out, and holding the truth: but it is no certaine proofe, that a man hath found, or doth hold the truth in all points, becauſe fBellar. de. Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11.thoſe paſtors (as in due place ſhall appeare) may all be deceiued, without the Popes eſpeciall direction. But admit their iudgement or authoritie were, in the matter, infallible: yet could no man thereby be aſſured, that himſelfe is taught particularly by the holy Ghoſt. For many men hold the truth of God, as the true Church doth, and yet hauehave no ſuch teaching by the ſpirit: ſince it is certaine, a man may deliuer truth, and he himſelfe not beleeue. Of your teſtimonies out of ſcripture, touching the Paſtors of the Church, I will ſay onelyonly thus much by the way; that the Paſtors can ſpeake neither of thoſe ſentences truely of themſelues, but in a meaſure. g2. Cor. 2. 11.They know the deuiſes of Sathan, but in part, not wholy. h1. Iohn. 4. 6.He that knoweth God, heareth them, not ſimply in all points; for he that knoweth God, may doubt of ſome point deliuered by the true Paſtors of the Church, who alſo are no farther to be heard, then they can ſhew that, they ſpeake, to be from God. The Apoſtles, euerie one of them ſeuerally, knew all things, which the Lord thought fit to make knowen to men, and were to be heard, without any doubting of that, they deliuered: with them that priuiledge died, and all men now are tied to the triall of their doctrine by the ſcriptures.
The concluſion of this diſcourſe concerneth either no man in the world, or if any, the Pope of Rome, iExtra. Ioa. 22 de verb. ſignif. cap. quum inter.your Lord God. For the Anabaptiſts themſelues, are not ſo abſurd and ſhameleſſe, as to make any one of their ſect the onelyonly ſufficient rule of all mens faith: but euerie man claimeth (though falſly and lewdly) a priuiledge of not erring, for himſelfe. OnelyOnly your inſolent Pope will hauehave all men to depend vponupon his iudgement, and in compariſon of himſelfe, diſdaineth all writers, and all Councils whatſoeuer. What promiſes he hath, whereupon he beareth himſelfe ſo high and ſtout, I make no doubt but we ſhal heare of you in this Treatiſe; till when I forbeare to ſay anie more.
A. D. §. 4.
But ſuppoſe one could aſſure himſelfe, that he were taught by Gods Spirit immediately, what is the true faith in all points, in ſuch ſort, that he could erre in none, (as it is not the manner of Almightie God, to teach men immediately by himſelfe alone, or by an Angell; but rather as the Scripture telleth vsus, Fides ex auditu. Faith is bred in vsus by hearing: and is to be required ex ore Sacerdotis Rom. 10. 17.out of the mouth of the Prieſt: and is to be learned of Paſtors Mal. 2. 7.and Doctors, whom God hath appointed in his Church, of purpoſe, to inſtruct vsus, and continue vsus in the ancient faith. But ſuppoſe (I ſay) that one could aſſuredly perſwade himſelfe, to be immediatly taught of God, what is the truth in all points: how ſhould he, without teſtimonie of miracle, giuegive aſſurance to others, that he is thus taught? Eſpecially when he teacheth quite contrarie to the Catholicke Church, which, by plaine promiſes and teſtimonies of Scripture, we know to be taught of God.
A. W:
Hitherto you hauehave prooued, that a man cannot aſſure himſelfe, that he is infallibly inſtructed by the holy Ghoſt. Now you are to ſhew, that howſoeuer the point might be cleere to him, yet he hath no meanes to perſwade other men thereof, but that ſtill there will be cauſe of doubting, whether he be ſo taught or no. But by the way, you tell vsus, that it is not Gods manner to teach vsus immediatly by himſelfe alone, or by an Angel, but rather, as the ſcripture telleth vsus, faith is bred in vsus by hearing. For the generall, that God teacheth not immediately, we are wholy of your opinion, and that the ordinarie meanes of faith is preaching: but we ſee no ſufficient reaſon to diſable the word of God in the ſcripture, as if it were not of force to bring forth the ſame effect, where Gods ordinance of preaching cannot be had, or is not neglected. For ſince the matter deliuered in true preaching, and reading the ſcripture, is all one, vnleſſe it be verie apparent that the holy Ghoſt wil not giuegive a bleſſing to him that readeth, hauing not opportunitie to heare; out of queſtion faith may come by reading. Faith (ſaith kBellar de ſacr. Bapt li. 1. cap. 11. §. Tertio.Bellarmine) cannot ariſe in the heart, but by diuine reuelation, which is either immediately from God alone, or by the inſtrument of the word preached, or read. And whereas the Apoſtle ſpeaketh lRom. 10. 14.in that place of preaching and hearing, it is not his purpoſe to diſable the word read, but to ſhew partly, (as m1. Cor. 2. 9. 10.otherwhere) that the meanes of ſaluation, were not, nor could be deuiſed by man, but proceed wholy from God: partly, that no man may excuſe himſelfe by ignorance, becauſe God hath ſent his ſeruants nMat. 28. 19.into all parts of the world, to giuegive notice of the way of ſaluation, without which commaundement of his, no man might hauehave vndertaken the office of preaching the Goſpell, either by word of mouth or o1. Pet. 1. 25.writing; and without the Goſpell had bene publiſhed, no man could hauehave beleeued. For as it is in the ſame chapter, a little before. pRom. 10. 14. verſ. 18.How ſhall they beleeue in him, of whom they hauehave not heard? and how ſhall they heare, without a preacher? And how ſhall they preach, except they be ſent? Faith then is by hearing, that is, qVVhitaker. de Script. q. 5. cap. 8. arg. 2.as one rightly expoundeth it, by the ſenſe of the ſcripture truly vnderſtood. I do not equall reading to preaching, nor promiſe any bleſſing, but rather threaten a curſe, where men refuſe to heare the Paſtors and Miniſters of the ſeuerall congregations, wherein they liue; or any other, that by lawfull authoritie preach truly and faithfully: but I would hauehave no man, by any conceit, weaken the power of God, ſpeaking in his word, to all that can, and will reade and heare. Now to your argument.
He that hath not teſtimonie of miracles, cannot giuegive aſſurance to others, that he is infallibly taught by the Spirit of God.
But a priuate ſpirit hath not teſtimonie of miracles.
Therefore he cannot giuegive aſſurance to others, that he is infallibly ſo taught.
Firſt, I note two things in the propounding of this reaſon: the one that you adde an exception, according to your cuſtome, the other that you ſeeme to giuegive ouer great force to miracles. Your exception is, that he can giuegive no aſſurance, if he teach contrarie to the Catholicke Church: why ſo? Becauſe we know that ſhe is taught of God. Suppoſe that to be true, yet may he giuegive aſſurance to them, that know no ſuch thing of the Church, and ſo be to them the rule of faith.
But it is worth the marking, that you preferre miracles before the authoritie of the Church. For by them, a man (in your opinion) may hauehave aſſurance to others, that he is taught by the holy Ghoſt, though he teach quite contrarie to the Catholicke Church. But rGal. 1. 8.the Apoſtle hath accurſed them, that receiue any other doctrine, then he taught, though it be preached by an Angell from heauen. What will become of the faith of ſuch men, when ſ2. Theſ. 2. 9.Antichriſt comes with ſignes and lying wonders? But why ſhould I aske that queſtion? Your ſelfe and the reſt of your popiſh brood hauehave anſwered it alreadie. For you are tApoc. 17 2.made drunke with the cup of fornication of the whore of Babylon, and bewitched with the miracles of that great Antichriſt the Pope of Rome, to u2. Theſſ. 2. 11beleeue lies, againſt the manifeſt truth of God in ſcripture. But x2. Pet. 1. 19.we hauehave a moſt ſure word of the Prophets, confirmed, & expounded by the Apoſtles, contrarie to which, or without warrant of which, we will beleeue nothing, as neceſſarie to ſaluation, for all the miracles that your Antichriſt, or the Diuel himſelfe can worke. For mine owne part (vnderunder correction I ſpeake it) I am not perſwaded, that euer any true miracle was, or ſhall be wrought, for confirmation of falſe doctrine, how ſoeuer the Diuel may ſerue his turne, by a ſhew of ſuch matters. But it is all one to the moouing of a man, whether the thing done, be in truth a miracle, or onelyonly ſuch in his opinion. Be it neuer ſo true, it may bring no credit to any point of doctrine contrarie to the word of God, in the ſcripture. Yet ſince falſe ſhewes will worke the ſame effect in their hearts, whom God hath giuen ouer to the beleeuing of lies, that true miracles will, me thinkes I ſee no ſufficient cauſe to imagine, that God will employ his infinite power to the countenācing of any vntruth, where no ſuch thing is needfull.
I ſay then, for your propoſition, that no aſſurance can be Of the propoſition.giuen either without, or with neuer ſo many miracles, if a mans doctrine be contrarie to the teaching of the Church, when the Church teacheth according to the Scripture. But in thoſe points, wherein the Church ſhall faile of her dutie, the expoſition of the word may giuegive aſſurance of truth ſpoken by him, that deliuereth the contrarie. But this I ſpeake by way of explication, not of refutation. For I grant your propoſition: So reuelation be excepted, as before.To the aſſumption.
If you meane, that euerie priuate ſpirit, hath not miracles to teſtifie of him, or that none hath true miracles to avow falſe doctrine by, I grant your Minor. But if you wold hauehave vsus beleeue, that no man hath power by the diuels aſſiſtance, to make ſhew of ſuch matters, as cannot by man be diſcerned from true miracles, I denie your aſſumption: and refute it by that former inſtance of Antichriſt, VVhoſe y2. Theſ. 2. 9.comming is by the effectuall working of Sathan, with all power and ſignes, and lying wonders.
A. D. §. 5.
Perhaps he will alledge that generall promiſe of ſcripture, Omnis Math. 7.qui petit, accipit, aſſuring them thereby, that euerie one that praieth for any thing, receiueth it: and that he hath earneſtly praied for the ſpirit, therefore he muſt needes hauehave it. But to this argument, we may eaſily anſwer; that this promiſe of our Sauiour, is not ſo vniuerſally to be vnderſtood, as though euerie one that praieth for a thing, ſhall infallibly obtaine it, without any condition (at leaſt in the manner of praying) required of our part. For we reade, euen in Scripture, Petitis, & non accipitis, eo quòd malè petatis. You aske or pray, and receiue not (the thing requeſted) becauſe you aske amiſſe. By Iacob. 4.which place we learne, that to obtaine any thing by praier, requireth a condition of praying well, or in ſuch ſort, as is fit, the which condition, doth (as learned men obſerue) include many circumſtances, for fault of the due obſeruance whereof, it may and doth often happen, that our praier is not well made, nor in ſuch ſort as is fit: and is conſequently fruſtrate of the efficacie, which otherwiſe by the promiſe of our Sauiour it ſhould hauehave had. Now theſe circumſtances being many, and diuers of them verie inward, it is not verie eaſie for any man, to be abſolutely ſure, that he hath obſerued them, in ſuch ſort, as is fit: and therefore he cannot be abſolutely ſure, that his praier hath taken effect; and therefore it is not ſufficient proofe, whereby one may perſwade others, that he hath the Spirit of God, to ſay, he hath praied for it; eſpecially conſidering, that we may finde very many moſt contrarie, in religion, one to another, who notwithſtanding will ſay, that they daily pray for the holy Spirit: and I doubt not, but many of them in ſome ſort, yea earnestly, after their manner, doe pray for it: yet ſure it is, that all theſe (being thus contrarie) hauehave it not. How ſhall we then be aſſured, that this or that man, who, preſuming vponupon the aſſiſtance of this Spirit, (which he thinketh he hath obtained by praier) ſetteth abroach a ſingular and new inuented doctrine, how ſhall we be ſure (I ſay) that ſuch a man hath the Spirit of God indeed?
A. W.
This obiection you make, is ſo void of all likelihood, that I perſwade my ſelfe, no man would euer be ſo fooliſh as to alledge it in this queſtion. For who can chuſe but ſee at the very firſt reading of it, that if it may be had by praier, one may hauehave it as well as another? and therefore there is little reaſon, why all ſhould rely vponupon any one in ſuch a matter. Beſides, what a ridiculous thing is it for me to imagine that eueryevery body wil beleeue me on my word, when I tell them that I hauehave prayed earneſtly for the ſpirit, and therefore muſt needs hauehave it? Wherefore your obiection and anſwer are not worth the conſidering or reading.
OnelyOnly of the place you alledge, in a word, thus much may be ſaid, that our Sauiour by it aMat. 7. 7.encourageth and perſwadeth vsus to pray, aſſuring vsus of gracious acceptance by God his Father in all our petitions, ſo farre forth as the obtaining of them ſhall make for his glory, the good of his Church, and our owne ſpirituall and bodily comfort. And though it be moſt true, that we can neuer pray as we ought, yet may we be aſſured to hauehave our requeſts granted (the former conditions remembred) whenſoeuer we pray for any thing belonging to the generall eſtate of Chriſtians, or our particular callings, with a true acknowledgement of Gods power, feeling of our owne wants, and reſting vponupon his promiſe to vsus in Ieſus Chriſt. Particularly, concerning the vnderſtanding of Scripture: for any thing belonging to the generall eſtate of Chriſtians, or our particular callings, which belongeth to the queſtion we hauehave in hand, thus ſpeaketh bChryſoſt. in praef. ad Rom.Chryſoſtome of this place. If you will perſwade your ſelues (ſaith he) to reade the Scriptures diligently and carefully, there is nothing farther to be required of you for the vnderſtanding of thē. His reaſō followeth: For Chriſt hath truly ſaid, Seeke and you ſhall find, knock and it ſhall be opened to you.
A. D. §. 6.
Some will perchance ſay, that we may ſafely beleeue them, becauſe they preach nothing but pure Scripture, while as for eueryevery point of their doctrine, they cite ſtill ſentences of Scripture. But this anſwer will not ſerue. Firſt, becauſe for and in the name of Scripture they bring forth their falſe and corrupt tranſlations, which do differ in ſome places, euen in words, from true Scripture. Secondly, ſuppoſing that they did alwayes cite the true words of Scripture, yet they may eaſily apply them to a wrong ſenſe or meaning; to wit to that which they falſly imagine (being ſeduced by their owne appetite, or by their owne former error) to be the true ſenſe. For as Saint Auſtin ſaith, Ad imagines phantaſmatum ſuorum carnalls anima conuertit Lib. 3. de bapt. cont. Donatiſt. cap. 19.omnia ſacramenta & verba librorum, ſanctorum: a carnall and ſenſuall mind (ſuch as hereticks are not without, ſith hereſie it ſelfe is accounted by Saint Paul a work of the fleſh) doth conuert or turne all the myſteries and words of holy books vntounto his owne imaginations and fantaſies. Whereupon it commeth to paſſe, that as the ſame Saint Auſtin ſaith: Omnes haeretici, qui in authoritate Scripturas recipiunt, Ep. 222. & tract. 18. in Ioan.ipſas ſibi videntur ſectari, cum ſuos ſectentur errores. All heretickes that receiue and admit the authoritie of the Scriptures, ſeeme to themſelues to follow the onelyonly Scriptures, when they follow their owne errors. And as they may ſeeme to themſelues to follow onelyonly the Scriptures, when they follow their owne errors: ſo they may ſeeme, eſpecially to the ſimple people; or to thoſe, who being ſeduced by them, wholy build their beleefe vponupon them, to preach nothing but pure Scripture, when indeed they preach their owne erroneous opinions, coloured and painted with words of Scripture; as it is the manner of eueryevery ſect maiſter to confirme his errour with words of Scripture: yea the diuell himſelfe doth ſometime for his purpoſe alledge words of Scripture.
A. W.
It appeareth by this ſecond obiection, that this diſcourſe was intended againſt vsus, who call you for the triall of all queſtions of Religion, to the Scripture of God. But how iniuriouſly you deale with vsus herein, a blind man may ſee. For we neither claime any ſuch priuiledge of being free from errour in citing and vnderſtanding Scripture, nor deſire to be any farther beleeued for tranſlation or interpretation, then we can approue them by euident reaſon. And this you knew well enough, and are ready with the reſt of your complices, to accuſe vsus of referring all to eueryevery mans priuate ſpirit. But malice is as wel without ſight, as without ſhame.
That of Saint Auſtin we acknowledge to be moſt true, and find it verified by your Rhemiſh tranſlation, and the applicatiō of Scripture in your Canon law, and Schoole-mens writings: out of which it is eaſie to bring a cloud of witneſſes to this purpoſe.
For the other place of Auſtin, you quote two treatiſes, his 18. tract vponupon Iohn, and his 222. epiſtle to Conſentius. In the former whereof, there is no ſuch word to be found, nor any ſuch epiſtle either in the Baſil, or c1523.the old Paris print. But in your d1586.late edition of Auſtin at Paris, both the epiſtle and the words are, wherein Auſtin maketh the miſunderſtanding of the Scriptures the occaſion of hereſie. Who denieth it? This may ſerue vsus to proue, that eforeign.the ignorance of the Scriptures is exceeding dangerous; euen as fChryſoſt. ad Coloſſ bom. 19.Chryſoſtome ſaith, gforeign.the cauſe of all euils. In another place the hAuguſt. de Gen. ad lit. lib. 7. cap. 9.ſame Auſtin telleth vsus, that men are for nothing elſe hereticks, but becauſe not rightly vnderſtanding the Scriptures, they obſtinately maintaine their owne opinions againſt the truth of them. And iTertul. de reſur. carnis. cap. 63.Tertullian goeth ſomewhat further, ſhewing that hereſies durst not peepe vp without ſome occaſion taken by the Scriptures. But he addes, that thoſe very hereſies may be conuinced by the Scriptures. If we miſinterprete the Scriptures, why do not you great Clearkes, that hauehave the ſpirit tied to your Church, refute our falſe interpretations by the Scriptures? Do we refuſe this triall? Is it not that we ſtil vrge, to hauehave all things examined by the Scriptures? or is there any thing you more feare, then to be confined to the Scriptures? What though the diuell and hereticks alledge them? Did not our Sauiour himſelfe ſay ſo too? kOpus imperf. in Math. hom. 48.What plea can you make, wherein ſome heretickes hauehave not gone before you? Will you brag of the Church? Hereticks alſo both thinke and ſay they are of the Church: yea they are in all things ſo like true profeſſors, that in Antichriſts time (as lOpus imperf. in Math. hom. 49.an ancient author ſpeaketh) there is no meanes of triall left but the Scripture. If you vrge tradition, ſo do heretickes too, running vp and downe (right like you Papiſts) mJren. lib. 3. cap. 1. 2.from tradition to Scripture, and from Scripture to tradition. They pleade Councels as well as you. The nAuguſt. cont. Maxim. lib. 1.Arians obiect diuers againſt Auſtin and other writers. As for the Fathers: was not oDe bapt. con. Donat. lib. 3. cap. 2.Auſtin preſt by the Donatiſts with Agrippin and Cyprian? Did not the heretick Dioſcorus cry out pConcil. Chaiced. Actio 1.in the Councel of Chalcedon, I hauehave the teſtimonies of the holy Fathers, Athanaſius, Gregorie, Cyrill. I vary not from them in any point, I am caſt out with the Fathers, I defend the fathers doctrine, I hauehave their iudgement extant in their bookes.
Neither may we reſt vponupon miracles. To let paſſe what before I ſaid of that point, remember what qAuguſt. in Ioan. tract. 13.Auſtin ſaith, Pontius (ſay the Manichees) did a miracle, Donat prayed, and God anſwered him from heauen. The Scripture onelyonly is the true touchſtone in theſe caſes, if it be hard, Let him that hath an heart (ſaith rAuguſt. de doct. Chriſt. lib. 2. cap. 6.Auſtin) reade thoſe things that go before, and thoſe that follow, and he ſhall find the ſenſe.
A. D. §: 7.
Wherefore there is no reaſon, whereby we may be aſſured, that ſuch men hauehave the ſpirit of God: but we may find many reaſons to conuince that they hauehave not this ſpirit. And to omit, for breuitic ſake, the ſeeking out of any other, euen the ſingularitie or priuatneſſe of their ſpirit, is ſufficient not onelyonly to moue vsus to ſuspect it, but alſo to condemne it, and to aſſure vsus, that it cannot be the ſpirit of truth: as it is very well ſignified by Saint Auſtin, who ſaith, Veritas tua, Lib. 12. Confeſ. cap. 25.Domine, nec mea eſt, nec illius, ſed omnium quos ad eius communionem publicè vocas; terribiliter admonens nos, ne eam habere velimus priuatam, ne priuemur ea. Nam quiſquis id quod tu ad fruendū omnibus proponis, ſibi propriè vendicat, & ſuum eſſe vult, quod omniū eſt, à communi propellitur ad ſua, id eſt, à veritate ad mendaciū. Thy truth (O Lord) is neither proper to me, nor him, but common to all, whom thou doeſt publikly call to the common partaking of it; warning vsus terribly to take heed, that we will not hauehave it priuate to our ſelfe, leaſt we be depriued of it. For whoſoeuer doth challenge that to himſelfe priuatly, which thou doeſt propoſe publickly to be enioyed of all, and will hauehave that his owne, which is common to all, he is driuen from the common to his owne, that is to ſay, from the truth to a lie.
A. W.
To refute this conceit of a priuate ſpirit (which was not worth this ado) you argue from the ſingularitie or priuateneſſe of it; as if it could not be true, becauſe it is not agreeable to the common opinion. And ſurely he that ſhall be ſo arrogant and ſhameleſſe, as to denie all the points of Religion commonly held, vponupon a preſumption that himſelfe onelyonly hath the ſpirit of God, is fitter to be cut off by the Magiſtrates ſword, then confuted by the word of Scripture. But it is very poſſible, that in ſome points and places, ſome one man, without any reuelation, by diligent ſearching and prayer, may finde out that, which no other man yet knoweth, at leaſt for interpretation of Scripture, as it falleth out eueryevery day amongſt both Proteſtants and Papiſts. Therefore your ſCaietan. praef. in lib. Moſis.Cardinall Caietan doubteth not to ſay, that God hath not tied the expoſition of the Scriptures to the ſenſes of the Fathers: and therefore asketh no more then reaſon, when he willeth the Reader not to be offended or miſlike it, if ſometimes himſelfe hit vponupon a new ſenſe agreeable to the text, though it go againſt the ſtreame of the fathers. For which, though tCanus loc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3.Canus reproue him without cauſe, uAndrad. defenſ. fid. Trid. lib 2.Andradius iuſtly defendeth him. And why ſhould he not? ſince, as Domingo a Soto witneſſeth, one mans authoritie and learning draweth numbers after him to his opinion. By reaſon of a ſaying of Saint Auſtins, (ſaith xSotus de nat. & grat. l. 3. c. 4.Soto) all the fathers after his time, and all the Diuines, with one conſent hauehave worthily affirmed, that the glorious Ʋirgin neuer committed any actual ſinne, for all Chryſoſtome, auncienter then he, thought the contrary. Yet was Auſtins iudgement in this caſe, but priuate, and for truth, inferiour to Chryſoſtomes. If publickneſſe or generall conſent ſhould cary the matter, how chance ySozom. lib. 1. cap. 23.Paphnutius withſtood all the reſt of the famous Councel of Nice, and preuailed? We ought (ſaith zPicus in quaeſ. An Papa ſit ſupra Concilium.Picus Earle of Mirandula) to beleeue a ſimple huſbandman, a child, or an old woman, rather then the Pope, and a thouſand Bb. if theſe ſpeake againſt the Goſpell, and the other with it. Then belike a priuate man may ſee ſome truth, which is not generally diſcerned.
The place of aAuguſt. conf. lib. 12. cap. 25.Auſtin you bring, doth not condemne all interpretations or opinions, which ſome one man findeth out, and holdeth, but onelyonly reproueth them, who in expounding the places of Scripture, which wil beare a diuers ſenſe, vrge one onelyonly, not becauſe it is truth, but becauſe they like it beſt. His example is out of Geneſis concerning the ſenſe of thoſe words: bGen. 1. 1.In the beginning God created heauen and earth. They know not which of thoſe diuers ſenſes that may be, Moſes did intend (ſaith cAuguſt. vbi ſupra. cap. 11. 12Auſtin) but they louelove their owne opinion, not becauſe it is true, but becauſe it is their owne. What doth this concerne vsus? who, as we giuegive eueryevery man of iudgement leaue to propound his interpretation to be examined: ſo permit no man to thruſt any expoſition vponupon the Church, which he cannot make euident proofe of, by ſound reaſon. Neither is it then taken as his priuate conceit, but acknowledged as the truth of God, manifeſted by his induſtrie. In doubtfull places we follow the likelieſt ſenſe, without any reſolute determining what is true, what falſe: & therefore dSee my anſwer to 12. art. part. 1. art. 5.cannot with any ſhew of reaſon be charged to appropriate the knowledge of Gods truth to our ſelues, where it hath pleaſed his Maieſtie ſo to propound it, that of diuers ſenſes a man cannot certainly affirme, that this or that is true.