The answere vnto the nine points of controuersy, proposed by our late soueraygne (of famous memory) vnto M. Fisher of the Society of Iesus And the reioynder vnto the reply of D. Francis VVhite minister. With the picture of the sayd minister, or censure of his writings prefixed.

Concerning the sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture. §. 2.

HENCE I may further inferre, that Protestants haue not yet throughly pondered the place of the Apostles to Ti∣mothy which they so vehemently vrge to proue the all-sufficiency of sole Scripture for euery man, as though the Apostles had

sayd absolutely that the Scriptures are able to instructe, or make any man wise vnto saluation: which he sayes not, but speaking particularly (u) 1.1 vnto Timothy sayth, They are able to instructe, or make Thee wise vnto saluation; Thee, (x) 1.2 that hast bene a∣forehand instructed by word of mouth, & doest thervpon firmely belieue all substan∣tiall doctrines, and knowest all the neces∣sary practises of the Christian discipline. Verily the Apostle in that place speaketh onely of the Scriptures of the Old Testa∣ment, affirming them not sufficient for euery man, but for Timothy; and not suffi∣cient for him by themselues alone, but per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu, that is ioyned with the doctrine of the Christian fayth, which Tymothy had heard, and belieued vpon the liuely voyce of Tradition.

And the consequent words of the A∣postle so much insisted vpon, All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach &c. If Pro∣testants could so (y) 1.3

metamorphize the word Profitable, as to make it signify the same with the word Sufficient, which is very hard; yet were the text much ouer∣short to proue their intent, that Scripture

alone is sufficient for euery man, seing the Apostle speakes not of euery man, but ex∣pressely of him, who is Homo Dei, the man

of God, that is, one already fully instru∣cted, and firmely setled by Tradition in all the mayne poynts of Christian fayth and godly life, such an one as Timothy was. The Scriptures for men in this manner afore∣taught and grounded in fayth, are abun∣dantly sufficient, who will deny it? But this proueth at the most the sufficiency of the Scripture, ioyned with Tradition, not of Scripture alone, or of onely-onely-onely Scripture, as Protestants bookes in great Letters, very earnestly affirme. Hence also we may conclude, that the (z) 2.21 many alle∣gatiōs of Fathers, which Protestants bring to proue the Scripture to be cleere in all substātiall points, are impertinent, because the fathers speake of mē aforehand instru∣cted in all substantiall poynts, who may by the light of Tradition easily discouer them in Scripture; as they that heare Ari∣stotle explicate himselfe by word of mouth may vnderstand his booke of nature, most difficill to be vnderstood of thē that neuer heard his explicatiō, either out of his owne mouth, or by Tradition of his Schollers.

I hope I haue in the opinion of your most learned Maiesty, sufficiently demon∣strated this first GROVND of Catho∣licke fayth, to wit, That a Christian is ori∣ginally and fundamentally builte vpon the word of God, not as written in Scrip∣tures, but as deliuered by Tradition of the Church, successiuely from the Primitiue,

vpō the authority wherof we belieue, that both Scriptures, and all other substantiall articles of fayth, were deliuered by the A∣postles, thence further ascending, & infer∣ring they came from Christ, and so from God the prime veracity & author of truth.

Notes

• (u) 1.1

  2. Tim. 3.14.15.16.17.
• (x) 1.2

  The Minister here laboureth impertinenly to proue that speaches vnto one single person may be generall vnto many other in Scriptu∣re, which no man de∣nies. And so this speach They are able to make Thee wise, is generall vnto all persons that are like to Timothy, that is, instructed aforehand and setled in the fayth of Tradition. For what is sayd vnto one single person is not sayd vnto others, further thē they agree with that party in the cause, for which it is truly sayd of him. What God sayd vnto Abraham Gen. 15.12. I am thy Protectour, is not sayd to all men, but only to all mē that were like Abraham, that is, deuout worshipers of the true God, as he was.
• (y) 1.3

  The Minister heere heapeth many speaches of Fathers, that say the Scriptures are sufficient, to proue that Profitable signifyes the same that Sufficient. This is ridiculous. The Iesuit grants the Scripture to be suffi∣cient for them that know Tradition, yet he will still deny that profitable signifyes the same as sufficient.

  

  View Page 63

  How Catholicks grant the same sufficiency to be in Scripture as Protestants, and the true state of the Question about sufficiency of Scripture, and of Tradition.

  THE Minister here enters into a longe impertinent discourse about the clarity & sufficiency of Scripture, setting titles ouer the heads of his pages, Many Scriptures playne; the Scriptures sufficient &c. as who would say, the Answerer had denied this. To discouer these his false insinuatiōs, and to cleere this controuersy most important, we must know 5. things. First that there was once a controuersy betwixt Protestants, and vs about the sufficiēcy & clarity of Scripture. For in their beginning they taught all matter of fayth to be EXPRESSED in Scripture, and nothing inuolued: Omnia expressa nihil inuolutum; De tota Scriptura dico nullam eius partem obscuram esse. So Luther de ••er••to Arbitrio. in Tom. 2. Wittenberg. Nothing is to be belieued without the word of God, though it seeme deduced by good consequence. Luther in locis cōmun. 1. part. c. 24. pag. 69. Secondly, now Protestants (euen our Minister pag. 32 lin. 2. and often in this reply) disclaime from expresse and formall Scripture, and pretend that all things are written eyther for∣mally or virtually, and so confesse, that there is herin no difference betwixt the most learned Papists and them. So saith Field Church. l. 4. c. 20. pag. 241. lin. 6. Thirdly, when some Catholicks, as Dominicus Bannes, so many tymes cited by the Minister. pag 151. Marg lit. f. pag 109. lin. 40. pag. 189. marg. lit. b. pag. 580. marg lit. a. say, that some points be neither expressely nor inuoluedly in Scrip∣ture, they do not meane that they are not virtually inuolued in thinges contayned in Scripture as effects in their cause, & so are deduceable from Scripture; but only that they are not formally inuolued in thinges of Scripture as parts in their whole, in sort as they can be articles of fayth by sole Scripture. For thinges formally inuolued in Scripture as parts in the whole, a soule and body in man, indiuidualls in the whole masse of their kind be articles of fayth by vertue of Scripture. Thus when the Scripture ••aith Iob was a man, it is said inuoluedly, yet formally, that he had soule & body &c. when the Scripture sayth Libanus hath Cedar trees, it sayth not formally but virtually, it hath imputrible wood. Fourthly, the question now resting between Protestants and vs, is not whether the Scripture be virtually intricate and inuolued about some points of fayth, nor whether some rule of interpretatiō be necessary; for that the Scripture is inuolued and needeth an vnfolding rule is granted on both sides: The only que∣stion is, by what rule these Doctrines inuolued are vnfolded and made knowne vnto vs as articles of fayth. Protestāts say by Scripture and the rules

  

  View Page 64

  of Logicke and Reason, [Wotton Triall of the Romish &c. pag 88. lin. 29.] and by other things besides Scripture euident in the light of nature, [Feild pag 281. lin. 20.] Catholikes hold that the rule to expound Scripture, binding all men to belieue deductions as matters of fayth, is not Logicke, but the Tradition and definition of the Church.

  And this Catholicke doctrin is proued. First, because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of vnlearned men aswell as of learned▪ But men vnlearned cannot be sure of the virtualityes of Scripture by the rules of Logicke, or Logicall deduction; for they cannot vnderstand when an argument is good by the rules of Logicke. Secondly, the Scripture it selfe to supply her wants sendeth vs not to the rules of Logicke, but vnto tra∣ditions, saying 2. Thessal. 2.15. Hold fast the Traditions ye haue receaued by word or our epistle. They send men to the Church, as to the pillar and ground of truth. 1. Tim. 3.15. which whosoeuer doth not heare, is as a hea••hen and a publican. Matth. 13.5.7. Therfore by the rule of Church-Tradition & not by the rules of Logicke do we learne authētically the confessed virtualities, ob∣scurities, and inuolutions of Scripture about matters of fayth. Thirdly the Fathers about matters inuolued in Scripture, send men not vnto Lo∣gicke, but vnto Tradition, auouching the same to be a rule as certaine & no lesse estimable then Scripture. S. Chrysostome homil. 4 in 2. ad Thessal. The Apostles did not deliuer all things in Scripture, but some things without writing, and these are as much to be credited as the written: It is a Tradition, this is inough, seeke no more. The same is taught by S. Dionysius Eccles. Hierar. c. 1. Iren. l. 2. c. 2.3. & 4. Eusebius lib. 1. de demonst. Euang. c. 8. by S. Basill de Spirit. sanct. c. 27. Epi∣phan. haeres. 55. & 61. Aug. de Baptis li. 2. c. 7. & lib. 5. c. 23. and the rest.

  Finally, we dislike the Protestant manner of controlling the Church by Scripture. For on the one side they contradict the vniuersall custome and Tradition of the Church at the least, and as they grant, of many ages, saying, The Popish doctrine during the space of nine hundred yeares hath spread it selfe ouer the whole world, so that an vniuersall Apostacy was ouer the whole face of the earth for many hundred yeares. [Perkins Exposit. of the Creed. pag. 307. & 400.] On the other side their Arguments out of Scripture are at the most but probable, and they sometimes challenge no more: homini non prorsus alie∣nato probabilior apparet. [Whitak contr. 1. q. 5. c 8. circa finem] Others alledge Scripture not with as probable colour as we doe. [Iohn White defence pag. 321.] Yea this Minister in his Reply doth acknowledge pag. 581. That by Sophistry we giue vnto their Scripturall arguments seeming and appearing solutions. Now we Catholikes thinke it to be Hereticall, & as S. Augustine sayth, insolent madnes,

  

  View Page 65

  vpon probabilities, vpon Arguments frō Scripture that receaue seeming solutions, to contradict the Christian vniuersall Tradition of many hun∣dred yeares: For what the Minister saith, this to be done by Sophistry, is ridiculous. For if to giue seeming plausible, and probable solutions vnto Scripturall arguments, against the full Tradition of Christianity be So∣phistry, what is true Theology? On the other side, if for men to stand a∣gainst the Tradition of so many whole Christian ages vpon arguments they confesse to be probably, and seemingly answered, be Christianity, what is hereticall Obstinacy?

  Fifthly, whereas you obiect that pag. 199. lin. 6. the Fathers disputed from Scripture negatiuely agaynst Heretikes, in this sort; Doctrine is not cleerly deliuered in Scripture, therefore it is not to be receaued as Fayth; You must know, that the Fathers proceed vpon a supposition that was knowne vnto all, and granted by the Heretickes themselues, to wit, that the doctrins they disputed agaynst, were not the full and publicke Tra∣dition of the Catholike Church. For seing Scripture (as we haue shewed) doth necessarily suppose Tradition that we may know the true text and sense thereof; so likewise the Fathers when they vrge that all doctrine is to be reiected which is not in Scripture, still suppose that that doctrine is not the publicke Tradition of the Church. Where we must also note, that the Fathers did not only require of Heretikes proofe from Scripture, by way of deduction & Logicall inference (for such all heretiks did pre∣tend and herewith deluded seely sots, as now Protestants doe) but they required of Heretikes to shew their doctrine in Scripture, ipsis dictionibus, sayth Irenaeus. l. 2. c. 36. expressely and in tearmes, and proue it, not by texts (sayth S. Augustine de vnitat. Eccles. c. 3.) which require sharpenes of wit in the audi∣tors to iudge who doth more probably interprete them, not by places, quae vel inter∣pretem quaerunt, which require an interpreter, and an arguer making Lo∣gicall inferences vpon the text so concluding for his purpose; but by places playne, manifest, cleere, which leaue no place to contrary exposition, and that no Sophystry can wrest them to other sense, to the end that Controuersyes which concerne the Saluation of soules, be defined by Gods formall word, and not by deductions from it according to Logicall forme. For sayth S. Augustine, what more vniust, then Ingeniorum contentionibus causam populorum committere?

  Hence the Fathers negatiue argument from Scripture, ouerthroweth Protestant Religion, for thus I argue. Nothing is matter of Fayth and of necessity, which is not formally and expressely reuealed by the word

  

  View Page 66

  of God eyther written or vnwritten, deliuered by full Ecclesiasticall Tra∣dition. But no Heretikes euer did nor our Protestants now do, or can pretend perpetuall publicke Tradition vnwritten for their doctrins, a∣gaynst the Catholicke and Roman Church: nor can they proue their Te∣nets (ipsis dictionibus ex scriptura) by Scripture, auerring them in expresse te∣armes. Only they clayme texts which as themselues confesse receaue see∣ming & appearing solutiōs, agaynst which they haue nothing to say, but that this is done by Sophistry, so bringing the busines of the Saluation of the world to be decided by contentiō of wit. Therefore their doctrins are to be reiected as vnchristiā. Finally it is great vanity in you to thinke that the Traditions vnwritten mentioned by Fathers, are conforme to your Doctrine, writing as you doe pag. 46. By Tradition the Fathers vnder∣stand not the Fabulous dreames and inuentions of Papals, who like Pharisees corrupt the right sense of Scripture by their vnwritten Tradition, and affirme those thinges to be Apostolicall which agree with the confessed doctrine of the Apostles like darkenesse with light. Thus you, with much bitternesse, and no lesse falshood. For what Gerson [de signis ruinae Eccles. sig. 5.] sayth of the heresyes of his age, to wit of Waldo, Wickliffe and Husse, Fabulae sunt, they are Fables, you turne as by him spoken of perpetuall Traditions of the Catholicke and Roman Church. The Pharisees did indeed corrupt Scripture. But how? By Lo∣gicall deductions out of the same, according to your Protestant, and the common Hereticall fashion, pretending greater skill then all their Ance∣stors. That they did affirme that their speciall obseruations were Tradi∣tions vnwritten from Moyses, the Scripture hath not a word; yea the thing they most of all obiected agaynst our Sauiour, was the written Tradi∣tion of Moyses about keeping the Sabboth Day. [Ioan. 7.] From which precept not by Tradition vnwritten, but by Logicall inference, they concluded that our Lord brake the Sabboth-Day by healing diseased persons thereon. So that Pharasaicall Traditions were neuer so much as pretended to be doctrines vnwritten as you imagine, but to be doctrines concluded from the text of Scripture, by the rules of Reason and Lo∣gicke, iust according to your Protestant pretence.

  Also, what you say, that the Fathers Traditions vnwritten be not our doctrines but yours, is spoken because you would haue men so thinke though they erre, not because you can thinke the same to be so in truth. For thus I argue agaynst this your seely Shift. The Fathers, as appeareth by their wordes, vnderstand by Tradition Apostolical vnwritten, Dog∣mata quae peti non possunt è Sacra Scriptura, Doctrines of fayth that cannot be

  

  View Page 67

  gathered frō the holy Scriptures with such certitude as they may therevpon be belieued as articles of fayth. But you pre∣tend and glory, that all your Doctrines of Fayth be ex sacris Scripturis petitae, so drawne and gathered from holy Scriptu∣res, as they are belieued as Fayth only vpon this rule. Ergo, it is great vanity for you to say that the Fathers by Apostolical Tradition vnwritten, vnderstood the Doctrine not of the Roman Church, but of your Protestant Separation.

  And if from generality (vpon which Ministers, whose drift is to deceyue, do willingly dwell) we descend to parti∣culars, we shall find that you reiect those Doctrines & cu∣stomes of the Roman Church as Fabulous dreames, and human inuentions, which the Fathers expressely, and in tearmes affir∣me to be Apostolicall Traditions. To pray for the reliefe of the Soules of the faythfull deceased Protestants esteeme fabu∣lous: the Fathers affirme it was ab Apostolis sancitum, orday∣ned by the Apostles. The binding of the Cleargy-men and those that are in the holy Ministery to single life, and from woing & wiuing, do not Protestants detest as impious? yet the fathers say, haec docu••runt Apostoli, haec seruauit antiquitas, this the Apostles taught, this was kept by the Ancients. That it is damnable Sin for Votaries to marry after their vowes, do not Protestants contemne as a fabulous inuention? & yet the Fathers say tradiderunt Sancti Dei Apostoli, this is the Tradition of the holy Apostles of God. The custome of ma∣king the signe of the Crosse on the forhead, Protestāts deride as foolish: yet the Fathers affirme, hoc tradiderunt Patres no∣stri in silentio sine literis, it was taught by our Fathers (the Apo∣stles) in silent Tradition without writing. The Fast of Lent is it not in neglect and derision with Protestants? & yet the Fathers sayd as we do, Quadragesimā semel in anno ex Aposto∣lica traditione ieiunamus, we fast one Lent a yeare by the tra∣dition of the Apostles. Do not Protestants also scorne the feast of Ember-weeke foure tymes in the yeare? And yet the Fathers say ex Apostolica traditione seruantur, they are recey∣ued by Apostolical Tradition. To fast one fryday, or the sixt Day of the weeke in memory of our Sauiours passion Pro∣testants condemne as superstitious: yet the Fathers say, hoc

  

  View Page 68

  decreuerunt Apostoli, the Apostles made this decree, and the Church by Tradition from them hath perpetually obserued it. The making and blessing of holy water, do not Protestāts reiect as magicall? Yet the Fathers say expressely, it is a Tradition of the Apostles. To mingle water with Wine in the Chalice of the holy Eucharist, is thought by Protestants to be fabulous: But by the Fathers Dominica institutio, the in∣stitution of our Lord, by Tradition vnwritten deriued to vs. Luther dareth to cast off with a iest the commandement not to receiue the holy Eucharist but fasting, that so the body of our Lord may enter in at our mouth before other meates: yet the Fa∣thers say, hoc placuit Spiritu sancto, & hoc Christus per Apostolos dis∣posuit, it pleased the holy ghost it should be so, and by his ins∣piration the Apostles did so appoint. What shall I say of Exorcismes & Exsufflatiōs vsed in Baptisme? the forme of interrogations, answeres, and other ceremonies? That they that be baptized, be afterwards Chrismed with the oyle of balme? That they who haue beene maried more then once, be not promoted vnto Priesthood, out of reue∣rence vnto that dignity? That the Apostles made the vow of Religions perfection? That Monasticall pro∣fession began by their institution? the keeping festiuall Dayes in the honour of Saints deceased? The placing the Images of Christ and his Saints in the Church? Their Worship? To commend our selues vnto the prayers of Saintes deceased in the holy Sacrifice of Masse? These things Protestants detest as Superstitions; all which yet the Fathers mantayne to be Apostolicall Traditions.
• (1) 2.1

  Chrys. Ho∣mil. 69. ad Pop.
• (2) 2.2

  Concil. Carthag. Can. 2.
• (3) 2.3

  Epiphan. haeres. 61.
• (4) 2.4

  Basil. de Spirit. Sanct. c. 27.
• (5) 2.5

  Hieron. Epist. ad Marcell. de erroribus Montan.
• (6) 2.6

  Leo de ie∣iunio sexti mensis, & Serm. 6. de Pentecost.
• (7) 2.7

  Epiphan. haeres. 75.
• (8) 2.8

  Basil. de spir. san. c. 27.
• (9) 2.9

  Cyprian. lib. 1. Ep. 3.
• (10) 2.10

  Aug. Ep. 118 ad Ia∣nuar. c. 6.
• (11) 2.11

  Aug. lib. 4. in Iulian. & Leo pri∣mus Ep. 14. Exorcizandi sunt secun∣dum Aposto∣licā regulam.
• (12) 2.12

  Origen. Homil. 5. in Num. A mag∣no Pontifice Christo, & eius filiis A∣postolis tra∣ditam.
• (13) 2.13

  Fabian. Ep. 2. ad Ori∣ental. Chri∣stus instituit.
• (14) 2.14

  Tertul. li. 1. ad vx. Apo∣stolica praes∣criptio. Epi∣phan. haer. 50. Propter emi∣nentiam celebrationis traditam.
• (15) 2.15

  Aug. lib. 17. de Ciuit. c. 4. Hoc votum illi po∣tentissimi vouerant.
• (16) 2.16

  Chrys. homil. 17. ad Paph. Antiochen. A Christo introducta. Casian. Coenobitarum disciplina tempore praedicationis Apostolorum sumpserat exordium.
• (17) 2.17

  Tertul. de Corona Militis. Anniuersarios dies colimus.
• (18) 2.18

  Concil. Antioc. Apostol. citat. in 7. Synod. act. 1.
• (19) 2.19

  Damascen. orat. 4. de Imagin Synod. Ni∣cen. 2. act. 7.
• (20) 2.20

  Aug. Serm. 17. de verbis. Apost. & Cyril. cathec. 5. Mystagog.
• (z) 2.21

  The Minister to proue Scriptures are cleere vnto Infidels that haue not the Spirit of fayth, heapes many te∣stimonies of Fathers, that teach Scriptures in some matters to be clee∣re. Who denyes this? they are so to the fayth∣ful not vnto Infidels, not vnto them that are vn∣setled in the Catholike fayth; yea many places he brings, speake ex∣pressely only of the faythfull & pious, Sicut vera Religio docet accedunt, as S. Augustine & others by him alleadged affir∣me, and therefore are brought impertinently to proue the sufficiency & clarity of Scriptures in respect of Infidels, pag. 34.35.36.