OF THE AL-SUFFICIENT EXTERNAL PROPOSER OF MATTERS OF, FAITH. DIVIDED INTO TWO BOOKS. IN THE FIRST. Is proved, that the true Church of God, is the all-sufficient external Proposer of matters of Faith. IN THE SECOND. Is showed the manifold uncertanities of Protestants concerning the scripture: and how scripture is, or is not, an entire Rule of Faith. By C. R. Doctor of Divinity. 1. Timothe. 4. The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth. At PARIS, M. DC. LIII. THE PREFACE to the Reader. 1. NAtural reason (gentle Twoe ways to learn truth. Reader) teacheth us, that what we can not know by ourselves, we should learn by authority of others: and according as their authority is undoubted, or probable, toyeeld assured, or probable assent thereto; and the same reason teacheth us also, that as the See infra l. 2. c. 8. sect. 1. clear sight of God in heaven, is supernatural to us, and far above the reach of our reason, so is also▪ the right way thereto. Wherefore (as S. Devil. ●redendi 〈◊〉. 16. 8. 17. Augustin rightly sayeth) if God will have men come to him in heaven, he must needs have instituted some authority on earth for to direct them assuredly in the right way, because by reason we cannot find way to heaven, known by authority. out that way. Which authority must be infallible, because otherwise it could not assuredly direct us: as also because it is to direct us by divine faith, which is altogether infallible. And herein is God's goodness to be admired, that he would bring men to heaven rather by authority and faith, then by knowledge and reason, because every one can believe, but not every one konws hard matters. And in all that is hitherto said, catholics and Protestants generally agree: The controversy between them is, in whom God hath settled this assured authority, for to direct and guide us infallibly in our way to heaven. 2. For Catholics say, that as God, Authority settled in men at the first set this authority in his Prophets and Apostles, so because they were not to live with us for ever he continueth it in his Church, which he hath made his spouse, the mother and mistress of the faithful, the pillar and ground of truth, his mystical body, whereof Christ is head, and the Holy Ghost, the Soul, who is to teach her all truth, and in whose heart is always God's Word believed, in her mouth his word preached, and in her hands, his word written. But Protestants because they can show no Church before Luther, who taught in substance the same way to heaven, which they do, (as I have otherwere Lib. 2. de Authore Protest● Ecclesia. showed by their own plain and manifold confessions) are forced to deny, that God hath settled this infallible authority in his Church, for to direct us and guide us infallibly to heaven, and do grant her no more authority in matters of faith, then a wh●tat. Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 20. l. 1. d● script. 144. l. 2. p. 254. ●71. l 3. p. 435. mere humane, enen in the b Laude sec. 16. n. 26. 61. most fundamental points of al. Nay some of them saïe, she hath c whitat. Cont. 1. q. 3 c. 3. l. 1. de script. p. 153. l. 2. p. 235. Caluin Actor. 15 v. 28. See infra l. 2. c. 10. sec. 2. and▪ l. 1. c. 2. §. 8. no authority at all in matters of faith. So they abase the authority, or rather take away all authority in matters of faith, from their Mother and Mistress in faith, from the spouse of Christ, from the pillar and ground of truth, from her, whose head, Christ is, and whose soul, is the Holy Ghost, who teacheth her all truth. And this The root of all heresy. is the true root of all heresies, not to believe, that the true Church of God, the pillar an't ground of truth, whom the Holy Ghost teacheth all truth, is an infaillible guide appointed by God to direct us assuredly to heaven. For every one would follow her, none would oppose her, whom they confess to be an infallible Guide. 3. Protestants grant every one of the Prophets or Apostles, to have been infallible in matters of faith, and yet cannot show so mainie, nor so plain testimonies of Scripture for their infallibility, as we can show for the infallibility of the Church But all infallibility in matter of faith, they will put in the scripture (as usually all d T●rtul. d● pr●wr. c 15. Hilar l. ad Constant. August. ep●s. 222. H●eron. in Galat. 〈◊〉. Sed infr● l. 2. c. 14. & seq. heretics did) because they will understand that as thy please and so indeed put all infallibility in themselves, though nether scripture saith, that itself is infallible, nor was it written for above 2000 years before Moses, nor was it in all places, or times, when and where infallible faith was, nor itself can show the way to heaven to them that cannot read it, nor showeth that, which Protestants account the most fundamental point of faith, or all other points so clearly, as it need no interpreter, See infra. l. 2. c. 4. see. 2. as we shall hear Protestants themselves confess. 4. And can any reasonable man persuade himself, that God hath settled all infallible authority forto direct men assuredly to heaven in that, which he conffessth, God never said, is infallible, nor it was in all times, or places, where and when men were infallibly guided in their way to heaven; which cannot by itself guide the greatest part of men: which teacheth them not the most necessaire point of all, nor all points so clearly, as it need not some interpreter (and yet say they withal, God hath not given us any infallible interpreter) I add also, that who follow it for their only guide in matters of faith, have no constancy, nor unity in faith, nor yet any— hope of unity Is such â e See infra l. 1. c. 8. n. 6. one, men's only assured guide to heaven? 5. We produce the express word of God, that his true Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and that the holy Ghost teacheth her all truth: let Protestants produce the like express word of God, that the book, called scripture, is the pillar and ground of truth, and that it teacheth all truth. You must (sayeth f Cont. Pra. ●eam. l. 11. Tertullian,) prove as clearly, as I do. Bring á proof like to mine. And S. Augustin: Read as plain words as these are, which we read to you. Do l. de unis. c. 6. 14. not bring us your consequences, or inferences, of which we may ●ay with S. Augustin. g Serm. 14. de verb. Apost. This is a humane argument, not divine authority. h See i●fra l. 25. 3. s●c. 1. Protestants use to say, that all things necessary to be believed, are expressly in scripture and need no inference, and that faith relieth not on argument, but on authority: let them keep this in this main controversy: legant, let them read in Scripture (not themselves infer out of Scripture) that God hath set all infallible authority for matters of faith, in Scripture, and we will believe them, as i l. de unitate c. 17. S. Augustin said in the like case to the donatists, and k laude Relat. sec. 33. Chillirg. p. 3 33 Protestants say in the dislike, to us: or I will else say with the same S. Augustin: I believe what God sayeth, not l de unita. c. 11. what vain heretics babble, or what fallible men infer. 6. Nay Protestants are so far from reading in Scripture, that in it is all infallible authority for matters of faith, as themselves m se●. infra l. 2. c. 5. sec. 2. confess, ●hat by Scripture all things absolutely, cannot be proved, which are to be believed: That Scripture is not an absolutely perfect Rule of controversies, that it cannot decide the question of Schism: that it is not safe to judge all things by scripture alone: that it doth not contain simply all things, which are necessary to salvation: that it cannot assure us, that it is: the word of God: That it needeth an interpreter for some points of faith. Which are to far from the nature of an all-sufficient infallible guide of men in matters of faith, and so far from the nature of an all-sufficient rule in matters of faith, as I think, no judicious Protestant can in his judgement join them together. For it is plain contradiction, to be all-sufficient, and to be deficient, in so main and so many points. 7. And not with standing, though How scripture is necessary, and a rule. in Scripture be not that all-sufficient authority, which God hath instituted on earth for to direct men by right faith to heaven, nor it be the entire or the necessary Rule, ●or the very being of infallible faith, yet it is necessary to the better being of faith, and a sufficient Rule both for all fundamental, or all simply necessary points of faith, and also for the most points of Christian faith, and à mediate rule for all of them. And this being all that, for which Scripture was written, and which it ought to have, it is to be accounted a perfect ●ule because every thing is perfect, when it hath all that it ought to have. And herein we grant more perfection to Scripture, then. Protestants do, both because we teach, that it containeth all, that we account absolutely necessary or fundamental to saith, Protestants say, it teacheth not that, which they account the most fundamental point of all, to wit, that itself is the word of God: and also, because we say, that e●her immediately or mediately; it teacheth clearly all points of faith what soever, in that it sendeth us to the true Church, which teacheth clearly all points. But Protestants say, that nether immediately, nor mediately it teacheth some clearly, and sendeth us not to any infallible interpreter So that S. Augustin. l. 1. cont. Creson c. 33. we grant both more universality, and also more clarity to Scripure, than Protestants do, though they would seem to ma●e more of scripture them we do: but in truth make so little of the Scripture, as Chilling. 〈◊〉. 2. 6. 32. v. 9 some of them teach, that we are not bound under pain of damnation to believe the divine authority of Scripture Nay (say) that the Scripture is none of the material objects of faith; that we ha●e as great reason to believe there was a King Henry VIII. as that which is said in Scripture of Christ suffering See infra l. 2. c. 8. sec. 2. and c. 15. n. 2 under Pontius Pilate, which is in effect to say, we ha●e as great reason to believe some men, as to believe God. For not all but some men, say, there was a King Henry VIII. and both God, and (in a manner) all men say, that Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. INDEX. OF THE CHAPTERS OF the first Book. I. IN which is enplicated the question, touching the infallibility of the Church. II. In which are set down the rational grounds of what is said in this treatise, concerning the Church. III. What conditions are necessary to the all-sufficient external Proposer of points of faith? iv That God can give to men a divine infallibility, or veracity in proposing matters of faith. V That the true Church of God is a sufficient and infallible Proposer of all, which she proposeth as points of faih, proved by what she is said to be in Scripture. VI That the true Church of God is infallibilible in all she proposeth as▪ points of faith, proved by God's promises to her, in Scripture. VII. That the true Church of God is an infallible proposer of matters of faith, proved by the holy Fathers. VIII. That the true Church of God is infallible in matters of faith, proved by Reason. IX. Some of the protestants reasons against the infallibility of the true Church of God in matters of faith, answered. X. That the true Church of God is infallible in matters of faith, proved by manifold coufessions of protestants. XI. That the true Church of God is (in ordinary Course) a necessary Propeposer of all points of faith, proved by holy Fathers. XII. That the true Church of God is a necessary Proposer of all points of faith, proved by Reason. XIII. That the true Church of God is a necessary proposer of all points of faith, proved by plain confessions of Protestants. XIV. That Protestants grant the Church's authority to be diuin●. XV. That Protestants grant it to be a supernatural cause of saith. XVI. How a vicious circle is avoided in proving the Church by the Scripture, and the scripture by the Church. XVII. How we are to answer that question: How know yo● the Scripture to be the word of Good. XVIII. That the true Church of God doth clearly and universally propose all points of faith. XIX. Which is a sufficient Proposal of the Church, for points of faith. INDEX. Of the Chapters of the second Book. I PRocestants uncertain, which books be canonical Scripture. II. Protestants uncertain, whither all that is in scripture, be plain and easy to be understood, or no. III. Protestants uncertain whether all things necessary to be believed, be actually in scripture, or no. IV. Protestants uncertain, whether all things necessary to be believed, be clearly in scripture, or no. V Protestant's uncertain, whether scripture be the only and entire Rule of faith, or no. VI Protestants uncertain whether scripture of itself do sufficiently show itself to be the word of God, or no. VII. Protestants uncertain, whether scripture be a true judge of Controversies, or no. VIII. Protestants uncertain, whether scripture be to be believed to be God's word with infallible asseurance, or no. IX. Protestants uncertain, whether translated scripture be Authentical, or no. X. Protestants uncertain, whether scripture be to be believed to be the word of God, only for the Church's testimony, or no. XI. Protestants uncertain, whether scripture be the formal cause of their beleuing whatsoever they believe, or no. XII. Protestants uncertain, whether they had the scripture from Catholics, or no. XIII. Protestants uncertain, whether catholics make great account of scripture, and prove their doctrine by it, or no. XIV. That scripture, taken by itself without the attestation of the Church, cannot sufficiently propose to us any thing to be believed with divine faith. XV. That scripture, though believed to be the word of God, doth not sufficiently propose all points of faith. XVI. That Scripture doth not sufficiently propose any point of faith to all men, capable of external proposal. XVII. That scripture hath not proposed points of faith in all times, when faith was. XVIII. That scripture hath not proposed points of faith in all places, where faith was. XIX. That scripture doth not clearly enough propose all points of faith. XX. That the proposal of scripture, is not (in ordinary course) necessary to divine faith. XXI. That the scripture containeth the sum of Christian faith. XXII. That the scripture teacheth plainly the sum of Christian faith. XXIII. That the scripture is necessary to the better being of Christian faith. XXIV. Protestants arguments, that the scripture containeth all points of faith, answered. OF THE AL-SUFFICIENT EXTERNAL PROPOSER OF POINTS OF FAITH. FIRST BOOK. THE STATE OF THE question concerning the infalibility of the Church, explicated. FIRST CHAPTER. IN the former part of this work, which was of the distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points of faith I shown, that there are no such fundamental points of faith as Protestants imagine, to wit, such, as if they be believed, suffice to have a saving belief, to be a true member of the Church, and to be in the way of salvation; though other points of faith sufficiently proposed, be not believed: nor any such not fundamental points of faith, as, if they be sufficiently proposed, be not necessary and fundamental to a saving faith, to a true member of the Church, why treated of the sufficient Proposer. and to the way of salvation, but that a sufficient proposal of what points of faith soever, doth bind to believe them all, and every one of them under pain of loss of saving faith, of being a true member of the Church, and of being in the way of salvation: It remaineth, that we she● who is this ●l-sufficient Proposer of points of faith, and which is a sufficient Proposal of them. And because (as we shall prove hereafter) the Church is this all-sufficient external Proposer of points of faith, and that she cannot be such, unless she be infallible in all points of faith, it is requisite before we proceed to explicate, what we understand by the Church, what by her infallibility, what by matters of faith, and what by, necessary to all and every one. 2. First therefore by the Church, what is meant by The Church. we understand not any particular Church whatsoever, either of the city of Rome, or of any particular Province, and m●ch less any particular person what soever, but only the whole universal or Catholic Church of Christ, and we only ●n choir, whether she be infallible in all points, which she teacheth as points of divine faith, not regarding for this present, whether also any particular Church, or person be infallible, or no, because it will suffice to our purpose, that the whole Church be so infallible; and also because the infallibility of any particular Church or person may be disputed, salua fidei compage as S. Augustin speaketh. 3. The second point to be explicated, what by infallibility. is Infallibility, by which we mean not freedom both from all actual error, and also from all possibility of error, as is in God, even by his nature: but only freedom from all actual error in matters of faith, by God's efficacious assistance, Bellarm. l 6. degra●●s 4. Gr●tia effis cax adiunct●m. habet infallibilitatem, non necessitatem. abstracting, whether there be also freedom from all possibility of error, in such matters, or no. And this is that kind of infallibility which we attribute to God's true Church, and which is both necessary and sufficient to her for to be a fit external proposer of faith. Necessary, because if she were not in some sort infallible in matters of faith, her proposal of such matters would not be sufficient to engender infallible faith of them. And also sufficient to be an external Proposer of such matters, subordinat to God, who is the principal proposer of them. For as it implieth contradiction, that divine faith should believe any thing that is not true: so likewise it implieth contradiction, that she, who by God's assistance is free from all actual errors in matters of faith, should actually errin them▪ and therefore she is a sufficient external ground and pillar to stand or rely upon And hence it appeareth, See infra c. 9 n. 3. how superfluous it were to prove, that the Church hath no possibility to err, either near, or remote, in matters of faith, seeing freedom from actual error in them by God's efficacious assistance, sufficeth to an external proposer of them. And that the true Church of God hath this kind of freedom from error in matters of faith, is clear by Christ's promises, by the testimonies of the Prophets and Apostles, by the attestation of the holy Fathers, by the light of reason, and by the confessions (some times) of the learnedest Protestant's, as we shall show hereafter. 4. The third particle to be explicated, wha● is meant by matters of faith. is Matters of faith. By which we mean only such matters, as the Church proposeth to be believed with divine faith, not such, as she proposeth to be believed with humane faith, as are the lives of saints in the Breuiarie, their miracles, Relics, a●d such like. 5. The fourth particle is necessary what by Necessary to salvation. to salvation, In which particle a Potter sec. 5. p. 16 19 21. laude sec. 21. p. 140. ●60. & seqq. Protestant's commonly agree with Catholics in words, that the Church is infallible, but indeed they desagree two ways. For first, they mean only such points of faith as by reason of the matter, are b whitaker cont. 2. q. 4. l. 2. Caluin. 4. Institut. c. 8. potter sec. 5. p. 19 23. laud. p. 355 357. 358. absolutely necessary, as the passion and Resurrection of Christ, and such like, and not also such, as are necessary to Salvation, by reason they are clearly revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed to us. For Catholics hold, that the Church is infaillible in matters of faith which are any way necessary to Salvation, though only by reason of their clear revelation and sufficient proposal. Because, if we believe not all things (little orgreat) clearly revealed by God, and sufficiently proposed to us as from God, we do not believe God to be faithful in all his words, which yet to believe is most necessary to sal●ation. Secondely c Potter sec 5. p. 2●. 89. laude p. ●●7 165. Caluin. Admon●s. vlt. p. 3●2. marty●. la●. 4. c. 10. Protestant's differ from Catholics, in that they do not believe all points of faith (even such as are necessary to be believed only by reason of their clear revelation sufficiently proposed) to be necessary to the well being of faith, even by reason of the matter which they conte●ne; when as indeed all points of faith are necessary to the better being or perfection of faith, even by reason of the matter which they contain. For as in natural things, God doth not give what is superfluous both to their being, and also to their well being, or perfection: so nether doth he in supernatural matters, as are points of faith. Whererpon the Apostle. 1. Thessal. 3. desired to add somethings, which were wanting to their faith and yet (doubtless) nothing was wanting to the very being of their saving faith, but only to the well being or perfection thereof. And Ephes. 4. he saith, that God gave Pastors to the consummation or perfection of Saints. Wherefore, as far as the better being, or perfection of Christian faith, or consummation of Saints reacheth, so far also reacheth the infallibility of the Church. And when some Catholics say, that the Church is infallible only in things necessary to salvation, as Canus l. 5. loco. 5. Stapleton Controu. 4. q. 2. ad quartum argumentum; and Bellarmin l. 4. de Pontifice c. 5. they do not mean, as some d Potter sec. 5. p. 16. 17. 22. 29. Protestants think, that she is infallible in things merely fundamental, which are necessary to salvation by reason of the matter, or necessitate medij (as the principal points of faith are necessary) but of things, which are any way necessary to salvation, either by reason of their matter, and their revelation also, or by reason of their revelation only, as other The Church infallible only in things some way necessary. points of faith are necessary: and also which are necessary either to the very being, or to the berter being of salvation, by reason of their matter, as all points of faith are necessary. For in all things, which are any way necessary to salvation, and only in things which are some way necessary to salvation God hath given Infallibility to his Church. Because (as I said) as in natural things he faileth not in any thing, which is any way necessary to their being, or better being, so nether doth he fail or abound in supernatural things, as is salvation. 6. The last particle to be explicated, whas meant by all and every one. is, To all and every one. In which Protestants differ from Catholics, because they attribute Infallibility to the Church, only in things e Potter sec. 5. p. 19 29. absolutely necessary to all men's faluation, as Laude speaketh Relat. p. 355. or in things absolutely necessary in themselves, as he speaketh ibid. ●p. 357. and generally Protestant's say, the Church is infallible b●t in, fundamental points, by which they mean only such, as are necessary to every Christian; as Potter sayeth sect. 7. p. 74. not such, as are necessary only to some. But seeing Christ hath instituted his Church as a necessary mean to save all, and every kind of men she must needs be as in fallible in matters, which are necessary for the salvation only of some, as she is in matters which are necessary for the salvation of al. For else he should fail in a necessaire means for the salvation of some kind of men, which were impious to think, seeing he came to save all kinds of men; and therefore he hath made his Church infallible, as well in matters of faith, which are necessary only to the salvation of some kinds of men, as which are necessary to all kinds of men. And this is so evident, as whitaker Controu. 2. q. 4. c. 2. confesses, that in things necessary to any, The full sense of this question. the Church erreth not. So that our meaning in this question of the infallibility of the Church, is, that the Catholic or universal Church (through God's efficatious assistance) certainly or infallibly never erreth in any point necessary to salvation, either for the matter and divine revelation too, or only for divine revelation, sufficiently proposed; or necessary either to the being, or well being of faith, either of all men, or of any kind of men. So that in what point soever, which is any way necessary to salvation, either of all, or of any men, the Church infallibly never erreth through God's efficatious assistance of her, which assistance Christ hath most clearly promised to her, as he hath promised to her remission of all sins, and Protestants might as well question her power for remission of some kinds of sins, as question her infallibility in some points of faith. SECOND CHAPTER. In which are laid down rational grounds of that, which we shall say of the Infallibility of the Church in matters of faith. 1. THe first ground is, that only Only God's word, can be believed with divine faith. Quomodo credet, quem non aud●e runt Rom. 10. the word of God, or what is said of God, can be the material object, or that, which is believed with divine faith. This is evident, because only that word, which implieth contradiction to be falls, can be the material object of divine faith, which implieth contradiction to believe aniething, that is nottrue: and such only, is the word of God, and no word of man, or of any creature. And hence i'll followeth, tha● Protestant's cannot believe with divine saith, either of these propositions: The Bible, is the word of God: The present copies of the Bible, are couformable to the original. For a Chillinh. c. 〈◊〉 p 90. la●d● sect. 16. p 69. 70 〈◊〉. 117. Hoober l. 2. §. 〈◊〉. Beza in Rom. 1. ●ee l. 2. c. 15. n. 8. and c. 5. sest. 1. they maintain, that the scripture is the sole, and adaequat object of divine faith, and confessing (which is evident) that neither of the said propositions is in scripture, nor is any written word of God they must needs also confess, that they have no divine faith of the said propositions. Wherefore thus I argue in form against them: Only the scripture or written word of God is the material object of divine faith. The said propositions are no scripture, or written word of God. Therefore they are no material object of divine faith. 2. The second ground is, that only Only Authority or veracity, the form●l cause of belief. Authority or veracity, can be the formal object, or formal cause of any belief whatsoever. This also is evident. For as the Apostle sayeth Rom. 10. faith is of hearing, and S. Austin lib. de vtil. cred. c. 11. That we believe, we ow● to authority; that we Know, to reason. Which he hath also lib. de vera Religione c. 24. And it is confessed by Protestants For thus Whitaker l. 3. de scriptuta p. 408. Faith surely relieth upon Authoritie-Authoritie is the foundation of faith; And p. ibid. principium credende ab externa authoritate pendet. 509. To believe, s●me Authority is necessary, nor can any thing be believed, without Authority. And l. 1. p. 50. That thou sayest, our faith relieth upon testmonies, not upon arguments, I grant Laude Relat. sec. 38. p. 345. We do not believe one article of faith by fallible authority of humane deductions. And hereupon they define divine faith, to be an Assent to divine revelations, upon the authority of the revealer. And hence it followeth, that Protestants cannot believe either Melanctho● in proedi●amento qualita●is. ●hillingw. c. 11. p. 35. Protestant's can have no formal faith of their bibles The Bible to be the word of God, or Their copies thereof, to be incorrupt, for any light they conceive to be in them, or for the majesty or stile of them, or for the excellency of the matter, because none of these, is any formal Authority, or veracity, but they are qualities of the word of God, which qualities may cause Knowledge or opinion (accordingly as they are certain, or only probable signs of God's word) but cannot cause formal faith. And that Protestants have not formal faith of the scripture, they seem some times to confess. For thus laud Relat. Protestant last resolution, is into arguments▪ sect. 1●. p. 83. 84. 85. 101. He that believes, resolves his last and full assent, T●at the scripture is of divine authority, into internal arguments found in the letter itself, Lo, Protestants last resolution, is not into authority, but into arguments. And Pottersec. 5. p. 8. That the scripture is of divine authority, the believer seethe, ●y that glorious beam of divine light * Laudep. 8●. 114. 115. 118. 121. 123. 3●0. which shines in scripture, and by many internal arguments found in the letter it self Whitaker. lib. 1. de script. p. 15. We believe, for the truth of the thing, which is taught, or for the divinity of the doctrine itself. So also pag. 56. 88 Which is in effect to confess, that they do not formally believe, but know, or (as Potter speaketh) see, that the bible is of divine authority because their assurance, that the bible is of divine authority, is not lastly resolved into authority, but into arguments taken out of scripture, or into the light, the divinity or truth of the doctrine in it; whereas faith, is not lastly resolved into arguments, or truth, or light, but Fides est non apparentium Heb. 11. into authority, nor is discursive, but is a simple assent (of things not appearing) for authority. 3. The third ground is, that only divine Authority or veracity, can be any true formal object, or formal cause of divine faith. This likewise is evident: For humane or fallible authority is not sufficient to cause divine and infallible faith. Because the authority, for which we believe, must be (at least) as sure, as our belief: like as the premises for which we know the conclusion, must be as sure, as the conclusion. And no c See infra 12. c. 8. s●c. 〈◊〉. authority but divine, can be so sure, as divine faith is, which implieth contradiction to be false. And this Protestants confess. For thus Whitaker l. 3. de scriptura p. † sic etiam p. 509. 415. Such as the doctrine and religion is, which we profess, heavenly and divine, such also must the reason and authority of beleuing be. And p. 392. Our faith must rely upon an external infallible means. And l. 1. p. 166. The effect doth not surpass the cause. Potter sect. 5. p. 40. divine faith must have a divine foundation. And Chillingw. c. 2. n. 154. None can build an infallible faith, upon motives, that are not infallible, as it were a great and heavy burden, upon a foundation, that hath not strength proportionable. And the same sayeth laude sec. 16. n. 5. sec 33 p. 248. Potter sec. 5. p. 7. Field l. 4. of the Church c. 2. and others. And hence we infer, that the authority or testimony of the church, in matters of faith, is divine, because (as we shall d See infr●. c. 15. n. 6. prove, and Protestants sometimes confess) it is a true cause of divine faith. 4. The fourth ground is; that for the authority of God's church to be divine, it need not rely upon immediate revelation from God, but his special and effectual assistance will suffice thereto. First, because it cannot be proved, that immediate revelation is absolutely necessary. Secondly, it were derogatory to God's omnipotency, as if he could not make any infallible, but in one manner. Thirdly, because S. e c. 1. v 3. f L●ude sec. 16. p. 91. Luke professeth, that what he wrote, was by hear-say of such as had conversed with Christ. Fourthly, because Protestants some times confess, that such, and so great assistance of Christ, and of the holy Ghost, as is purposely given to that effect, is enough to make the authority of any company of men, divine and infallible. 5 The fist ground is; that an authority Authority truly ●●n ne▪ is a sufficient external cause of divine faith. divinely infallible may be a sufficient external formal cause of divine faith, subordinat to God's authority, which is the principal formal cause thereof. This is certain. For what greater certainty, or infallibility can divine faith require in its external and subordinat cause, then to be truly divine. Because all divine authority, effectually assisted by God, to tell nothing, but truth never lieth, as divine faith, is never falls: and therefore is a sufficient foundation (external and subordinat to God's authority) on which divine faith may rely. 6. The sixth ground is, that verity, Verities distinct from vera●itie or authority. is distinct from Authority and veracity. For verity, is the material object of faith, and that which faith believeth: Authority, or veracity is the formal object, or that for which faith believeth verity. Wherefore verity cannot be believed for itself; both because it hath not of itself the formal cause of belief, which is Authority or veracity, as also, because that verity which faith believeth, hath not of itself any motive to procure assent, because it is unseen and unapparent in itself, and Formal Authority or veracit●e, is no● in words or writings. only is apparent in Authority. 7. The seaventh ground is, that though verity can be in words or writings, as in signs thereof, yet Authority or ver●citie (which is the formal cause of believing verity) cannot be in words or in writings taken by themselves For Authority is in some Author, and veracity in one that is verax, and every Author or vera●, is some intellectual person who uttereth verity, and who, for his authority, or veracity, deserveth, and causeth belief of that The formal cause of faith is the authority of the revealer. verity, which he uttereth. Besides, divine faith (as all dogrant) is belief of some divine truth revealed, for the authority of the revealer, or as Chillingworth c. 1. p. 35. sayeth, an assentto divine revelation, upon the authority of the revealer. And the same sayeth laude sec. 38. p. 344. Potter sect. 5. p. 3. and others. But a Revealer, is a person intelligent. Therefore the authority of some person intelligent, is the formal cause of faith: and not any words or writings, which are rather the external revelation, than the revealer. And hence it is, that though in holy Scripture, there be divine verity, and that which is to be believed with divine faith, yet if scripture be taken alone by itself merely, as it is such words, or writings, it hath no formal authority or veracity to cause its verity to be believed. For as such, it is neither any intellectual person, nor hath any intellectual person adioned to it, for whose authority it should be believed. Wherefore well said Stapleton Controu. 3. q. 1. ar. 2. credimus scripturam, non scripturae, because scripture hath in itself truth, which is believed, but not authority, for which it is believed. And likewise well wrote Chillingw. c. 2. p. 69. That the divinity of a writing, cannot Note this. be known for itself alone, but by some authority, you need not prove, for no wise man denieth it. And ibid. p. 114. A written rule, must always need something else, which either is evidently true, or evidently credible, to give attestation to it. And laud sect. 16. p. 88 Scripture cannot bear witness to itself, nor one part of it, to an other. The same sayeth Hooker. l. 2. §. 4. And g See infra. l. 1. c. 14. Protestants generally confess, that the scripture cannot be believed of us, without the attestation of the Church. The true cause whereof is, that scripture of itself, hath no authority, but all the authority for which it is believed, is out of itself, to wit, in God who is author of it, and in his Church, who is witness to it. And when grave authors attribute authority to the scripture, either by authority, they mean verity, or they take not scripture by it sells alone, but as it is the scripture of God. As in like manner they say, the scripture sayeth this, teacheth this, affirmeth this, speaketh this, meaning God, by scripture. But God's authority alone doth not (in ordinary course) engender faith, and we seek that authority on earth, without which Gods authority alone, will not (in ordinary course) engender divine faith of the scripture, or of any thing else, which authority evidently and confessedly, is not in the scripture itself. 8. The eight ground is, that to a Four things in a proposer Proposer of points of faith properly so called, there be long four things. 1. is, his person, 2. his Authority to propose such matters. 3. his proposal, which is his words or writings. And 4 the truth proposed and signified by his words or writings. For a Proposer of matters of faith, is a Preacher, who proposeth or preacheth either by word only (as most of the Apostles did,) or by writings also, as S. Paul, and some other Apostles Netherwords nor writings are proposers. did. And as their words were no Proposers, but that, by which they proposed, so nether were their writings any Proposers, but were that▪ by which they proposed. And of all the four said things, only the twoe last are in the scripture, and therefore it cannot be properly the Proposer of faith, but only the Proposal, if we consider the words: and the Proposed, if we consider the truth which the words signify. But all the four, are in the Church of God. And Protestants cannot deny, that she is a person, or persons; nor that her words or writings, are her Proposals, or the truth signified by them, her truth Proposed. Nether do they whereim, Protestants grant divine authority to the Ch●r●h. deny, that she hath divine authority to propose matters of faith, as to teach God's word, and administer his Sacraments, given to her in the last of S. Matthew: only they deny, that her authority to testify or persuade that, which she teacheth, is infallible, and sufficient (as an external and subordinat cause) to engender divine belief of what she teacheth. In which they do not consequently why Protestants de not speak consequently. proceed. For first, how can the authority of the Church be divine in proposing God's word and be not infallible in proposing it secondly, how can she have divine and infallible authority to preach God's word, and not have the like authority to testify and persuade, that it is God's word, which she preacheth, seeing persuasion, that it is God's word which she preacheth Persuasion is the end of preaching. is the end of her preaching, as is evident, and Whitaker confesseth in these words l. 2. de scriptura p. 281. Preaching, is instituted for persuasion? Would God give to his Church, divine authority for the means, and not for the end? seeing The end more desired than 〈◊〉 the means. every rational desirer, desireth more the end then the means? Thirdly, Protestants grant, that God hath given divine authority to the Pastors of his Church, for to govern her. Whitaker l. 2. de scrip. p. 246. Ministers of the Church, are instruments of the holy Ghost, endued with divine authority to govern the Church, committed to them. And if Pastors have divineauthoritie to govern the Church have they not also divine authority to persuade her, that it is God's word, which they teach her? Is not divine authority, as necessary to Pastors for to persuade the Church, as to govern it? and right belief, as necessary to the Church, as good government? More over Chillingw▪ c. 2. p. 105. Protestants generally confess, that the church of God, is infallible in fundamental points, and so infallible, that it implieth contradiction, that she should err in them. And how can she be so infallible in them, and be not infallible by Gods special and effectual assistance? can the church of her own nature or power, be infallible in such high matters above nature and reason? Nay it seems so absurd even to Protestants themselves, to deny the church of God to have divine authority to testify God's truth, as sometimes they deny it, but restritctly, as i Laude sec. 16. 19 and 10. that it is not simpl● divine, not absolutely divine, or that she is not k Potter sec. 5. p. ●5. I whitaker. Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. absolutely infallible, and confess, that the judgement of the church, is in some sort divine, and call it a slander, that they say, the judgement of the church is mere humane. But in truth they make her authority in matters of faith, mere humane, yea less, and none at al. For thus Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 5. c. 10. In the church thou shalt find nothing, but humane, and therefore uncertain l. 3. de script. p. 395. The perpetual testimony of the church, as far as it is of the Church, is but humane testimony p. 327. The testimony of the church, of itself, is wholly and merely humane. And l. 1. p. 112. The authority of the matters of the church, is of no moment p. 16. An Protestants deny all authority of the Church, in matters of faith. argument, taken from the bare testimony of the Cburch to confirm any point of faith, is fond, unfit, and unforcible to persuade. l. 3. p. 482. The testimony of the church, unless it be strengthened by scripture, is not worth a farthing, in matters of faith. And l. 2. p. 235. The Church hath no authority in matters of faith, but all is God's alone. And ibid. In matters of faith and engendering faith, the Church hath no authority at all. And to this blasphemous denial of the church's authority in matters of faith, m See infra c. 16. n. 5. Chillingworth addeth, that no certain Church, universal, or particular, is infallible even in fundamental points, but only, that there shall be always some uncertain men, who shall hold all the fundamental points. 3. The ninth ground is, that as the Apostles may be considered as they were so many honest men, and ●o, no doubt, their authority was but humane: or as Apostles divinely assisted in matters of faith and so their authority was divine, as Protestants confess, infra c. 4. so the church of God, may be considered, as so many honest and virtuous men, and so, doubtless, her authority is but humane, and fallible: or as she is the Church of God, the pillar and ground of truth, guided by Christ her head, and effectually assisted by the holy Ghost; and so we say her authority in matters of faith, is divine and infallible, though not in that high degree, as the Apostles was. But Protestans, when they say that the authority of the Church, is but humane in matters of faith, consider her only, as she is such men: wherein they proceed, as if speaking of a man, they should consider only his body, not thinking of his head or Soul. For the true church The church is a mystical body, whereof Christ is the head and the holy Ghost, the soul. of Christ is a mystical body, whereof Christ is the head, and the holy Ghost, the soul, and in matters of faith is guided by this head, and effectually assisted by this soul, according to Christ's manifest and express promise, as we shall see hereafter, and therefore in such matters, hath divine and infallible authority from hersaid head, and soul. And what marvel, that a body, whereof Christ is head, and the holy Ghost, the soul, hath truly divine authority, that is, be truly and effectually assisted by its divine head and soul, to propose nothing as of faith, but what is truth? And What i● meant by divine authority of the Church. to be thus truly and effectually divinely assisted, is all the divine authority, which we attribute to the church, and is both sufficient and necessary for the ends, for which God appointed her, as we shall see presently. 10. The tenth ground, are the ends, The end for which God gave divine infallibility to his church. for which God gave divine infallibility to his Church, and her Pastors; which, if they be well considered, will clearly show, that he hath given her and them, divine infallibility in matters of faith. For he hath made his church the pillar and ground of divine truth 1. Timoth. 3. which she cannot be, without divine infallibility in divine truth. And because he made her pillar and ground, not of a part of divine truth, but simply, of divine truth, and that fundamental points, are but a part of divine truth, and the least part too, he made her divinely infallible, not only in fundamental points, but in all points, which he would have be believed with divine faith. And this our Saviour expressed more fully, when he said to his Apostles, that he would send them the holy Ghost for to teach them all Io●n 14. §. 16 Matt. 16. things, all truth Likewise, because Christ hath made his church so firm and strong, as the gates of hell cannot prevail against her, and that every sinful error in any point of faith, is formal heresy, and a * gate Greg. in psal. 5. p●ni●. Portae inferi, h●reses sunt. of hell, destructive of the church as I shown part 1. l. 2. c. 6. therefore he hath given his church divine infallibility in all matters of faith, for to resist any heresy in what point of faith soever. And in like manner, because God hath made the Pastors Ends, for which God gave divine infallibility to the Pastors. of his church, the external cause, and his instrument and means of engendering divine infallible faith, Rom. 10. he hath given them divine infallibility in all matters of faith, because no inferior infallibility would suffice, as I shown n. 3. And likewise, because he hath made them his instruments and means not to engender a part of faith (as fundamental points are (but all faith, because the Apostle saith not, how shall they believe fundamental points, without hearing a preacher, but simply, how shall shey believe? he hath given them divine authority, and infallibility for all points, which ●e are to believe. And in like sort, because God hath given Pastors, and Doctors not Ephes. c. 4. only for the foundation of the body of Christ, or for the making of Saints, but also, for the edification or building of Christ's body, and consummation or perfection of Saints unto a perfect man; and that fundamental points cannot do all this, but not fundamental points as they are true points of divine faith, so they are necessary to the building of Christ's body, and Not fundamental points are of the perfection of faith. consummation of his Saints unto a perfect man, therefore he hath given them divine authority and infallibility, even in not fundamental points. And the Apostle, though (no doubt) he had taught the Thessalonians all fundamental points, yet he desired to add those things, which he said, were wanting to their faith, which 1. Thessaly. c. 3. was, to consummate or perfect their faith. And as far, as the edification of Christ's body, and consummation of faith, extendeth, so far extendeth the Pastor's divine infallibility, which is given to them for this end. 11. And hence riseth the eleventh ground, which is, that seeing n Caluin. 4. Instit. c. 〈◊〉. § 3. c 2. §. 1. etc. 8. Witaker. Contr. 2 q 4. c 2 ●otter. sess. Ep. 22. Protestants, forced by the evidency of truth, do confess, that the Church is infallible in necessary points of faith, if they would grant, that she is infallible, as well in points necessary to any men, as in points necessary to all men, and in points, as well necessary. by reason of the formal cause of belief which is divine revelation sufficiently proposed, though they be not necessary by reason of their matter, which is to be believed, though by reason also of that, they be necessary to the better being of faith, or perfection and consummation of Saints) and as well in points necessary to the well being, or perfection of faith, as simply to the being thereof, they should not differ from us, about what points the church is infallible. For we do not say, that she is infallible in points, which are not necessary to any, nor necessary in any sort to the being, or well being or Stap●et. Contr. 4. q. 2. not. 7. Ad E●●lesiae inf●l ibilitatem in docendo, satis ●st, ut sit in fallibilis in substantiâ fidet, & publico dogma te, & rebus ad salutem nocessarijs Et ad 4. argumentum: i●fa●libil●tas docentis Ecc●efiae, pont tur tantum in rebus ad salutem necessaris. The like saith Bellarm. l 4. de Pont. c. 5. Canus l. 5 c. 5. Patribus Synodi Spiritus 〈◊〉. non est praesens in omnibus, sedinrebus solùm ad salutem necessarijs. perfection of Christian faith (as many scholastical subtleties are) as Stapleton professeth Contr. 4. q. 2. notab. 7. For as in natural things, God giveth not superfluities, but only, what is necessary to the being or perfection of them; so nether in supernatural matters: But as he is not defective in natural things, for necessaries, either for their simply being, or their perfection, so, much less is he defective in supernatural matters, according as these are of more importance, than those, and more regarded of him. And Protestants, by saying, that God hath made his Church infallible only in things necessary to all men, and necessary to her very being, make him les liberal in supernatural matters, then in natural. Besides, o See infra 〈◊〉. 6. n. 1. Chillingw: c. 2. p. 54. sayeth, that the scripture can end all controversies touching things necessary, and very profitable: And ib. p. 98. What one of the Evangelists hath more than an other, is only profitable, and not necessary. And if God hath given divine infallibility to the scripture and Evangelists, not only for necessary points, but also for such as are profitable, why should we think, that he hath not given to his Church, the like infallibility, not only for simply necessary points, but also for profitable, as all are, which make to the edification of Christ's body, and consummation of saints unto a perfect man, as all true points Morton ●om 1. Apologa l. 2. c. 9 Quasi ●erè now fit fidei dogma, quod piri●us S. omnibus eredendum propinavis. of faith do? For who can deny, that all true points of faith revealed clearly by God, are of the integrity and perfection of faith, and are profitable for us to believe, otherwise to what end were they so revealed? And if God revealed them clearly, he would have them believed, and if believed, he would appoint on earth some infallible authority to propose them, which not being in the scripture, must needs be in the church. I add also, How all point● of faith are necessary. that though all points of faith be not simply necessary, by reason of the matter, which is to be believed, they all are simply necessary, by reason of the formal cause, which is divine revelation sufficiently proposed, for that is simply necessary to be believed in whatsoever it proposeth. How the principal, and the instrument, are ●one, and how different. 12. The twelft ground is, that as the principal agent, and the instrument, are but one entire cause in Kind, to wit, efficient: but in order and degree, are far different. Different causes, to wit, Principal, and Instrumental, so the authority of God and of the Apostles in matters of faith, were one and the same entire cause of divine faith, to wit, formal: but in order and degree were twoe, and far different, for the one was principal, the other ministerial, one increate, the other create, one absolutely necessary, the other, not absolutely necessary, the one sufficient of itself to beget divine faith, the other, not sufficient of itself. And this unity betwixt the authority of God and of the Apostles, our Saviour expressed, when he said Luke c. 10. Who heareth you, heareth me, which could not be true, unless he and his Apostles were in some sort one and the same speaker, as the king and his Ambassador are. And this same Protestants sometimes confess. For thus Caluin. in joan. 20. v. 21. He bids the Apostles succeed into the same function, which he had of his father, he imposeth on them the same person, he giveth them the same right,— Christ communicateth with his Apostles, the same authority, which he had of his father. Whitaker. Cont. 2. q. 3. c. 5. The Apostles did consign the Canon, not as men, but as the person of God. And lib. 1. de script. p. 61. Because Christ left earth, he gave his office to preachers. And pa. 71. I deny not, that Pastors do in some sort bear the person of God. And the distinction also between these twoe authorities, Christ expressed, when he said joan. 16. The holy Ghost shall bear witness of me, and ye also shall bear witness In which words, he expresseth two witnesses, ad twoe testimonies. And the same did the Apostles, when they said Act. c. 15. It hath seemed to the holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no other burden upon you, but these; where, they express twoe imposers of the same burden, the holy Ghost, and themselves, and twoe authorities of imposing it, one of the holy Ghost, the other, of themselves. For they could not impose that burden, without they had authority distinct from the authority of the holy Ghost, though not separate from it. And the same (for unity and distinction of the authority of the holy Ghost, and of the Church) I say of the Church, that, the authority of God and of his Church, is one and the same in kind The entire formal cause of faith, in ordinary course see infra c. 11. n. 1. of causing divine faith, but far different in credit and degree of causing it, though (in ordinary course) never separated. For in ordinary course the entire formal cause of divine faith, is Gods and his church's authority together, or God speaking by his Church. And the Church's authority being one entire cause of divine faith with God's authority, her authority must needs be in matters of faith, divine and infallible; for a fallible authority cannot be one cause in kind of belief with an infallible authority but a quite different kind of cause. And if these grounds be compared with the grounds of Protestants, for which they limit the infallibility of God's Church, to only fundamental points, and to mere humane infallibility, they will appear yet more firm and solid. For their grounds are not founded upon any ends of the Church, expressed in scripture, as these are; but founded only upon their own ends, which are only to delude the texts of Scripture, which attribute infallibility to the Church in all points of faith, by saying, that they are meant of fundamental points only: and partly, to defend themselves from the authority of the Church, in points, wherein they oppose her, by saying, that her authority in any points what soever, is but human, and fallible also, in such points as they oppose her. p See Chillingw c. 3. p. 146. 172. c. 2. p. 86 laud sect. 16. p 93. 91. 231. Some say, that the Church is efficaciter, or efficaciously assisted by God in fundamental points, and therefore is infallible in them; but is only merely The Church, is assisted efficaciously in ●l points of faith. sufficiently assisted, in not fundamental points, and therefore fallible in them. But besides, that this distinction of God's efficacious and sufficient assistance, in this matter is new, and therefore justly suspected as naught, it is also voluntary without sufficient ground, and therefore irrational. Besides, it granteth, that the Church is divinely infallible in fundamental points. For to be divinely infallible, is no more, but to be divinely assisted efficaciously; more over it maketh the Church's authority even in fundamental points, to be uncertain. For if she be fallible in not fundamental points of faith clearly revealed, (for such all true points of faith are, and points but obscurely and darkly revealed, are but matters of opinion) how shall we be certain, that she is not fallible in fundamental points seeing not fundamental points (if they be points of faith) are as clearly revealed, as the fundamental, as S. Augustin sayeth of the scripture, that if it lie in any point, it may be suspected in al. It maketh also the Church's infallibility unuseful to us, because none know, which are all the fundamental points necessary to be actually believed of every one, which not. To omit, that there are no unfundamental points of faith in the Protestants sense, but all true points of faith are fundamental to the very being of saving faith, and to be believed actually, if they be sufficiently proposed, or virtually, though they be not so proposed. And to omit also, that mere sufficient assistance, which is never efficient, Sufficient never efficient, i● vain. were vain, because (as Philosophers say, that power is vain, which is never reduced to act, and is such a power, as is no where else to be found and also, that fully sufficient and not efficacious, imply contradiction. For though fully sufficient assistance may be not efficient, for want of our cooperation Not distinct from efficacious. or concourse, yet it is always efficacious, because efficacious, (as it is distinct from efficient,) is no more, but what hath full power, or virtue to work, and such is that, which is sufficient. But whether there be any difference betwixt sufficient and efficacious assistance or none, God hath really and effectually made his Church the pillar and ground of truth, and so strong, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her, and therefore he hath given her efficacious or effectual assistance in all points of faith, and so hath made her divinely infallible in all such points. For as Chillingw. c. 3. p. 145. sayeth well, The Apostles could not be the Church's foundations, without freedom from error in all those things, which they delivered constantly, as certain revealed truths. So I say, the Church could not be the pillar and ground of truth, without freedom from error in all things, she delivereth as points of divine truth. 13. And out of these grounds, first we may clearly see, that the true Church of God is divinely infallible in all points, which she proposeth to be believed with divine faith. Secondly, we may easily answer all the objections of Protestants to the contrary. Thirdly, we may see, what little cause Laude had sec. 16. p. 91. to make such a wonder, that Catholics should say, that the present true Church of God, is divinely infallible in all matters of faith, seeing by divinely infallible, they mean no more, then divinely assisted efficaciously to propose nothing to be believed, but what is truth. But rather we Just wonder, that the Church of Christ should not be divinely infallible. may wonder, that rational Christians will deny her to be divinely infallible, or (which is alone) divinely assisted efficaciously, whom they cannot deny to be the mother of the faithful, the spouse of Christ, whose head is Christ, and whose soul, is the holy Ghost, who teacheth her all things, and all truth, who is the pillar and ground of truth, and against whom, the very gates of hell shall not prevail. Is not such a one divinely assisted efficaciously? And whom themselves confess to be infallible in fundamental points. For can she be humanely Whitaker cont. 1. q. 3. c. 11. & l. 3. descript. p. 19 laud Relat. sect. 16. p. 65. infallible in such high matters? 14. Some Protestants urge us much to tell, whether the authority or infallibility of the Church in matters of faith, be merely divine, or no. To whom I answer, that if by divine, they mean divine in itself, as having How the testimony of the Church is divine, and now not. any divinity in itself: we say it is not divine merely, nor at all; for it is a create authority, as was also the authority of the Prophets, and Apostles; but if by divine, they mean divinely instituted, and divinely assisted efficaciously not to err in matters of faith, it is me●rly divine, it is infallible merely by God's efficacious assistance, and not by any natural knowledge, or industry of the Church: Though she must use humane industry, as was used in the Council of the Apostles Act. 15. Lastely, it is well to be noted, that when we say, we believe for God's authority or veracity, we mean not thereby, that we believe, because God doth efficiently cause our belief, namely, by lightining our understanding, or stirring up our will to believe, because God's authority or veracity is no efficient cause of our belief, but only à formal cause thereof; and also, because he is in like sort efficient cause of our hope, or Charity, as he is of our belief, and yet he is not cause of them by his authority: but our meaning is, that we believe not for any thing which God worketh in us; but for his authority or veracity, which is in himself. And therefore they say no● Canu● l 2. c. 4. Whitaker l. 1. descript. p. 23. well, who say, we believe, because we are moved thereto by special instinct from God, or that our faith is lastely resolved into such special internal instinct. For such special instinct can not be any formal cause of our belief, but only an efficient cause thereof, and faith is not lastly resolved into any efficient cause but only into some formal; besides that instinct is peculiar to him in whom it is, whereas the motive or reason of Catholic faith, is common to all who have such faith: more over it is not evident credible by itself, that such special instinct is from God, and faith is to be resolved into some cause, which is evidently credible, as is the authority both of God, and of his Church in matters of faith; and therefore the resolution of our belief into either of them, is sufficient and rational. For as when a King sendeth an Ambassador to tell us some thing, we believe with humane faith, what is told us, for the authority of them both, as for one entire adjoint cause of our belief, yet differently▪ prinpally for the King's authority, and secondarily, for the authority of his faithful Ambassador: so what we believe with divine faith; we believe for the authority both of God, and of his Church, as for one entire and total cause of our belief, but principally, for the authority of God, See infra c. 11 n. 1. and secondarily, for the authority of his Church, but with this difference, that the King nether giveth, nor increaseth the fidelity of his Ambassador; but God giveth to his Church all the fidelity she hath for matters of faith. Wherefore all Christian faith is lastly resolved into Christ's outward speech to his Church, and into her outward speaking to us, both which speakers and speakings, are but one, in such sort as is *q Sup. n. 12. before declared. And when the Apostle said Rom. 10. Faith is of hearing he meant not of hearing internally by inspiration, Witaker cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2 who hear the Church, hea● Christ him ●elf. but of hearing externally by preaching, and doubtless meant of a last resolution of faith. For hearing Christ's lawful Preachers, we hear him, as before we shown. And the resolution of divine faith into the Church's authority, is both sufficient, because her authority in matters of faith, is plainly divine, and is also agreeable to men's manner of getting faith, who (in ordinary course (are to have their faith not from God immediately speaking to them, but from the Church immediately speaking to them from God; and therefore their faith is to be resolved immediately into the authority of the Church, and mediately into the authority of God. Wherefore well said Bellarmin. l. 6. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 3. Catholics have infallible faith, because what they believe, they believe because God said it, and that God said it, they believe because the Church testifieth it. For what we believe, Christ told it to his Church, and she having ever continued till our time, telleth it unto us. And seeing Protestants grant that faith may be welresolued into the authority of the r Infra c. 4. 〈◊〉. 8. Apostles, or of the s L. 2. c. 11. sect. 1. scripture, or universal tradition, because though their t Infra c. 10. n. 3. 6. 7. 9 authority be create, yet by God's efficacious assistance, it is plainly divine and infallible, they should not deny that faith may be also resolved into the authority of the Church, because it is create authority, seeing Christ hath most clearly promised to assist his Church most efficaciously, and also that the Apostle testifieth Rom. 10. That Faith hath its being from hearing the preaching of the Church. And every thing is rightly resolved into that, of which it hath its very being, especially seeing the voice of the Church, is the voice of Christ, and that hearing her, we hear him. THIRD CHAPTER. What conditions are necessary to the all-sufficient external Proposer of points of faith appointed by God? 1. CATHOLICS and Protestants agree, that there Twoe kinds of Proposers of faith. are two kinds of Proposer of points of faith unto men: The one Internal, who proposeth them internally to our minds; The other external, who proposeth them externally to our senses. Secondly, they agree, that the Internal Proposer, is the Holy Ghost, and the external, some instituted by him. Thirdly they agree, that the Internal Proposer can by himself▪ alone sufficiently propose all points of faith to us, and engender faith in us without concourse of the external Proposer: Fourethly they agree, that (ordinaril●y) the Internal Proposer, never proposeth points of faith to our minds, nor engendereth faith in us, but with the concourse and proposal of the external Proposer. Fiftly they agree, that the External Proposer, can no way engender divine faith in us, without the concourse of the internal. So that they agree in all points touching the Internal Proposer, and also concerning the External Proposer, that there is such a one instituted of God, that his concourse (ordinariely) is necessary, and that he cannot engender faith, without concourse of the Internal Proposer: but they disagree about the conditions necessary to such an external Proposer, and who he is, but if we find out the conditions necessary to such a Proposer, we shall easily find who he is. 2. The first condition necessary to a sufficient external Proposer of Conditions necessary to the external Proposer. points of faith, is, that he be some intellectual person, or Company of Intellectual Persons. This is evident out of the very word itself. For a Proposer signifieth a person who proposeth. And also, because to propose points to be believed, is an act of understanding, and (as our Saviour said to the first Proposers instituted by himself) is to teach and preach, or (as the Apostle also speaketh) to preach: and to teach, or Math. vlt. Marc. vlt. Rom. 10. preach, are acts of understanding. Secondly, because (as we shall prove hereafter the external Proposer is instituted by God, for to move men to believe points of faith for his authority: and all authority (properly speaking) is in some intellectual person. Whereupon when the Apostle said Rom. 10. How shall they believe without à Preacher, he added, that the Preacher must be lawfully sent, which lawful sending giveth him authority or credit, that he is worthy to be believed in what he proposeth. Thirdly, because unless we make, the proposer to be some Person or persons, we confound Proposer with proposal, which are things clearly distinct; and the Proposer is some person, his Proposal, is his word or writing, so that a word or writing, is no Proposer, but only à Proposal. If any object, that the Church is proposed in the Apostles Creed to be believed, as well as other points of faith are, and being a thing proposed, it cannot be the Proposer of all points of faith, I deny the consequence. For the Church being a company of intellectual persons, it can propose itself to be believed to be the true Church, as the Prophets and the Apostles proposed themselves to be such, as well as any other thing which they preached. But a dead writing cannot sufficiently propose itself, as a Sup. c. 2. n. 5. Chillingworth before confessed, and others b L. 2. c. 6. sect. 2. hereafter will confess of the scripture. And the reason hereof is, because a writing hath not of itself any formal authority. Besides, though the Proposer and proposed may sometimes be the same thing yet the Proposer and Proposal cannot, because the Proposal is that where with the Proposer proposeth what is to be believed, as the writings of the Prophets or Apostles, were their Proposal of matters of faith, and therefore not Proposers. 3. The second condition necessary to a sufficient external Proposer of points of faith, instituted by God, is that his authority be c See infra 〈◊〉. 5. n. 2. divine, or divinely assisted (as the Apostles was) and infallible in Proposing them. The reason is, because points of faith are supernatural and divine, and to be believed, so assuredly, as we ought to d See infra 62. 6. 8. sec. 1. curse an Angel, if he said the contrary Galat. 1. And therefore no humane or natural authority, but that which passeth Angelical authority, and is supernatural and divine, is apt or sufficient to cause such assurance of divine matters. And this e Witaker l. 1. descrip. p. 392. 415. Potter sect. 5. p 7. See infra l. 5. n. 5. and l. 2. c. 11. n. 1. Protestants grant. For because they think the scripture only hath divine and infallible authority, they make it alone the assured Proposer of points of faith. Besides, by a sufficient Proposer, we mean such á one, as proposeth matters of faith so sufficiently, as matters of divine faith require, and whose proposal is such, as it bindeth men to believe with divine faith what he proposeth, and such it could not be; unless his authority in proposing were infallible, divine, or divinely assisted efficaciously. 4. The third condition, is sufficient clarity in his proposing points of faith. The reason is, because if he donot clearly enough propose unto us the points of faith, we cannot be assured, what he proposeth, or what we are to believe. 5. The fourth condition is, that his Proposal be necessary in ordinary course, for us to have faith. The reason is, because if his Proposal were not necessary to us for to have faith, he were not the ordinary External Proposer instituted by God, without whose concourse, God will not (in ordinary course) produce faith. 6. The fift condition is, that he be universal for time, for place, for points of faith, and for all kinds of men, capable of External Proposal The reason is, because the external Proposer, without whose concourse, God will not (in ordinary course) engender faith, must propose all points of faith, must be present in all times, when God engendereth faith in all places where he engendereth faith; and present to all kinds of men, capable of external Proposal in whom he engendereth faith. And otherwise he were not the ordinary external Proposer, without whose concourse, God, in ordinary course, will not engender faith. And we inquire, who is this ordinary external Proposer of points of faith, because only he, is necessary to be known Now of all these conditions only Infallibility and clarity in some points, agree to scripture, as is evident, by itself, and we shall prove more hereafter, and therefore it is not the ordinary External Proposer necessary to be sought, and they all agree to the true Church, as we shall prove evidently by God's holy assistance. And we will begin with her infalibility in matters of faith (For that she is a company of Intellectual persons, needs no proof, which we will prove by plain places of Scripture, testimonies of Holy Fathers, reason grounded in Scripture, and open Confessions of learned Protestants. Because the denial of the Churchs' Infallibility in matters of faith, is the formal cause of all Heresies, and Infidelity, as her Infallibility or veracity in matters of faith, is the formal external cause of all divine faith. For she being (by testimony of the Holy Scripture) appointed by God to be the pillar, ground and witness of divine truth, must needs be the formal External cause of our belief of divine truth; without which, God ordinarily will not engender faith, and consequently The rote of all Heresy. the denial of the Infallibility of this pillar, ground, and witness, must needs be a formal cause of all heresy or Infidelity opposite to belief of divine truth, and of Heretics uncertainty, what they are to believe firmly and undoubtedly. For who leave the pillar ground, and testimony of truth, can never be firmly settled. Whereas Catholics, relying firmly upon this pillar, and standing fast upon this ground, settled by God, and testimony appointed by him, are firm and constant in their faith, and justly give it for a sufficient secondary reason of what they believe, because the pillar, ground, and testimony of truth, is most justly given for such a sufficient reason of our believing truth. Yet before we prove the Churches divine veracity or infallibility in matters of faith, we will prove, that God can give to men such a divine veracity or infallibility, because this is some step to prove, that he hath given it; at least it removeth a great impediment of beleuing, that he hath given it; and besides, it maketh the testimonies, wherewith we will afterwards prove, that he hath given such Infallibility, to be more undoubted. FOURTH CHAPTER. That God can give to men a divine veracity or Infallibility in proposing matters of faith. 1. THERE be two kinds of divine Infallibility: the one Twoe kinds of divine Infallib. litie. increate and intrinsically divine, which is in God himself, who is the prime veracity: the other create, and but extrinsecally divine, in that it is divinely and efficaciously assisted by God, to teach nothing but truth; and therefore but analogically called divine, as a wholesome medicine is termed healthful. And in this sort was the authority of the Prophets, and Apostles, divine; and is the authority or veracity of the true Church of God, in matters of faith. The former divine authority or veracity, is the principal, alone sufficient, and absolutely necessary cause of divine faith: the latter, is but secondary, not alone sufficient nor simply necessary cause of divine faith: but only a sufficient external, subordinat cause, and necessary only in ordinary course; yet both these authorities or veracities are so Infallible, as it implieth contradiction, that either of them should teach any untruth. And as for the former, that need no proaf: and the like is manifest of the latter. For it is plain contradiction, that one divinely ad effectually assisted by God to teach truth, should teach untruth. And therefore this latter kind of veracity may be a sufficient external and subordinate cause of divine and infallible faith, such as implieth contradiction to be falls. For a divine veracit●●● or authority which implieth contradiction to See infra c. 5. n. 7. teach untruth, may be a sufficient external cause of such faith, as implieth contradiction to be falls, and may be justly given as such, for a sufficient cause of our belief. And this is that kind of divine authority or veracity, which we say God can give to men, and which he hath given to his Church in matters of faith. Nevertheless we do not make the Infallibility of the Church equal to the Infallibility of the Prophets and Apostles; for their Infallibility was by immediate revelation from God, and sufficient to propose even new points of faith, and in what small matter soever they proposed as from God, and to be the foundation of the Church: but the Infallibility of the present Church, is but by mediate revelation from God, nor for to propose any new points of faith, but to conserve those which she hath received from the Prophets and Apostles, nor in any little matter soever, but only in points necessary to the consummation of Saints and edification of the body of Christ: yet in this, both those infallibilities agree, that they are both divine in their kind by the special assistance of God, and in all things which are necessary in any sort for the consummation of Saints, and edification of the body of Christ, and right constitution of his Church. 2. Now evident it is, that God can not give to men his own essential authority or veracity because that implieth contradiction, and were to make them Gods: but that he can give them authority or Infallibility, analogically termed divine, because it is divinely instituted and assisted efficaciously by God, I prove by scripture. Fathers, Reason, and Confession of Protestants. By scripture, Moses' authority joined with Gods. Caluin. 4 Instit. c. 8. §. 2. Popu●●●●n Deum & n Moysem credid●●●e di●untur. for Exodi 14. v. 30. it is said: They believed God, and Moses. Where Moses is said to be believed by divine faith (because with the same faith with which God was believed) which could not be; if he had not divine authority. For who hath but humane authority or veracity, cannot be believed with divine faith. The like is joan. 5. v. 47. If you believed Moses, perhaps you would believe me. The Apostle also Galat. 5. v. 2. saith, I Paul, say unto you; if you be circumcised, Christ will nothing profit you where he allegeth his Apostolical authority, as sufficient cause of beleuing (not with humane but with divine faith) that Christ will not profit those, that are circumcised. And his Apostolical authority had not be in a sufficenit cause of divine faith unless itself had bein divine; for humane authority can be a sufficient cause but of humane belief. In like sort, S. John sayeth of himself c. 20. v. 21. This is the Disciple, who beareth testimony of these, and wrote these, and we know, that his testimony is true. Where, doubtless, he meaneth, that his testimony is infallibly true. And c. 19 v. 35. he What God can give to particular men, he can give to his Church. proveth, that blood and water issued out of Christ's side, by his own testimony, which had been a weak proof of a matter of divine faith, if his testimony or veracity in testifing such matters, had not been divine. And c. 1. he sayeth; S. John Baptist was sent to give testimony of Christ, that Almight believe by him. And if his testimony had been fallible, it had been too weak a means to cause men to believe with infallible faith. And the Prophet isaiah c. 53. v. 1. complaineth thus: who hath believed our hearing? Where (doubtless) he speaketh not of humane, but of divine belief, and showeth, that men should have believed him with divine faith. And S. Ihon. c. 4. v. 39 Many Samaritans of that city believed in him for the word of the woman bearing testimony. Where (doubtless) he meaneth of beleuing in Christ with divine faith; and yet sayeth, they believed for the word of a woman, bearing witness who was sent of Christ to bear that witness. And though they afterward said: now we believe, not for they speech, for we ourselves have heard and know that this is truly the Saviour of the world, they meant not to deny that her testimony was any cause at all of their belief in Christ, but that they needed it not for to believe in Christ, seeing they heard and knew him: and (as S. Augustin sayeth homil. 15. in joan.) They believed more firmly for Christ's words. For Christ did confirm, not infirm the woman's testimony Wherefore Morton Apol. tom. 2 l. 1. c. 37. citeth and alloweth these words of Tolet upon this place: when they said, now we do not believe for thy word, that is as if they said: before we believed for thy word, but now we have a greater testimony of beleuing then thine, we need not the less, where is the greater, insinuating, that they would believe for the word of Christ which they heard, albeit they had not believed for the Samaritan woman. And in like manner, though we do now believe in Christ for the testimony of the Church, yet if we heard himself speak, as the Samaritans did, we would believe in him all though we had not believed in him for the Church. 3. In like manner, the scripture testifieth, that it is damnable sin and Incredulity, not to believe men sent by God. Marc. vlt. v. 14. Going into the world, preach the Gospel to every Damnable, not to believe some men, creature, who shall believe and be baptised, shall be saved, who shall not believe (you) shall be condemned, Where it is plainly said to be damnable sin, not to believe with divine faith men sent by God to preach to them. And how should it be damnable sin not to believe them with divine faith, if they had not divine, but only humane authority? Nay how could they believe men with divine faith, if they had but humane authority, which is fallible: And 16. v. 14. He upraided their Incredulity and hardness of heart, that they believed not them, who had seen him to have risen. Where (doubtless) Christ speaketh not of humane, but of divine belief, and sayeth, it was incredulity, not to believe them with divine faith. And what Incredulity or hardness of heart had it been, not to have believed them with divine and Infallible faith, if they had had only humane and fallible See infra c. 5. n 2. and supra c. 2. n. 3. authority? Nay (as I said before) how could they believe them with divine and Infallible faith, who had but humane and fallible authority or veracity? And it must well be noted, that he calleth it incredulity and hardness of heart, not to have believed them, that is, persons, for to avoid a cavil, that he only condemned Incredulity of his Resurrection. For he plainly attributeth Incredulity to not belief of the persons, who testified his Resurrection. For divine faith bindeth to believe both divine messengers, and their message for their authority. And therefore it is incredulity and against divine faith, not to believe either. And it could not have been incredulititie or want of divine faith, not to believe them, unless they had had divine authority or veracity to testify his Resurrection. And if it be incredulity opposite to divine faith, not to believe men sent by God to testify, surely it is divine credulity to believe such, and if it be divine credulity to believe them, they must have divine authority. For divine infallible credulity cannot be but for divine infallible authority. The Apostle also 2. Thessal. 3. v. 13. sayeth. If any obey not our word, note him. And 1. joan. 4. v. 6. who knoweth God, heareth us who is not of God, heareth not us: In this we know the spirit of truth, and spirit of error. Where (doubtless) he speaketh of infallible knowledge of God, by hearing him; and infallible knowledge could not have been by hearing him, if he had not been infallible in teaching God's truth. And these testimonies of scripture do not only prove, that God can give to men divine and infallible authority or veracity, but also, that he hath given it to some. 4. That the holy Father's thought, that God can give divine or infallible authority or veracity to men, will be evident out of their testimonies, a Infra c. 7. hereafter brought to prove, that he hath given such to the Church. And Reason convinceth, that he can give such authority or veracity to men, because it implieth not contradiction. For what contradiction can be pretended, that God can (if he please) effectually assist some so, that they teach nothing in matters of faith, but truth? as he efficaciously assisteth the elect, that they cannot be led into error Math. 24. And his effectual assistance maketh their authority or veracity to be so divine Infallible, as we desire, and is sufficient to be an external ministerial, or subordinat cause of divine and infallible faith. For it implieth contradiction, that who is efficaciously assisted by God to say but truth, should lie. And I take it to be so evident, that God can give such authority or veracity to his Church, or to men, as I think scarce any Protestant will have the face ●o deny it. For this is not to make men or the Church Primam veritatem; prime verity, as Whitaker fond argueth l. 2. de scrip. p. 230. but only a secondary verity, or veracity subordinat and depending upon God's prime verity or veracity. If God can give to men endless eternity, and yet not make them Gods, why can he not also give them infallible verity or veracity, and yet not make them Gods, or Prime verity? If he can make weakmen not to fall, why can he not make the Church not to err in points of faith? If he can make, that the elect; who are the principal part of the Church shall not be led into error Matth. 24, why can he not make the Church itself? § 45. Nay so manifest it is, See infra c. 15. and Cal vin in Luc. 10. v. 16. that God can give to men this kind of divine veracity or infallibility, as Protestants themselves sometimes confess, that he hath given it to men. For thus Whitaker l. 3. de scripturâ p. 395. The testimony of the holy Divine Ghost, is internal, of the Apostles, external, both in their kind's, divine Sufficient. l. 2. p. 310. the authority alone of the Apostles, sufficed to cause faith. l. 1. p. 46. The Apostles authority was so great, that you might safely believe their preaching for itself. P. 49. though the Apostles were men, y●t they were so extraordinarily governed of the holy Ghost, Relied on their testimony. that most certain faith relied on their testimony. P. 51. The Apostles for their fullness of the holy Ghost, by certain Marks deserved assured authority, so as we believe them alone Controu 2 q. 3. c. 5. the Apostles did consign the canon, as most certain organs of the holy Ghost, endued with divine authority. l. 1. de Scrip. c. 8. p. 86. it was safe to Divine. believe Paul, but speaking. Laud Relat of the Controu. sec. 16. p. 81. If the speech be of the prime Christian Church, the Apostles, disciples, and such as had immediate revelation from heaven, no question, but the voice and tradition of this Church, is divine, not Simply d●uine. aliquo modo, in a sort, but simply P. 84. In the voice of the primitive and Apostolical Church, there was simply divine authority. P. 85. we resolve only into Resolve into Apostolical tradition. prime tradition Apostolical, and scripture itself. P. 91. Every assistance of Christ and the blessed Spirit, is not enough to make the authority of any company of men, divine and infallible, but such and so great an assistance only, as is purposely given to that effect. Such an assistance the Prophets under the old testament, and the Apostles under the New had, P. 102. we have a double divine Divine. testimony, altogether infallible to confirm to us, that scripture is the word of God. The first, is the tradition of the Apostles themselves: The other, the Scripture itself. And into these, we do and may safely resolve our faith. Sec. Safely resolve into Tradition. 18. p. 123. The Prophet's testimony, was divine. Sec. 33. p. 239. All the places Divine. either speak of the Church, including the Apostles, as all of them do, and then all grant, the voice of the Church, is God's voice, divine, and Infallible: Potter sec. 5. p. 5. The prime Church, I call that, which included Christ, and the Apostles, who had immediate revelation Simply divine. from heaven: the voice and testimony of their Church, is simply divine and Infallible. Ibid. p. 30. Their (general Counsels) authority is immediately derived and delegated from Christ. sec. 1. p. 25. The high priest in cases of moment, had a certain privilege from error, if he consulted the divine oracle by the judgement of Vrim, or by the breast plate of judgement, wherein were Vrim and Thummim whereby he had an absolutely infallible direction. If any such Absolutely infallible. promise of God to assist the Pope, could be produced, his decisions might then justly pass for oracles without examination. Behold the high Priest in cases of moment, had a privilege from error, had an absolutely infallible direction, and if the Pope had such, his decisions might pass for oracles. Humphrey ad Rat. 3. Camp. p. 214. Rock of faith. we confess, the Apostolic Church, to be the rock of our faith. Chillingworth c. 2. paragrapho, 138. we say, that Infallibility continued in the Church even together with the scripture, so long as Christ and his Apostles were living. And parag. 155. As the Apostles persons whiles they were living, were the only judges of controversies, so their writings, now they are dead, are the only Rule to judge them by. Feild. lib. 4. of the Greater than scripture Church c 11. If the comparison be made between the Church, including the Evangelists, we deny not, but the Church is of greater authority, antiquity and excellency, than the scripture of the new testament. White in his way, p. 74. The Apostles teaching, was infallible. Behold, the authority, the testimony, the voice, the tradition of the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and of the Primitive Church, is altogether infallible, is divine, not in a sort, but simply, as God's voice, is a sufficient cause of faith, is to be believed for itself, for which alone, we may believe, into which we may resolve our faith, the rock of faith, and the Apostles and Evangelists were of greater authority and excellency, than the scripture of the new testament. And nevertheless the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and Primitive Church, were men. Wherefore, God not only, can, but hath given to men, authority infallible, simply divine, made their voice his voice, made it a sufficient cause of divine faith, and such, as into it, we may resolve our faith. 6. To all these confessions of Protestants, that the authority and veracity of the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and Primitive Church, was divine and infallible, I add, that generally Protestant's confess, that the true Church of God, of what time soever, is Infallible in fundamental points of faith, as I shown part 1. l. 1. c. 7. And they must needs confess it, unless they will say, the Church of the time since the Apostles, is perishable. For if it be errable in fundamental points, it is perishable, because fundamental points are essential points, and without which the Church cannot stand, no more than a house can stand without a foundation, as is evident, and themselves confess. And besides, if it should not hold all points necessary to Salvation (which can never agree to the true Church of God) it should fail of the end, for which God instituted it, which was to bring men to salvation. Now this Infallibility of the Church in fundamental points, cannot be natural, as issuing from the nature of the men who are the Church, as is manifest. Therefore it is supernatural and divine, proceeding from God's special assistance, and virtue of Christ's promise, that she do not err in such points: And if Church's Infallibility in fundamental points be supernatural, and divine, proceeding from God's special and effectual assistance to that purpose, it may justly be given as a sufficient external cause, why we believe any fundamental point, as that the scripture is the word of God. See Wita●er l. 3. de script p. 4 28. Wherefore either Protestants must deny this to be a fundamental point of their faith (which yet some of them account so fundamental, as that upon it, their belief of alother points dependeth) or they cannot deny; but that we may believe with divine faith, that the scripture is the word of God, because the present Church doth testify so and that her authority is not only an Introduction or inducement to believe the scripture to be the word of God, as b Whitaker l. 2. descrip. p. 234. Potter sec. 5. p. 8 Hooler l. 3. §. 8. Laude sec. 5. n. 25. Chilling. c. 3. p. 150. they use to say, but a true and sufficient external cause thereof. For it cannot be denied, but that infallible divine authority or veracity can be (in its order) a sufficient cause of infallible and divine faith. And if the Church's infallibility in some points of faith be divine, voluntary and vain it is to deny it to be such in all points of f●ith. For if she be fallible in some points of faith, what assurance can we have, that she is divinely infallible in others, as S. Augustin rightly said of the scripture. Besides, her divine infallibility in only fundamental points, were to no purpose for us, seeing we know not certainly, which are those fundamental points, which not. Moreover, all points of faith sufficiently proposed, are equally to be believed of us with divine faith, and therefore there must be divine authority in the proposer for them al. I add also, that Protestants teach, that the word or voice of a minister, absolving a penitent, is infallible and Protestants make ministers vo●●e, God's voi●e. equivalent to God's voice, and as much to be believed, as if God spoke to him from heaven, as is to be seen in the Apology of the Confess: of Auspurg. c. de poenitentia, Perkins Cathol. reform. Cont. 3. c. 3. Fulk. of Priesthood. p. 168. And if one Ministers voice be such, much more the voice of the Church. 7. And out of these confessions of Protestants of the infallible and divine authority of the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, we may see: First, how fond some c Whitaker l. 1. descrip p. 24. ●26 l. 3. p. 419. & cont. 2. q. 4. c. 1. Laud sect. 16. n. 6. Petter sec. 5. Chilling. c. 3. n. 50. Protestants argue: The present Church is men: Therefore it is not infallible in matters of faith. As if the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, had not been men. Secondly, how untruly Laude sayeth, sec. 16. p. 65. That special immediate revelation is necessarily required to the very lest degree of divine authority. For besides that he affirmeth that without all proof, it is manifestly refuted by their grant of infallibility of the present Church in fundamental points, For if she be infallible in such high and divine points she is such without immediate divine revelation. Besides, himself sec. tit, p. 51. granteth, that such and so great assistance of Christ, and his Holy Ghost, as is purposely given to that effect, is enough to make the authority What assistance suffieth to make ●uine infallibility. of an●e company of men, divine and infallible. And if such, and so great assistance will suffice to make infallible and divine authority, then special immediate revelation is not needful for that purpose. And surely, it were greatly to restrain the Omnipotency of God, that he cannot give the very lest degree of divine authority, but by special revelation, and that what so ever special assistance of his without that, were not sufficient to that purpose: Moreover, S. Luke c. 1. professeth to have written his Gospel by hearsay Thirdly, we maiesee, how impiously wrote Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 11. The Apostles are not simply to be Protestants will examine the Apostles. heard, but to be examined to the Rule of scripture. l. 1. de script. c. 10. sec. 8. No man's testimony of God, and of his word, can be sufficient. And l. 3. c. 19 p. 500 I believe Moses, but not for Moses: The like he hath ib. p. 402. 404. and other where often. Ibid. c. 8. p. 409. The Apostles give all authority of judging to the Scriptures, take none to themselves. l. 2. p. 294. Nether Paul's, nor the Apostles authority, was reason or Rule of beleuing. l. 1. c. 2. p. 41. Noman believed for Ihons' testimony only. c. 7. p. 78. The command to hear the Apostles, was not simple, for what soever they should say. Simple obedience and belief, is due to Christ only. l. 3. c. 3. p. 383. Nones, but God's testimony of himself, is sufficient. And Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 107. were the Apostles living, and should tell us, that they spoke and writ the very Oracles of God: yet this were but their own testimony of themselves, and so alone not able to enforce belief on others. For will they have the Apostles to be examined, and their testimony unsufficient, which they have granted to be simply divine, the voice of God, altogether infallible, to be believed for itself, sufficient to cause faith, and into which we may resolve our faith. For (as Whitaker himself sayeth l. 1. de script. p. 45.) if it once appear, that the voice of the Church, is the voice of God, it were impiety not to believe, what she teacheth. For it were to call in question God's authority. And l. 3. de scriptura p. 428. will you not be content with divine judgement, or will you except against infallible judgement? Besides, the Church being built upon the authority of the Prophets and Apostles, Ephes. 2. and Apocal. 21. if that be not sufficient, all Christian faith is built upon an unsufficient foundation, and so is fallible. But to this impiety are they by little and little lead, by their denial of the Church's infallibility in all matters which she proposeth us of faith. For who compareth the dignity of the Spouse of Christ, with any singular Prophet or Apostle, or the love of Christ to his Spouse, with his love to any singular Prophet or Apostle, or the scriptures testimonies of his efficacious assistance to his Spouse for not erring in faith, with the testimonies of his like assistance to any singular Prophet or Apostle, will easily see, that the denial of the Church's infallibility, will lead him to doubt or deny the Infallibility of any singular Prophet or Apostle; and the denial of that, will lead to the denial of all infallible certainty of Christian faith; to which it hath already lead Chillingworth, as is to be seen in him c. 2. §. 24. and 154. and otherwhere often. And if it be true, See infra l. 2. c. 8. sec. 2. which his three Approwers (the chiefest Doctors of Oxford) say, that he teacheth nothing contrary to the doctrine of their English Church, their English Church hath not infallible or divine faith. But of this we shall speak more hereafter. Now let us prove out of Scripture, that the true Church of Christ (which soever she is) is infallible in all points of faith. Finally, Protestants teach, that a ministers word absolving one, is as infallible, as God's word, as is to be seen in Apologia Confess Augustanae c. de Poenitentia, Confess Bohem. c. 14 Caluin. 10 v. 16. Perkins in Reform. Catholic cont. 3. c. 3. and others. FIFT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is a sufficient and infallible Proposer of all which she proposeth as points of faith, proved by what she is said to be in Scripture. 1. TWO ways we may prove the Infallibility of the true Church of God in all points which she proposeth as of faith, out of Scripture, the one is by what she, or her Pastors, are there said to be, the other, by what God in Scripture hath promised to her. The first way we will take in this Chapter, and the second, in the next. In the Scripture, the true Church of God is said, first to be the pillar and ground of truth: secondly, her preaching, is said to be a cause of faith: Thirdly, her pastors are said to be witnesses of God's truth: Fourthly, their voice is said to be Christ's voice. Fiftly, they are said to be put to keep the faithful constant in faith: out of all which we will evidently prove her infallibility in all matters, which she proposeth as of faith. 2. The Apostle 1. Timot. 3. v. 15. sayeth: which is the Church of the living God, the Pillar and Ground of truth. Which words do not only prove the Church to be infallible, but also, that she is an external formal cause of divine truth, concerning us: or (which cometh all to one) of our belief of it, because on what our belief of divine truth, relieth, as on a pillar or ground, that is some formal cause thereof, But her infallibility I prove out thence in form, thus: what is the Pillar and Ground of divine and infallible truth, is divinely infallible in such truth. The Church is such, therefore she is divinely infallible in divine truth. The Minor is the Apostles, The Mayor is evident. For a humane and fallible pillar or Ground, is not able to See ●uprae. 2. n. 3. uphold divine and infallible truth, as is evident, and Chillingworth confesseth c. 2. §. 154. in these words: None can build an infallible! faith upon motives, that are not infallible, as it were a great and heavy burden upon a foundation, that hath not strength proportionable. And the same he hath c. 1. n. 7. And also Whitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 166. l. 3. p. 392. 415 Field l. 4. de Eccles. c. 2. Laude sec. 33. p. 248. Potter sec 5. p. 7. And (as the same Chillingworth sayeth well c. 3. §. 33.) The Apostles could not be the Church's foundation, without freedom from error in all those things, which they delivered constantly, as certain revealed truths: so I say, the Church could not be the pillar and Ground of truth to the faithful, without freedom from error in all things, which she constantly delivereth, as certain revealed truths. Nether can it be imagined, how the Scripture could by a clearer metaphor, have affirmed the Infallibility of the Church in matters of faith, then by saying, that she is the pillar and Ground of divine truth. For who can imagine, that God would not make her infallible, whom he maketh the Pillar and Ground of his truth? Nevertheless, Protestants seek many ways to elude the clearness of this text: some by distinguishing the word Church. Some, by distinguishing the word Pillar: some by distinguishing the word Is, and some by distinguishing the word truth. And Chillingworth c. 3. §. 76. p. 176. will have Timothe, not the Church, to be called the pillar and ground of truth. Which variety of shifts, doth sufficiently confute them. 3. a Whitaker cont. 2. q. 2. c. 2. ●ulk in 1. Timot. 3. Field l. 4. de Eccle. c. 4. Some say, the Apostle speaketh not of the universal Church, but only of the particular Church of Ephesus, because he sayeth S. Timothe conversed in the Church, which is the pillar of truth. But this shift, first is new, not found in any ancient author. Secondly, is contrary to the Apostles word For he useth the word, Church absolutely; and Protestants translate it, The Church, which (as is clear, and b Laud Re● lat. p. 128. 141. Chil●ing. p. 263. themselves confess) signifieth the whole Church, and not a part of the Church, as a particular Church is. Thirdly, it is contrary to his meaning. For no particular Church is the pillar and Ground of truth, because every particular Church is fallible. Fourthly, it is contrary to the Fathers. For S. Hierom in c. 26. job. sayeth: The Church, which is the congregation of all Saints, the pillar and ground of truth. Fiftly, it is against themselves. For Whitaker contr. 2. q. 3. c. 2. denieth that by the Church, 1. Timoth. 3. is meant any particular Church, but will have it to be their invisible and Catholic Church, and so doth jewel part. 1. Apolog. c. 9 §. 1. and others. Sixtly, the ground or pretence of their limitation of the Apostles words to the particular Church of Ephesus, is not sufficient, both because the pronoun Thou. (Which is their Ground) is not in the Greek text, which alone Protestants account c See infra l. 2 c. 9 sect. 2. authentical, as also because S. Timothe conversed in the universal Church, as every citizen converseth in the city, though he live not in every part thereof. d junius l. 3. de eccles c. 14. ●li●nsis Responsad Bellarm. c. 14. Others therefore distinguish the word pillar, and say, that the Church is not the pillar on which divine truth relieth, but such a pillar, as truth is put upon to be read, as in old time, Edicts were put upon pillars to be read. This shift also is new, not found in any ancient author, nor grounded in any word of the text, nay plainly contrary to the meaning thereof. For the Church is said to be such a pillar, as Ground is, and Ground is not to lay truth or Edicts upon, but to uphold things. And so plain it is, that the Church is here called a pillar of truth, because it upholdeth it amongst men, as Caluin upon this place sayeth: Because in Contr. 3. q. 5. c. 2. Fundamentum sustinet e dificium. Reinolds Confer. p. 557. respect of men, she sustaineth truth. Whitaker contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. She is like to a pillar in this, that as a pillar doth sustain the whole building, and make it more firm, so the Church doth sustain and uphold truth. And ibid. q. 1. c. 13. It belongeth to a pillar, to sustain others in truth. Nether do these men, who grant the Church to be such a pillar, as sustaineth truth amongst men, differ from Catholics about the Churches sustaining truth amongst men, but about the manner how she doth sustain it, to wit whether by only preaching truth, as they would, or by preaching, and by her authority also of testifying, as Catholics teach. For a pillar and ground is to be relied on. But to this purpose all is one, by what means she susteins infallible truth. For if she sustain infallible truth by teaching it, she must be infallible in teaching it. Beside, if truth be always tied to the Church▪ she is always infallible. 4. Others distinguish the word, d Moulins cont. Peron. c. 13. Chilling. c. 3. p. 177. Vshe●● Reionder. p. 25. Is, and say, that the Apostles meaning is not, that the Church is the pillar of truth, but o●ely, that she ought to be, or it is the duty of the Church to be the pillar of truth. This exposition is (as the former) new, and voluntary, and therefore a plain shift to delude the text, and contrary to the Apostles words, who sayeth not, what is the duty of the Church, or what she ought to be, but what she is. Nether could it be her duty to uphold truth, if she were not made infallible. For it were impossible for her to perform it▪ e Whitaker contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. Others therefore distinguish the word Truth into necessary, and not necessary, and grant, that the Church is the pillar and ground of all necessary truth. But (as I have said, and must often say) albeit only the principal articles of faith be necessary to divine faith, and salvation by reason of the matter which is to be believed, yet all articles of faith are also necessary, by reason of the formal cause for which they are to be believed, which is divine revelation sufficiently proposed, and which is most necessary to divine faith, and which is denied, if any article of faith be not believed. I add also, that all articles of faith (even by reason of the matter which they contain) are necessary to the better being of faith, and of the faithful or (as the Apostle speaketh) to the consummation of Saints. Seeing therefore, all articles of faith, be two ways necessary, there is no reason to limit the Apostles speech, to any certain articles, especially, when (as Morton sayeth in his Grand Imposture c. 2. sec. 6.) It is the law of allawes: Non Rule not to distinguish. See Gerla●hius tom. 2. d●sput. 24. distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit. Which he repeateth ibid. c. 13. and tom. 2. Apol. l. 2. c. 22. Moreover, seeing none knoweth precisely, which points are fundamental or absolutely necessary to be actually believed of every one, which not, it were to no purpose for us, that the Church were infallible in fundamental points only, because we know not, which are all the fundamental points: and notknowing which they are, we cannot know in which points of faith, the Church is infallible, in which not; And then what good would her Infallibility (which is given to her for our good) do to us? I add also, that Protestants are not ●See part. 1. l. 1. c. 7. constant, whether the Church be infalliblein fundamental points, or no. And that if indeed the Church were infallible in fundamental points her authority (as I said before) were in such points divine, and we might give her authority, as a just secondary cause of our beleuing them: and in them rely on her authority, as upon a sure pillar or ground of faith, both which Protestants The Churches preaching a ●●●se of faith. deny. 5. Our second proof of the Infallibility of the Church in all points of faith, shall be taken from that in scripture her preaching is said to be a cause and that necessary (in or dinarie course) of divine and infallible faith. Rom. 10. v. 14. How shall they believe, whom they have not heard. And how shall they hear with out a preacher? How shall they preach, unless they be sent. Therefore faith is of hearing. In which words, the Churches preaching, is made a cause, and that necessary (in ordinary course) of infallible faith, and faith is said to be of hearing her preaching the word of God. Wherefore thus I argue in form: The necessary cause (in ordinary course) of infallible faith, is infallible: The Churches preaching is the necessary cause (in ordinary course) of infallible faith. Therefore her preaching is infallible. The Mayor is evident, because a humane and fallible cause, cannot produce a divine and infallible effect. And g See sup. n. 2. (as Whitaker l. 1. de scrip. p. 166.) The effect doth not surpass the cause. And less can it be a necessary cause thereof, because what is fallible, cannot be necessary: for what is fallible, may fail, and what is necessary to faith, cannot fail. Besides, all grant, that the extraordinary cause of infallible faith, by the preaching of the Apostles, and Prophets, was infallible, as we shown in the fourth Chapter n. 5. and why not also the ordinary cause by the preaching of the Church? seeing the end of both preach, is the same, to wit, infallible faith. For if ordinary fallible authority in the Church, can cause infallible faith, what need had God to give infallible authority to the Prophets and Apostles for that end? The minor, to wit, that the Churches preaching is (in ordinary course) a necessary cause of infallible faith, is plainly the Apostles meaning. For he asketh, how shall they believe without a preacher lawfully sent, and the Pastors of the Church are the only preachers lawfully sent: And out of this necessary dependency of faith on lawful preaching, he inferreth: Therefore faith is of hearing to wit, of hearing the preaching of some lawfully sent, which is to make lawful preaching, a cause of faith. For if faith be of hearing lawful preaching, lawful preaching is a cause of faith. Nether hindereth it, that the word preached, is also a cause of faith: for the word is the object to be believed, and lawful preaching, is the cause of beleuing it. Otherwise why should lawful preaching be necessary, and notanie kind of preaching, suffice. And so evidentit is, that these words of the Apostle make the Churches preaching à cause ormeans of faith as Whitaker l. 1. de scrip. p. 41. being urged with them, answereth thus: I confess, preaching is the external means instituted by God, by which faith is begotten in the See ib. p. 68 and 442. minds of the Hearers. And p. 15. The Churches preaching, is but instrumentally cause of faith. And l. 3. p. 425. Faith, is the effect of the testimony of the Church as of an instrument. And contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. The Church is not author of faith, but as an instrument and external means. And an instrument is a true cause. And the same say others, as h C. 14. we shall see hereafter. And I as know more but the Church to be asecondarie or instrumental cause (in respect of God) of divine faith. For doubtless she cannot be the principal cause thereof, as nether were the Prophets or Apostles: I omit that fond shift of fundamental and nor fundamental points, which may be here used for to delude this text, because (beside that which hath been already said against it) the Apostle doth not say: How shall they believe fundamental points, but how shall they believe, that is, believe any point of faith at all, without a preacher? And also, because out of the Churches divine infallibility in fundamental points of faith, evidently followeth her like infallibility in all points of faith: Nether have I as yet read any Protestant, who would grant the Church to be divinely infallible in some points of faith, and deny herto be so infallible also in others points: see infra l. 2. c. 10. sec. 2. Pastors are Gods witnesses. 6. The third proof of the Curches' Infallibility in all points of faith, shall be taken from that in scripture her Pastors are said to be by God appointed witnesses for to be get divine and infallible faith. Acts. 1. v. 8. ye shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all jury and Samaria, and to the utmost of the land. The like is ibid. v. 48. and 22. c. 2. v. 32. c. 10. v. 39 c. 13. v. 31 c. 22. v. 25. c. 26. v. 6 1. Corinth. 15. v. 15. joan 1. v. 8. c. 15. v. 26. c. 21. v. 21. and otherwhere. Out of which places I argue thus in form: who are witnesses appointed by God to testify divine truth, and to beget divine and infallible faith, (for the end of witnesses, is Caluin Actor. 20. v. 21. Testificatio ad toilendam omnem dubitationem interponi●ur. to beget belief of what they witness) are altogether infallible: The Pastors of the Church are such; Therefore they are altogether infallible. The Mayor is evident. For humane and fallible witnesses, are unfit to testify divine truth, because such may prove falls, and are unable effectually to beget divine and infalble faith. For the i Supra n. 2. 5. effect doth not surpass the cause. And surely no wise man would assuredly believe any thing for the testimony of one, of whose fidelity he were not assured. For as in science, we cannot be assured of the conclusion, and not of the Premises, for which we are assured of the conclusion; so in faith, we cannot be infallibly assured of the thing witnessed, and not be infallible assured of the witness. k Whitaker l. 1. de scrip. p. 49. 50. Laud sect. 16. p. 65. Some answer, that witnesses appointed immediately by God, as the Apostles were, are altogether infallible, but not such, as are mediately appointed by him, as the Church is. But this is The sawn end requireth like means. Ca●uin. 1. Cor. 1 15. v. 15. Redundat in maximum Dei opprobrium si ordinati á Deo, aetern● eius veritatis praecones, mendatijs illus●sse ●undo deprehendantur. frivolous. For the divers manner of Gods appointing witnesses, doth not the end, for which he appointeth them, which being one and the same in the Apostles and the Church (to wit) testifying of divine truth, and thereby causing of divine faith, requireth divine infallibility in both, and only proveth the manner of Gods giving infallibility to them, to be different, to wit, extradinarie. The Minor, namely that the Pastors of the Church, are appointed by God witnesses of divine truth for to beget by their testimony, divine faith, concerning the Apostles, the aforesaid places manifestly avouch, and Protestants generally confess, as we saw in the former l N. 5. Chapter: But they deny, that Pastors, successors of the Apostles, are so appointed by God. But this is evidently proved, because the end for which the testimony of the Apostles was instituted by God, to wit, to beget divine faith, continueth. And therefore their infallible authority of testifying, continueth. As because the end of the Apostles preaching, baptising, administrating Sacraments, and the like, continueth; so their authority of testifying God's truth, doth continue. ●ay it was more needful, that infallible authority of testifying, should be in the Apostes successors, then in the Apostles themselves; because the Apostles, besides their infallible authority of testifying, had the gift of miracles, which much strengthened their said authority, which gift rheir successors ordinarily have Office of Pastors, to testify divine truth. not, and therefore more need infallible authority of testifying, than the Apostles needed. Beside, the authority of testifying divine truth, is an ordinary office or duty of the Pastors of God's Church, as Protestants here confess, and all ordinary offices or duties remain in the Apostles successors Moreover, Pastors who succeed the Apostles, (as we shall prove in the next argument) are put to consummate Saints, therefore also to testify God's truth. And so evident it is, that the Church and her Pastors, are witnesses of divine faith, as Protestants often times confess it For thus the English confession art. 20. The Church is a witness and The Church afaithful witness. teacher of truth. And Roger's vpo● that article: All of us do grant, that the Church, as faithful witness, may, yea of necessity must, testify to the world, what hath been the doctrine of God's people from time to time. Melancthon in Locis, tit. de Eccles. I confess, the Church keepeth the scripture as witness. Sutclif l. 1. de Eccles. c. 1. p. 11. we doubt not, but the Church is a faithful witness of the scripture. Beza 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. The Church is witness and conserver of truth amongst men. Feild, of the Church l. 4. c 6. The Church's office of teaching and witnessing the truth. Potter sec. 5. p. 9 To the Church, we willingly attribute these two excellent uses: first, of witness, testifying the authority and sense of scripture to us: Secondly, of God's instrument, by whose ministry in preaching and expounding the scriptures, the Holy Ghost breeds a divine faith in us. Whitaker controu. 1. q. 3. c. 1. The Church's testimony, must be received. Ibid. The Church delivereth the rule of faith, as witness. Controu. 2. q. 5. c. 18. The Church is an external witness and interpreter of truth. l. 1. de scrip. p. 15. we may be forced by the authority of the Church, to acknowledge the Scripture. Caluin. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 10. Moulins Bu●le● sec. 104. P. 19 The Church's testimony must be received, and who receiveth it not, is guilty of Sacrilege. Ibid. it is the office of the Church and Pastors, to testify of the scriptures. P. 22. The Church hath authority to testify those things, which are of faith. P. 46. we cannot believe, but by the testimony of the Church, as by the ordinary means. P. 49. I have told, what offices the Church hath touching scripture. First, it is to be witness and keeper of the scripture. Ibid. Indeed the Church is witness of faith. 7. You see, how the evidency of the Church's Infallibility in witnessing God's truth, forceth Protestant's to speak (at least) as Catholics do, howsoever they think not so. For they say, she is a faithful witness; she hath authority to testify God's truth: her authority can force men to acknowledge the scripture: Her testimony must be received, and who receiveth it not, is guilty of sacrilege. And hath she of her humane nature, to be a faithful witness of supernatural truths? hath she of herself, authority to testify such truths; can her humane authority forcemen, to acknowledge things above sense and reason? Is it sacrilege, not to receive humane testimony? Pastors are to consummate Saints. 8. The fourth argument, we will take from that the Scripture sayeth, that God hath put Pastors in the Church for to consummate Saints, and to keep them united and constant in divine faith, till we meet all in one. Ephes. 4. v. 11. And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, others some Euamge lists and others Pastors and Doctors, to the consummation of Saints, for edification of the body of Christ, until we meet in the unity of faith.— That now we be not Children and carried about with every wind of doctrine. Out of which place I argue thus in form: whom God putteth in the Church; as he put Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, for to consummate Saints, and to keep them united and constant in divine infallible faith: to them he hath given divine infallibility in matters of faith: but so he put the Pastors and Doctors of the Church: Therefore to them he hath given divine infallibility in matters of faith. The Mayor is evident, both because to the Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, such infallibility was given, and therefore the like, to others, whom God putteth in the Church, for the same end he put them: as also, because if they had not divine Infallibility, they were nether fit nor able to consummate Saints, and keep them united and constant in divine infallible faith: For humane veracity, cannot make men divinely assured. Some Protestants may say, that this proveth, that Pastors of the Church have Infallibility in fundamental points, but not in all points. But, beside what we have said before of this distinction, and that it is here, both new and groundless, and therefore a mere voluntary and irrational shift, it is clearly refuted. First, because Pastors are said to be put for the same end, for which the Apostles Prophets, and Evangelists were, to wit, to consummate saints, and to keep them united and constant in all points of divine faith. And also, Pastors are said, to be put in the Church in the same manner for that end, as the Apostles were. Secondly, because Saints are not consummate, if they be suffered to err in any points of faith. Thirdly, m Laude sec. 16. p 65. 91. Se● the Prefacen. 2. Protestant's will not grant divine Infallibility to Pastors, even in fundamental points, and the Apostle speaketh of divine infallibility, such as the Prophets and Apostles had. And if Protestant's would in deed grant divine infallibility in fundamental points to Pastors, I think they would not stick to grant them divine infallibility in other points of faith. 8. Wherefore Chillingworth c. 3. n. 79. and seq. seemeth to grant, that the Pastors (whereof the Apostle speaketh (had divine infallibility in all points of faith, as the Apostles had, but denieth, that he speaketh of Chilling. turneth Pastors unto writings. Pastors succeeding the Apostles, but only of such, as in the Apostles time, had immediate revelation, and that they consummate Saints, and keep them united and constant in faith for ever, by their writing. But this Exposition, or limitation of the Apostles words to Pastors, only in the time of the Apostles, First, is new, (for he citeth no ancient author for it) and therefore is justly suspected: secondly, it hath no ground in the Apostles words, and therefore is ameere voluntary and irrational shift to delude the true sense of them. Thirdly, because no Pastors of the Apostles time (distinct from Apostles and Evangelists) wrote any thing. For S. Mark, and S. Luke were Evangelists, and all other writers, were Apostles. And S. Paul speaketh of Pastors, who were different from both Apostles and Evangelists, nor sayeth he, that the Pastor's writings were put in the Church to consummate Saints, but the Pastors themselves were put for that end. and Chillingworth in effect will not, that Pastors were put, but only their writings, because not those infallible Pastors, but only their writings were to continue in the Church for ever. Whereas the Apostle speaketh not of writings, but of men, to wit, of infallible Pastors, that were to continue for ever. Lastly, it is contrary to the common sense of Protestants, who out of this place do gather, that there shall beal ways Pastors in the Church, as Melancthon to. 1. Lutheri disp. de Politia Eccles. fol. 442. Kemnitius 2. part Exam p. 192. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 3. §. 2. and upon this place, Whitaker Controu. 4. q. 1. c. 3. p. 634. and others And besides now S●● l. 2. 〈◊〉 6. sec. 2. Protestants grant, that no Scripture is of itself (without the testimony of the Pastors of the Church) sufficient to prove any point to be believed with divine faith, much less, to consummate Saints, and keep them constant and united in such faith. Wherefore S. Paul meant not of any writings of infallible Pastors in the Apostles time, but of infallible Pastors themselves: And when I say: the Pastors of the Church are infallible, I mean not, that every Pastor is infallible farther than he agreeth with the Church, no more, than when I say The Church is infallible or perpetual, I mean, that every member of the Church is such, because, The Pastors, signifieth the body or company of them, as o Chilling. p. 263. Laudep. 128. 141. The Church, signifieth the whole body thereof. And these four arguments hitherto brought, are a prioris, taken from the end, for which the scripture sayeth, the Church was instituted by God. For because he made the Church, the pillar and ground of divine truth, he gave her, to that end, divine Infallibility: Because he made the Churches preaching, the ordinary means of begetting divine infallible faith, he gave her (to that end) divine infallibility in matters of faith: because he made her Pastor's witnesses of divine truth, he gave them (for that end) divine infallibility in testifying that truth. Because he put Pastors for to consummate Saints, and keep them united and constant in divine faith, he gave them (for that end) divine infallibility, in matters of faith, because both Church and Pastors without divine infallibility had been unfit and unable to attain to those ends as is euident by itself, and confessed by Protestants here above n. 2 and 5. 9 The fift argument, shall be taken out of that our Saviour said of the Pastors of the Church: Luke 10. v. 16. who heareth you, heareth me, who despiseth Pastors, one teacher with Christ. you, despiseth me. Out of which words I argue thus in form, who are one teacher with Christ, are infallible teachers of Christ's doctrine: The Pastors of the Church, are one teacher with Christ: Therefore they are infallible teachers of his doctrine. The Maioris evident. For Fallible, and infallible teachers, are not one, but quite different kinds of teachers: the Minor also is manifest. For if they were not one Teacher with Christ, it would not follow, that who heareth them, heareth Christ. For different teachers may have different hearers. And I note, that Christ said not, who heareth your Witaker cont●. 2 q. 4. who hear the Church hear Christ himself. doctrine, heareth my doctrine, but, who heareth you, heareth me. Thereby making, not only his Pastor's doctrine and his doctrine, one, but also making them and him, one teacher of his doctrine, which is much more. For a private man's doctrine, may be all one with Christ's doctrine, but be not one Teacher with Christ, because he is not a Teacher appointed by Christ to speak for him, as Pastors are. Some Protestants answer, Chilling. c. 3. n. 72. that these words of Christ, are meant only of the Apostles, who were indeed both infallible Teachers; and one Teacher with Christ, but not so their Successors. But this limitation of Christ's meaning to the Apostles alone, First, is new, because no ancient author is alleged for it. Secondly, it can have no other ground in the text, but because the words were spoken only to the Apostles, which is no reasonable ground. For so all power of preaching, and ministering Sacraments, should have been proper to the Apostles. Thirdly, it is contrary to the end of Christ's speech. For as Christ made the Apostles, Teachers of his doctrine for the good of the Church, so he made them also one with himself for the same end. Wherefore as he made Pastors, successors of his Apostles, in being Teachers, for the good of the Church, so he made them, successors of the Apostles, in being one Teacher with him for the good of the Church: and therefore are such, as long as the Church continueth. Fourthly, the latter part of this speech of Christ, is meant of the successors of the Apostles. For who despiseth them, despiseth Christ, as well as who despiseth the Apostles. Therefore the former part who heareth you, heareth me, is also meant of the successors of the Apostles. Fiftly, it is contrary to the Fathers. For S. Cyprian, Epist. 69. sayeth: Christ sayeth to his Apostles, and thereby to all Pastors who succeed the Apostles by successive ordination, who heareth you, heareth me. Lastly, it is contrary to divers Protestants, who p Laude sec. 16. p. 25. grant, that these words are meant both of the Apostles, and their Successors, but (say p some of them) differently, to wit, absolutely, in the Apostles, and conditionally, in their Successors, namely, so long, and so far as you speak my words and not your own. 10. But this exposition is (as the former) new, and without any ground in the text, and therefore an irrational elusion of Christ's words Secondly, it maketh Christ to equivocate, using the same words differently, without any expression of his different usage. Thirdly, the latter part of Christ's speech, to wit, who despiseth you etc. is meant absolutely, aswel of the Pastors, as of the Apostles. For absolutely, who despiseth Christ's Pastors, despiseth him, as well, as if they despised his Apostles, because they are his legates, as well as the Apostles were. Fourthly, it is contrary to the end of Christ's speech, which was to give both to the Apostles, and to their successors assurance to teach his doctrine; and to People, to hear and believe them, because they were one Teacher with himself. Which end were frustrate in the successors of his Apostles, if his meaning were not absolute to them, as well as to the Apostles. For what assurance should either the Pastors have in teaching, or people, in hearing them, if Christ's words depend upon an uncertain condition? Assurance requireth an absolute promise: and seeing Christ meant to assure both the Apostles, and their teaching, and people, in hearing them, he must needs mean absolutely, both of Apostles, and their successors. Fiftly, it implieth contradiction, to be one Teacher with Christ, and not to be absolutely infallible in teaching his doctrine. For how can he who is one Teacher with an infallible Teacher, be not absolutely infallible? Besides, it is one thing to teach infallible doctrine, and an other, to be infallible in teaching infallible doctrine. And one thing is to hear Christ's doctrine, and to hear Christ. Private men, may teach infallible doctrine, yet are not infallible in teaching it: and who heareth them, heareth Christ's Whitaker l. 3. des●rip. p. 414. Spiritus per os E●●lesiae loquitur so cont. 1. q 3. c. 11. doctrine, but yet heareth not Christ, because Christ hath not appointed them to speak for him, nor speaketh by them. But whom Christ appointeth to speak for him, (as he doth Pastors) they do both teach infallible doctrine, and are infallible in teaching it, and who heareth them, not only heareth Christ's doctrine, but also heareth Christ himself, because he heareth them, whom Christ hath ●pointed to speak for him, and by whom he speaketh. And it implieth contradiction, that they should not be absolutely infallible, whom Christ appointeth speakers or teachers for him, and speaketh by them, or. whom hearing, we hear Christ Wherefore Thus I argue; Christ said absolutely, and without any condition, as well of the successors of the Apostles, as of the Apostles themselves; who heareth you, heareth me, Therefore absolutely, and without any condition, both Apostles, and their successors are infallible. For we cannot be deceived by Christ, by any way that we hear him. The antecedent is evident by Christ's words, which are absolute and have no condition any more for the Apostles Successors, then for the Apostles themselves. The consequence also is evident: For who absolutely are such, as hearing them, we hear Christ, are absolutely infallible. And this consequence those Protestants saw, who denied these words to be at all meant of the Apostles Successors. For they saw, that if Christ said absolutely of them, as well as of the Apostles, who hear you, hear me, Laud p. 65. 91. they must need be absolutely and not merely conditionally, infallible. Lastly, Protestants do not grant, even conditional divine infallibility, but only humane, to Pastors; and yet Christ here speaketh of divine infallibility, for such was the infallibility of the Apostles, and such must needs be theirs, whom who heareth, heareth Christ. For who are such, as who heareth them, heareth Christ are such as Christ speaketh by and such as Christ speaketh by, are doubtless, infallible. For Christ cannot speak untruths by any whom soever. L. 1. de scrip. p. 109. And as Whitaker sayeth: What is the Church speaking the word of God, but the mouth and tongue of God? 11. And all the aforesaid places of Scripture, and arguments made, prove indifferently, that the true Church of God, can no way err in points of faith, either vincibly or invincibly: others, peculiarly prove, that she cannot err vincibly or sinfully in any point of faith. As where Scripture testifieth, that Hell gates Math. 19 O ●eae. 2. Rom. 13. 1. Cor. 12. Michea 4. Luca●. 57 Psal. 2. 27. 32. Hebr. 32. Galat. 4. shall not prevail against her, or calleth her the Spouse of Christ, the body of Christ, Christ's kingdom, Christ's Inheritance, Christ's Temple, our mother which bringeth us forth to Christ, For sinful error in any point of faith, is the sin of Heresy, which is a gate of Hell, and S. G●egor. in psal. 5. Poeniten. which destroyeth both the unity, and substance of saving faith, and of the true Church, as we have proved at large part 1. l. 2. c. 2. & seqq. and need not here repeat. For having clearly proved already, that the true Church cannot err at all in points of faith, we need not prove that she cannot err in them vincibly or sinfully. Wherefore we will now prove out of God's promises made in the Scripture to the Church, that she cannot err in points of faith. sixth CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is infallible in all points of faith, proved by God's promises to her. 1. JOAN. c. 14. v. 16. Christ sayeth: I will request my father, and he will give you an other Paraclet for to abide with you for ever. And v 26. The Paraclet, The Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things, and suggest unto you all things, whatsoever I shall say unto you. And c. 16. c. 13. when the holy spirit of truth shall come, he shall teach you all truth. Behold a most large promise of Christ to the Church, that the Holy Ghost shall be for ever with the Church, and shall both teach, and suggest her all things, all things what soever Christ shall say, All truth. Therefore she cannot err in any thing, which Christ taught, or in any truth. And Whitaker cont. 1. q. 3. c. 11. calleth these, most clear and most certain testimonies. To this Protestants make three answers▪ all opposite one to the other: The first Whitaker ●ont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. Laud se●. 25. p. 165. P●tter se●. 5. p. 59 Chilling. c. 3. § 71. and most common, is, that Christ promiseth not that the Holy Ghost shall teach the Church all truth of faith, but only, all truth which is absolutely necessary to al. This limitation of all truth of faith, to all truth absolutely necessary to all: First is new, for no ancient Author is alleged for it. Secondly, it is voluntary. For it hath no ground in the text, but is voluntarily shaped according to their opinion, That the Church cannot err in fundamental points, but in other points she may: Thirdly, it is violent, for it is as to expound, all truth, by not all truth. Fourthly, it is injurious to the Apostles, to whom it was personally made, as if Christ had not here promised to teach them all truth of faith whatsoever, but only fundamental. Fiftly, it is contrary to the Fathers. For Phoebadus l. contra Arianos sayeth: when Christ sayeth, all truth, surely he excludeth none. Sixtly, all points of faith are absolutely necessary to all, to be believed, at least virtually, and also actually, if they be sufficiently proposetd, as we have clearly proved in the former q D 2. c. 3. 1 lb. l. 2. c. 3. part, and Protestants sometimes confess. And though there be but some points, which are absolutely necessary to be believed actually of all, yet seeing (as Protestants confess) none knoweth precisely, which they are, what good would it do to Christians, to know, that the Church cannot err in them. Do not Protestants confess, that all divine revelations without exception, are necessary to be believed, when they are sufficiently proposed, as I shown part 1. l. 1. c. 25. N'ay do not they confess, that all divine revelations are fundamental to faith, when they are sufficiently proposed, as I shown ibid. l. 2. c. 25. How then can they think, that the Church can err in any point of faith sufficiently proposed? Doth not Chillingworth in his answer to the preface n. 6. say; that we are bound See P●tter ●c. 7. p. 103. by the love of God, and the love of truth, to be zealous on defence of truths, that are any way profitable, though not simply necessary to Salvation? Our Saviour himself having assured us, that he that shall break one of his least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. And will not Christ teach his Church all truth's profitable to salvation, or suffer her to teach contrary to any of his least commandments? Doth not Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 4. c. 2. say, that the Church erreth not in those things, which are necessary to any? And are such things absolutely necessary to all men? Doth not Laud Relat. sec. 38. n. 25. say, that beside the foundation common to all, there be things necessary to many particular men's Salvation? and will Christ suffer the Church to err in things necessary to many particular men's salvation? As he doth, if he suffer her not to err but in the foundation common to al. I omit here Laud his fond distinction sec. 16. n. 28 That Christ promised an infallible assistance to his Apostles, but only a fitting assistance to their successors, for beside that it is a new and groundless distinction, it is contrary to the end of Christ's promise. For no assistance in matters of ●nfallible faith, is fitting, but that which is infallible But out of the aforesaid say of Protestants, it is evident, First, that some times they grant, and indeed must grant, that the Church is infallible in more points, then are absolutely fundamental to all men. 2. that in what points she is infallible, she is in them divinitus, or divinely infallible, because she is such, by Christ's foresaid promise, and the Holy Ghosts special assistance. 3. That in saying, the Church is infallible only in necessaries, they should not descent from Catholics, if by necessaries, they would mean necessaries to alsortes of men, and both for the being and better being of faith, as no doubt the Apostle meant Ephes. 4. by consummation of Saints, and edification of the body of Christ. For Catholics do not think, that that the Church is infallible in things altogether unnecessary, as many scholastical subtiltiesare. 2. Their second answer is, that though the Holy Ghost teach the Laud sect. 25. n. 5. Chilling. c. 3. §. 71. Church all truth, any way necessary to Salvation; yet it followeth not, that she learneth all such truth, because God complaineth of some, that they had eyes, and would not see, had ears and stopped them. This answer also is new, and not grounded in any word of Christ, but voluntary and irrational, and injurious to the Apostles, as if they had not learned all truth, which the Holy Ghost taught them, and also to the Holy Church, as if she would not learn all the truth which the Holy Ghost teacheth her, but were like to those reprobats, who would not see, nor hear God's voice, and blasphemous against Christ, (as if he would not promise) and against the Holy Ghost, as if he would not more effectually teach the Apostles and Church, than he doth teach Reprobates. But before, we have proved, that the Holy Ghost teacheth the Church efficaciously. 3. Their third answer, is, that this Whitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 77. Laud. sec. 16. p. 97. Chilling. c. 3. §. 72. Moulins Bu●ler p. 51. promise was made to the Apostles only, whom indeed the Holy Ghost taught all truth of faith, and who also learned it; but not to the Church; or Successors of the Apostles. This answer is new, nor sufficiently grounded in the text, as shall by and by appear, but contrary to Christ's express words of his Promise, for ever; For the Apostles were not to abide here for ever Contrary to the end of his Promise, which was for the good of the Church, and therefore was to continue so long, as the Church continueth For it was chiefly for the good of the Church, that the Holy Ghost was to teach all truth. Contrary to the Fathers, as we shall see in the next Chapter: And finally, contrary to Protestants. For thus Laude sec. 16. p. 93. 96. It was made to the Apostles, and their suecessors. sec. 25. p. 161. A large promise to the Church, of knowing all points of truth. And sec. 33: p. 231▪ for necessary truth the Apostles received this promise for themselves and the whole Church P. 232. The Fathers refer their speech to the Church universal. And Potter sec. 5. p. 18. That promise was made to the Apostles, in behoof of the Church, and is verified in the universal Church. And t ●tem Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 1. Laudesect. 16 p. 96. Whitaker controu. 3. q. 6. c. 2. sayeth, that those words. For ever, convince it, as in truth they do, because, the Apostles were not to be here for ever. Nevertheless Chillingworth c. 3. §. 74. answereth, that by for ever, here is not meant eternally, but continually for the time of the Apostles lives, because for ever is sometimes so taken in Scripture. But fond, for in those places, the v Tertul. de ●estor. ●3. matter showeth that for ever signifieth till death. But the like is not here, for the reasons already given, and all words are to be understood properly, unless the contrary be manifest, as the x Tertul de Carne ●hri●. c. 13. 15. 24. de restor. c. 18. Cont. Praxec 13. Augustin l. 3. d● Doctrin. c 10. 11. H●larius l. 1. 2. 4. 5. 7. Fathers teach, and reason showeth. For else, all understanding of words, should become voluntary, as men would have it. And yet Chillingworth §. 75. sayeth I presume I have showed sufficiently, that this (For ever) hinders not, but that the promise may be appropriated to the Apostles, when he hath out of a few places, and those unlike; (as being of a quite different matter) wrested a word from its proper and usual signification, to an improper and unusual, merely for to defend his heresy. For the matter is quite different, because in the places brought by Chillingworth, speech is of some particular persons, who nether in themselves, nor in their successors, could continue eternally: and therefore, for ever, in them, must needs be mant For their life, whereas the Apostles continue in their successors eternally, and therefore For ever, spoken to them them for the good of the Church, is to be understood eternally, as properly and usually it signifieth. But it is the common sophistical manner of arguing among Protestaut writers, to argue from some few particular improper use of words, in some matter, against the proper and usual sense of them, even in a different and dislike matter, which is a very Sophistical kind of arguing, and well to be noted. For by that, nothing can be assuredly proved out of scripture. Besides, Christ here so promiseth the assistance of the Holy Ghost for ever, as Math. 28. he promiseth his own assistance for ever, but that he promiseth Laud sect. 16. p. 29. eternally. For he sayeth. Going, teach all nations, baptising etc. And I am with you all days till the end of the world: to wit, with you, teaching and baptising. Which showeth Christ's assistance for ever with his Pastors in their teaching. Chillingworths' proofs, that this promise was made to the Apostles alone, be cause in them some words pertain to them alone, prove no more, then that the promise was in words made to them alone, but not meant to them alone. As Christ's promise to S. Peter Math. 16. that the Church should be built on him, and that he should have the keys of heaven, was made to him alone, yet not meant to him alone, but to his successors also; and commandment was given to him alone joan. 21. to feed Christ's sheep, and yet not meant to him alone, but to his successors also. Math. 18. that what the Apostles should Promises are to be measured by, their end. lose on earth, should be loosed in heaven, was made only to them, but meant also to their successors: and the like is of many others such. And the reason of all, is one and the same, because all these promises were made to the Apostles, for the good of the Church, which was to continue after the Apostles. Thus we have refuted the Protestants three answers to this promise of Christ, and shown them to be mere shifts, Nay indeed they turn Christ's most bountiful promise made unto his Church, to nothing▪ for to what purpose is it to teach the Church all fundamental or absolutely necessary truths, and not tell her, which are those truths? To what purpose were it to teach the Church uneffectually, as Reprobates are taught: To what purpose were it, that the Apostles alone were taught all truth, if the Church also were not taught it, who is to teach us as they taught her. 4. An other promise of Infallibility in matters of faith, made to the Church, is Isaiae. 59 v. 21. This is my Conuenant with the, sayeth our lord: my spirit which is in the, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not departed from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy sred, and from the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith our Lord from hence forward, and for ever. Which words are not a command as Moulins would have it, but a convenant or promise, and that absolute, not conditional, as Plessiae would, and do plainly promise to the Church continual infallibility, and infallibility for ever, and in all the words of God, which he hath put in her mouth, and are so plain as Whitaker contr. 2. q. 5. c. 19 said: This place doth show, that true preaching of the word, shall be in the Church perpetual. Yet l. 1. de Scrip. p. 133. he sayeth, this promise was not made to the teaching Church, but to the whole Church, that is the elect. But first, this distinction of the teaching Church, and the elest Church, hath no ground in the text, and therefore is a voluntary and irrational shift: Secondly, words put in thy mouth, show plainly, that it is made to the teaching Church, and (as Whitaker before cited) show, that true preaching of the word, shall be perpetual in the Church. Thirdly, if this promise be made to the whole elect Church, it comprehendeth some part (at least) of the teaching Church. For alwries some of the teaching Church, are Elect: and so there are always some preachers of all points of faith in the Church. I omit their usual shift of their distinction of Fundamental, and not fundamental points of faith, both because there are no not fundamental points in their sense, that is, not necessary to saving faith, true Church, and Salvation; but all are fundamental to those ends, that is, necessary to be believed, at least virtually, and also actually, if they be sufficiently proposed●: And also, because z See part. 1 l. 1. c. 7. Protestants do not constantly defend, that the Church is infallible in fundamental points, and a See infra l. 2 c. 10. sect. 2. generally they say, that she is not infallible in their most fundamental point of all, to wit, that scripture is the word of God; and all of them deny her to be divinely infallible in any point of faith what soever. And God in these words, plainly testifieth, that he will make her divinely infallible, because he will put his word in her mouth and make, that it shall never departed from her, which is to make her divinely infallible, as he made the Prophets; or Evangelists: For I call that divinely infallible, which is infallible by Gods divine assistance, and not by any natural insight of truth, and natural fidelity, in telling it: And such divine infallibility God hath promised to his Church in the foresaid words of the Prophet, or that can not be promised by any words, which men can speak or hear. 5. And now (Gentle Reader) I pray thee consider. First, how many places (to omit others for brevity sake) I have brought for the divine infallibility of the true Church of God in all matters of faith: secondly, how directly they affirm the said infallibility, so as they need no inference of ours, though I have reduced some of them to sillogistical form, because b Beza in Colloq. mont. p. 95. 96. 98. Hunnius de Conduit. disput. thesi 18. Whitaker Pr●●. Controu. Morton part. 2. Apol. l. 1. 〈◊〉. 49. Fulco de Success. p. 493. Chilling c. 3. n. 43. Protestants do require it. Thirdly, how clearly, that Protestants are forced to invent so many, so new, so contrary one to the other, so voluntary, and so violent expositions. Fourthly, how against so many, so direct, so plain places of Scripture, which teach the infallibility of the Church in all points of faith, Protestants cannot bring one place of Scripture, which directly, so much as seemeth to teach, that she is fallible in points of faith, as may be seen in Whitaker contro. 2. q 4. c. 3. and other Protestants, who writ of this matter, but all their arguments are either taken wholly from mere natural reason, or at least partly from natural reason, which evidently showeth, that they can have no divine and infallible faith, that the Church is fallible in points of faith, because the conclusion followeth the weaker part: whereas Catholics have express, and clear scripture for her infallibility, and consequently good ground for divine faith of it. The most they can bring out of Scripture for their purpose, are some examples, which are the same, which the Donatists brought for the perishing of the Church, as may be seen in S. Augustin l. de Vnitate c. 13. to which he there fully answereth; and indeed do rather prove the perishing of the Church, than her erring in faith, and therefore must be answered as well of Protestants, as of catholics. For (as Whitaker sayeth Contro. 2. q. 3. c. 1.) He is mad, that sayeth the Church can Perish. And ibid. c. 2. who denieth that the Church is founded for ever, and to continue perpetually, he is no Christian. Morton in his reply, for defence of his apology p. 90. It is madness to say, that the whole visible Church can fail: and Chillingworth c. 3. §. 11. we believe the Catholic Church can not perish. Though this he believe not infallible. For in answer to the preface §. 18. he sayeth: the contrary doctrine, I do at no hand believe to be a damnable heresy, And c. 5. §. 41. Nether is it certain, that the doctrine of the Churches failing, is repugnant to the Creed. Fiftly, consider how untruly wrote Chillingworrh c. 2. §. 28. of Catholics: you yourselves do not so much as pretend to enforce to the belief hereof (Infallibility of the Church) by any proofs infallible and convincing, but only to induce us to it by such as are, by your confession, only probable motives. §. 35. your faith, even of the foundation of your faith, your Church's authority, is built lastly and wholly upon prudential motives. And §. 70. The faith of Papists, relies alone upon their Church's infallibility: That there is any Church infallible, and that theirs is it, they pretend not to believe, but only upon prudential motives. Are so many, so plain so direct places of Scripture, as catholics bring for the infallibility of the Church, only prudential motives? To say nothing of the testimony of Fathers, convincent reasons, and plain confession of Protestants, which hereafter we shall bring for the same purpose. 6. To all the former proofs of the infallibility of the Church, taken out of holy Scripture, I will add one taken from the Apostles Creed or Symbol, which c Caluin 2. Instit. c. 16. §. 8. Whitaker l. 3. de script. c. 3 sect. 1. Protestants say is an Epitome of the Scripture, ad containeth all fundamental points of faith. For in that we profess to believe, the holy Catholic Church. And holy she cannot be, if she sinfully err in any point of faith, because every sinful error in faith, is heresy, and every heresy, a sin, which excludeth out of heaven. Nor Catholic she could be, if she err sinfully, or not sinfully, in any matter of faith, because Catholik includeth orthodoxy, that is, right belief, as is evident, because Catholik is opposite to heretic, as also, because the Fathers affirm it, as d L. 1. in Gen. & Epist. 48. S. Austin, S. e Cat●chesi ●8. Cyril, S. f Epist. 5. Pation, and g Optatus l. 1. others. And namely S. h L. de vni●ate. Austin sayeth, that though Christians were spread over the world, and yet did not believe aright, they were not catholics. Which sheveth, that Catholic, doth not include only diffusion, but also Orthodoxy. And if the Church be evermore orthodox, she is evermore unerring in matters of faith, and we professing in our Creed, that she is ever Catholik, profess that she i● ever unerring in matters of faith, which is to be, as infallible as we mean, and as Laude sec. 21. §. 5. sayeth well: If we will keep up our Creed, the whole militant Church must be holy. And holy she cannot be, if she sinfully err any way against faith which is the foundation of all holiness. SEAVENT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is a sufficient and infallible Proposer ●f all points of faith, proved by the holy Fathers. 1. S. Ireney l. 3. c. 4. It is easy to receive the truth from the Church, seeing the Apostles have most fully deposited, in her, as in a rich store-house, all things belonging to truth. Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 12. p. 389. sayeth: we grant this. But indeed they are far from granting it as shall presently appear. Chillingworth c. 2. n 148. answereth, that though S. Ireney say: The Apostles deposited all truth in the Church, yet he sayeth not, that she shall always keep all truth. For the Apostles deposited all truth in particular persons and Churches, and yet these kept it not always. But S. Ireney not only sayeth, that the Apostles deposited all truth in the Church but as in a store-house, and that it is easy to receive Vincent. Ecclesia. sedula & cauta d●positorum apud se dogmatum custos it from her, which he nether said, nor could say of any particular persons, or Churches. And for to be a rich store house of all truth, from which is easy to receive it, is to be a sufficient and infallible keeper and Proposer of all truth. And Whitaker c. citato p. 388. confesseth, that S. Ireney did appeal from scripture to Church, and to Apostolical tradition, and sayeth, that heretics, are to be refuted by tradition. Which is to confess, that S. Ireney thouht the Church's tradition infallible, for else he had betrayed the Christi●n cause in appealing from an infallible Proposer, to a fallible, and had taught, that heretics were to be refuted by fallible means. 2. S. Athanasius epist. ad Epictetum, disputing against Arians, sayeth, we must answer only (which alone sufficeth) these things are not of the Church, nor our Ancestors thought so. Behold the authority i Contrà Whitaker l. 2. de script. p. 239. alone of the Church, accounted sufficient to refure heretics; and if sufficient, surely infallible. 3. S. Chrysostom in 2. Thessaly. c. 2. It is a tradition (of the Church) ask no more: which words are so plain for the sufficiency and infallibility of the Churchestradition, as it made Whitaker c. cit. p. 391 to cry: It is au inconsiderate speech, and unworthy Church infallible in universal traditions. of so greata Father: and Chillingworth c. 3. n. 45. to confess, that the Church is ●nfallible in her universal traditions, but not (sayeth he) in all her decrees, or definitions of controversy. But what word of God warranteth the Church's Infallibility in her traditions, and not in her definitions of faith. Besides Chillingworth c. 2. n. 25. and else where often, and Protestants generally deny any tradition of the Church to be infallible, because nothing is infallible wi●h them, but the written word of God, and tradition is not written. I add also, that S. Chrysostom sayeth not: it is an universal tradition, but simply It is a tradition. 4. Basil l. de Spiritu sancto c. 27. What things are observed and preached of us, we have received partly by written doctrine, partly by the Apostles delivered to us in mystery, and both these have equal virtue to piety. Behold traditions of the Apostles not written, and they of equal virtue to piety with their written doctrine: and he addeth, that the Gospel without tradition of the Church, would have no force, but be a small or bare letter. To Which Whitaker c. cit▪ p. 390. sayeth: If k So Ke●●nitiu. part. 1. §. 148. Basil were alive, he would without doubt not acknowledge this sentence, which deserveth to be cast out, and condemned of all pious men. Which is plainly to confess, that S. Basil thought the Church's tradition to be a sufficient proposal of points of faith, and without it the Scripture would be to no purpose. 5. Tertullian l. Praescrip. c. 16. teacheth, that we ought not to dispute against Heretics out of Scripture, but out of tradition. Whitaker c. cit. p. 392 answereth, that he spoke of such heretics, as denied the Scripture, and therefore (as Ireney did) appealed from Scripture to the Church. But first it is falls▪ that Tertullian spoke only of such heretics, as denied Tertul. appealed from scripture to the Church. the Scripture: For he plainly speaketh, of all such, as deny either the scripture, or corrupted the true sense of it, as all heretics do. Secondly, I ask when Tertullian appealed from Scripture to Church, did he appeal to some sufficient and infallible proof of faith, or no? If he did, we have what we desire, if not, he betrayed the Christian cause and taught us to leave the only infallible means of refuting heretics, and to take a fallible. 6. S. Cyprian l. de Vnitate: The spouse of Christ cannot be made an adulteress, and if she cannot be made an Adulteress, she is infallible in faith. 7. Hierom. l. contra Vigilantium, I reject all Doctrines contrary to the Church, and with open mouth condemn them. And dialogo contra Lucifer: I could dry up all the brooks of thy Propositions, with the only sun of the Church. 8. S. Austin l. de haeres: sayeth of the Donatists: They dare rebaptize catholics, wherein they more shown themselves to be heretics, seeing the whole Catholic Church hath judged, that even in heretics, usual baptism is not to be rejected: Behold Donatists accounted heretics, because they went against the judgement of the whole Church. And in the end, sayeth of all heresies reckoned there by him; it is superfluous to ask, what the Church judgeth of them, when it sufficeth to See Potter sect. 2. p. 33. know, that she judgeth against them. Behold the judgement of the Church, sufficeth to condemn heresies. Lib. de Vnitate c. 22. Thi● is nether openly, nor evidently read, either by you or by me, yet if there were any wiseman, of whom our Saviour had given testimony, and that he should be consulted in this question, we would make no doubt to do what he should say, lest we might seem to gain say not him, so much as Christ, by whose testimony he was commended: Now Christ beareth witness to his Church, Item. Whosoever refuseth to follow the practice of the Church, doth refuse our Saviour himself, who by his testimony, recommendeth this Church. Behold, that to deny the Church's testimony to be sufficient in matters of faith, is to deny Christ's testimony of her. Chillingworth c. 1. n. 163 sayeth, that S. Augustin, in saying, that some point of faith, is nether openly, nor evidently read inscripture, contradicteth (forsooth) himself, because l. 2. de Doctr. Christ▪ c. 9 he sayeth, In these things, which are openly put in scripture, are all those found, which contain faith and manner of life. But S. Austin there speaketh of all things, which contain faith, and manner of life l Morton tom 2. Apost. l. 1. c 49. verum respondes. necessary simply to every one, or which are necessary (as he addeth) to have hope and charity; or (which cometh alto one) he speaketh of the Rule of faith. Which (as he sayeth l. 3. de Doctr. Christ. c. 2.) is received from the plainer places of scripture. Beside which kind of points of faith, there are others, which are nether openly, nor evidently read in Scripture, and such was the baptism of heretics whereof he spoke lib. de unit. c. cit. But what is this to S. Augustine's authority, that who contradicteth the Church in a matter of faith, contradicteth Christ, and who followeth her, followeth Christ, because he giveth witness to her? Lib. 2. de Baptist. c. 4. Nether durst we say any such thing (that baptism of Heretics is available) unless we were assured by the most agreeing authority of the whole Church. Behold the authority of the Church both sufficient and necessary for some point of faith. And ibid. c. 9 The whole world was held by the strength of Custom (of the Church) and this alone was opposed against those who brought in Novelty. And was not that sufficient, which held the whole world, and which alone was opposed to erroneous Novelty? Lib. 7. de Baptis c. 53. It is s●f● for us to avouch with confidence of secure voice, what in the Government of our Lord jesus Christ, is confirmed with consent of the universal Church. Lib. 2. contra Crescon. c. 32. I do not receive what Cyprian thought of baptising heretics and Schismatiks, because the Church doth not receive it. Lib. contra Epist. fund. c. Because. 5. which book, (of the acts) I must needs believe if I believe the Gospel, because both books, Catholic authority doth Because. alike commend to me. Behold Catholic authority bindeth us to believe books of Scripture, and is a cause why we believe them l. 2. de Doctr. Christ. c. 8. The Books of Wisdom and Because. Ecclesiasticus, are to be accounted prophetical, because they have been admitted into authority. And l. 3. c. 2. let him consult the Rule of faith, which he hath received from the plaine● places of scripture and from the authority of the Church. Epist. 56. All the height of authority is settled in that holy name (of Christ) and in his one Church for recreating and reforming mankind. And calleth the authority of Church most firm, sermone 14. de Verbis Apostoli c. 21. This is a grounded thing: an erring Disputer is to be borne with, in other questions not diligently digested nor yet made firm by full authority of the Church: There, Error is to be borne with, but it ought not to go so far, that it endeavour to shake the foundation itself of the Church Behold dispute in matters not determined by the Church, may be borne with all, but not with matters determined by her full authority lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. The custom of our Mother the Church in baptising Infants, is no way to be despised, not yet at all to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical tradition. Laude sec. 15. p. 57 answereth, that S. Austin meaneth not, that tradition is the cause of our beleuing the baptism of Infants, but that it is the cause, that we sought and found it in scripture: But this is a plain evasion. For S. Austin speaketh not of our seeking the Baptism of Infants in Scripture, nor of the cause of our finding it there; but of our beleuing it, and plainly sayeth that the cause of our beleuing it, is tradition, and that without tradition, it were not at all to be believed. 9 And so undoubted a thing it was in the time of the Fathers, that the Church of God is a sufficient and infallible Proposer of matters of faith, as even Pelagius in S. Austin l. de gestis Pelagij c. 19 professed, I curse Ancient heretics confessed the Church to be ●nfallible. all that gain say or contradict the doctrines of the holy Catholic Church. And Dioscorus in Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. If Euthyches think contrary to the doctrine of the Church, he is worthy not only of punishment, but even of fire. But now (Gentle Reader) consider, first, how many (omitting m Vi●cent. c. 1. 14 32. many more for brevity's sake) testimonies of holy fathers, have been brought for the sufficiency and infallibility of the Church in matters of faith. Secondly, how clear and evident, as some of them are confessed by Protestants to be against them. Thirdly, how unlikely it is, that in this so main and clear a matter, the Fathers should either contradict themselves, or be contrary some to others. Fourthly, how Protestants expositions of those testimonies, which they will not grant to be against them, are voluntary, not grounded in the words of the Fathers nay violent and contrary to the usual sense of such words, and therefore are mere shifts, invented for to delude Father's authority. And thus having proved, both by holy scripture and Fathers, that the true Church of God is a sufficient and infallible Proposer of points of faith, let us prove the same by reason. Only I will add, D. Rainolds confession of the Fathers in his Preface S●● his th●s. 5. p. 106. to his conclusions: The Fathers, who deny the Church of Rome may err, gain say us indeed, but they gain say the Gospel too.— Pardon me, o Cyprian! I would believe thee gladly, but that beleuing thee, I should not believe the word of God.— All the testimonies of the Fathers (for the Roman Church) are of two sorts, the one of them true, but clean beside the purpose: the other, to purpose enough, but untrue. And in verse bids: Avaunt all ye, who on the Father's saws depend. Thus plainly he confesseth the Fathers to be against him, touching the Infallibility of the Church. Out of which testimonies of Fathers and confession of Protestants, evident it is, that it is an universal tradition, that the true Church of God is infallible in all matters which she professeth as of faith. And therefore if (as hereafter Protestants say) they admit universal traditions in all matters where it can be had; and that universal tradition, is the key, the introduction to all divine truths, that for it they believe the Scripture to be the word of God, and that it is as infallible as the Scripture, they cannot deny the true Church of God to be infallible in all matters which she proposeth as of faith. EIGHT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is infallible in all points of faith, proved by Reason. 1. THE Infallibility of the Church of God (which soever she is) in all points of faith, is so evident, as it is not only testified by scripture and Fathers, but also convinced by light of Reason. And therefore falsely said Chillingwort c. 3. §. 27. p. 141. For the Infallibility of the Church, no proof can be pretended, but incorrupted places of Scripture: The first Reason we will take from the definition or description of the true Church, given by scripture, Fathers, and Protestants. For the Scripture Acts. 2. v. 42. describeth the true Church of Christ, to be à company of men, persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles, and communion of Sacraments. And doubtless, a Church persevering in them, is infallible. The Fathers (as Protestants Confess) are wont to understand by a Moulins count. Peron. l. 1. c. 2. the Church, (which oftentimes they call Catholik the whole society of Christians, orthodox and sound in faith, united together in Communion. But a Church Orthodox and sound in faith, is infallible, so long as she remaineth such: Protestants also (as we shown pars. 1. l. 2. c. 6.) put in the definition of the true Church, that she profess the pure and entire word of God, and they give, purity in doctrine, for an essential note of her. But a Church of whose definition it is, and whose essential note, is to profess pure and entire doctrine, is infallible in profession thereof. And what some may say, that they mean only of purity of doctrine in fundamental points, is refuted c. 6. citato. 2. The second argument, may be taken from the ends, for which God instituted à Church on earth. And to omit those ends, which we brought out of Scripture c. 5. as to be the pillar and ground of truth, to be the ordinary means of begetting infallible faith, to be God's witness of infallible faith, to consummate and keep the faithful united and constant in infallible faith; an other end is, that she is instituted as an infallible and b Whitaker l. 3. de script. 〈◊〉 392. Potter sect. 5. p. 7. necessary means to bring men to salvation by faith, Hope, and Charity. And Faith sisignifieth whole faith, not a part only, as fundamental articles are. Therefore she is as infallible in teaching all points of faith, as in teaching all points of hope or Charity. She is also instituted to be a mother to conceive and bear Children to God by the infallible word of God: to be their Mistress and c Laud sect. 38. p. 345. Guide in faith. That she is the mother of the faithful, The Apostle testifieth. Galat. 4. v. 26. and Caluin confesseth 4. Instit. c. 1. § 4. where he sayeth: Let us learn by the only title of Mother The Church, mother and mistress of the faithful. how profitable, yea how necessary it is to know her, seeing there is no entrance into life, unless she conceive us in her womb, unless she bear us, nourish us with her duggs etc. Whitaker l. 1. de scriptura p. 87. I am a disciple of the Church, I acknowledge the Church for my Mother. The Church truly is mother of the faithful: And p. 72. The Church is truly mistress and Guide of our faith. P. 128. we honour the Church as mother, Nurse, Tutoress, Teacher, we hear and respect her, as our perpetual Mistress. P. 153. None denieth the Church to be a Mistress of her own.— We deny not, but a Mistreshipp was given to the Church l. 2. p. 234. I confess the Church is to be heard as a mistress, and her judgement also to be followed. But the sure means of infallible faith instituted by God; The Mother of Christians in infallible faith instituted by God, the Mistress or Guide of infallible faith instituted by God, must needs be infallible, both because of God's institution, and for the infallibility of the end: For a fallible Mistress or guide, is as good as none; for to learn infallible truth, or to attein to infallible security, or (as Chillingworth sayeth c. 6. § 20.) A doubtful Guide is A fallible Guide naught worth. for men's direction, as good as none at al. And c. 1. n. 7. I grant, that this means in the Church to decide controversies in faith and Religion, must be endued with an universal infallibility, in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth. And to say (as Protestants do) that she is a sure guide but in fundamental points, cannot stand with her fallibility in other points: For (as S. d Epist 8. and 9 Difference of Masters in faith, and science. Austin sayeth of the Scripture) if it fail in any point, it becomes doubtful in all: so say of the Church, If she can fail in some points of faith, she is doubtful in al. And here must be well noted, the diffeence of Masters or Mistresses in sciences, and in faith. For Masters or Mistresses of sciences, do show their scholars the truth of things in the things themselves, and so they are but showers of the truths, which they teach, not persuaders of it; but Masters or Mistresses of mattets to be believed, do not make their disciples see the truths (which they teach) in themselves, but in their own authority, and their authority is the formal cause of persuading them those truths: Wherefore if Protestant's would indeed grant the Church to be Mistress of Christians in matters of faith, they must needs grant, that in her authority they see the truths, which they believe, and for her authority are persuaded of them: but indeed they do not distinguish between à Mistress in faith and in science which is a gross oversight. 3. The third argument may be taken from that, if the Church be not infallible in matters of faith, there is no external formal cause sufficient to beget divine faith. For (as I e See inf●a l. 244. showed c. 2.) there is no formal cause of belief, but authority, nor any formal authority, but in some Author, nor any Author, but some intellectual person, or company of intellectual persons: and faith we cannot have (in ordinary course) without some formal external cause sufficient to engender infallible faith▪ f Whitaker l. 1. descript. p. 64. l. 3. p. 39●. See infra c. 17. n. 4. And no person on earth can be pretended in which infallible authorities should be if not the Church. 4. The fourth argument shall be this. The Church's authority in preaching or proposing all Christ's doctrine is not natural or humane; but supernatural and divine. Therefore it is infallible in doing that. The consequence is evident, because divine authority is infallible. The antecedent I prove out of those words of Christ to his Apostles: Teach all Nation●, baptising them &c. teaching Math. vlt. them to keep all that I have commanded you. Where Christ gave no humane or natural authority to his Apostles, but supernatural and divine. And what authority of teaching or baptising he gave to them, he means also to their successors, else these should have no authority to preach or baptise; as also because, that authority was given to the Apostles for the good of the Church, and therefore was to endure as long as the Church endureth: moreover, the Church's authority to preach or propose all points of faith, is divine: Therefore also her authority to testify and persuade that it is God's word, which she preacheth, is divine. The Antecedent is proved already. The consequence I prove, because persuasion, that it is God's word, which the Church teacheth, is the end of her preaching it. And if God give her duine authority for the means, doubtless he giveth the like for the end, because the end is more desired than the means, and the means desired but for the end. And if the Church's authority in testifying or persuading what she preacheth, be divine, doubtless it is infallible in testifying it. For divine authority to persuade, is infallible. Further more, the Church's authority can force us to believe the scripture to be God's word: Therefore her authority is divine and infallible. The consequence is clear, because no authority can force us to believe divine matters, but what is divine. The antecedent Protestant's grant: For thus Whitaker contr. 1. q. 3. c. 7. I answer, as often before, that we are forced by the Church's authority to believe these books to be canonical. And can fallible authority force? 5. The fift argument for the Infallibility of the Church in matters of faith, shall be taken from the great and manifold inconveniences, or absurdities, which necessarily follow of the denial of it. As first that Christ hath given us no competent or fit judge of controversies of faith For if the Church be fallible, she is no competent or fit judge of Infallible matters: and the scripture cannot be a judge, because à proper judge is an understanding person, and judgement, an act of understanding. And this is so clear, as now g See infra l. 2. c. 7. sect. 2. Protestants confess, that the scripture is no proper judge: And want of a competent judge, would make controversiesendles. And (as Hooker sayeth in the preface to his book §. 6) of this we are right sure, that Nature, Scripture, and Experience itself Scripture, nature, experience require a ●udge of controversies so also Tailor in liberty of prophsing sect. 6. n. 1. have all taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions, by submitting itself unto some judicial or definitive sentence, whereunto nether part that contendeth, may under any pretence or collar refuse to stand. Wherefore to refuse a judge who can pronounce such a definitive sentence in contentions about matters of faith, is to resist Nature, Scripture, and Experience. An other great inconveniency, which denial of the Church's infalli ilitie breedeth, is, that it openeth a way to heresies and schisms. For upon pretence of the Churches erring in some matters of faith, a plain gap is opened to departed from her profession of faith, as heretics do, or from her communion in Sacraments, as Schismatiks do; And all sufficient means of either conserving or restoring unity in faith, and communion, quite taken away, First, because all sufficient external authority (which is the secondary formal object of faith) is taken away. Secondly, because (as we shall prove hereafter and h See infra l 2. c. 5. sec. 2. Protestants now confess) the Scripture nether teacheth all points of faith, nor all those which it teacheth, doth it teach so clearly, as is requisite to beget infallible faith. Thirdly, Experience showeth this in Protestants, who denying the Church to be infallible, have nether unity in faith, or communion, nor yet any hope of it; as i Cataubor Epist ad R. jacobum. Caluin Antid Concil. sess. 7. La●de sect. 38. p. 360. Confess Martyr in Hospin part. 2. Histor fol. 245. Whitaker contr. 2. q. 〈◊〉. c. 8. cout. 3 q 6. c. 2. & respons ad Rainoldum p. 8. Laude sec. 38. n. 23. Potter sec. 2. p. 38. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 85 and others. Nether will it serve them to k Laud sect 26. n 3. Chilling c. 2. p. 61. say, that they have sufficient means of unity in fundamental points, because the scrip●●●e teacheth them plainly; and as for division in Not-fundamental points, that destroyeth not the substantial unity of faith, or of the Church. First, because themselves confess the Scripture teacheth not 〈◊〉 See infra l. 2. c. 5. se●t. 2. all fundamental points; secondly, because they m See part. 1. 〈◊〉 1 〈◊〉 6. confess they know not, which are fundamental points; Which Not fundamental points. Thirdly, because division in any point of faith, sufficiently proposed, or of communion, is a substantial division of true faith and Church, as I have clearly proved part 1. l. 2. c. 5. And as Laude sayeth sec. 32. p. 226. If controversies arise in the Church, some end they must have▪ or they will tear all in sunder. 6. An other great inconveniency is, that by denying the Church's infallibility, we take away all external infallible proof, that the Scripture is the word of God; and therefore this question; How know you the Scripture to be the word of God? much troubleth Protestants, and (as Laude sayeth sec. 16. p. 65.) brit●geth some of them to infidelity. For (as he, confesseth ibid. p. 66.) Scripture must be known to be Scripture, by a sufficient Scripture must be proud by, some word of God, and by some infal. authority. infallible divine proof, and that such a proof, can be nothing but the word of God. And p. 64. It seems to me very necessary, that we be able to prove the books of Scripture to be the word of God, by some authority, that is absolutely divine: and he proveth it thus: For if they be warranted unto us by any authority, less than divine, than all things contained in them, which have no greater assurance, than the scripture in which they are read, are not objects of divine belief, and that once granted, will enforce us to yield, that all the articles of Christian belief, have no greater assurance, then humane or moral faith or credulity can afford. Thus he, both confesseth and proveth, that the Scriptures must be proved to be the word of God, by some infallible divine proof, and that such a proof can be nothing, but a word of God, and by some authority, that is absolutely divine. But where this word of God, by which the scripture is to be proved, is, where this absolutely divine authority, is, out of the Church, he cannot tell. For himself sayeth sec. 16. cit. p. 70. There is no place in Scripture, which tells us, that such books containing such and such particulars, are the word of God. And p. 88 Scripture cannot bear witness to itself, nor one part of it to an other▪ White also in his way p. 48. The certainty of the scripture, is not written indeed with letters in any particular place, or book of the scripture. So there is no written word of God, that See inf●a l. 〈◊〉. c. 6 sec 2. avoucheth the Scripture to be the word of God; And unwritten word of God, they admit none: Wherefore Laud flieth to a divine light in See infra l. 2. c. 5 sec. 2. scripture, which (sayeth he) after the present Church hath testified the Scripture to be the word, clearly showeth to us, that it is the word of God. But beside, that this light is feigned (as we shall see more hereafter) light is no word of God (which Laud requireth to p●●ue the scripture by) but a quali 〈…〉 of the word of God, nor is any formal object of belief, (which authority or veracity only is) but is object of science, or of vision. And so this light is nether the material object of faith, nor sufficient proof of the Scripture, because it is no word of God▪ nor any formal obiector cause of faith, because it is no authority. Wherefore Chillingworth, finding no surer motive to believe the Scripture, than the testimony of the Church, and yet not granting that to be infallible, granteth that consequence, which Laud would avoid, See l. 2. 〈◊〉. 8. sec. 2. to wit, that all their assurance, that the Scripture is God's word, and of all things contained in it, is but humane and fallible, and so Protestants faith is not divine or infallible, and may deceive them. An other main inconveniency is, that if the Catholic A fallible Church men● force to professor in faith, or to forsake her communion. Church, could err in matters of faith, she might force us to profess her error, (if she exacted ●t as a condition of her commun●●●, which were great sin or so forsake her communion, which were to put ourselves out of the state of Salvation, because there is no salvation out of the Church as there Caluin. 4. Inst. c. 1. §. 4. Whitaker contr. 2. q. 5. c. 3. was not out of the ark of No, Whereby we see, that the Infallibility of the Church, and Necessity of being in the Church, do mutually infer one the other. 7. To all these proofs out of Reason, I may add, that Reason forceth Protestant's to confess, that the Church is infallible in fundamental points: and if it were not to have some pretence to refuse the Church's judgement in some points, it would force them to confess, that she is also infallible in Not-fundamental points, and making fundamental or Not-fundamental, which they please, they take pretence to admit or refuse the Churches iudgment-in which points they please. And this is the true ground of their denial of the Churches divine Infallibility in all points of faith, which to have discovered, is to have refuted. I may add also, that for more than 2000 years, God Protestants make she Church more infallible in the law of nature, than after. gave infallibility to his Church, and that he never said, that he would take it from her, and that the Church is not less infallible now than it was before Moses, but rather founded (as the Apostles sayeth) in better promises. NINTH CHAPTER. Some of the Protestants arguments against the Infallibility of the true Church of God, in matters of faith, answered? 1. Protestant's heap up great store of Arguments (but no express testimony of Scripture) against the Infallibility of the Church in matters of faith, that so they may by number supply the weakness of them, and if not convince the Reader, yet confound him; wherefore I will not relate them all, but the chiefest, by answer to which, the Reader may see, how he may answer the rest. The first argument is this: The Church may a Whitaker cont. 2. q. 4. 6. 2. 3. Chilling. c. 5. n. 93. err in matters of manners: therefore also in matters of faith. I answer, that if they mean in the Antecedent, of the universal Church, I distinguish, of damnably erring, or venially erring, and deny, that the whole Church can damnably err in manners, because that would make her not holy, and so that article of our Creed: I believe the holy Catholic Church, should be falls: and (as Laude said sec. 25 §. 5.) The whole militant Church is holy, and so we believe. Item. If we will keep up our Creed the whole militant Church must be holy. Secondly I deny the consequence. For etror in manners destroyeth only a quality of the Church, which is holiness, and without which the substance of the Church may be; but sinful error in faith destroyeth her b See part. 1. l. 2. c. 6. substance, and maketh her no true Church of God, but a falls and heretical Church; because sinful error in faith, is the sin of heresy. And also even every sinless error in faith, destroyeth the end for which the Church is instituted, which is to be a sure and undoubted c See sup. c. 2. n. 2. and c. 8 n. 2. Guide in matters of faith, and to persuade them, which she could not, if she erred in any point of faith: For (as S. d Epist. 8. 9 Austin sayeth of the Scripture) if any error were found in any point of her doctrine, her doctrine in other points would be unsure and suspected of error. Besides, we might argue thus against Protestants: the Church may err fundamentally in manners; Therefore also fundamentally in faith. 2. A second argument is that the Church may for some time be ignorant of some points of faith; Therefore may also err. I distinguish the antecedent, of points of faith, necessary necessitate medij, or Adesse fidei, and then I deny it. For than she should not be a sufficient guide of faith; or of points not so necessary, and then I distinguish also of sinful ignorance, and sinless ignorance, I deny the Antecedent, for sinful ignorance is heresy; or equivalent to it: ignorance not sinful, I grant the Antecedent; but deny the consequence For error in faith (whether sinful, or sinless) includeth untruth, and so is contrary to the end of the Church, which (as said) is to be a sure guide in matters of faith, and sure she cannot be, who proposeth any thing as of faith, which either is not of faith, or is contrary to faith, for that were untruth. But simple ignorance of some point of faith not so necessary, is not repugnant to a sufficient and sure guide in matters of faith, nor includeth any untruth. As it is not against the assuredness of Scripture, that it teacheth not all that is of faith, as it would be, if it taught any the least error or untruth: For simple ignorance, or not teaching something, includeth no untruth, but mere unknowledg, or not teaching that truth, but error includeth untruth, which cannot be in a sure Guide, as the true Church Some ignorance is but against the perfection of the Church. of God always is. Wherefore ignorance of some not so necessary truth, would be against the perfection of the Church: but all error whatsoever, sinful or not sinful, in any point whatsoever of faith, would destroy the end of the Church. 3. The third argument may be this: Whitaker cont. 2 q. 4. c. 3. Laude sec. 16 p. 65. Chilling. c. 3. n. 70. every member of the Church may err in faith: Therefore the whole Church: I deny the consequence both because God hath not made every member of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, as he hath made the Church; nor made promise of infallible assistance to every member of the Church: and also, because he hath not instituted every member of the Church for an infallible and sure Guide in matters of faith, as he hath instituted the Church: And if this note of the essence of the Church, which is to be a society in Christ's true faith, and not only in some part of his faith; and the end of the Church, which is to be a sure and undoubted Guide in matters of faith, be well observed, we shall easily both defend the Church's infallibility, and also solve the Protestants objections against it. A fourth argument may be taken out of that which Chillingworth sayeth c. 3. §. 30. p. 144. The Church's dependence on the Apostles So also Tailo. in liberty of prophe●ing sect. 6 n. 1. rule, is voluntary, for it is in the power of the Church to deviate from this rule being but an aggregation of men, of which every one has free wil To which I answer, first, that this would equally prove, that the Apostles were not infallible, because they had free will, nor the Church infallible in fundamental points▪ secondly, I answer, that by, the Church's Infallibility, mean not any natural or absolute infallibility as in God but such as Christ sayeth Matt. c. 24. is in the Elect, who though of their nature may be led into error, yet through God's efficacious assistance, can not. And possibility of erring by nature, and impossibility of erring by God's efficacious assistance, may stand together, as they did in the Apostles. For this impossibility or necessity of not erring, is (as logicians speak) only consequentiae, non consequentis. And necessity of Necessity of consequence, not of consequent. consequence, doth not repugn to liberty or freedom. For as of my seeing one walk, it followeth necessarily, that he walk, and yet he walketh freely: so of God's efficacious assistance of the Church not to err, it necessarily followeth, that she err not, and nevertheless she freely erreth not. And the reason is, because Gods efficacious assistance altereth not m●n smanner of working (which is to work freely) but only assuredly maketh them to God's assistance ca●●oth assuredness not necessity. work. And assuredness of the work, may well stand with free manner of working it, because the work, and the manner of working it, are different things. It sufficeth, that God, who is the principal worker, will have it done, and that he, by his omnipotency, can effect it assuredly as well by a free secondary Agent, as by a necessary Agent; for who resisteth his will? 4. Wherefore now (Gentle Reader) compare our reasons for, the Infallibility of the Church in matters of faith, with the Protestants Reasons to the contrary, and our solutions of their arguments, with their solutions of ours, and thou shalt find a main difference. For one of our Reasons is taken a priori (as Philosophers speak) from the definitions of the true Church given by Scripture, Fathers, and Protestants themselves: whereas Protestants neither bring nor can bring any Reason for the fallibility of the Church; out of her definition▪ For what colour of her fallibility can be drawn from that she is a Society in Profession of the true faith of Christ, and communion of his Sacraments, but rather for her Infallibility? An other of our arguments is also taken a prior●, from the final cause or end of the Church, which is to be a sure Guide to salvation by right faith in Christ: which end can afford no colour of proof of her fallibility. Our third Argument also is a Priori from the formal external cause of divine faith, which must needs be infallible as faith is, whereof it is cause; which formal external cause of infallible faith affordeth no colour of fallibility. Our fourth argument is taken from Christ's gift. And our fift a Posteriori, from ●he many and great ill consequences, which necessarily follow of the denial of the Church's Infallibility▪ whereas Protestants can infer no inconneniencie at all, out of our avouching her infallibility in points of faith. But their best reasons against the Church's Infallibility, are taken from similitudes, which are indeed Dissimilitudes, between error in manners, and error in faith, between ignorance of some point of faith, and error in some point of faith: between every member of the Church and the whole Church. And as for our solutions of their arguments, they are satisfactory and scientifical, because they are taken from the nature and the end of the true Church, and show a plain difference betwixt those things, which Protestants think to be like: Whereas Protestants can give no such satisfactory or scientifical answer to our Arguments, taken of the definition, or end of the Church, but do voluntarily gloze the definition and end of the Church as if her essence were only a society in profession of some part of Christ's doctrine, and Protestants destroy both the esse ce, and the end of the Church. her end to be a sure Guide, only in some part thereof, to wit, in the fundamental or principal part, which is indeed to make her a part of Christ's Church, and truly not his Church, nor any sure guide at all? But now let us prove the Church's Infallibility, out of Protestants confessions, for it is so evident, as they are forced sometimes to confess it. TENTH CHAPTER. That Protestants do many ways confess, that the true Church of God, is Infallible in proposing matters of Faith. 1. IT is so evident, that the true Church of God is Infallible in proposing matters of faith, as Protestants do many ways confess it, though it do quite overthrew their cause, because themselves acknowledge that for many ages she hath opposed their doctrine, whose confessions I will endeavour to set down in order. For first they plainly and absolutely grant, that the Church cannot err in matters of faith Luther l. de seruo arbitrio to. 2. fol. 438. Thus hath our Creed: I believe Not in the least article. the holy Catholic Church, that it is impossible for her to err in the least article. Respons ad Syluestrum tom. 1. fol. 177. I shall be an heretic, if I hold it not, after the Catholic Church hath determined it. Ibid. The universal Church cannot err, as the Cardinal of Cocciustom. 〈◊〉. p. 140. Cambray proveth most learnedly. Libro de decem Praeceptis: The Church cannot err, it is governed by the holy Ghost In Resolutionibus: Do we not see, how watchful Christ is in his Church, that he suffereth not them to err. Tom. 7. German. fol. 562. The Church nether aught, nor can lie, no not in the least Not in the least matter. matter, seeing God is the mouth of the Church, and God cannot lie, so nether the Church can. And lib. de potestate Bellarm. l. 3. de Verbo D●● c. 5. Papae. We are not certain of any private man, that he hath revelation from the father, but the Church it i●, of whom we may not doubt. Melancthon Respons. ad Clerum Coloniensem to. 2. p. 113. Let the earth swallow me, and all Aetna over whelm me, before I fight with the Church of God. We sphalus in Hospin parte 2. Histor. Sacram. fol. 237. ●h Church Not in doctrine. of God can not err in doctrine. Thus Luther and Lutherans. 2. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 3. we are Se● al●o c. 8. §. 12. sure, that we shall always have truth whiles we are in the lapos the Church. lib. de scandalis p▪ 102. I willingly add, that the sense of the Church is so joined with the true doctrine of the law and Gospel, that she is rightly judged a faithful teacher and Interpreter of it, And in Antidoto Council sess. 4. None of us, but submitts his writings to the judgement of the Church. Sadeel ad Repetit Turiani loco 30. p. 643. If the Church be the ground of truth, as Paul avoucheth: if faith be the foundation of the Church, as Ambrose affirmeth it followeth, that whersoever the true Church is, there true faith is. Moulins l. 1. contra Peron. c. 1. It is true, that who is assured, that he is in the true Church, is assured, that he hath true faith and doctrine. 3. Cranmer in Fox Acts p. 1709. I am ready in all things to follow the judgement of the most sacred word of God, and of the holy Catholic Church. Latimer Ibid. p. 1603. I confess, there is a Catholic Church, to the determination of which, I will stand. Philpot. ibid. p. 1637. I do not think the Catholic Church can err in doctrine. P. 1640. If they can prove themselves to be the Catholic Church, I will never be against their doctrine, but revoke all, that I have said. Ridley ibid. p. 1597. I acknowledge an unspotted Church, in the which no man can err. Whitaker controu. See Whitaker ●ont. 1. q. 5. c. 3. q. 3. c. 5. cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. l 2. count B●●. sect. 1. 2. q. 5. c. 18. It cannot hold any heretical doctrine, and yet be a Church. Ibid. Truth maketh the Church, and the Church teacheth where is truth, and which is truth C. 19 which place (1. Timoth. 3.) showeth, that truth abideth always in the Church, nor can be separated from her: other companies may err, but it is proper, and a Note of this company, that it can not err, as they confess. Ibid. this place (Isaiae 53.) showeth, that true preaching of the word, shall be perpetual in the Church. And controu. 4. q. 4. c. 2. The Church is the Mistress of faith and manners, to her all must submit. And l. 3. de Scriptura p. 453. They slander us, that we make the judgement of the Church merely humane. P. 412. Tradition was once of the same authority, as Scripture is now. White in his way p. 79. No man denieth, but that it is a good way not to be deceived in an obscure question, to ask and follow the judgement of the Church, so it be the true Church. P 80. The Church is to us a witness and upholder of the faith, and always preserveth it, which we deny not. P. 67. These words be tolerable: The doctrine, teaching, and belief, of the true Church Infallible rule. is the infallible Rule in all points to be followed. In his defence p. 318. we would freely grant this conclusion, if his meaning we●e no more, but that the doctrine and faith of the universal Church, is the Rule of faith. See him also p. 339. ●ulk in joan. 14. Nota 5. The true Church of Christ never falls into Aposta●ie, heresy, or to nothing. Therefore it is an impudent slander, we say so. Feild in Appendice part. 1. p. 69. Nether D. Humphrey, nor we condemn the Universal Madness to condemn the Church. Church, but think it very madness so to do. Laude sec. 20. p. 142. A very dangerous thing it is, to cry out in general terms. The whole Catholic Church can err. sec. 18. p. 139. We hold, that the Church never falls into heresy. That the whole visible Church never falls into heresy, we most willingly grant. sec. 16. p. 113. First comes in the tradition of the Church, the present Tradition of the Church, is not heretical. Church, so it is no heretical or schismatical belief. sec. 36. p. 344. we do rely upon the infallible authority of the word of God, and the whole Catholic Church. Ibid. p. 346. 'tis true, that after à General Council is ended, and admitted by the whole Church, is then infallible. Moulins in arnold's flights c. 8. It is falls, that we say simply. The Church can err. Andrews Respons ad 1. Epist. Molinei. Arrius his name is justly in the Catalogue of Heretics, because he opposed the consent of the Universal Church. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 124. p. 100 That the living judge in the jewish Church, had an infallible direction, is that which the Doctor (Potter) attributes to the jews. Potter, sec. 2. p. 25. The high Priest had an absolutely infallible direction, If any See Chilling. c 2 p. 106. such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced, his decisions might then justly pass for oracles without examination. Ibid. p. 34. The Catholic Church is the faithful keeper of all scripture and divine verities. And ibid. p. 55. Whosoever ●ther wilfully opposeth any Catholic verity, manteined by this Church (of Saints) or the Catholic visible Church, as do heretics, their Heretics, who oppose the visible Church. condition is damnable. Chillingworth in his preface n. 16. The doctrine of the Trinity, is supported by those pillars of the faith, which alone are fit and able to support it, I mean Scripture, and consent of the ancient Doctors. Behold the consent of ancient Doctors, a pillar of faith, and able to support even the doctrine of the Trinity. And n. 28. what is held necessary by the Catholic Church of this age, I do verily believe Church of this age. and embrace c. 1. n. 7. I grant, that Christ founded a visible Church stored with all helps necessary to salvation, particularly, with sufficient means to beget and mantein faith, to conserve unity, and compose schisms, to discover and condemn heretics, and to determine controversies in religion, which were necessary to be determined. And if Universal tradition, as infallible as Scripture. sufficient to these ends, infallible to these ends, as he there granteth. c. 3. n. 45, we willingly grant the Church to be as infallible in he● universal traditions, as the scripture is. n. 46. Make it appear, that it is tradition, and we will seek no farther. c. 2. n. 155. Universal tradition is the rule to judge all controversies by. Field l. 1. c. 13. Heretics are they, who obstinately persist in error, contrary And rule to judge all controversies by. to the Church's faith l. 4. c. 2. That the whole Church, as it comprehendeth only all those believers, that are and have been since the Apostles times hold err in any thing contained within the compass of re●cled truth, is impossible: seeing error, which is an aberration declining or swerving from the truth once delivered, necessarily implieth a kind of particularity, and novelty. Ibid. yea in Present Church erreth not in things not absolutely necessary. things, that are not absolutely necessary to be known and believed expressly, and distinctly, we constantly believe, that this (present) Church, can never err or doubt pertinaciously. Item. That the visible Church never falleth into heresy, we most willingly grant. c. 5. All the Pastors of the Church since the Apostles, can not err. And (as we shown part. 1. l. 2. c. 3 and l. 1. of the Author of Protestant religion c. 1.) they commonly profess to exclude all heretik● out of the Church. 4. If any answer, that these Protestants mean only, that the Church is infallible in fundamental points, but not in proposing all points of faith, I reply, First, that Luthe● sayeth the Church can not err in the least article, not in the least matters. That Wesphalus, she cannot err in doctrine, that Field sayeth she cannot ●rr in things not absolutely necessary▪ Secondly, that others say absolutely: The Church cannot err, and it is sophistical, to interpret absolute words In part or, In some sort. Nether hindereth it, that in other places they say the Church can err, because it is usual for heresiks to contradict themselves, and to confess truth when they are pressed thereunto, and at other times, to deny it. Thirdly, that if the Church be infallible in fundamental points, she must be also in all points sufficiently revealed to her, because all such are fundamental to her. And also, that there are no Not-fundamental points in their sense, that is such as if they be sufficiently proposed, may be not believed, without loss of saving faith, true Church, and salvation, but all are to be believed actually, if they be sufficiently proposed, and to be virtually believed, though not so proposed. And therefore if the true Church be infallible in fundamental points, she is infallible in all points of faith, or in all parts of God's word, sufficiently revealed to her. But it must be well noted, how plainly Protestant's confess, that the Church can not err in the least article, in the least matter, cannot err in doctrine, not in things not absolutely necessary, in all points, that they are sure of truth, who are in the Church, that the Church cannot fall into here●ie: that it is heresy, and to be an heritik, obstinately to oppose the Church's faith. Which if they would constantly hold, all controversies were ended, in finding the Church. 5. Secondly, Protestants put pure, sincere, incorrupt, and entire profession of Christ's doctrine, in their definition of the true visible Church, as is showed part 1. l. 2. c. 6. And it implieth contradiction, that there should be any error. where there is pure, sincere, incorrupt and entire profession of Christ's doctrine. If any answer, that they mean only: Pure sincere, incorrupt, and entire, profession of Christ's fundamental doctrine, I reply (as before) to the former shift, and also that this were to condemn their definition of the true Church, of defect and obscurity; in not expressing such a necessary particle, as without which, the definition were falls, and would not agree to the thing defined. For Purity, unless, In fundamentals; be added, will not agree to a true Church erring in Not fundamentals. I add also, that as yet, never durst any Protestant define the true Church, to be a company, professing the fundamental part of Christ's doctrine, because the name of any part of his doctrine, would show, that it is not his true Church absolutely, but in part only, and simply not his Church. Like to this, is that they give Pure preaching of God's word, for an essential Note of the Church, yea for the only essential Note thereof, as sayeth Whitaker contro. 2. q. 5. c. 17. Morton l. 2. Apolog. c. 4. and others. And Luther in ●. 2. Isaiae. Beza de nobis Eccles. how can, Pure preaching, be any Note, if there may be error in all secondary points of faith? If therefore River tract. 1. sec. 45. Daneus●ont. 4. p. 141. Chilling. c. 4. p. 221. they will mantein their essential definition, and their essential Note of the true Church, they cannot say, she can err in any points of faith. 6. Thirdly, they sometimes grant that the Church is infallible in her universal traditions, and namely, Universal tradition as infallible as scripture and so a word of God. that the scripture is the word of God. Chillingworth c. 3. n. 45. you were to prove the Church infallible, not in her traditions, which we willingly grant (if they be as universal, as the tradition of the undoubted books of scripture, is) to be as infallible, as the Scripture is. For nether does, being written, make the word of God more infallible, Protestants in Col●oq. Ratisb. s●ss. 1. and 11. nor being unwritten, make it the less infallible. Brentius in Prolegomenis contra Sotum p. 249. we speak not of that tradition, by which the Scripture, and what is contained in it, hath been delivered to us. For we affirm this tradition to be certain and undoubted. And Morton l. 1. Apolog. c. 32. and to. 2. l. 1. c. 5. calleth this. The Lady and as it were Goddess of all traditions. Robert Baronius tract. de Eccles. c. 21. n. 1. The Fathers knew no other infallible Rule of faith, beside the Scripture and perpetual tradition of the Church. Davenant de judice c. 5. we grant, Tradition before Moses, was sufficient. that before Moses, the word of God not written and propagated to posterity by continual tradition, was a sufficient Rule of faith. Whitaker contr. 1. q. 3. c. 5. I deny not, that the Church's Tradition. convincent. tradition is a convincent argument, which books are Canonical, which not. And if convincent, infallible. Behold, the Church's tradition of the Scripture, is certain, undoubted, the Lady, and as it were Goddess▪ of traditions, and her perpetual or universal tradition, as infallible, as the Scripture, an infallible rule of faith. And what maketh it so, but God's assistance? 7. Fourthly they grant, that the testimony or tradition of the Church, Testimony of the Church proveth the scripture. is an infallible proof of the Scripture. Whitaker l. 2. de Scriptura c. 4. sec. 4. p. 227. I say, the testimony of the Church, sufficeth to convince and refute those, who think amiss of Scripture, or deny the articles of Christian faith. Ibid. p 270. Thy meaning was, that the judgement of the Church, was a most strong argument, in the kind of external cause, and my meaning was altogether the same l. 1. c. 1. sec. 9 p. 19 The true Church's testimony of the Scripture, must be taken, and who taketh it not, shall be guilty of sacrilege. Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 7. we are forced by the Church's authority, to believe these books to be divine. And c. 9 p. 325. All those Fathers do they prove any other thing, than that Scripture is to be received, because it was always received of the Because. Church: and some books to be rejected, because the Churchal ways rejected them? This we most willingly grant. And ibid. p. 326. we confess with Ireney, that the authority of the Church, is a firm and compendious Demonstration of Canonical doctrine. And l. 5. contra Dureum, sec. 19 I think, there could not be brought à stronger argument against the schismatical Donatists, then from the authority of the Church. And l. 1. sec. 30. we confess the Church's approbation is necessary, and we admit no books, but which have certain and perpetual testimony of the true Church— you see therefore, how much we give to the Church's testimony, in which we think is strength enough, to confirm Strength enough in the church testimony. the Canon of Scripture, and refute all Adversaries. Kemnitius 1. part Exam▪ tit. de Scriptura: All this dispute (whether S. james Epistle be Canonical) dependeth on the assu●ed, firm and agreeing testimonies of the Church. Hooker l. 2. §. 4. Nether could we ever come to any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way, so that unless beside Scripture, there were something, which Something beside Scripture, can assure us. might assure us, that we do well, we could not think, we do well, in being assured, that the Scripture is a sacred and holy rule of well doing. And this thing, which can assure us, as a pause to rest on, that scripture is a sacred rule, he sayeth l. 3. §. 8. is the Church, where he addeth: scripture teacheth us, that saving faith, the which God hath discovered unto the worldby Revelation, and it presumeth us taught (by the Church) that itself is divine and sacred. Item. If infidel's or Atheists chance at any time to call it in question, this giveth us occasion, to ●ift, what reason there is, whereby the testimony of the Church concerning scripture, and our own persuasion, which Scripture itself confirmed, may be proved a truth Testimony of the Church, infallible. infallible. Behold the Church can assure us, as a pause to rest our assurance on, that the Scripture is God's word, she teacheth us, that it is divine, and that her testimony of the Scripture, is infallible. And is not this, to have one ●illable to this purpose, that, That whereon, we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is God's word, is the Church, as Chillingworth avoucheth c. 2. §. 30. Doth the Church assure us, as a pause to rest our assurance on, doth she teach us, that the Scrippture is God's word, is her testimony of the Scripture, infallible, and may we not rest our assurance hereof on the Church? or is this no more, but to be a key or inducement, as Laude would have it sec 16 §. 25. 8. Spalatensis l. 7. de Republ. c. 1. n. 9 doth not only say, that the Church's testimony of the Scripture, is sufficient to believe it to be The Chur●h●● 〈◊〉 stim. only means. God's word, but also addeth, that it is the only motive or mean to believe it to be such. To inquire (which book is Canonical) the Church hath that alone, singular, and only Rule, that the Universal Church ask herself, and what she in actual exercise holdeth, seek and plainly know. And l. contra Suarem c. 1. n. 34. I show, that nether Counsels, nor Popes, nor Fathers, nor Church can otherwise define, which books be canonical, which not, but by the only testimony of the whole Church▪ Chillingworth c. 2 n. 27. The question whether such or such a book, be canonical Scripture, cannot be decided affirmatively, but only by the testimonies of ancient Churches. n. 32. by the Church's But by the Church. consent, we are assured, what Scriptures be canonical— of this controversy, we make judge, the consent and testimony of the ancient and primitive Church▪ Which he repeateth n. 35. 42 And n. 114 It is upon the authority of universal tradition, that we would have them believe scripture. In his preface n. 28. Whatsoever is held necessary by the Catholic Church of this age, I verily believe. Finally, they commonly grant (as we shall see l 2. c. 4 sec. 2.) that the Scripture needeth an Interpreter, even for some necessary points of faith. And I hope, they will not say, that a needful Interpreter for matters of infallible faith, is fallible in interpreting them: or that the Church of God, is not this infallible Interpreter, rather than any A needful interpreter of infallible faith, is infallible. other. I add also, that Whitaker contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. granteth, that the Church erreth not in things, that are necessary to any men. And such are more than absolutely necessary to every one. Laud also Relat. p. 356. The Fathers of the primitive Church, did sufficiently propose to men the divine revelation, and did by it beget and breed up faith. Behold, the testimony or authority of the Church, sufficeth to convince, and demonstrate, that the Scripture is to be received, because the Church receiveth it: that the Church can assure us that the Scripture is the word of God; and that her testimony herein, is infallible, is a Rule of faith, nay the only Rule or mean to know, which books be Canonical. And why infallible in this, and not in other points? What word of God affirmeth that, and denieth this? Is it not plainly voluntary, to grant her to be infallible in this, and not in other points of faith? Is it not for to have some pretence, that Protestants are infallibly certain, that the Scripture is the word of God, by testimony of the Church and that being had, to neglect her See S. Austin Cont. Epist. fund●m 〈◊〉. 5. testimony in other points of faith? Is not this to make the infallibility of the Church, to serve their turn, as far as they have need of it, and otherwhere to leave it? For in the matter of the Scripture, and other such points, as they think themselves bound to believe which are only (as they call them) the fundamental points, they will have the Church to be infallible: but in other points, which they think themselves not bound to believe, they will have her to be fallible: so that just as far, as they think themselves bound to believe, she is infallible, and farther, she is fallible. 9 Fiftly, they plainly insinuate, Protestants believe partly for the Church. that they believe the scripture to be God's word, partly for the testimony, and authority of the Church. For thus their French Confession art. 4. We acknowledge these books to be Canonical, not only for the common Protestants in Col●oq Rot●●b●ess. 11 Fulk. 2. T●essal. 2. consent of the Church, but also etc. Laude sec. 38. p. 330. I believe the entire scripture, first by the trrdition of the Church. Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 1. The sum of our opinion is, that the scripture is of itself worthy to be believed not only because the Church hath so commanded. Ibid. We reject not the testimony of the Church, but deny, that we believe the scripture for her commendation alone. And c. 5. We believe them to be canonical, not only for the Church's testimony, and Authority, but for etc. The same he hath l. 1. de Scriptura p. 18. 52. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 35. Protestants, by the Church's consent are assured, what scriptures be canonical. §. 155. scripture needs the attestation Scripture needs tradition. of universal tradition. Field l. 4. c. 20. The number, authors, and integrity of canonical books, we receive by tradition. And truly who say, they believe the Scripture not for the testimony of the Church only, do plainly insinuate, that they believe it partly for her testimony. And as Chilling. sayeth c. 2. §. 154. None can build an infallible faith upon motives, that are only lightly credible, and no● infallible, as it were a great and heavy burden, upon a foundation, that hath not strength proportionable. For what is even a partial formal cause of infallible belief, is infallible. 10. Sixtly, they teach, that we ought to follow the Church. King james in Praefat. Antivors: blameth Vorstius because he would not admit the Church to be Arbitrer of the errors, objected The Church is arbiter of controversy. to him. Carleton l. de Eccles c. 1. what then, will some say? Do we see the Church, in the Church? I indeed do so, and after holy scripture, will ask my mother to show herself, and that the Church teach, where the Church is to be sought. White in defence of his way c. 37. It is necessary to find and follow the teaching of the Church. Whitaker l. 2. de Scrip. p. 234. I confess, the Church is to be heard as a Mistress. Potter sec. 6. p. 66. It is very meet, that the ignorant people should submit themselves to the direction of the Church in many profound doctrines above their reach sec. 2. p. 28. The Church Catholik or universal is confessed in some sense to be unerring: and he is little better than a pagan, that despiseth her iudgme●t. Ibid. p. 52 Particular Churches owe to the Catholic, mother of all Christians, the duty of obedience. Genevas note Proverb. 1. Frustrate not thy Mother's instruction, that is the teaching of the Church: Field in the Epist. Dedicatory before his books of the Church: seeing the Controversies of Religion in our time are grown in number, so many and in Nature, so intricate, that few have time and leisure, fewer strength of understanding to examine them, what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out, which, among all the societies of men in the world, is that blessed company of holy ones, that house hold of faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the living God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and Rest in the judgement of the Church. rest in her judgement. Which words are so full and so plain for the sufficient, and safe proposal of the Church in all controversies of faith, as Chilling. c. 2. n. 86. sayeth. They slipped unadvisedly from him, and he strained to high. 11. But of all which hath in this Chapter been related out of Protestants, it evidently appeareth: first, how manifest a truth it is, that the Church of God, is infallible in proposing matters of faith, seeing they have so plainly, and manifoldly confessed it, partly directly, partly indirectly, though it do quite overthrew their cause. Secondly, that if they would constantly stand to their aforesaid confessions, there would be no more controversies betwixt us, whether the true Church were the all-sufficient external proposer of all points of faith, nor indeed about any other matter of faith. For Laud sect. 33. p. 249. they confess in plain words, that the true Church, for more than a thousand years, hath taught contrary to their doctrine, and therefore openly except against the Church, after the first four or five hundred years, and indeed against the Church, of what time soever, calling that in her, oversights, and blemishes, which in the Church of latter times, they calerrors, superstitions, impiety Idolatries. And thus having proved, that the true Church is infallible in proposing points of faith, let us also prove, that she is a necessary proposer of them, because this also is a necessary condition of the all-sufficient Proposer of matters of faith. ELEVENTH CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is (in ordinary course) a necessary Proposer of all points of faith, proved by holy scripture. 1. THAT the true Church of Christ is (in ordinary course) a necessary proposer of all points of faith, so as we cannot (in ordinary course) have saving faith of any point, unless she propose it for divine truth, is evident out of those former places of Scripture, whence we proved, that she is a sufficient proposer of all points of faith. For they prove not only the sufficiency, but also the necessity of her proposal. Rom. 10. The Apostle, giving the necessary ordinary external cause of divine faith, giveth no other than hearing lawful preaching of the word of God, saying: How shall they believe, whom they have not heard? How shall they preach, unless they be sent? And then inferreth: Therefore faith is of hearing. Wherefore he maketh hearing of lawful preaching the word of God, as necessary a cause (ordinarily speaking) of beleuing, as mission is a necessary cause of lawful preaching. And lawful preaching is not out of the true Church. And truly said Stapleton contr. 4. q. 3. art. 2. The complete formal Complete formal cause of faith. L. 2. de Sa●ram. c 25. omnium dogmatum firmitas, pendetab authoritate praesentis Ecclesiae. Epiphan in Ancorato Hieron. count. Lucifer. Cyril Catech. 17. cause of our faith (ordinarily speaking) is God revealing by the Church: and Bellarmin l 3. de Verbo Dei, c. 10. The secondary foundation of faith, is the testimony of the Church: But the formal cause, and secondary foundation, is (doubtless) necessary to faith in ordinary course: which is all the necessity, we speak of. And this must those father's mean, who did read in the 'Greed: I believe in the holy Church, for to believe in one, is to make his authority a formal cause of belief: and also waldensis, who tom. 1. l. 2. c. 21. sayeth, that the testimony Io. de Ragusio de come. sub utraque spec●e: Ecclesiam non errare, & simpl●●●ter primum in doctrina fides. of the Catholic Church, is the object of Christian faith: to wit, the formal external, object, for the material object, is all revealed truth. And falsely sayeth Whitaker, l. 1. de Scrip. p. 175. Faith is not of hearing the voice or authority of the Church, but of God's word. For the Apostle sayeth plainly, that faith is of hearing, and hearing, of lawful preaching of God's word. Wherefore he must no more exclude lawful preaching, from a cause of faith, than we exclude the word of God. For the word of God, is that which faith believeth, and lawful preaching, is the external formal cause, wherefore we believe it. And Whitaker himself loco cit. is forced to confess, that the voice of the Church, is an instrumental cause of faith. And if an instrumental cause, surely a necessary cause, in ordinary course, and faith is of its instrumental cause, and consequently, of the voice of the Church. Ibid. p. 11●. he sayeth: hearing, is the mother of faith. Item p. 121. The Church by the preaching of the Gospel, begetteth us to Christ. And p. 118. The Church, is the mother of believers, and how mother of believers, if not necessary? Is not a mother, necessary? And p. 69. I most willingly grant, that the external judgement of the Church, is a help and means to engender, nourish, and confirm faith, instituted of God, and necessary for us. And if necessary for us, we can have no faith without it. controu. 2. q. 5. c. 19 By preaching of the Gospel, we come to faith, and never without. The Church is the school of the faithful, and maketh faithful, by preaching of the word, as by a necessary, and ordinary means. If any object, that then deaf men could not have faith: I answer, First, that deaf men can neither read Scripture, because without hearing they cannot know, what letters signify. Secondly, that deaf men have not any ordinary means of faith. For (as S. Austin sayeth l. 3. contra julianum c. 4.) The defect of deafness, hindereth faith itself, witness the Apostle, faith is of hea●ing. Porter sec. p 104. Some are inui●●●bly disabled from faith. Wherefore if God will have such to believe actually, he provideth them, of some extraordinary means. And this proof I confirm out of the Confession of Bohemia, and divers Protestants, who (as we shall see hereafter) out of this place do prove, that preaching and ministry b C. 14. of the word, are necessary to engender faith. 2. Secondly I prove▪ that the true Church is a necessary proposer of all points of faith, out of her foresaid propriety, that she is the pillar and ground of truth. 1. Tim. 3. For the pillar and ground of truth, is necessary to uphold truth. The true Church is the pillar and ground of Truth, Therefore she is necessary to uphold truth. The Mayor seemeth evident by itself. For how can the pillar and ground of a thing, be not necessary to uphold, that whereof it is the pillar and ground? The Minor is the Apostles words. And Caluin upon this place sayeth, the Church in respect of men, doth sustain truth. And Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 19 The Church doth sustain, preach, and propose truth to others l. 1. de scrip. p. 112. The Church doth sustain divine truth, that it fall not wholly among men. But what sustaineth a thing, is necessary to it. 3. Thirdly I prove The same, out of her office to be witness to God's truth. For witnesses are necessary for to believe that which they are appointed to testify. The Church, or the Pastors of the Church, are appointed by God to be witnesses of his truth. Therefore they are necessary. The Minor is proved before And the Mayor is evident. For unless witnesses were necessary to assure us of the truth, whereof they are witnesses, there were no need to a point them. For what need is there to appoint such, as are needles? and such witnesses are needles, without whom wecambe assured of the truth. 4. Fourthly I prove, the necessities of the Churches proposing matters of faith, out of the ends, for which Protestants (as we saw c. 8. n. 2.) confess the Church was instituted by God, to wit, to be Mother, Mistress, and guide of Christians in matters of faith. For doubtless what is such, is necessary. But now let us prove the same by the holy Fathers. TWELFT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God, is a necessary proposer of all points of faith, proved by holy Fathers. 1. S. Cyprian l. de unitate: It is the Church, by whose travail we are borne, with whose milk we are nourished, with whose spirit, we are animated. But such a one, is a necessary proposer of faith. S. Ireney l. 3. c. 4. What if dispute had been of some small matter, should we not have recurred to the most ancient Churches, and received from them, what is certain of this present question? Which made Whitaker cont. 1. q. 3. c 9 to grant, that the authority of the Church, is a firm compendious Demonstration of Canonical scripture. But Ireney sayeth more, that it is a necessary demonstration. Tertull. praescrip. c. 21. What the Apostles preached, what Christ revealed to them, here I will prescribe, that it ought not to be proved otherwise, then by the same Churches, which the Apostles erected: For Which words Whitaker l. citato granteth, that Tertullian made this prescription, that the doctrine of the Apostles, was not to be proved any other way, then by the Churches which they founded. And if by no other way, than the Church's testimony is necessary. 2. S. Augustin contra Epist Fundam. c. 5. I must needs believe this book (of the Acts) if I believe the Gospel, seeing the Catholic authority doth commend to me both books alike. Which Present Church. authority made Whitaker contr. 1. q. 3. c. 7. to say: we may be forced by the authority of the Church, to believe these books to be Canonical. And if forced to believe by authority of the Church than the authority of the Church is a most effectual and sufficient cause of infallible belief. And in the same place S. Austin: I would not believe the Gospel, unless the Authority of the Catholic Church did move me: which clearly testifieth the necessity of the Church's proposal, and made Whitaker q. cit. c. 8. to grant, that it is true, we should not believe the Gospel, unless th● Catholik Church did propose it. But S Austin sayeth more: If the Catholic Churches authority did not move me. And it is far more, for Catholic authority to move us to believe, then for the Church only to propose. Men of no authority, may propose; but authority, which moveth to believe the Gospel, and with out which we cannot believe the Gospel, must needs be necessary and infallible authority. For belief of the Gospel is infallible, and such must be the authority, that so moveth us to it, as without which we cannot believe. Commonly Protestant's answer, that S. Austin spoke these words of himself, as he was an heretic. But this cannot be because as he was an heretic, he did not believe the authority itself of the Catholic Church, and therefore as such he could not be moved to believe the Scripture for her authority. For how could he be moved to believe the Scripture for that, which itself he did not believe? Secondly, because he sayeth not: non credidissem: (as Morton tom. Apol. l. 1 c. 37 falsely citeth him (but non crederem, which words properly are to be understood of him, as he was minded at that present And all a August. de Doctrina l. 3 c. 10. 11. Tertul de ●arn● Christi c. 13 15. words are to be understood according to their propriety, if the contrary be not manifest. For otherwise we should be uncertain, how to understand men. And it is not manifest, that S. Austin did not use those his words according to their propriety. Wherefore Morton loco cit. granteth, that S. Austin maketh the Church, the means, by which a Catholic believeth, and the reason without which not, which sufficeth for my present purpose, to show the necessity of the Church's proposal for the means by which, and reason without which not, are necessary. Thirdly, because afterward S. Austin addeth: The authority of Catholics being weakened, I can no more believe the Gospel, which he spoke plainly of himself, as he was then a Catholic, and show, that his belief of the Gospel, even both then, and for the time after, depended on the authority of the Church I add also, that though S. Austin had said the foresaied word of himself, only as he was an heretic, yet it would thence follow, that the proposal and authority of the Church is (at least) necessary to begin belief of the Gospel, howsoever it be not necessary for to continue it. And it cannot be said, that is is necessary so, only as an inducement or disposition to such belief, because (as S. b L. de vtil. cred. c. 11. Austin sayeth) That we know, we own to reason, that we believe, to authority. So that, as Reason, is the formal cause of our knowledge, so is Authority the formal cause of our belief: and such cause of our belief of the Gospel, is the authority of the Catholic Church, such, not principal but subordinate to God's authority. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 54 p. 54. p. 73. and §. 97. p. 88 sayeth, That S. Austin by Catholic Church, meanerh the Church of all ages, including Christ and the Apostles. But nether proveth he that, nor can tell, how S. Austin could be infallibly certain of the testimony of the Church of Christ, and the Apostles time, but by the testimony of the Church of his time. Which if it were not infallible, he could not be infallibly certain of the testimony of the Church of Christ, and the Apostles time. Beside, S. Austin showeth, that he meaneth of the authority of the present Church, in saying: The Catholic authority doth commend to me both books alike. And l. 1. contra Crescon. c. 33. The truth of Scripture is held, when we do, what now seemeth to the whole Church. Which is plainly meant of the present Church. The same S. Austin (as is before cited) sayeth, l. 10. de Gen. ad literam c. 23. That baptism of Infants were not to be believed, unless it were an Apostolical tradition. And l. 2. de baptismo c. 4. that he durst not defend the baptism given by heretics, unless he were assured by the authority of the Church. Therefore he thought the authority of the Church necessary to believe those points of faith. Vincentius l. 1. c. 2. Here possibly one may demand, when the rule of Scripture is perfect, and in itself more than enough sufficient unto all things, what need is there to join unto it the authority of the Church's sense? And he answereth; this is, because all men do not take it in one sense, therefore it is necessary, that the line of interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholic sense. Behold the sense of the Church, necessary to understand the Scripture rightly. And the same Vincent. 16. c. 41. It is necessary, that the understanding of the holy Scripture be directed according to the only rule of the Church's sense. And if the understanding of the Scripture must be directed according to the sense of the Church, doubtless the sense of the Church is necessary. THIRTEENTH CHAPTER. That the true Church of God, is a necessary proposer of all points of faith, proved by reason grounded in Scripture. 1. FIrst: What is God's ordinary means of teaching faith, is (in ordinary course) necessary to have faith. God's ordinary means of teaching faith, is by the Church: therefore his means of teaching by the Church, is (in ordinary course) necessary. The Mayor seemeth evident by itself; and the Minor is proved by those places Rom. 10. Faithis of hearing lawful preaching. Ephes. 4. God hath put Pastors for consummation of Saints. 1. Tim. 5. The Church is the pillar, and ground of truth: and so evident, as Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. p. 73. sayeth: That the ordinary manner, by which God teacheth, is by the Church, I willingly grant. 2. Secondly, because nether Scripture, nor reading of Scripture, is a necessary cause of engendering faith, in ordinary course. Therefore the preaching of the Church is such a means. For there is (doubtless) some ordinary means instituted by God, which in ordinary course is necessary, and if not Scripture, nor reading of Scripture, surely the Church and her preaching. For no other can be reasonably imagined. The Antecedent I prove, because (as I said before) for many ages before Moses, there was no Scripture at all, nor for some years after Christ, was there any Scripture of the new Testament, and in S. Ireneys time, no Scripture, amongst some Barbarians, and yet there wanted not then, some necessary means of getting faith. For there were faithful men in all those times, and places. 3. Thirdly, Preachers or Pastors are necessary to the Church in ordinary course. Therefore preaching also is necessary. The consequent is evident. For why should preachers be necessary, if preaching (for which preachers are) be not? The Antecedent is clear, both out of many places in Scripture, and out of the definition of the Church, where Ministers of the word and of Sacraments are put, as an essential part of the Church, where nether Scripture, nor reading of it, is put as any part thereof; and also, out of the confessions of Protestants, as we shall see in the next Chapter. If any say, that before Scripture was written, God's ordinary means, and necessary for us, was preaching, but after Scripture was written, the reading of it, is the necessary ordinary means of faith: First I answer: he voluntarily sayeth, that God hath changed his necessary ordinary means of causing faith. Secondly, Scripture never can be the universal necessary means of causing faith, because it cannot be such to blind men, or to such as cannot read, nay nor to any that understand it not in the original tongues, according to the opinion of Protestants. Besides, See l. 2 c. 2. sect. 2. it is absurd to say, that after Scripture, God had altered his ordinary necessary means of engendering faith. For why should he alter it? What proof is there that he did alter it? Where is his word that sayeth it? 4. Fourthly, sowing is necessary in ordinary course that the seed do grow, but preaching is compared in Scripture to sowing. Therefore it is necessary in ordinatie course, that God's seed or word do grow in men's hearts. FOVERTEENTH CHAPTER That the true Church of God is a necessary proposer of points of faith, proved by plain confession of Protestants. 1. THat the Church is so necessary a proposer of points, as without her proposal, in ordinary course, we can have no divine faith, is so manifest, as Protestants sometimes do plainly confess it. For thus Luther tom. 1. fol. 54. The ministration of the word by a priest, is necessary to faith. Tom. 2. l. contra Church conceived by vocal word. Catharin. fol. 140. The Church is conceived, framed, nourished generated, conserved, by the vocal word. Tom. 5. in c. 1. Zachariae fol. 516. Albeit God can teach men the Gospel without preaching, yet he will not do it. And ibid. praefat. in Catechesim fol. 645. There are some this day, even of the Gentry, who dare say, they have no need of Pastors or preachers, but that books suffice, out of which, any man may learn the same things by himself without any teaching. And in colloquio marpurgi in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 77. Lutherans and Sacramentarians agreed, That the holy Ghost, ordinarily speaking, giveth, faith to none unless the vocal word go before, Kemnitius 2. part Exam. tit. de Sacram. ord. 391. God, upon his certain Decree, hath determined to dispense those things, which belong to our salvation, not infusing into men's minds inward peculiar revelations, without any means, but by the external ministry of the word. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 4. The knowledge of the (visible See him 1. In●●●t. c. 7. § 3. l. 4. c. 1. §. 5. & in Actor. c. 16. v. 17. Church) is profitable, yea necessary to us, seeing there is no other entrance unto life, unless she conceive us in her womb, bear us, and f●ed us with her duggs. And ibid. §. 5. Howbeit God's power is not tied to external means, yet he hath tied us to the ordinary means of teaching.— Ether pride or emulation, or sloth driveth many to persuade themselves, that by private reading and studying, they can profit enough. In 1. Tim. 3 The office of ministering doctrine, which God hath put in his Church, is the only instrument of truth Only Instrumental. Preaching is before faith. that it perish not out of the memory of men. The ministry of the word, being taken away, God's truth will fall. Ibid. Paul simply meaneth, that because faith is by hearing, there will be no faith, without preaching. Beza, epist. 20. I● it clear that faith is of hearing, and therefore it followeth, that preaching must go before faith. Fayus in enchiridio disput. 66. The necessity of Ecclesiastical ministry, appeareth by that, that without it, we cannot have knowledge and understanding, either of the word of God, or of his ●il revealed to us in it. Whitaker l. 3. de Scriptura p. 413. We alconf●ss, the testimony of the Church to be most necessary, by which men, by Christ's appointment, may be brought to believe. P. 499. we affirm, the ministry of the Church to be very necessary l. 1. de Script. p. simply we cannot believe without the ministry of the Church. P. 39 we believe not, I confess, unless the Church by preaching teach us. P. 106. The ministry being taken away, nether faith, nor charity, nor obedience, nor any other virtue will remain safe. See him p. 46. 106. 108. 111. l. 3. p. 369. I confess, that the ministry of the Church, is most necessary for to believe the Scriptures l. 3. p. 478 I affirm, determine, hold, that there is no entrance to salvation, without the ministry of the word. Ibid. By ministry of Pastors, we assent to the Scriptures, nor is it to behoped, that without this ministry, we can have faith. And p. 477. It is true, that without the ministry, there is no entrance to salvation, and that this ministry, is not, but in Pastors. Contro. 2. q. 3. c. 11. p. 332. By the preaching of Pastors, the gates of heaven are in a sort opened, so that without the ministry of the word, no entrance to salvation can be for an●●. Ibid. q. 5. c. 19 p. 550. Without preaching of the Gospel we never come to salvation. Fulk of succession p. 30. Salvation of people, can never be procured without preaching. And p. 163. No Christian will deny, but that preaching is necessary for building of the Church. Latimer in his sermons fol. 38. Take away preaching, and you take away faith. And fol. 99 The office of preaching, is the only ordinary means, by which God hath decreed, that we be saved. Cartwright in Hooker l. 5. p. 230. No salvation to be looked for, where no preaching is. Item. Reading, cannot begin the work of salvation, it cannot breed and cause faith without sermons. And the Puritans in whitgifts Answer to the admonition p. 53. Reading is not feeding. Field in his Appendix part. 2 p. 21. The tradition of the Church is a necessary means, whereby the books of Scripture may be made known.— The Church's proposiug of things, is a necessary condition, without which ordinarily men can not believe. Potter sec. 5. p. 5. We do not deprive the Church of that prerogative and office, which Christ hath given it. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, and the ministry of the Church, is necessary in ordinary course, for the begetting of faith. P. 9 The Church, ordinary propounder of faith. God hath appointed an outward ordinary means to present and propound divine verities to our faith, and this ordinary means, we grant is the Church. Is not this to grant in plain terms, that the Church is the ordinary proposer of faith appointed by God? P. 10. The Church is one cause, to wit, inductive or preparative, without which men ordinarily do not believe, P. 6. The testimony of the present Church, is the first external motive of our faith, it is the key or door that lets men into the knowledge of divine mysteries. Laude sec. 16. p. 73. No man may expect inward private revelation, without the external means of the Church, unless perhaps the case of necessity be excepted. Hooker l. 3. §. 8. we all know, that the first outward motive, leading men to esteem of the Scripture, is the authority of God's Church. Chillingworth. c. 1. p. 63. Whether such or such a book be canonical Scripture, affirmatively cannot be decided, but by the testimony of the ancient Churches. P. 52. we take the Scripture upon universal tradition. P. 66. Of this controversies (which books be canonical) we make the Church the judge, The consent and testimony of the ancient and primitive Church. P. 72. It is superfluous for you to prove out of S. Athanasius, and S. Austin, that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of God's Church, understanding by Church, the credit of Tradition. P. 96. It is upon the authority of universal tradition, that we would have them believe the Scripture. c. 3. §. 38. p. 150. The Church is a necessary introduction to faith. Covel. art. 4. Doubtless, it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome that the Scriptures are holy, and divine in themselves, but so esteemed by us, for the authority of the Church. See Whites defence p. 251. 254. 3. Nether do they only confess this, but also confess, that the Scripture teacheth it. The confession of▪ Auspurg. c. de potestate Ecclesiasticâ. Eternal justice, the holy Spirit, life everlasting, can not be had, but by the ministry of the word and Sacraments, as Paul sayeth. The confession of Bohemia art. 10. They grant, that none can have true faith, unless he hear the word of God, according to that of Paul, Faith is of hearing. And again: how shall they believe in him, whom they have not heard? And the Protestants in their Conferencie in Maspurg in Hospin parte 2. Historiae Sacram▪ fol. 77. agreed: that the holy Ghost (speaking of the ordinary way) giveth Vocal word of God. faith to none, unless a sermon or vocal word go before: but he worketh faith by, and with the vocal word, where, and in whom he pleaseth. Rom. 10. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 5. God inspireth faith, but by the Organ of his Gospel, as Paul admonisheth, that faith is of hearing. Ibid. We must hold, what we have cited out of Paul that the Church is not builded otherwise, then by external preaching. In 1. Cor. 3. v 6. Note in this place, that preaching of the word, is necessary nothing can hinder, but God can infuse faith whiles we sleep, if he will, without help of man, but he hath decreed otherwise, to wit, that faith is of hearing, The same he hath Hebr. 4. 1. Tim. 3. and Ephes. 4. Beza in colloquio Montisbel. p. 407. The ordinary means, by which faith is ordinary cause. infused, is by hearing the word of God. Rom. 10. wherefore these two causes are always joined, to wit, the Holy Ghost, and hearing of the word of God. Bucer in Rom. 10. The Apostle knew, that God can call all men, without the ministry of men, yet he simply wrote, how shall they believe in him, of whom they have heard nothing? Hyperius upon the same place: This it is: That all believe and invocate God, it is necessary, that they first hear the Gospel, and be taught. Daneus l. de visibili Ecclesia p. 1069. Paul sayeth, Faith is of hearing, not of private reading. Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura p. 29. What thou objectest of the Apostle: how shall they believe him, whom they have not hear, doth demonstrate, that preaching is necessary to ●aue right faith of God. P. 39 I am not ignorant, how necessary the ministry of the Church is both to beget, and confirm faith, and if you urge, I can grant, that what is believed, is believed by the ministry of the Church. For God hath set that order in his Church, that faith be of hearing, and hearing of the word of God. The like he hath p. 41. 100 l. 3. p. 396. Contro. 1. q. 2. c. 15. Faith (as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 10.) is of hearing. And q. 6. c. 15. out of which place (Rom. 10) it is evident, that faith is conceived by hearing. And in his last sermon. p. 694. It is certain, that in those of years, faith is of hearing, as the Apostle teacheth. White in his way §. 27. p. 116. It will be easily granted, that the ministry of the Church, is the ordinary means, whereby we learn the faith of Christ, and that no man of himself can attain to the knowledge thereof, but as the Church teacheth him. Except in some extraordinary cases, the preaching thereof is required, is a necessary condition, as the text of S. Paul (Rom. 10.) speaketh See Potter sec. 5. p. 9 and Dent in his plain way p. 250. 4. Out of which confessions of Protestants, it is manifest, 1. that the Church's proposal is necessary to beget faith, 2. that her proposal is the ordinary means and instrument, by which God produceth faith in us, 3. That without her preaching, there is no faith. 4. That though God can beget faith without the help of the Church, yet he hath decreed not to do it; 5. That we cannot believe the Scriptures, but by the means of the Church, 6. That the Scripture teacheth this: which is plainly to confess, both that the Church's proposal of points of faith, is necessary to have faith of them, and also, that we must first know the Church, before we can know the Scripture, and consequently, that we must know the Scripture by the Church, and not Whitaker l. 〈◊〉. de Scrip. p. 18. 49. Chilling. c. 2. n. 21. the Church by the Scripture, as commonly Protestant's use to teach. Let them therefore tell me, what Church preached Protestant doctrine to Luther and to the first Protestants; of hearing of what lawful preacher, he had his Protestant faith? By what Churches ministry, he learned the Protestant sense of Scriptures? or say, that he had not his faith of hearing, but of divine inspiration, which themselves condemn in Suencfeldius, Anabaptists, and Enthusiasts, as is to be seen in Melancthon, Respons ad articulos Bavaricos fol. 172. Schusselburg to. 10. cattle haeret. p. 30. Kemnitius 2. part Exam. tit. de Sacram. ord p. 391. Whitaker contro. 1. q. 3. c. 11. and l. 1. de Script. c. 3. p. 44. and l. 2. c. 10. sec. 4. Pareus l. 3. de justif. c. 3. and 8. to which I add, that Beza in colloquio Montisbelg. p. 407. sayeth, of extraordinary means, by which faith is infused, we have no testimony in Scripture. Wherefore they can have no faith, that Luther had his faith by any extraordinary means, or otherwise then Suencfeldius, Anabaptists, and Enthusiasts pretend, that they had theirs. And hence also appeareth, that Protestants nether take the right way, which God hath appointed, and the Scripture plainly declareth, for to learn true faith, and divine truth by, Protestants take no● the right way to get right faith. nor will learn them of those, whom God hath appointed to teach and show them. For the only way, which God (in ordinary course) hath appointed, and the Scripture declareth, to learn true faith by, is by hearing Rom. 10. and the persons, whom they are to hear, are lawfully sent Preachers ibidem, the Successors of those, of whom Christ said: Who heareth ye, heareth me. Luke 10. and whom he hath put in his Church, for consummation of Saints Ephes. 4. and whom he hath made the pillar and ground of truth. 1. Timoth. 3. But Protestants seek truth by their reading, or by their discoursing or inference: and not of Pastors, or of the pillar or ground of truth, and therefore no marvel, if they never find truth, whiles they will not seek it, how and where it is to be found. For where should truth be sought or found, but at the pillar and ground of truth; And who seek it not there, are never like to find divine faith, but at most, humane belief. And Chillingworih therefore often times L 36. 37. 62. 73. 112. 117. professeth, that Protestants have only humane and moral certainty, such as they have of profane stories, no infallible or certainly unerring belief: and that they have as great reason to believe there was a Heurie eight, as that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. To such profane credulity or rather incredulity, are they fallen, who seek not truth at the pillar and ground of truth, which is the Church Whitaker l. 1. descrip. p. p. 8. 43. Chil●ng. c. 2. n. 12. but profess, that they will first seek, truth, and then the Church: which is as much, as if they said, they will seek first the end, and afterwards the only means to come to it. But now let us prove that Protestants do some times grant that the authority of the Church is even divine, or divinely infallible. FIFTEENTH CHAPTER. That Protestants do divers ways confess, that the authority of the Church in matters ●f faith, is divine or divinely infallible. 1. IN the former Tenth Chapter we shown, that Protestants do often times confess, that the Church is infallible, at lest in fundamental points of faith, now we will show, that some, times they confess, that she is also divinely infallible, that is, infallible by Gods divine efficacious assistance. And indeed it cannot be conceived, how she can be infallible in any kind of supernatural and divine matters, and not be divinely infallible in them, that is, infallible by Gods divine efficacious assistance, For by herself, or her natural power, she cannot so much as know them, much less be infallible in them. 2. Caluin in Luc. 10. The testimony of our Salvation, given by men sent of God, is no less than if he spoke from heaven. The same sayeth confessio Bohemica c. 14. Apologia Confess Augustanae c. de Poenitentia. perkins in Reformed Catholic cont. 3. c▪ 3. and others. Whitaker l. 3 de Script. p. 4●6. when the Church giveth testimony to the Scriptures, surely this testimony is divine, because God is the author Testimony of the Church divine. of this testimony. Behold the testimony of the Church is divine and that because God is Author of it. Nether can he, by the testimony of the Church, mean the truth testified by her: because that were to equivocate, and also to grant no more her testimony to be divine, then is the testimony of any private man, of the Scriptures. Wherefore by the Church's testimony, he must needs mean, The Church's testification of the Scriptures, or her act of testifying them, to be divine, and so is no private man's testification, divine, though he testify the same, which the Church testifieth. And contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. Stapleton sayeth; the judgement judgement of the Church divine. of the Church is divine; be it so, let the judgement of the Church be divine— We inquire not now, whether the judgement of the Church be divine in itself, but how we know that it is divine. Which supposeth, that the judgement of the Church is divine, for we cannot know, that it is divine, if it be not such indeed. And ibid. we confess, that the judgement of the Church is in some sort divine, not simply, but in some part, when the testimony of the Church conspireth with the testimony of the holy Ghost, than we confess, it is divine. Where, by judgement, he cannot mean, the truth judged by the Church, but her act of judging both for what we said of testimony of the Church, as also, because he sayeth, her judgement is not simply divine, whereas God's truth judged by the Church, is simply divine, and not only in part. And the same Whitaker l. 2. de Script. c. 7. p. 246. Ministers of the Church, are instruments of the holy Ghost, and endued with divine Ministers endued with divine authority. authority to govern the Church committed to them. Where, is plainly granted to Ministers, divine authority to govern the Church, and if to govern, why not also divine authority to testify that to be divine truth, which they teach? Is it not as necessary to the Church, to be rightly taught, as to be rightly governed? And if as necessary, why not divine authority granted as well for the one, as for the other? And Authority of scripture equal to Christ. contro. 1. q. 3. c. 11. p. 328. The authority of the Scripture, is no less than the authority of Christ himself. And yet the Scripture is a create thing, as well as the Church is. Powel l. de Adiaphoris p. 7. Such indifferent things as by the Church have been lawfully and orderly instituted, are so far humane, as they are also divine therefore have more than humane authority, yea plainly divine. And if things instituted by the Things instituted by the Church plainly divine. Church, have plainly divine authority, surely she hath divine authority to institute them. For humane authority can institute nothing, which is plainly divine. Nether do I think, that any judicious Protestant will deny, that the Authority of the Church to preach God's word and administer his Sacraments, is truly divine, because our Saviour Matthew the last, sayeth: All power in heaven and earth is given to me, wherefore going, teach all nations, baptising them &c. And what need had he to say, All power in heaven and earth was given to him, for to give mere humane power to his Apostles; and also, what humane power could be fit or sufficient to teach and administer divine word, and Sacraments? And if Christ gave to his Apostles true divine authority to preach his word and administer his Sacraments, he gave them also true divine authority to testify, that it was his word and Sacraments, which they administered; because the end of their preaching, was to persuade men, that it was his word and Sacraments, which they administered; and God giving divine authority to the means, must needs give the like authority to the end, because he more desireth the end, than the means, and therefore will not give less authority to obtain the end, than he doth to obtain the means. 3. Secondly, Protestants say many things of the Church's authority, which must needs argue it to be divine. For Whitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 11. and 19 sayeth, It is sacrilege not to receive the Church's testimony of the Sacrilege not to receive the Church's testimony. Scriptures Tailor l. of liberty of prophesying sec. 9 n. 2. The authority of the Church, is divine in its original, for it derives immediately from Christ. Potter sec. 1. p. 10. The good Spirit of truth and love ever assists and mantaines that great body (the Catholic Church) Sec. 5. p. 20. The whole Church cannot so err, as to be destroyed. For than our lords Promise of her stable edification, should be of no value. P. 21. Nor hath the Church universal the like assurance from Christ, that she shall not err in unnecessary additions, as she Assurance from Christ. hath for her not erring in taking away from the faith, what is fundamental and necessary. It is comfort enough for the Church, that the lord in mercy will secure her from all capital dangers. P. 22. That the Church shall never be rob of any truth, necessary to the being of the Church, the promses of Christ assure us. P. 30. Their (General counsels) authority is immediately derived and derived and delegated from Christ. Laud in his Relation sec. 21. p. 170. That the whole Church cannot err in doctrines absolutely fundamental, seems to be clear by the promise of Christ, Matthew 16. The gates of hell etc. Ibid. This power By Christ's promise's. (of not erring) is in it, partly by this promise of Christ. Sec. 16. p. 61. The universal Church delivers those supernatural (fundamental) truths, by promises of assistance. Sec. 33. p. 231. For this necessary truth, the Apostles received the promise for themselves, and the whole Catholic Church. Sec▪ 38. p. 355. The Catholic Church of Christ Infallible assistance promised. in things absolutely necessary only, had infallible assistance promised. And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 277. That there shall be, by divine providence, preserved God hath promised absolutely. in the world, to the world's end, a company of Christians who hold all things precisely and indispensably necessary to salvation, and nothing inevitably destructive of it, this the Doctor affirmeth, that God hath promised absolutely. And is her authority not divine, which not to. receive, is sacrilege? Is not she divinely infallible, who is infallible by Christ's absolute promise, and the Spirit of truth his efficacious assistance? What mean we by Divinely infallible, but infallible in this sort? Doth not Laude sec. 16. p. 91. say, That so great assistance of Christ and the B. spirit, as is purposely given to that effect, that the authority of any company be divine and infallible enough. And do not the forsaid Protestants confess, that such assistance of Christ and of the B. Spirit, is purposely given to the Church in fundamental points of faith; How then can they deny, that her authority in such points is divine, and she divinely infallible in them? 4. Thirdly, Protestants are sometimes ashamed to say, the Authority or testimony of the true Church is mere humane: and do but restrictly say, that it is divine. Whitaker contro. 1. q. 3. c. 11. p. 331. It is a slander that we make the judgement of the Church, mere humane, which surely is falls. Laud in his Relat. sec. 16. n. 19 The tradition of the present Not more humane. Church, is not absolutely divine. And n. 21. The voice of the Church, is not simply divine. Sec. 10. n. 11. The Church's authority is not simply divine. Sec. 19 n. 1. The testimony of the present Church, is not simply divine. Potter Sec. 5. p. 15. That the Church is infallible, we do not absolutely deny, we only deny, the Church to be absolutely infallible. Which is tacitly to confess, that the authority or testimony of the Church, is truly divine in some degree. For what is not merely humane, and only denied to be simply divine, is in some degree truly divine. And what authority is in any degree truly divine by Gods special assistance, implieth contradiction, to deceive. But why do Protestants use these ambiguous and equivocal terms, not simply, not absolutely, which they condemn in others, and do not speak out, and Whitaker l. 3. p. 419. Laud Relat sec. 33. p. 247 tell plainly, whether authority of the Church in matters of faith be truly divine by Gods efficacious assistance, or no. For if it be truly divine in any degree by God's efficacious assistance, that sufficeth to us, because it implieth contradiction, that such divine authority, should deceive or be deceived. And as Chillingworth c. 3. §. 33. p. 175. sayeth: The Apostles, could not be the Church's foundation, without freedom from error in all those things, which they delivered constantly, as certain revealed truths, For if once we suppose, they may have erred in some things of this nature, it will be utterly undiscernible, what they have erred in, and what they have not. And in like manner I say of the Church: That she could not be the pillar and ground of divine truth, without freedom from error in all things which she delivereth as divine truths. 4. Fourthly, they grant, that the The Rule of faith. tradition and doctrine of the Church, is the rule of faith, and of judging controversies by. White in defence of his way c. 3. p. 339. I grant, that the doctrine of the Pastors of the true Church such as succeed the Apostles, is the rule and means of faith. And c. 37. p. 356. That the Church's doctrine is the rule, I deny not. Chillingworth l. 2. n. 155. Universal tradition, is the rule to judge all controversies by. And c. 3. p. 148. We believe canonical books, upon universal tradition. But the doctrine or tradition of the Church, could not be the rule of divine and infallible faith, or of judging controversies in such faith, if it were not also divine and infallible▪ For a rule, must be as divine and infallible, as that is which is ruled by it. And as Chillingworth sayeth. c. 3. p. 148. cit. An authority subject to error, can be no firm or solid foundation of my belief in any thing. Nor likewise, no firm or solid Rule. 6. Fiftly, they grant, that the voice, 'Cause of divine faith. authority, or testimony of the Church is a true cause of divine faith Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura p. 118. The Church is Mother of believers. P. 121. The Church, by preaching the Gospel, begot us to Christ. P. 175. I deny not, that the voice of the Church, is an instrumental cause of beleuing. l. 3. c. 441. I exclude not the testimony of the Church from a cause of beleuing, if by cause, you mean an instrument. P. 442. Thou tellest, what kind of instrument, the Church is, to wit, not dumb or dead, but in which is its proper motion and virtue. And who denieth this, or knoweth not the necessity or virtue of this instrument? Ibid. p. 425. The Church is Mistress of faith: Item. faith is the effect of the Church's testimony. And contr. 2. q. 5. c. 19 The Church maketh faithful, by preaching of the word. And l. 1. de Scrip. p. 145. out of both testimonies (Spirit and Church) faith is in some sort inflamed and burneth. Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. God revealeth truth by the Church c. 11. We confess, God speaketh by the God speaketh by the Church. Church. And generally all Protestants confess, that the Church is: the Mother of the faithful, and a mother; is a true cause of her Children. And if the Church be the mother of the faithful, do beget the faithful, if her voice, her testimony, be an instrumental cause of divine faith, if she have a proper virtue in producing faith, if divine faith be the effect of her testimony, and by her preaching, she make faithful, Surely, If the effect be divine, the cause is divine. she hath a divine power or virtue. For as Whitaker confesseth l. 1. de Scripturâ p. 166. The effect surpasseth not the cause: and l. 3. § 415. Such as the doctrine and religion is, which we profess such also must the cause and authority of beleuing be. So also Potter sec. 5. p. 7. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 2 Chillingworth c. 2. n 154. c. 3. n. 33. But the effect of the Church, is truly divine, to wit, divine faith. Therefore also her testimony and is truly divine. And indeed, how can we divinely and infallibly believe, for a humane and fallible testimony? How can divine faith, be the effect of a humane testimony? SIXTEENTH CHAPTER. That Protestants do divers ways grant, that the Authority or Testimony of the Church is a formal cause of divine faith. 1. THis followeth, first out of that they granted, the authority of the Church in matters of S●p. c. 15. n. 2. faith, to be divine. For doubtless, if it be divine, it may be some formal cause of divine faith. Nay, they think (as is before shown) that if it be divine, it may be the ultimate formal cause of divine faith. But otherwise they grant it also. For first they confess, that the cause, why they believe the Scripture, is, the authority of the Church. Whitaker l. 2. de Scriptura p. 320. I grant indeed, that the Ratio credend● est prop●er quam credimus Whitaker l. 3. de Scrip. p 442. 459. Scripture is to be received, because 〈◊〉 is received of the Church. P. 312. All Christians are moved by the authority of the Church to believe the Gospel. Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 9 All these Fathers, what other thing do they prove, then that the Gospel is to be received, because it hath always been received of the Church: and some books to be rejected, because the Church always Because. rejected them. This we most willingly grant. Ibid. sec. 5. p. 322. we believe them For. to be canonical, not for the only testimony or authority of the By. Church, to believe these books to be canonical. And ibid. c. 1. This way seems For. tolerable, that Scripture is divine in itself, but not acknowledged for such, but for the testimony of the Church. Laud Relat. sec. 15. p. 57 'tis not denied, that this (baptism of Infants) is an Apostolical Therefore. tradition, and therefore to be believed. Chillingworth c. 2. p. 73. we must receive the sacred canons, upon Upon. the credit of God's Church. Ibid. we will Because. say with Athanasius, That only fowr Gospels are to be received, because the Canons of the holy Catholic Church (understand of all ages since the perfection of the Canons) have so determined. Ibid. p. 62. We believe the Scripture upon Upon. the credibility of universal tradition. And c. 3. p. 140. We have sufficient certainty From. of Scripture, from universal tradition. And what can those causal particles, Because, By, For, Upon, From, Therefore, in this matter signify, but a formal cause of belief? 2. Hooker l. 2. §. 4. There is some pause, whereon to rest our assurance (of Pause to rest assurance or. the Scripture) beside the Scripture, and some other thing, which may assure us. And this pause whereon to rest our assurance, and which can assure us of the Scripture, he sayeth l. 5. § 8. is the authority of the Church. And what is that, which is a pause whereon we rest the assurance of our belief, but some formal cause of our belief? Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 119. The credit of the Scripture to be divine, Main ground. hath three main grounds. The first, is the tradition of the Church. And is not that which is a main ground of belief, some formal cause of belief? And sec. 38. p. 344. we rely upon the infallible authority of the word of God, and Rely upon. the whole Catholic Church. And is not that, some formal cause of belief, upon which we rely, as we do upon the word of God? Covel art. 4. p. Doubtless, it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome, that the Scriptures are holy and divine in themselves, but so esteemed of us, for the authority of the Church. And is not that For. for which we esteem the Scriptures to be divine, some formal cause of our esteem of them? The like hath Whitaker contr. 1. q. 3. c. 1. who also l. 1. de Script. p. 23. sayeth; That the question, between him and D. Stapleton was, whether we are to believe For. the Scripture to be divine, only for the testimony of the Church, or rather for the inward persuasion of the holy Ghost, The same he sayeth contr. 1. q. 3. c. 1. Wherein he plainly supposeth, that we are to believe the Scripture to be divine, for the authority of the Church and only denieth, that we are to believe so, for it alone. Which all Catholics also deny. And contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. sayeth: Many believed Christ for the testimony of Ihon. And c. 5. p. 322. we believe them to be canonical, not only for the authority of the Church. Then partly for her authority. Ibid. It followeth not, that we know not By. which books be Canonical by any other testimony, then of the Church. And c. 8. Austin indeed sayeth: he was held in the Church for testimony of Catholics, and consent of Nations. But (as himself sayeth l. 1. de Script. p. 39) To believe for the Church, and for the Church's For showeth the reason of belief. authority, showeth the cause and reason of belief. The same he sayeth p. 46. And Chillingworth c. 2. p. 68 To say, we receive the books of the new So doth Because. testament commonly received, because they are so, were indeed to make (Commonly received) a rule or reason to know the Canon by. And indeed (as I said before) what other kind of cause of belief, can these particles, Because, or For, signify but some formal cause of belief? And the same Chillingworth c. 3. p. 152. It followeth not, that because the Church's authority is warrant enough, for us to believe some Warrant enough for to believe. doctrine, touching which, the Scripture is silent, therefore it is warrant enough, to believe these, to which the Scripture seems repugnant. Now the doctrines which S. Austin received upon the Church's authority, were of the first sort. Which is plainly to confess, that S. Austin received some doctrines upon the Church's authority, and that the Church's authority is warrant enough to believe doctrines, of which the Scripture is silent. But authority, which is warrant enough to believe, is a formal cause of belief. Laud also sec. 16. p. 102. The key, that lets men into the Scriptures, even to this The key. knowledge of them, That they are the word of God, is the tradition of the Church. And p. 107. The testimony of the Church is a subseruient cause to lead to knowledge of the author (of Scriptures) And what is the key of belief, but a formal cause of belief: or what subseruient cause of belief, can testimony be, but a formal cause? Hooker also l. 2. §. 7. granteth, that the authority of the Church, is the key, which openeth the door into The door. the knowledge of Scripture. And Po●ter sec. 5. p. 6. The testimony of the present Church, is the key or door, which lets men into the knowledge of divine mysteries. And what is the key or door, in matters of belief, but some formal cause of beleuing them? For (as I said before) what cause of belief, can testimony or authority be, but formal? Wherefore if not in words, in effect and deed, they grant the testimony or authority of the Church, to be a formal cause of faith. Ad in vain they deny the name, when they grant the thing. For August. 9 de civet c. vel l. 2. contr. Crescon. c. 2. l. 2. ad Bonif. c. 5. Caluin 2. Instit. c. 2 §. 7. l. 4. c. 3. truth consisteth not in words, but in things. 3. Secondly, they often times grant, that we believe By the Church, by the testimony of the Church, and By the preaching of the Church. Whitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 39 We believe by the Church, by the preaching of the Church. Ibid. p. 46. That we cannot believe but by the testimony of the Church, is no question between us. Contr. 2. q. 3. c. 3. p. 317. Many believe these Scriptures by the Church. Which he repeateth p. 316. and 320. where headdeth: God revealeth by the Church, as by aministerial means. But in matter of belief, To By testimony, and for testimony, is all one cause. believe by or for authority by or for testimony, is all one kind of cause, because Authority or testimony, can be no other kind of cause of belief, but formal; nor belief, can have any other formal cause, but Authority or Testimony. Wherefore the Scripture often times sayeth, men believed by John Baptist, by the Apostles, by the Prophets, meaning for their testimony or authority. And so we say, we believe by witnesses, or for their testimony. Because, when the word B● is said of Authority or Testimony, in respect of belief, it can signify no other cause then For, doth in the same matter, to wit, formal. Wherefore seeing the causal particle By, doth signify, that Authority or Testimony is some kind of cause of belief, it must needs signify the same kind of cause, which For, in that matter, doth signify (as it is all one to say, we know the conclusion by the premises, and for the premises) but yet with this difference, that By, more signifieth a subordinat cause of belief, then For, doth, and therefore it is oftener said in the Scripture, men believed by the Apostles, or by the Prophets, then for them, Though in other matters, By, may signify a different kind of cause, then, For, doth. And that By, and For, in matter of belief, signify the same cause of belief, Whitaker tacitly granteth, in that he often times denieth, that we believe by the Church or by the testimony of the Church, and sayeth l. 1. de Script. p. 7. What then Protestant's den●e, we believe by, the testimony of the Church. Stapleton? Dost not thou say, that we are certain by the Church, that this or that Scripture is divine. This thou sayest, is that which properly is in question. Did I say, think, put, or ascribe to thee or thine, any other thing, when I sought the true state of the question? Behold, how plainly he confesseth, that the true state of the question between him and Catholics, is whether we believe the Scripture to be divine by the testimony of the Church: though in other places he would put a great L. 1. de script p 39 46. difference between beleuing by the testimony, and for the testimony of the Church. And ibid. in Margin: To believe by the testimony of the Church, is the plain heresy of Papists. 4. Thirdly, Protestants grant the Church of God is appointed by him, to be witness of his divine truth, as I shown before c. 5. n. 6. But a witness, is by his authority and testimony, a formal cause of beleuing what he witnesseth, and the only end of a witness, is to cause belief. And this confesseth Caluin in Acts c. 20. v. 21. saying: Testimony, is interposed to take away all doubt, that is, to believe firmly. And out of that which hath been showed in this Chapter, it is evident that (if not in words) indeed and effect, Protestants do grant, that the authority or testimony of the Church, is a formal cause of divine faith: and (as I said before) to grant the thing, and deny the word or name, is but folly: For what do we mean, when we say, the Church is a formal subordinat cause of faith, than what they have said and granted? Thus have we proved, that even by the confession of Protestants, the Church of God, is infallible, at lest in fundamental points of faith, and also divinely infallible by Christ's absolute promise, and the holy Ghosts assistance, and also, that her authoritiein matters of faith is a formal cause of faith, though subordinat to God's authority, with which (in ordinary course) it maketh one total or entire formal cause of faith. SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER. How a vicious circle is avoided, in proving the Scripture by the Church, and the Church, by the Scripture. 1. Protestant's greatly object to Catholics, that they Laud sect. 16. p. 64. 116. Ch●ling c. 2. n. 118. c. 3. n. 27. Field. l. 4. c. 7 Morton 10. 1. Apol. l. 1. c. 55 make a vicious circle, because they prove the Church by the Scripture, and likewise the Scripture, by the Church. Whereas themselves use the same proof, and have the same difficulty, and avoidles apparently (as we shall make manifest) a vicious circle. For (as is evident by their confessions relate din the fourteenth Chapter) commonly they teach, that the testimony of the Church is necessary to believe the Scripture to be the word of God, and that it cannot be known to be such, by its own light alone: and yet they prove the Church to be the true Church, only by the scripture. Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 38. and 102. thinketh to See in●●a l. 2. c. 6. se●. 2. avoid a vicious circle, thus: That though they do mutually, yet they do not equally confirm the authority, either of other. For the Scripture doth infallibly confirm the authority of the tradition of the Church, but tradition doth but morally and probably confirm the authority of the Scripture. But first, it is falls, that the Church doth but probably confirm the authority of the Scripture. For (as we have showed before) the Church's testimony is a sufficient external and ministerial means to beget divine faith: and the holy Fathers also proved sufficiently the divine verity of Scripture (against such as denied any part of it) by the authority of the Church: and it were to expose the credit of Scripture to the laughter of Infidels, to say, that it cannot be proved otherwise, then probably, and that all Christian faith of what is in scripture, relieth upon only probable proof, that the scripture Seesup. c. 8. n. 13. is the word of God. Besides, it is evidently falls, and no way proved, that after the Church hath probably proved; that the Scripture is the word of God, the Scripture itself showeth a clear light, that it is the the word of God. For that the Scripture hath such a clear light, either before the Church's testimony, or after, is merely feigned without all proof; and if it had, it would not cause faith in us, that it is the word of God (because faith is of things not appearing) but science or knowledge. Moreover, seeing Laud and Protestants generally confess, that the Church is infallible in fundamental points, they cannot consequently say, that she is not infallible in this point, That the Scripture is the word of God because they account this, the Hooker l. 1. §. 14. Laudesest. 11. p. 43. sect. 16. p. 59 65. 110. See infral. 2. 6. 11. sect. 1. foundation of all other points whatsoever. And what is infallible, affordeth an infallible, and more than a moral and probable proof. Besides, this circle were vicious, because the proof were not equal on either side. For on the Scriptures side, it were infallible, and on the Church's side, but fallible. And we ask for an infallible proof of Scripture, as well as of the Church, because we must be infallibly assured of both: and to give us a fallible proof of the Scripture by the Church, were to delude us. Finally I ask, if the Scripture, do infallibly confirm the tradition of the Church (as Laude sayeth) how doth the tradition of the Church only probably confirm the authority of the Scripture? can not that, which is infallibly, proved or confirmed, make an infallible proof of some other thing. 2. But Catholics far more clearly avoid all vicious circles: (For every circular proof, is not vicious, but that only, whereby our knowledge is no way bettered: For the effect may be proved a priori, or propter quid, by the cause, and the cause, a posteriori, or quia, by the effect) and say, that our divine faith of the Church, nether first riseth, nor dependeth of the certain of the Scripture, but only is confirmed by the Scripture; but that the certainty of the Scripture, both first riseth, and still dependeth (for us) on the authority of the Church. For the true Church of God (whosoever she is) was believed more than two thousand years before there was any Scripture, and she hath sufficient authority to testify of herself. This we prove by all the ways, by which we proved, that she is a sufficient proposer of all points of faith. For if of all, even of herself, that she is the true Church. For this is a point (and a principal one) of faith. Besides, the foresaid proofs not only prove, that she is a sufficient proposer of points of faith, but also, that she is such of herself, or of her own authority given to her by God. For if of her preaching, faith riseth, if she be the pillar and ground of truth, if she be a witness appointed by God, if her voice be one with the voice of Christ, her authority is divine, and she is, even for herself, to be believed, as the Apostles were to be believed for Sup. c. 4 ● 5. themselves. The Fathers also, who by her authority proved the Scriptures against such heretics, as denied them, and (as they thought) sufficiently and infallibly, surely did think, that she was to be believed for her own authority. For by Scripture, they could not prove her, against such as denied Scripture. Reason also confirmeth the same. For if a Disciple of Christ be to be believed for himself, why not the Spouse of Christ, one mystical person with him, whose head he is and whose soul, is the holy Ghost? And if S. Paul could say I Paul say unto you: If you be circumcised, Galat. 5. Christ will not profit you. Why not the Church? Whitaker l 1. de Script. p. 86. sayeth: who have such a Spirit, as Paul had, may by some judgement, testify their Spirit. And contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. Paul doth approve his epistles with his own name and judgement The old and new Testament do confirm and sign one the other. In other causes, this mutual confirmation is naught worth. But in this, it is much worth, because none is so fit a witness of God and of his word, as God himself in his word. And why may we not say the same of the Church, and Scripture, which he sayeth of the old and new Testament? because none is so fit a witness of God, and of his Church, and of his word, as God, in his Church, and in his word. If S. john could say of himself: we know, that his testimony is true; why may not the Spouse C. 21. of Christ who is one mystical person with him, and whose head, he is, to whom he promised the assistance of the Holy Ghost to teach her all truth, and the Holy Ghost is her soul, say the like? Protestants also, who (being enforced by Scripture) confess, that concerning men, the Church sustaineth truth, must needs Supra c. 5. n. 3. confess, that she is to be believed of men, for herself. For doubtless the susteiner of truth, is to be believed for himself. Besides Chillingworth c. 2. n. 25. 1●9. and 154. granteth, that Universal tradition, credible of itself. See sup. c. 10. n. 37. c. 15. ●. 5. Universal tradition, is credible of itself, and therefore fit to be rested on. So that something beside Scripture, is credible of itself. And Laud Relat. sec. 19 p. 124. sayeth: A man may be assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof. And p. 125. Certain it is, that by humane authority, consent, and proof, a man may be assured infallibly, that the Scripture is the word of God. The same hath Potter sec. 5. p. 7. who addeth ibid. p. 6. That the testimony of the present Church, is the highest humane authority. And is not the highest humane authority, and that which can assure us infallibly, credible of itself. As in matters known by reason, some are intelligible by themselves: so in matters of belief, some are credible by themselves, else there would be an endless process in such matters. Beside, some are witnesses without all exception, and if any be such, surely the true Church of God, and witnesses without all exception, are credible for themselves. But here we must beware of being deceived, because as Protestants grant to the Church no other authority, then humane, so they can grant her to be believed for herself, with no other kind of faith, then humane. Whereas, as the Apostles had two kinds of authorities, the one humane, as they were honest and virtuous men, the other divine, as they were specially assisted by the holy Ghost: so the true Church of God hath the same two kinds of authorities: humane, as it is so ancient, so great, so learned, so virtuous a company of men; and divine, as it is specially assisted by the holy Ghost in all matters of faith And so she is to be believed for herself, both with humane and divine faith, as the Apostles were to be believed: and the humane authority, is no doubt, a great disposition to the belief of the divine authority. And surely, sigh we must needs grant that either the true Church of God is credible with divine faith, that she is the true Church of God, for herself, or that these Copies which we have written by fallible men, are credible for themselves, that they are the word of God and conformable to their originals, no man of judgement can think, but that rather the Church of God is so credible for herself, than such copies, as we have, written by fallible men. For beside all other proofs, these Copies nether do, nor can testify of themselves, that they are the word of God, or agreeable to the original writings of the Prophets or Apostles as the true Church of God, both can and doth testify of herself, that she is the true Church of God, and the same with that which was instituted by Christ. 3. Hence it is evident, that Catholics, proving to themselves the Church, by the Scripture, and the Scripture, by the Church, commit no vicious Circle: For they first prove the Church, by her own divine authority, and likewise the Scripture, by the same authority and they do but confirm the authority of the Church, by the Scripture. And to heretics, who deny the true Church, but admit the Scripture (as did the Donatists) they prove the Church by the Scripture and to other Heretics, who deny Scriptures (as did the Manichees) they prove the Scripture by the Church. And therefore, in proving the Church, and the Scripture, one by the other, commit no vicious Circle either in their proof to themselves, or to Heretics. For to themselves, they prove the Scripture to be the word of God, by authority of the Church, as by the external and secondary formal motive of faith; and confirm their belief of the Church by the Scripture, as by a material object of faith, which is the word of God. So that two ways they avoid a vicious Circle: first, because they first believe the Church for her own authority, as for a secondary and subordinat authority to God's authority, and do but confirm their belief of the Church by the Scripture. So that belief of the Scripture to be God's word, dependeth necessarily (in ordinary course) of the Church's authority, but belief of the Church, to be the Church of God, doth not necessarily depend upon the testimony of the Scripture, but only is confirmed thereby Secondly, because they prove the Church by the Scripture, otherwise than they prove the Scripture by the Church. For they prove the Scripture, by the authority of the Church, as by a witness, and as by the external formal motive of faith, secondary and subordinate to God's authority: as the Primitive Christians, proved the Scripture by the authority of the Apostles; and they prove the Church by the Scripture, as by a material object of faith which is God's word, and not as by a witness but as by a testimony of a witness. And to prove things by God's word, and by authority instituted by God, are different kinds of proofs, and show, that there is no vicious Circle. If any say, that we prove the Church by the authority of God's word: I answer, that authority properly, is of some person, and truth and verity, is in his word: so we prove the Church, by the truth of Scripture; but the Scripture; we prove by the authority of the Church. And as for our proof also of the Church by Scripture, and of the Scripture by the Church, to Heretics, we commit no vicious circle, because we proceed so with different heretics. For to such heretics, as admit Scripture, but deny the Church, we prove the Church by Scripture: and to such as admit the Church, but deny Scripture, we prove Scripture by the Church. 4. And hence also appeareth, how falsely said Chillingworth c. 2. n. 35. That our Church's authority is built, lastly, and wholly, upon prudential motives. Which he repeateth again n. 70. For her authoritieiss built lastly upon God's institution, which we know by her infallible testimony, and confirm it by Scripture. Falsely also he said c. 3. n. 27. For the infallibility Universal tradition, is God's vocal word. of the Church, no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of Scripture. For the Church's infallibility is built principally upon God's authority, and secondarily upon her own, which is instituted by God, as the Apostles infallibility, was built secondarily upon their own authority. Prudential motives, are but rational motives, or dispositions to faith; they are nether the principal nor subordinat formal cause of divine faith. For divine Authority is the formal motive of faith, prudential motives, make knowledge or opinion, not faith, and at most▪ can make the Church's authority to be evidently credible, but cannot make it to be credited or believed with divine faith. EIGHTENTH CHAPTER. How we are to answer that question Wherefore or how we believe or know the Church to be Infallible. 1. OUT of that which hath been hitherto said, is clearly answered that question: How or Wherefore we believe or know the true Church of God to be absolutely infallible in all which she teacheth, as matter of faith. Laude sec. 16. p. 60. sayeth: The tradition of the Church taken alone cannot be a sufficient proof to believe by divine faith, that Scripture is the word of God. For that which is a full and sufficient proof, is able of itself, to settle the soul of man, which Tradition is not alone able to do. For it may be further asked, why we should believe the Church's Tradition? And if it be answered, Because the Church is infallibly governed by the holy Ghost, it may be demanded: How that may appear; And if th●● be demanded, either you must say you have it by special Revelation, or else you must attempt to prove it by Scripture. And the very offer to prove it by Scripture, is a sufficient acknowledgement, that the Scripture is a higher proof, than the Church's tradition, which in your own ground, is or may be questionable, till you come thither. Besides it is an inviolable ground of reason, that the Principles of any conclusion. Thus he, whose words I have related at large that I might not seem to dissemble the difficulty. 2. First therefore we must note, that Belief and Knowledge are different. For Belief, is a simple assent for the authority of the speaker. Knowledge (if it be not of such things as are evident of themselves, as that the whole is greater than a part, and such like) is discursive, inferring one thing out of an other. Therefore these are different questions: Wherefore we know the Church to be infallible in all matters of faith: and, Wherefore we believe her to be so infallible: And we will answer to both questions differently and distinctly. To the question: Wherefore we believe the Chrch to be infallible: I answer that if you demand the material God's vocal word the material object of faith. object of my belief thereof, it is Gods vocal word, uttered to me by the Church. For (as is showed before out of the Apostle) Faith is of hearing, and, Hearing, is by the vocal word of God uttered by the Church. And for this vocal word of God as his testimony, the Church was believed to be infallible, before there was any Scripture; and of the aforesaid Barbarians, who had no Scripture; and could be so believed, though all Scripture should perish. And this Luther, and other Protestants before cited do confess, when they say: The Church is conceived, bred by the vocal word of God. Supra c. 14. ●. 1. and 3. 3. And if you ask the formal object, for whose authority we believe the Church to be thus infallible? I answer; For the authority of God, principally, and for the authority of the Church, (which is the pillar and ground of faith,) subordinatly. As we believe what the Ambassador sayeth, principally, for the King, who sent him, and subordinatly for the authority of the Ambassador himself, as appointed by the king. And as before any Scripture was written, Prophets were believed, not for any Scripture, but principally for the authority of God, who sent them, and secondarily, for their own Prophetical authority, instituted by God. Wherefore we need not (as Laude thinketh) prove the Church to be infallible, either by special revelation, or by Scripture, as Chillingworth, sayeth c. 3. p. 141. Because beside the private word of God (which is by special revelation) and his public written word, Public vocal word of God Videsup. c. 14. n. 1. which is Scripture, there is also his public vocal word, which he uttereth and speaketh by the mouth of the Church, as well as there is his written word, which he wrote by Whitak l 3. descript. p. 414. Spiritus per as Ecclesia loquitur ●ic etiam cont. 1. q. 3. c. 11. & cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. Qu● ecclesiam audiunt Christum ipsum audiunt. the hands of his prophets and Evangelists. And God's word (by whom soever it is, either spoke nor written) is of equal authority, and his vocal word, equally to be believed, as his written. Wherefore we have no need to prove the Church to be infallible by the Scripture (as there was no need, nor possibility by it, to prove that, or any other point of faith, before any Scripture, was written) unless it be against such heretics, as believe the Scripture, but believe not the Church. But Catholics do only confirm their faith (which before they had of the infallibility of the Church by God's vocal God's vocal word, confirmed by his. written. word uttered by the Church) by his written word of the Scripture. As we use to be confirmed in the belief of a thing, which a man doth not only say by word of mouth, but also by writing. 4. And moreover it is not always necessary (as laud thinks) that the mean of knowing, be more known, than the thing known by it: as when they mutually make each other known, as Relatives and the Cause and proper Effect do. For in these, a Circle is not vicious. As from a Father, we prove a son, and from a son, à Father, From Rational, Risible, and from Risible, Rational; from the suns rising, the Day; and from the Day, the suns rising. And (as Whitaker sayeth contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. of the old and new Testament) Somethings mutually prove each other. The old and new Testament do mutually confirm one the other. In other matters, this mutual confirmation would not avail, but in this it availeth much. For none is so fit a witness of God and of his word, as God in his word. And contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. As the cause doth bring forth and show the effect; so the effect in like manner doth illustrat the cause. Ibid. c. 9 Relatives are not before or after one the other. And lib. 3. contra Dureum sec. 3. doth this seem ridiculous to the, to seek the word out of the word? White in his Defense p. 301. It is no more a Circle in us, to prove our Spirit by the Scripture, and again to be assured of the Scripture, by the Spirit, than it is in discourse to go too and and fro, between causes and effects. The like he hath in his way p. 117. Field in his Appendice part. 2. p. 16. That the cause may be proved by the effect, and the effect by the cause: and that such a kind of argumentation, is not a circulation, but a demonstrative regress: that two causes may becauses either of other, we make no question. Caluin 1. Instit. c. 9 §. 3. God hath joined together the certainty of his word and Spirit, with a mutual knot. The samesay I of God's vocal word, uttered by the Church, and his written word, signed by the Evangelists, that they mutually confirm each other: yet with this difference, that the true Church giveth sufficient testimony to herself, sufficient (I say) to believe her with divine faith, to be the true Church of God, because her authority in matters of faith, is divine, as the Apostles was, and therefore needeth not the testimony of the Scripture to be believed to be such: (as Christ gave sufficient testimony to himself joan. 5. S. John Baptist to himself. If particular men were credible of themselves, why not the whole Church of God. Math. 3. S. John Evangelist to himself. joan. 21. and S. Paul to himself Galat. 1. 2. Cor. 4. and so doth the pillar and ground of truth, to herself.) But the Scripture giveth not sufficient testimony of itself to be infallibly believed to be God's word, but needeth authority of some infallible Author, or Person; because Scripture is only the material object, which is to be believed, and authority is the formal object or cause of belief, without which there can be no true or formal belief, but only science or opinion. For as S. Austin sayeth: That we believe, we own to authority. And Whitaker l. 3. de Script. p. 408. Faith relieth upon authority. Authority is the foundation of faith. Yet Scripture being believed to be God's word, is a sufficient testimony to confirm the belief already had of the Church, and also to produce such belief in those, who believe not the Church. And thus much for answer to that question: How we believe the Church to be infallible? For we first believe the Church God speaketh by, the mouth of the Church Whitaker l. 3 de Scrip 414. so also Contr. 1 q. 3. c. 11. see c. 4. n. 4. and c. 14. n. 1. to be infallible, for God's vocal word uttered by the Church: And we are confirmed in that belief, for Gods written word in the Scripture. And to Catholics, we give Gods vocal word, as the first subordinat cause of that our belief; but to such, as believe the Scripture, and not the Church, we give only Gods written word. And therefore no marvel, if to Protestants, who admit not the authority of God's Church, or his vocal word, we prove the infallibility of the Church, only by Scripture; whereas if they did equally admit, as well Gods vocal word, as his written word, or his true Church, as his Scripture, we might, without any vicious Circle at all, mutually prove Gods vocal word by his written word, and his written, by his vocal, and his Church by his Scripture, and his Scripture by his Church, because God's testimony is sufficient for proof of whatsoever, and by what means soever it be uttered, to wit, by speech, by writing, or howsoever else. Wherefore this is no vicious Circle: God sayeth by his Church, that God speaketh by his Church, Whitaker supra. such Scripture is his word. Therefore it is so. God sayeth by his Scripture, that such are his Church: Therefore they are so. 5. And as for answer to the question: How know you the true Church to be infallible in all matters of faith? I say, that beside the reasons, grounded in Scripture, given before, we may give a natural reason thereof. For (as S. Austin sayeth rightly (If God have L. de v●il. cred. c. 16. providence of mankind, he hath on earth settled some authority, on which we relying, may mount to him. And this authority must not be blind or deceitful in matters of salvation (as all matters of faith are) as all fallible authority is, and therefore is infallible in all such matters: And (as the same S. Austin sayeth of the Scripture, that if the lest lie be found in it, the authority of all the rest faileth: so if in the authority, which God hath settled on earth for matters of Salvation, there were found any error, we could not securely rely upon it. And the same reason teacheth us, that if God would settle this infallible authority on earth in any, he would settle it in his Church who is his beloved Spouse, and Mother of the Faithful, whom he hath appointed to conceive them by the divine seed of his word to bear, nourish, and guide them in their way to salvation. For who can be imagined to be more fit to be infallible in matters of Salvation, than the spouse of God, the mother, Nurse, and Guide of the Faithful? Would God appoint to mankind a blind or deceitful guide to salvation? surely no, if he effectually meant to save mankind. Nether, will it suffice to grant, (as Protestants do) that the Church is infallible in fundamental points: first, because there are no fundamental points 〈◊〉 their sense, that is, such as suffice to salvation, though others sufficiently proposed, be not believed. Secondly, because if (as S. Austin said of the Scripture) she lie in some points of faith, we cannot be sure she doth not in others. Wherefore well said Chillingworth c. 3. n. 36. An authority subject to error, can be no stable or firm foundation of my belief in any thing. Thirdly, because Protestants cannot tell, which precisely are such fundamental points, as they imagine, and therefore cannot be certain, in which points the Church erreth not. Fourthly, because they say the Church is fallible even in their most fundamental point of all, which is, That Scripture is the word of God, and sometimes also, in other fundamental points, as is showed part 1. l. 1. c. 7. Fiftly, Chillingworth denieth, that there is any one certain Church, universal or particular, which is infallible, even in fundamental points, but only, that there are always some uncertain men, who hold all the fundamental points and therefore denieth, that any certain Church is an infallible Guide even in fundamentals: and sayeth c. 2 n 139. p. 105. you must know, there is a wide difference between infallible in No certain Church infallible even unfundamental points. fundamentals, and being an Infallible guide even in fundamentals, and we utterly deny the Church to be the latter. For to say so, were to oblige ourselves to find some certain society of men, of whom we might be certain, that they neither do, nor, can err in fundamentals nor in declaring, what is fundamental, what not fundamental, and consequently, to make any Church an infallible Guide in fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in all things which Note this. she proposeth, and requireth to believed Which he often times repeateth c. 3. as n. 39 55. 58. and 60. where he addeth: that it is falsely supposed, that they grant, that in some certain points No certain Church to be obeyed under pain ●f damnation. (fundamental) some certain Church is infallibly assisted, and under pain of damnation to be obeyed. So that no certain Church (universal or particular) is either an infallible Guide, or to be believed, or obeyed under pain of damnation even in fundamental points. Beside The Church, and Some Church, are different. For The Church signifieth the whole true Church, as himself confesseth c. 5. n. 26. p. 263. or, The only true Church, as Laude sayeth sec. 20 p. 128 and Some Church signieth some indeterminate partilar Church. Therefore The Church, cannot be said to be infallible in fundamentals, if only Some Church be so. For Some Church is not The Church. 6. Nether can this necessary authority settled by God for mankind, be said to be in Scripture, because Scripture was nether in all times, (for there was none before Moses) nor in all places; (for in S. Ireneyes' time, there were many good Christians, See infr● c. 20. who had no Scripture) nor can serve immediately by itself for all kinds of men. For scripture can not immediately by itself, teach those, who are blind, or cannot read, as mo●st men cannot. And to teach of guide them by the reading of men, who are fallible, were no infallible guidance. Besides, Protestants confess, that Scripture is hard to be understood, and needeth Interpreters, even in matters of faith, in which See infral. 2 c. 4. sec. 2. and c. 2. sec. 2 matters it cannot be a sufficient guide. For (as Chillingworth c. 1. n. 6. sayeth of a Rule) Both these Properties are required to be a perfect rule, both to be so complete, as to need no addition, and to be so evident, as to need no Interpretation; so I say of a Guide or authority to direct, if it be not evident, it is no sufficient guide or authority, because without evidency, it cannot serve for sure direction. Moreover, Scripture cannot but improperly be called a guide, (but as a Rule may be called a Guide,) or a judge. For properly a Guide or judge, is a living person, who may direct by Rule. But of this we shall speak more hereafter. 7. And out of all which hath been said in this Chapter, appeareth, how wrongfully Laud said, first, that we must know the Church to be infallible either by special revealation, or by Scripture. For there is a third way, to wit, by God's vocal word uttered by the Church itself, as when the Apostles lived, we might have known them to be infallible, by their own testimony, which was God's vocal word. Secondly, he falsely sayeth, that to prove the Church by the Scripture, is a sufficient acknowledgement; that the Scripture is of a higher proof. For Christ and the Apostles proved their doctrine out of the old testament, and yet the old testament was not a higher proof than their doctrine. And in like sort the Fathers proved Scripture by the Church▪ and (as I said before) Relatives, and such as mutually and equally make each other known, are of equal proof, each to other. Thirdly, how wrongly he said, that it is an inviolable ground of reason, that the principles of any conclusion must be of more credit, than the conclusion itself. For this is not true in Relatives, and such others, as are equally known and equally infer one the other. And that principle is true only in such Consequents, as are not as well known, as the Antecedents, but known only for the Antecedents, as most consequents are, as may appear out of that Maxim, of which that principle dependeth, to wit: Propter quod unumquodque tale, & illud magis. Which is plainly meant of that, which is the sole cause of the knowlegd of an other. But Scripture is nether the sole cause, nor yet the first cause of our assurance of the true Church▪ but the first cause, is principally God's authority, and secondarily the Churches divine authority instituted by him (as it was in his Apostles) and also God's vocal testimony or word uttered by his Church; and Gods written testimony signed in Scripture by his divine Scribes, is but a confirmation of our assurance of his true Church. And God may well confirm by writing, what he hath spoken; and yet be equally credited by what he speaketh, as by what he writeth; because his veracity is infinite, and equally infallible in both. And hitherto we have sufficiently proved, that God's true Church (which soever she is) wanteth not either Infallibility or necessity required to be the sufficient external Proposer of faith appointed by God; it resteth, that we show, that she wanteth, nether sufficient clarity, nor universality, requisite to be that external Proposer, and to show, which proposal of hers, is sufficient and requisite for to cause faith. NINETENTH CHAPTER That the true Church of God doth clearly and universally propose all points of faith. 1. IN the third Chapter we shown, that four conditions are necessary to the all▪ sufficient external Proposer of all points of faith, to wit, Infallibility, Necessity, clarity, and Universality: and hitherto we have proved, that the true Church of God hath the two first conditions It remaineth that we also show, that she hath also the two latter, to wit, clarity in clearly proposing, what is to be believed, and Universality, in proposing it to all, who are capable of external proposal, and in all times, and places, where faith is to be proposed. 2 And for clarity, it is evident, that the Church of God clearly enough proposeth to her Children, and to others, what they are to believe, and if any doubt arise of her meaning, she calleth General Counsels, and expresseth it more clearly, as was seen in the Council of Nice, ad others. And as for Universality of time and place, it is evident, that it agreeth to God's true Church, because she hath been in all times, and is dispersed all the world over, whersoever faith is preached. And the like is of her proposing all points of faith. 3. And finally, that in the true Church, is lawful sending to preach points of faith, is undoubted. And so have we proved, that the true Church of God (which soever she is) hath all the conditions requisite to the all or absolute sufficient external proposer of all points of divine faith, which God will have men to believe, and consequently, is that all▪ sufficient external proposer of faith, which we ought to seek. TWENTITH CHAPTER. Which is a sufficient proposal of the Church, for points of faith. 1. A sufficient proposal of the Church for points of faith, is when she clearly declareth a matter to be of faith: or when she condemneth the contrary, as heresy, and excludeth out of her communion all obstinate or pertinacious maintainers of it. See D. Stapleton l. 1. de Principijs c. 11. But only Excommunication doth not convince, that the Church accounteth it Heresy, because she may excommunicate even for holding doctrines that are temerarious or scandalous. THE SECOND BOOK. OF THE EXTERNAL PROPOSER OF POINTS OF FAITH. THE PREFACE. 1. ALBEIT Scripture cannot be properly called a Proposer of points of faith, because a Proposer, properly is an intellectual person, as the word itself evidently showeth, and much less can it be the Proposer appointed by God as necessary (in ordinary course) to engender divine faith, because such a Proposer is a Preacher lawfully sent of God, by hearing of whom, divine faith is engendered, as is evident by the Apostle Rom. 10. and Scripture nether is a Preacher, nor is (in ordinary course) necessary to engender divine faith, as we shall clearly prove hereafter; nevertheless because the letter of Scripture is a Proposal of points of faith, though we cannot properly inquire, whither Scripture propose all points of faith, because that is the part of a Proposer, yet we may well inquire, whether in Scripture, or by Scripture, all points of faith, which are any ways necessary te be believed of any kind of men, be sufficiently proposed, as Protestants commonly affirm, and Catholics ever deny. So that whether the letter of Scripture be a Proposal of points of faith, or a Proposer of them, we may inquire, whether by Scripture all such necessary points be sufficiently proposed or no. Yet before we inquire this, we will show the uncertainty of Protestants touching all things belonging to Scripture, that even thereby it may clearly appear, that howsoever they say, that the Scripture is the judge, the entire Rule, or all-sufficient Proposer of all matter of faith, they can, indeed think nothing less. FIRST CHAPTER. Whether S. james Epistle be Canonical Scripture and God's word, or no? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. CALVIN in praefat. in epistolam ●acobi. I do willingly without controversy embrace it (Epistle of S. james) because I find no sufficient cause to reject it. Whitaker ad Rationem 1. Campiani. We receive it and number it among the Canonical books. For whatsoever Luther or any other thought of it, yet our Churches do willingly embrace it. Contro. 1. q. 1. c. 16. our Church receiveth all, and only those books of the New testament, which the Council of Trent received. If Luther, and others who follow Luther, otherwise thought, or wrote of some books of the New testament, as the Epistles of james and jude let them answer for themselves. Nether need we cite any more, because both the French, English, and Holland Confessions, account S. james Epistle, Canonical. SECOND SECTION. Protestants sometimes deny. LVther in c. 22. Genes. to. 6. fol. 282. james concludeth i'll. It Luther said, S. james doted. follows not as james doateth: Therefore the fruits do justify. Let therefore our adversaries be packing with their james And praefat. in Epistol. jacobi: I do not think this was written of any Apostle, for this cause. For it is directly against S. Paul, and all other Scripture, it attributeth justification to works. Melancthon de sacris Concionibus to. 2. fol. 23. If it cannot be mitigated with some exposition, as that of james, you see etc. such simply are not to be received. Magdeburgians Cent. 1. c. 4. The Epist. of james doth not a little stray S. james ascribeth justification to works. from the Apostolical doctrine, whiles it adscribeth justification to works, and not to faith alone. And Cent. 2. c. 4. The Epistle of james adscribeth justice to works, against S. Paul, and all other Scriptures. Pomeranus, the first Protestant Pastor of Wittenberg, in c. 4. Epist. S. james erreth. ad Rom. By this place thou mayest espy the error of the Epistle of james, in Infers ridiculously. which thou seest a wicked argument, beside that he ridiculously inferreth, he citeth Scripture against Scripture which the Spirit cannot suffer. Wherefore it cannot be numbered among the books which preach justice. Confessio Heluetica c. 15. The same he (S. james) said not contradicting the Apostle, otherwise he were to be rejected. Which they would never say if they were assured that it were God's word: For I suppose, they would not reject God's word in any ca●e. Musculus in locis Tit. de justificatione: they object to us the places of james. But whosoever he was though ●e taught differently from Paul, he could not prejudice truth. And he addeth: Impertinently. That he impertinently bringeth in the example of Abraham, that he abuseth the word, Faith, and setteth down a sentence different from Apostolical doctrine. And Tit. de Scriptures plainly a●uocheth that he holdeth it not for Authentical. Hence it is evident, that Protestants agree not about their Canon or Rule of their faith. For Lutherans reject S. james Epistle as also divers others, which Caluinists account part of the Rule of their faith, and part of God's word. Evident also, that Caluinists must judge their brothers Lutherans to have a most desperate cause. For (as Whitaker writeth Respon. ad Rat. 1. Campiani) who cannot defend their religion unless they lay violent hands upon the Scripture, and break the sacred authority of divine books, they must needs have a naughty and desperate cause. But so do all Protestants who deny S. james Epist. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 1. All corruption of God's word, deserveth God's thunderbolt. And the same Whitaker l. 2. de Script. p. 218. It is most of all necessary, that the Sic etiam count 1. q. 3. c. 3. A certain Canon, most necessary. certain Canon of Scriptures be undoubted among Christians. But so it is among Protestants. For they are not agreed about the certain Canon of Scriptures. And yet as Laud sayeth sec. 38. n. 8. What scripture is Canonical, is a great point of faith. Sec. 3. n. 12. If she (the Church) at this day reckons upmore books within the Canon then heretofore she did, than she is changed in a main point of faith, the Canon of scripture. And Hooker l. 1. §. 14. Of things necessary, the very chiefest, is to know, what books we are bound to esteem holy. See infra c. 15. n. 7. SECOND CHAPTER. Whether all things that are in Scripture, be plain and easy to be understood, or no? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. LVther de seruo arbitrio to. 2. fol. 426. It is published by the wicked Sophisters, that some things in Scripture are hard, and that all are not open. Ibid. fol. 440. I say of all the No part of Scripture, obscure. Scripture: I will not have any part of it to be said obscure. In psal. 37. to. 3. fol. 10. If any of their (Papists) number appeal and say, we need the exposition of Fathers the Scriptures are obscure, Thou shalt answer that this is falls. No book in all the world is more clearly written, than the Scripture, which if it be compared with all other books, is like to the sun before all other light. Whereupon said Tailor in his Epistle dedicat: of his liberty of Prophesing p. 47. so confident Luther sometimes was, as he said, he could expound all Scripture. Gerlachius to. 1. Disp. 1. p. 9 We say, all the Scripture is so clear, as it All scripture clear. needeth no interpretation at al. Zanchius de Scriptura to. 8. col. 408. How can the Scripture be called obscure in any part of it? Et col. 409. If the Scripture be not obscure in any part, as we shown before, much less in In every part. those things, which are necessary to Salvation. Whitaker contro. 1. q. 4. p. 341. All the Scripture, The whole Scripture, is plain and clear. Plessie of the Church c. 5. p. 152. The word of God is perfect, and easy to be understood of those that desire their salvation, as well of itself, as compared with itself c. 4. p. 111. S. Peter sayeth not, that there is any obscurity in the Epistles of S. Paul. Brentius in his Prolegomenies contra Sotum, They babble, that the scripture is obscure, and therefore needeth interpretation. Sutclif in his Challenge c. 3. p. 94. Papists slander the scriptures, as if they were dark, and hard to be understood. And thus they writ, when they exhort all men, weemen, and Children, to read the Scripture, or say, that they know every parcel of the Scripture to be God's words by the matter contained therein. For how can they know every part of the Scripture to be God's word by the matter, unless they know the matter of every part thereof? SECOND SECTION. Sometimes deny it. LVther praefat. in psalmos: It is Impudency to brag of understanding all Scripture. most impudent rashness to say, one understands any book of scripture in all points. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 4. c. 1. We never said, that all things in scripture are easy plain, nothing obscure, nothing hard to be understood: but we openly confess, that many places of scripture are obscure and hard. Ibid. Luther was far from that madness, to say, that nothing in the scriptures is hard, and that it need no interpretation. C. 3. p. 340. When the● prove, that there is great difficulty to understand scripture, they dispute not against us. Et c. 4. p. 345. Nether did we ever say or think, that all things in scripture be open. Lib. 1. de Script. p. 56. What man on earth canst thou find, who understandeth all the Mysteries of scriptures, who is ignorant of nothing, who can declare all? See him p. 102. and 149. Potter sec 5. p. 19 How many obscure texts of scriptures, which she (the Church) understands not? Moulins of the judge of Controversies c. 17. p. 281. Whosoever should vaunt of the understanding all scripture, should vaunt of● perfection, to which the Angels are not comen, as I think. Chillingworth c. 3. §. 25. some texts of scripture are so obscure and ambiguous, that to say, this and this is the certain sense of them, were high presumption. Morton tom. High presumption. 1. Apologiae l. 1. c. 19 denieth, that this is the Controversy betwixt Catholics and Protestants: Whether scripture be of itself so plain, as it needeth no interpreter. Plessie of the Church c. 4 p. 113. yea, but yet are not there some places (in Scripture) plainly known to be hard? Who can deny that. Field l. 4. Eccles. c. 15. There is no question, but there are manifold difficulties in the scripture. Fulk against Heskins p. 7. who is so mad to deny, but that there are divers places both in the old and new testament, which be obscure and hard to be understood, not only of the ignorant, but even of the best learned: Idem p. 12. And if it be impudency, and madness, for any to say, He understands the Scripture in all points, how can Protestants say, they know the Scripture to be the word of God by the matter thereof (as divers Protestants do say, who affirm that all the Scripture is infallibly known to be the word of God, not by the authority, or testimony of the Church of God, but by the matter thereof. THIRD CHAPTER. Whether all points necessary to be belued, be actually or expressly in scripture or no. FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. THe confession of Scotland c. 18. In which (Canonical books) we affirm, all things to be Sufficiently expressed. believed for man's salvation, are sufficiently expressed. Luther in Postilla in ferias S. Stephani: Nothing is to be affirmed, but what is expressed in scripture. Melancthon and Brentius in Hospin. parte 2 Histor. Sacram. fol. 107. Of Zuinglius his doctrine, we cannot be certain, seeing of it, we have no clear and express word of God. Smidelin l. contra Hosium p. 169. Faith is not faith, but an uncertain opinion, which doth not rely upon some express testimony of scripture. Wigandus apud Schusselburg to. 7. Catal. Heret. p. 681. Only those dogmes are to be avoched and taught Whose very words, or equivalent are in Scripture. in the Church, whose very words, or equivalent, are in Scripture. Protestants in Conference at Ratisbone sess. 10. p. 310. There cannot by the Church's testimony any new or peculiar dogme be devised, which afterward may be added to the other dogmes expressed in Scripture. Caluin in Gratulat. ad Praecentorem p. 337. Nothing is to be believed, which is not expressed in Scripture. Contra Heshusium p. 844. where is the express word of God, the touchstone? Moulins l. contra Peron. c. 45. We receive no doctrine as necessary to salvation, unless it be in Scripture, either in express terms or equivalent. Epist. Ether in express terms or equivalent. 3. ad Episcopum Wintoniensem p. 183. The Principle, by which our religion maintaineth itself against Papistry is: which are of divine law, are sufficiently and evidently contained in Scripture. And D Andrews answering, admitteth this Principle: For those things, which belong to faith and manner of life. Whitaker contr. 1. q. 6. c. 6. we say, All things necessary, either to faith or life, are plainly and Abundantly expressed. abundantly expressed in Scripture. See him l. 3. de script. c. 12. p. 419. Laud Relat. sec. 33. p. 268. If the Pope's decision be infallible, legant: Let them read it to us out of the holy Scripture, and we believe it. Morton in his Appeal. l. 1. c. 2. sec. 15. In all doctrines of faith, we are to adhere precisely to the written word, as unto the sufficient and infallible rule of faith. Tom. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 46. The holy Scripture is to be held for the only rule of faith. The absolute rule of faith, the total rule of the Church. And c. 49▪ A most exact rule. Tailor of Liberty of Prophesing sec. 9 n. 4. In scripture, all that is necessary, is plain. King james in his speech to the Parliament An. 1603. My faith is grounded upon the Scriptures, and the express word of God. Fulk in Acts c. 15. All things necessary to salvation, are expressed in the holy Scripture. Perkins contr. 16. c. 2. we say, that all things, which belong to faith, and good life, and are necessary to salvation, are clearly expressed in Scripture. Chillingworth in the preface n. Clearly expressed. 21. Moderate Protestants will damn no man, without express and certain warrant from God's word. See ib. n. 10. 30. 37. Item. p. 18. Author Praefationis in to. 5. jesuiticae doctrinae impressae Rupellae 1596. calleth it a detestable lie, That Scripture containeth not all the mysteries Explicitly. of religion, explicitly. Vorstius Respons. ad Sladum: what is necessary to be believed, is contained word for word in Scripture. Who will see more Protestants, that there is no necessary point of faith, which is not expressly in Scripture, may read Kemnitius 2. part Exam. tit. de Sacram. ibid. tit. de Missa 3. parte tit. de Inuocat. Sanctor. l. de duabus naturis c. 30. apud Hospin in concordia discordi c. 47. Gerlachius to. 2. disput 24. Heshusius apud Hospin l. cit. c. 46. and l de real praesentia contra Caluinum, Scusselburg to. 8. Catalogue. p. 64. and 520, Heidelbergenses in Colloquio Mulbrunen si act 11. Sadeel praefat. Respons. ad art. abiurat p. 403. Tract. de sacrificio c. 3. King james in Basilicon Doron. part. 1. Morton 1. part. Apol. l. 2. c. 9 Lobechius disp. 23. And what they mean by Express terms, Covel. art. 2. p. 20. declareth thus: we call that expressliteral mention What Protestants mean by Express. which is set down in plain terms, and not inferred by way of consequence. And the same is evident by the words of Hunnius, Whitaker, Fulk, and King james, which we shall presently city. So that nothing is express in Scripture, if it needeth our inference: and nothing matter of faith, which needeth our inference out of Scripture, if either all points of faith be express in Scripture, as the aforesaid Protestants teach; or we believe not any one article of faith, by fallible authority of humane deductions, as Laude sayeth Relat. sec. 38. p. 345. or (as Whitaker sayeth l. 1. de script. p. 50.) That thou sayest, our faith relieth upon testimonies, not arguments I grant. And generally all Protestants, when they refuse to believe any point, or urge us to prove out of Scripture, what they refuse to believe not, require and exact express words of Scripture, as is to be seen in their writings about sacrifice, Transubstantion, Invocation of Saints, and the like; In so much as Morton 1. part Apol. l. 2. c. 9 allegeth these words of Bellarmin, for to show the consent of Protestant: They all teach, that all things necessary to salvation, are expressly contained inscriptures: And Morton addeth: What Protestants think, and how much they consent, thou hast showed. But when themselves are to prove any thing controverted, out of Scripture, they sing an other song as shall by and by appear. Besides, many Protestants argue, that such a thing is not, because it is not express in Scripture. So Beza in Confess. c. 5. sec. 5. Heshusius l. de real praesentiâ. jacobus Andreae contra Hosium p. 169. Kemnitius 2. part Exam. p. 229. Gerlachius to. 2. disput. 24. Chilling. preface n. 10. and others, which plainly showeth, That sometimes they require to a point of faith, that, it be expressly in Scripture. SECOND SECTION. Sometimes deny it. Protestant's in the Conference at Ratisbon. sess. 3. p. 95. This Rule shall stand against all the Gates of Hell: Nothing is to be admitted as a dogme or article of religion, but what is expressed in scripture, or may be drawn from thence in good Consequence. Sess. 11. p. 356. Not only those things are extant in scripture, which are there in express words, but also those, which may be thence deduced by good Consequence. Sess. 13. p. 386. I finally conclude, that Good consequence sufficeth. nothing is to be believed, in worship, articles and dogmes, which is not either expressly contained in scripture, or may in good consequence be drawn from it. Wirtenbergenses Respon. 1. ad Patriarcham Constantinop. We embrace all those things, which may be proved out of scripture in good Consequence. Confession of England art. 6. The holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that what is not read in it, nor can be proved out of it, is not to be required of any to be believed as an article of faith, or as necessary to salvation. Pareusl. 1. de justificat. c, 16. That we must vaunt of the express word of God, and recall all our dog●nes to this one Express word of God, not always required. head, is an express lie. King james Respon. ad Cardinal. Peron. p. 401. We have set down, that only those things are to be thought necessary to salvation, which either are expressly contained in the word of God, or have been drawn from it by necessary consequence. And p. 392. The King calleth those simply necessary, which either the word of God expressly commandeth to be believed or done: or which the ancient Church hath inferred out of the word of God by necessary consequence. jewel in his Defense of the Apology c. 9 p. 54. we say not, that all Not all points plainly expressed. cases of doubt, are by manifest and open words plainly expressedin the Scriptures: for so there should need no exposition. But we say, there is no cause in Religion, so dark and doubtful, but it may be necessarily proved or reproved by (our) collection and conference of the Scriptures. Cartwrightin whitgift's Defense p. 82. Many things are both commanded and forbidden, of the which there is no express mention in the word, which Many commanded things not expressed. are as necessary to be followed, or avoided as those, whereof express mention is made. Which (sayeth Whitgift) I take to derogate much from the perfection of the Scripture, to be mere Papistical. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 9 Whatsoever is inferred or gathered out of Scripture, though hardly, all such, the ancient Fathers most truly said was written. And Controu. 4. q. 4. c. 1. It is all one to be expressly in Scripture, Alone, to be expressed and inferred and to be evidently inferred out of Scripture. Fulk in answer to Clarks overthrow p. 659. We are willing to acknowledge and admit (necessary Collection) to be of as great authority, as Of as great authori●●e. the express word of the Scripture In Rejoinder to Bristol. p. 97. Bristol slandereth me, to affirm, that in all matters, only evident scripture, must be brought, and heard, which I never affirmed. P. 88 I mean by only Scripture, whatsoever is taught by plain As good. words, or may be gathered by necessary conclusion, which is as good as express words. So also 2. Thessal. 2. not. 19 and de Success. p. 74. White in Defense of his way p. 288. No Protestant affirms all things to be written expressly. Laud in his Relation sec. 38. p. 332. It is enough to ground belief upon necessary consequence out of Scripture, as well as upon express text. As well. Potter sec. 5. p. 3. That this (divine) Revelation, for all necessary points, is sufficiently and clearly made in the Scriptures, either in express terms, or by manifest deductions, is the constant doctrine of Antiquity, even till the latter times. Chillingworth in his Preface n. 28. I believe all things evidently contained in them (Scriptures) all things evidently, or even probably deducible from them. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 41. Even probably inferred. Those things which are derived from Scripture, by necessary consequence, are to be held for written traditions. See ib. l. 5. c. 9 Chamier l. 13. de fide c. 10. n 12. It is not the word, of God only, which is expressed in scriptures, or preached in the Church, but also what necessarily followeth out of it. Gomarus' apud Costerum in Apologia p. 75. There is no question between us, whether all things which are to be believed, are express in holy Scripture. The like say Beza Respons. ad Acta Colloq. Montisbel. part. 2. p. 46. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 41. 52. 53. l. 5. c. 9 Field l. 4. c. 20. Pareus l. 1. de justificat. c 16. Rivet Contr. tract. 1. sec. 18. Moulins de fugis Arnoldi c. 1. and generally all Protestants, when they themselves are put to prove any point out of Scripture, as is to be seen of the Caluinists in Colloq. Frankendalensi art. 12. fol. 549. 552. Particularly here I note What Fulk sayeth, that their Inferences out of Scripture, are as Good, and of as great authority, are as Gods express words: Laude, That what is grounded upon their Consequences, is as well, as As well. upon express text: Which is to equalise their Inferences to Gods express words. And White loco cit. Are they not as well conclusions of Scripture, which are deduced (By Protestants) by true discourse, as which are expressed verbatim? Perkins of the Creed col. 737. We must know, that a lawful consequence drawn out of Scripture is as well the word of God, as that, which is expressed Al well. in words. Whitaker: It is all one, to be expressly, and to be inferred. They condemn us for saying, that Alone. God's word tradid, is equal to his Written. Potter sec. 1. p. 14. To the word of God, she (Rom. Church) adds and equals her own traditions: Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 91. Equaling the tradition of the present Church to the written word of Gods, Frets upon the very foundation itself, by justling with it. And they will have their Consequences and Inferences, as good as God's express word. When we say, that the Church's traditions are equal to God's word, we mean nothing, but that one word of God, is equal to an other. For we profess, that both of them came immediately from God, one by tradition, the other, by writing. But when they say, that their inferences are equal to God's word, they must needs Protestants make fallible men's Inferences, God's word. mean, that fallible men's Inference and that out of one humane principle too, is equal to God's word. For they cannot deny, but their Inferences are fallible men's Inferences, because they are not made by God, but by fallible men only. Perkins also in his Reformed Catholic Controu. 3. c. 3. and Caluin in Lucae 10. v. 16. make the Minister's word equivalent Confessio B●●em. c. 14. Apologia Confess. August. c. de Poenitentia. to God's promise, and a sufficient ground of faith. And Peter Martyr praefat. l. de Euchar professeth, that the Base, strength and foundation of his opinion of the Eucharist, Make humane principles ground of their faith. is, That it is proper to the Deity, to be every where and to the humane nature, to be in a certain place. So the basis and ground of their faith concerning the Eucharist, is partly their humane principle. For express Scripture they can pretend none. FOURTH CHAPTER. Whether all necessary points of faith be evidently or clearly contained in Scripture. FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. ONe thing it is to be contained actually in Scripture, an other to be contained clearly. For something may be contained actually, and yet obscurely, and therefore we make these distinct Chapters. Protestants in Colloq. Ratisbon. p. 20. We acknowledge, that by God's Plainly and clearly. goodness, whatsoever are necessary to salvation, are plainly enough and clearly put before our eyes, in both, especially in the New Testament. Caluin contra Versipellem p. 358. I stoutly affirm, that Heretics are overcomen by open Scriptures. l. de scandalis Clear. p. 101. We receive nothing, but what is proved with clear and sound testimonies of Scripture. Beza l. Quaestionum & Resp. vol. 1. Theol. p. 673. The dogmes of true religion, are plainly enough and clearly Plainly and clearly. explained in holy writ In Confess. c. 4. sec. 25. The Apostles and Evangelists have so written those things, which they have written, as the dullest and most ignorant of all men may thence perceive (unless themselves do hinder) whatsoever sufficeth for their Salvation. Zanchius l. 1. Epistolarum p. 16. Whatsoever is necessary to salvation, all that is plainly contained in holy writ. And p. 98. The places of holy Scripture from whence the dogmes of Christian Need no clearer expression. religion are taken, are so clear and open, as they need no more diligent or clearer expression. Academia Nemausiensis Resp. ad jesuitas Tournonios Rupellae 1584. p. 531. Hence it followeth, that all matters of faith are plainly and clearly contained in that written word, that is, in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles. Moulins in his Buckler sec. 94. All difficulties being set aside, that which in Scripture remaineth clear, and needeth no interpretation, is sufficient to salvation. Needs no interpretation. In his answer to Card. Peron. l. 1. c. 1. The articles, in which the substance of religion consisteth, are proposed Need no interpretation. in scripture in so clear terms, as they need no Interpretation. So also de judice Contro. c. 17. Piscator in Thesibus l. 1. c. 1. we say, that all dogmes of faith are clearly delivered in scripture. Whitgift in Defence etc. p. 573. what is this else, but together with the Papists, to condemn the scriptures of Plainly, and clearly expressed. obscurity, as though all things necessary to salvation, were not plainly and clearly expressed in them: p. 367. we are well assured, that Christ in his word hath fully and plainly comprehended all things requisite to faith and good life. Fully. Fulk Answer to the Preface of the Rheims testament: so many parts of scriptures, as are able to instruct us to salvation are so plain and easy, Understood of every reader or hearer. as they may be understood ofeverie one that readeth or heareth them. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 4. c. 1. These are ouraxiomes: First, that scriptures are so plain, as they may be read of the people, and of the unlearned with some fruit and profit. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation, are proposed in scripture in plain words. Ibid. Inplain words. c. 4. Hence it followeth, that all things necessary to salvation, are manifest in scripture, which is the ground of our Defense: which he often repeateth. Manifest. And q. 5. c. 7. We may gather the true As certainly as if God spoke to us. sense out of scripture, no less certainly, then if god himself spoke to us. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 2. c. 19 That is the question: whether all those things. which are necessary to salvation, be so plain (in Scripture) as the Faithful, When to the mostignorant. even the most ignorant, may be reading of them, be instructed to piety, and Heretics, even the most learned, sufficiently refuted by them. And to. 1. l. 2. c. 9 He calleth it pure and plain Protestant doctrine; That the principal points of faith necessary to the salvation of all, are clearly contained in scripture. See his Appeal. l. 2. c. 7. sec. 9 Evidently. Chillingworth in the preface n. 30. 33. 37. All things necessary to salvation, are evidently contained in scripture. And n. 37. he sayeth: That is the base and adequat foundation of his answer, and that all Protestants unanimously profess and mantain it. c. 2. n. 157. p. 115. In a word, all things necessary to believed, are evidently contained in scripture, and what is not there evidently contained, can not be necessary to be believed. Ibid. n. 11. p. 58. The scripture, in things necessary, we pretend, is plain. P. 83. n. 84. If you speak of plain places (and in such all Need no Interpreter. necessary things are contained) we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them, nether need they any interpteter. p. 59 n. 12. Thoses places, which contain things necessary, and wherein error were dangerous, need no infallible Interpreter, because they are plain. C. 6. p. 375. we want no unity, nor means to procure it, in things necassarie: Plain places of scripture, and such as need no interpretation, are our means to obtain it. c. 3. n. 52. p. 159. Protestants agree, that the scripture evidently contains all things necessary to salvation. Plessie of the Church c. 4. p. 108. Evidently. He who hath mercifully vouch safed to save his people, and who only may be called a true Father, would make his covenant with them in as plain terms and express clauses, as could be devised. Ibid. There is nothing more clear, or As plain and express, as could be devised. more plain, than the doctrine of salvation. White in his Way p. 31. The scriptures plainly determine all points of faith As plainly as any can. p. 32. He can name no one necessary article of our saith, but the word teacheth it as plainly, as himself can. P. 39 The scripture, by its own light, persuadeth as, and in alcases, doubts, questions, and coutroversies, clearly testifieth with us, or against us. And in his Defense c. 31. p. 294. The question is, whether the written scripture contains in express words or sense, the whole and entire doctrine of faith and good life. Usher's Rejoinder p. 114. scriptures are sufficient for the final determination of all questions of faith. Tailor in his liberty of Prophesing sec. 3. n. 1. All the articles of faith are clearly and plainly set down in scripture. sec. 5. n. 2. scripture in its plain Expression, is an abundant rule of faith and manners. SECOND SECTION. Sometimes deny it. Protestant's in Colloq. Ratisbon in Respons. ad testimonia Patrum p. 470. None of us ever dreamt, that the scripture is so clear, and easy, as any man may strait, as it were at the first sight, and without help of teachers, understand it. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 4. c. 1. when Bellarmin maketh this to be the state of the question: whether the scripture be of itself so plain, as without interpretation, Needs Interpretation for matters of faith. it sufficeth of itself to end, and determine all controversies of faith, he fighteth without an adversary: For in this matter; he hath not us Adversaries.— They say, but falsely, that we think, that all things in scriptures are plain, and that they suffice without ●●edeth Interpretation For controversies. Interpretation, to end all controversies. C. 2. God would have the holy Mysteries of his word to be imparted to pure and holy men, not to be cast before hogs and dogs. C. 3. when they prove, that there is great difficulty to understand the Scriptures, they dispute not against us. l. 2. the Scrip. c. 4. sec. 4. p. 229. The Eunuch, without Philip, nether believed nor understood, what was sufficient For matter of salvation. to salvation. Laud Relat. sec. 39 n. 9 Scripture interpreted by the Primitive Church, General Council, judge. and a lawful and free General Council determining according to these, is judge of Controversies. Davenantius de judice c. 15. We defend not, (which the Papists impose upon us) the doctrine of faith contained in Scripture to be so plain and perspicuous, Needeth an Interpreter for doctrine of faith. that it need not at all the help of an Interpreter or Doctor. And need not this needful Interpreter, to be infallible in interpreting? And who is such, if not the Church? FIFT CHAPTER. Whether Scripture be the sole and entire Rule of all Christian belief, or no? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. Protestant's in Colloq. Ratisbon. Thesi 1. p. 19 We undoubtedly acknowledge the word of God contained in the writings of the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles, to be the sole, certain, and infallible rule, square and measure of doctrine, worship, and Christian Sole Rule. faith. The Confession of Basil art. 1. Canonical Scripture alone, containeth perfectly Perfectly. all pie tie, all manner of life. Confessio Belgica art. 7. We believe this holy Scripture to contain most perfectly all the will of God, and that in it are abundantly taught all those things whatsoever be necessary to be believed of Abundantly men for to obtain salvation. Caluin ad art. 20. Paris p. 2 9 We determine, that right faith is grounded in the Scriptures only. In Confess. p. Only. 107. Our salvation relieth on Scriptures only. We embrace it for the only rule of faith. In Refutat. Catalani p. 383. We believe and with a loud voice do evermore cry, that the Gospel is the only rule, by which all must be reform. Onelierule. Daneus Contro. 7. p. 1350. The only foundation of Christian faith; is the word of God, and that alone written. Hospinian part 2. Histor. Sacram. fol. 23. The Magistrate of Zurich commanded, that hereafter they propound no other thing to their Churches but the pure mere word of God, contained Mere written word. in the words of the Prophets and Apostles. K. james Resp. ad Card. Peron. p. 397. The king judgeth, that before a● things, alagr●e of this Rule: That points of faith, and whatsoever deserveth necessarily Alone. to be believed, be taken out of Scripture alone. Laud Relat. §. 17. p. 117. The Scripture Only. only is the foundation of faith. Potter sec. 6. p. 65. Scripture the only foundaiion and rule of faith. Pareus Collegio Theol. 3. d. 2. scripture in this time is no les necessary to the salvation of the Church, than meat for the life Scripture as necessary, as meal for life. of man. And Collegio 9 d. 4. scripture now is necessary, not only to the well being of the Church, but even to her being. Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. c. 11. sec. 1. scripture is the only sufficient means to believe. So Contro. 1. q. 3. c. 10. q. 6. c. 9 p. 376. and c. 14. p. 399. Contro. The only sufficient means. 2. q. 5. c. 6. 9 Chillingworth c. 2. n. 3. scriptures, be the sole judge of Controversies, that is, the sole rule for man to judge them Sole Rule. by: And he inscribeth that Chapter thus: scripture, the only rule, whereby to judge of Controversies. Where §. 32. he sayeth: I cannot know any doctrine to be a divine and supernatural truth, or a part of Christianity, but only because the scripture says so. And where sayeth the Scripture, that itself is the word of God? Who will see more Protestants, may read Zuinglius in Hospin. part. 2. Histor. fol. 23. Bernenses ibid. fol. 52. Beza Apol. contra Sanitem p. 289. and in Colloq. Montisbel. p. 10. Whitaker l. 1 de Script. p. 146. l. 3. p. 483. l. 9 contra Dureum sec. 64. Morton to. 2. Apologiae l. 1. c. 45. 46. 47. 49. & l. 5. c. 12. he sayeth: Matters of faith must rely only on the light of the letters of faith. Martyr in Disput. Oxon p. 143. and Pareus Colleg. Theol. 3. disp. 2. affirm, that Scripture is the only Only external infallible means. external infallible means to get faith, and as necessary to the salvation of the Church, as meat to life, as also Pareus before said and Whitaker also. White in his Defense p. 69. The whole rule of the Church's judgement, Whole Rule is only scripture, only scripture, only scripture, and nothing but scripture. SECOND SECTION. Protestants sometimes deny it. Protestant's do divers ways deny Scripture to be the sole or entire rule of faith. First in formal terms. For thus Chillinhworth c. 2. n. 8. p. 55. when Protestants affirm against Papists, that the scripture is a perfect rule of faith, their meaning is not, that by scripture all things absolutely may be proved, which are to be believed For it can never be proved by scripture to Not all things absolutely. a Gainsayer, that there is a God, or that the Book, called the scripture, is the word of God. Ibid. n. 155. p. 114. scripture is not a judge of Controversies, but a Rule to judge them by, and that not an absolutely perfect Rule, but as perfect, Not an absolutey perfect Rule. as a written Rule can be, which must always need something else, which is either evidently true, orevidently credible to give attestation to it. See also n. 156. Feild l, 4. de Eccles. c. 15. we do not so make the scripture the Rule of our faith, but that other things in their kind are Rules likewise, in such sort, as it is not safe without respect had unto Not safe, by Sctipture al●ne. them, to judge of things by Scripture alone. Hooker l. 1 §. 14. Albeit scripture do profess to contain in it all things, which are necessary to salvation: yet the meaning cannot be simply of all things Not simply all things necessary. which are necessary. Secondly they confess, that Scripture is no sufficient Rule to believe that itself is the word of God, or who are Schismatiks. Hooker l. 2. §. 4. It is not the word of God, which Scripture can not assure us, that it i● the word of God. doth or possibly can assure us, that it is the word of God. By what then are you infallibly assured? Is it by the word of man? Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 70. There is no place in scripture, which tells us, that such books, containing such and particulars, No place in Sc●iptu●e. are the Canon and infallible will and word of God. And p. 69. That scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by divine and infallible testimony, lumine proprio, by resplendency of that light, which it hath in itself only, and by the witness that it can so give to itself, I could never yet see cause to allow. P. 80. The light, which is in Scripture itself, is not bright enough, it cannot bear sufficient witness to itself. P. 88 Where he (Hooker) speaks so Can not bear witness to itself. sensibly, that Scripture cannot bear witness to itself, nor one part of it to an other: that is grounded upon nature, which admits no created thing to be witness to itself, and is acknowledged by our Saviour. Sec. 25. n. 6. The judge, shall be the Scripture, and the Primitive Church. Primitive Church judge Chillingworth c. 2. n. 11. p. 52. Scripture, we say, is the rule to judge controversies by, yet not all simply, but all the controversies of Christians, of those, that are already agreed upon this first Not all controversies by Scripture. principle: That the Scripture is the word of God. n. 27. When Scripture is affirmed to be the rule, by which all controversies of religion are to be decided, those are to be excepted out of this generality, which concern the Scripture itself Ibid. Your Negative Conclusion, That these questions Not controversies ●b●ut Scripture itself. touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture, you needed not have cited any reason to prove it, it is evident by itself. Which he often repeateth, as n. 29. 46. 52. 156. And n. 27. The question, whether scuh or such a book be Only by the Church. Canonical scripture, affirmatively cannot be decided, but only by the testimony of the ancient Churches. And n. 35. you demand, whether that by the Church's Assured by the Church consent, they are assured, what scriptures are Canonical: I answer, yes, they are so. And whereas you infer from Church judge of the Scripture. hence, This is to make the Church judge, I have told you already, that of this controversy, we make the Church judge. Field l. 4 de Eccles c. 7. To him, that doubteth of both (old andnew Testament) we must not allege the authority of either of these, but some other thing. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 5. c. 14. It is that, which we would have: That Scripture is to be accounted judge of those, who believe the scripture. Which is plainly to confess, that it is not judge of al. And Ibid. c. 10. We account not scripture the only, but the supreme Interpreter. Not only Scripture. And c. 57 Protestants do not so make the scripture the supreme judge of Controversies, as therefore they refuse the judgement of Counsels. And l. 3. de Missa c. 3. The judgement of sense, in Sense a ground of Protest f●ith. sensible objects, is a notable ground of faith. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 5. c. 6. He loseth his labour, who out of scripture disputeth against those, that deny the scripture. Against such, we must dispute out of the testimony of the Church, or use other arguments l. 1. de Script. p. 92. The Creed of the Apostles, is the rule of faith. Creed is the rule. Plessie of the Church c. 3. The question (with the Donatists) was more for matter of fact, then of right, as who had first failed in Charity, offended the Schism not decided by Scripture. Communion, opened the gate to schism? which could not well be decided by the holy scripture. White in his way p. 48. The certainty of the scripture, is not written Certainty of Scripture is not written. indeed with letters, in any particular place or book thereof. Thirdly they grant, that Scripture needeth interpretation, for to decide Scripture needeth interpretation. some controversies of faith, as before c. 4. sec. 2. we cited out of Whitaker and others. To Whom I add, that Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 5. c. 9 sayeth: Not so, as we have the scripture the only but the chief Interpreter, that is, that in expounding scriptures we follow the judgement of Pastors, but weighed by the most clear Conference of scriptures. And Laud Relat. sec. 25. p. 157. Ether they (Protestant's and Papists) must be judged by the scripture, they must either both repair to the exposition of the Primitive Church, and submit to that, or both call and submit to a General Council lawfully called. Ibid. p. 166. The judge, shall be the scripture and the Primitive Church. And sec. Scripture not only ●udge. 39 p. 386. The scripture interpreted by the primitive Church, and a lawful and free general Council, determining according to these, is judge of Controversies. Sec. 16. p. 104. When the Fathers say, we are to rely upon scripture only they are never to be understood with exclusion of tradition in what case soever it may be had, because it is deep, and may be drawn into different senses, and so Tradition not excluded. mistaken, if any man will presume upon his own strength, and singly, without the Church. Fourthly, all Protestants, partly Scripture neeaeth some additions. in words, partly in fact do confess, that the Scripture needeth the addition of some humane principles, for to prove both their special justification (In which they assume this Principle, I believe) and also most, or altheir points of faith, which are opposite to ours. As for to prove that the Eucharist is not substantially the body of Christ, because the Scripture sayeth, it is a Commemoration of him, They need to add this humane Principle: No Commemoration can be substantially the thing which is commemorated: or to prove, that Christ is not really in the Eucharist, because the Scripture sayeth, He is in heaven, they need to add this humane principle: No body can (by the power of God) be in two places at once. And so of the like. And if the Scripture need the attestation of the Church, need the Interpretation of the Church, need humane Principles, it is evident, that it is not the sole and entire Rule of faith. For a sole and entire Rule, needeth nether addition nor Interpretation S. Basil lib. contra Eunomium: ●●hat requisite to a Rule. A Rule admitteth no addition. For what wanteth something, needeth addition, but what are imperfect, can never be rightly called rules or squares. Theophilact in Philipens. 3. A Canon or Rule suffereth nether addition nor suhstraction. Protestants in Colloq. Ratisbon. sess. 1. p. 36. In matters of faith, religion, and worship, that only is to be accounted and used for a Rule, which admitteth nether addition, nor subtraction. Whitaker Contro. 1 q. 4. c. 4. The scripture is called a Rule a square, a scope exposed to the eyes of all, therefore it must need be easy and open. And ibid. q. 5. c. 7. Every rule must be certain and known. Ibid. q 6. c. 16. Unless the scripture be the entire and perfect rule, it will be no rule at al. Ibid. If it be a rule, then perfect and adequate. And Chillingworth c. 2. n. 6. p. 54. I conclude, that both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule, both to be so complete, as it need no addition, and to be so evident, as to need no interpretation. White in his Way p. 15. The nature of a Rule, is to be perfect. Laude sec. 26. n. 4. A Rule, must be certain and known. And I conclude, that Scripture is no entire Rule of faith, because in divers matters of faith and religion, (according to Protestants plain confession) it needeth both addition and interpretation. Howsoever therefore, Protestants in words avouch the Scripture to be the only and entire Protestants denieindeeds what they affirm in words. rule of Christian faith, indeed they deny it, because they do and must deny it to be such, as an entire Rule must be. But perhaps their meaning is, that when catholics are to prove, than Scripture is the only Rule of faith; but when they are to prove, it may need their expositions, or their humane principles, which is as much as to say, sometimes it is a rule, sometimes not, or to Catholics it must be an entire Rule, but not to Protestants; so that what they will, and when they will, is their Rule of faith. And no marvel if their Rule be as variable as their faith is. sixth CHAPTER. Whether Scripture of itself do sufficiently show or prove itself to be the word of God? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. CAluin 1. Institut. c. 6. §. 2. whereas they ask, How shall ●e be persuaded, that (the Scriptures) came from God, unless we fly to the decree of the Church, it is as if one should ask, How shall we learn to discern light from darkness, white from black, sweet from Scripture, as lear as light bitter. For the Scripture of itself giveth no obscurer feeling of its truth, than white and black things, of their colour, sweet and bitter, of their taste. And joan. 10. v. 4. By the spirit of discretion, the Elect do discern God's truth from men's lies. jewel. Defence. Apol. c. 9 p. 404. When Harding asked: How know you, that the scriptures be scriptures? How know you, that the Gospel of Thomas, Bartholomew, and Nicodemus, are no scriptures? Answereth: A man might well demand the like question of M. Harding: How know you, that the sun, As the sun. is the sun? or how know you, that the moon is the moon? Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 3. c. 1. The sum of our opinion is, that scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is of itself hath all its authority and credit. And l. 1. de Scrip. c. 9 p. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is, which not only of itself is true, but which needeth no proof or demonstration Needs no p●oof. to confirm it: See him ibid. p. 27. 93. 95. 102. 106. 65. 40. and contro. 1. q. 6. c. 9 White in his way, p. 27. The doctrine contained in the scripture, is a light, and so abideth, into what language soever it be translated, and therefore the children of light know it and discern it: For God directeth them by his holy spirit, who openeth their hearts that they know his voice from all others, and that the light of his truth may shine upon them. Which light is of this nature, that it giveth testimony to itself and receiveth authority from no other. And in his way p. 48. The virtue and power which shows itself in every line and In every line. leaf of the bible, proclaims it to be the word of God The scripture by its own light shows itself to be the word of God. In his Defense p. 285. The scriptures have in them a light, and an authority of their own, sufficient to prove themselves to be the word of God, and to give infallible assurance to all men of the true sense. p. 15. I deny, that the Canonical books cannot be proved to be by themselves, secluding Church, authority, and tradition. P. 282. The authority and teaching of the Church, is not always nor simply necessary to show all men the light of the scripture, or so much, as to point to it: For either by immediate light of God's spirit, or by the light of nature, it may be known to be God's word. And p. 277. he sayeth, that assurance of By light of nature. the true sense of the Scripture is very By only ●eading. ordinarily had, without all motion of the Church whatsoever, by only reading. See him c. 20. p. 169. Field Appendice parte 2. p. 14. It Evident by itself. is evident in itself, that God speaketh in the scripture, and revealeth those things, which we believe: which is that, which we say. Bel in his Downfall of Popery art. 7. p. 135. The scriptures Canonical, are discerned from not Canonical, even of themselves, like as light is discerned from darkness, Protestants in Colloq. Ratisbon. Thesi 1. p. 19 Credit is to be given to the scripture for itself and sess. 10 p. 314. The authority of the Gospel of Matthew, is gathered out of the scripture itself. Chillingworth c. 4. §. 53. The doctrine itself, is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God. SECOND SECTION. Protestants sometimes deny it. HOoker, Covel, Laude, White, Chillingworth, and others related in the former Chapter sec. 2. who deny that Scripture can be sufciently known by itself deny, that it sufficiently showeth, or proveth itself: And the said Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 8●. We do not say, that there is such a light in Scripture, as that every man upon the first sight, must yield to it. Ibid. p. 70. No created thing alone, can give No created thing can give witness to itself. witness to itself, and make it evident, nor one part testify for an other and satisfy, where Reason will but offer to contest. sec. 38. n. 6. We believe Scripture to No particular text for proof of Scripture. be Scripture, and by divine and in fallible faith too, and yet we can show no particular text for it. Feild in Appendice part. 2. p. 21. Tradition of the Church, necessary. The tradition of the Church, is a necessary means, whereby the books of Scripture may be delivered unto us, and made known. Potter sec. 5. p. 8. That Scripture is of divine authority, the Belever sees by Found, by help of the Church. that glorious beam of divine light, which shines in the Scripture, though found by the help, and direction of the Church without, and of grace, within. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 46. p. 69. That the Divinity of a writing cannot No wiseman sayeth. be known from itself alone, but by some authority, you need not prove, for no wise man denies it. Ibid. §. 3. p. 53. The controversy, wherein the Not but by natural reason. Scripture is the subject of the question, cannot be determined but by natural reason. § 8. p. 55. It can never be proved by Scripture to a gainsayer, that the book called Scripture is the word of God. So also §. 27. p. 63. §. 29. p. 64. sec. 52. p. 72. Ibid. §. 155. p. 114. A written A written rule needeth some thing else. rule, must always need something else, which is either evidently true, or evidently credible to give attestation to it. And the same mean all other Protestants cited before l. 1. c. 14. who say; That the attestation of the Church is necessary for to know the Scripture to be the word of God, and that the Church, is as it were, the key or door to enter into the knowledge of the Scripture. For how should the Church's attestation be necessary to know the Scripture to be the word of God, if it can be known to be such, by itself? SEAVENTH CHAPTER. Whether Scripture be the true judge of Controversies of faith? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. WHitaker Contr. 1. q. 5. c. 7. The second argument, where with the jesuit proveth that Scripture cannot be judge and Interpreter of Scripture, is this, because in every well ordered common wealth, the judge and law are different, wherefore seeing scripture is the law, it can be no way judge. And he answereth: The Scripture, judge, Interpreter, andrule. divine law is the judgement, the judge, the Interpreter, and the rule. And c. 8. The Chief judge of Controversies, must have these three. First, that we certainly know, that his sentence is true, and that we ought to submit to it. Secondly, that there is no appealing from his sentence. Thirdly, that he be not partial. And all these hath the scripture, and the Holy Ghost speaking in scripture. Contro. Supreme judge. 2. q. 5. c. 5. In all Controversies, we appeal to the scripture, as to the supreme judge. l. 2. contra Dureum sec. 41. Austin would have the scripture to be witness: I make it judge. l. 3. de Scriptura p. 409. I will have the scripture alone, and the Holy Ghost speaking in scripture, the judge of all doctrines. Zuinglius in Disp. 1. to. 2. fol. 625. No judge, but Scripture. I will admit no other judge beside the Scriptures. Confessio Heluetica c. 2. We suffer no other judge in matter of faith, but God himself, pronouncing by the Scriptures, what is true, what falls. Davenant de judice Controversiarum c. 2. p. 65. We must need admit the Scripture for judge, and also for Rule of judging. Laude sec. 26. p. 194. To settle Controversies in the Church, there is a visible judge and Infallible, but not living And that is the Scripture▪ And sec. 25. p. 157. he sayeth: The Scripture is the judge. Item sec. 39 p. 386. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 5. c. 1. Scripture is the Supreme and infallible judge of the Church, to the learned, in obscure matters, and to the unlearned, in clear. And c. 13. Then you acknowledge it (Scripture) to be the public judge. God keep yovin this mind. Ibid. The Fathers in all difficulties against Heretics, appealed to the scripture, as to the supreme judge. See him l. 2. c. 1. and his Appeal. l. 3. c. 15. sec. 5. White in his way p. 14. The scripture only is the judge and Rule of faith. See Melancthon in locis c. de Ecclesiâ. SECOND SECTION. Sometimes deny it. Protestant's in Colloq. Ratisbon sess. 1. p. 38. It is one thing, to show the judge, an other, to show judge and Rule, different. the Rule. So the Rule is not judge. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 3. p. 53. scriptures, being the sole judge of Controversies, that is, the sole Rule, for man to judge them by. For we mean nothing else. §. 11. p. 57 To speak properly (as Not properly a judge. men should speak, when they writ of Controversies in religion) the scripture is not a judge of Controversies, but a Rule only, and the only Rule for Christians to judge them by. Ibid. §. 10. We deny not, but a judge and a law might well stand together, but we deny, that No judge appointed by God. there is any such judge of God's appointment. §. 12. Which conclusion (that though the Scripture may be a Rule it cannot be a judge) I have already granted. §. 23. There is not any publicly authorized judge to determine Controversies in religion, nor any necessity, there should be any. The same he hath §. 85. And §. 104. speaking Scripture cannot be a judge. truly and properly, The scripture is not a judge, nor cannot be, but only a sufficient Rule for those to judge by, who believe it to be the word of God. §. 155. This assertion, That scripture alone is judge of all Controversies in faith, if it be taken properly, is nether a fundamental, nor an unfundamental point of faith, nor no point of faith at all, but a plain falsehood. It is not a judge of Controversies, but a Rule to judge them by. Potter sec. 2. p. 32. The Scripture is judge, or rather Rule of Controversies. Whitaker Contro 1. q. 1. c. 2. The Scripture is the same in the Church, which the law is in the common wealth. Moulins de judice Contro. c. 13. If our adversaries think not, that the title of judge ought to be given to the Scripture, at least they should not deny it title of Rule, and this is that which we require, namely that our faith be ruled by only God's word. But nether would this content them, unless God's word be expounded, as they would have it, which were to make themselves the rule of judging. EIGHTH CHAPTER. Whether Scripture be to believed to be God's word, with divine and infallible assurance. FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 72. suppose it agreed upon, that there must be a divine faith, cui subesse non potest Scripture must be known with divine faith. falsum, under which can rest no possible error, That the books of scripture are the written word of God. Ibid. p. 66. This is agreed on by me, that scripture must be known to be scripture, by a sufficient infallible divine pro of. See him p. 64. and p. 75. After a man once believe, his faith grows stronger, than either his reason or his knowledge. p. 86. Beleif is firmer, than any knowledge can be, because it rests upon divine authority, which cannot deceive. See ibid. p. 105. and p. 114. 115. Likewise sec. 33. p. 227. Moral certainty, is not Moral certainty, not sufficient. strong enough in points of faith. See him sec. 19 p. 125. sec. 16. cit. p. 74. Reason without grace, cannot see the way to heaven, nor believe this book, Reason, not sufficient. in which God hath written the way. Potter sec. 5. p. 2. Faith is said to be divine and supernatural. First, in regard of the Author or efficient cause of the habit, and act of divine infused faith which is the special grace of God. Secondly, in regard of the object, as things believed, which are above the reach of mere nature or reason Thirdly, in regard of the formal reason or principal ground on which faith chief relieth, and into which it is finally resolved, which is divine Revelation, or authority of God. If it fail in any of these, it is no divine or supernatural faith. P. 7. The assent of divine faith, is absolutely divine, which Faith, is absolutely divine. requires an object and motive so infallibly true, as that it nether hath, nor can possibly admit any mixture of error or falsehood. p. 10. supernatural faith must be absolutely undoubted and certain, Sec. 6. p. 59 The assent of faith, is more certain (if it be possible) then that of sense, or science, or demonstration, because it rests on divine authority, which cannot possibly deceive. Sec. 5. cit. p. 40. divine faith, must have a divine foundation that can not deceive. Caluin 1. Instit. c. 7. §. 5. Lightened by his virtue, we believe, not by our own or other men's judgement, that the scripture is from God, but above humane judgement, we resolve most assuredly, even as if we saw God there, that it came from Gods own mouth by the ministry of men. See him ibid. §. 4. and c. 6. §. 2. And both he 3. Instit. c. 2. §. 6. 7. 16. in Cathechismo c. de fide Beza, in Confess. c. 4. sec. 5. Luther in psalm. 14. to. 3. define faith to be Faith most certain and infallible. A most certain assurance, and Fulk in Rom. 8. Nota 9 to be an Infallible assurance. White in his Way p. 2. Faith must be infallible, or certain, that is, free from error, and such, as cannot deceau● us. P. 10. Our faith must be withful assurance and persuasion. SECOND SECTION. Sometimes they deny. CHillingworth c. 1. §. 8. p. 36. Of this hypothesis: That all the articles of our faith were revealed by God, we cannot ordinarily have any rational and acquired certainty, more than moral. But moral certainty. C. 2. §. 3. p. 53 The controversy, wherein the scripture itself is the subject of the question cannot be determined but by natural reason. Ibid. §. 32. p. 65. Natural reason built on principles common to Reason, last resolution of Protest. faith. all men, is the last resolution, into which the Church's authority, is but the first inducement. Item §. 24. p. 62. I know no other natural and rational means, to be assured hereof (of the incorruption of Scripture) than I have of any other books incorrupted. For though I have a greater degree of rational and humane Humane assurance. assurance of that, than this, in regard of divers considerations, which make it more credible, That the Scripture hath been preserved from any material alteration: yet my assurance of both, is of the same Moral assurance. kind and condition, both moral assurances, and nether physical, or mathematical. Scripture, no materia object of faith Ibid. §. 32. p. 65. The Scripture is none of the material objects of our faith, but only the means of conveying them unto us. § 35. p. 66. Of this controversy (which books be Canonical) wemake the Church the judge, but not the present Church, but the consent and testimony of the ancient and primitive Church; which though it be but a highly probable inducement, and no demonstrative enforcement, yet, me thinks you should not deny, but it may be a sufficient Probability, a sufficient ground of Protest faith. ground of faith. Ibid. §. 152. p. 112. The privilege, of not being in possibility of erring, we challenge not. Ibid. § 154. you content not yourselves with a moral certainty of things you believe. p. 113. Moral certainty, sufficient. Me thinks you should require only a moral and modest assent to them (points of faith) and not a divine, as you call it, and infallible faith. Ibid. § 159. p. 116. God requireth of us under pain of damnation only to believe the verities therein (Scripture) contained, and not the divine authority of the books, wherein Not divine authority of Scripture. they are contained.— We have (I believe) as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the Eight, King of England, as that jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate. C 6. §. 3. p. 325. That there is required of us a As great reason for belief of K. Hen. as of Christ. knowledge of them (points of faith) and an adherence to them, as certain, as that of sense or science, that such a certainty is required of us under pain of damnation, this I have demonstrated to be a great error, and of dangerous and pernicious consequence. §. 5. p. 327. Men may talk their pleasure of an absolute and most infallible certainty; but did they generally believe, that obedience to Christ, were the only way to present and eternal felicity, but as much, as Caesar's Commentaries, or the history of Sallust, I believe, the lives of most men, Papists and Protestants, would be better than they are.— And therefore it follows from your own reason, that faith, which is not a most certain and infallible knowledge, may be true and saving faith. C. 7. §. 7. p. 389. In requiring, that this faith should be divine and Dangerous, that faith must be infallible. infallible, you cast your Credents into infinite perplexity. Erasmus on the 2. and 27. of Matthew: There is no fear, that all the authority of the Scripture should fall, if any error were found in it. Luther called the Scripture: The books of Heretics. Protestants in Colloq, Ratisbon. sess. 11. say, that we must distinguish between the faith, wherewith we believe points necessary to salvation and historical faith, wherewith we believe the Scripture to be the word of God. And historical faith, is not divine faith, unless they will make many kinds of divine faith. And they add, that there is not equal reason of beleuing, that scripture is God's word, and that Christ is Incarnate. And Whitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 88 who have no other faith but historical, do no more believe Christ then the Devils. Moulins in his Bucler sec. 4. p. 13. Properly speaking, articles Scripture, no doctrine of Christian religion. of faith, are doctrines of Christian religion and in this sense, the Canon of Canonical books, is no article of faith. So that the Canon of Scripture is no doctrine of Christian religion. White in his Defense c. 30. p. 282. scripture, either by the immediate light Scripture, known by ●ight of nature. of God's spirit, or by the light of nature, may be known to be God's word. And if by the light of nature, without divine faith. Hooker l. 3. §. 8. we know by reason, that the scripture is the word of God. By reason. Whitaker v l. 1. de Script. p. 25. The most divine character of the scripture, doth most plainly tell all, that either have received the Holy Ghost, or are imbued with mean understanding. By mean understanding. that it came from God. And if mean understanding suffice, without the Holy Ghost, there need no divine faith to believe it. And ibid. p. 122. Who hath reason, and will use it, may thereby most easily discern these divine books from men's books. P. 150. Scriptures By only reading. may be known by only reading. And in praefat. ad Staplet. The Scripture giveth so clear a testimony of its diuini● tie, that who read it with a small attention and judgement, cannot be ignorant, that it is divine. And p. 77. unless he be doltish. l. 2. p. 235. Scriptures may be acknowledged and held without the testimony of the Spirit. NINTH CHAPTER. Whether translated Scripture be authentical? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. WHite in his Way to the Church p. 12. I say, the Scripture translated into English, Translated Scripture, rule of faith. is the Rule of faith, whereupon I relying have not a humane, but a divine authority. And p. 27. The doctrine contained in the Scripture, is a light, and so abideth, into what language soever it be translated, and therefore the children of light know it, and discern it. Ibid. So the unlearned man is secured, not upon the Church's credit and authority; but by the ministry, which teacheth him, he is directed to the light itself. And this Ministry we have, and use for our Translations; but they, that obey it, know the Translation, and so proportionably The matter of Scripture showeth itself. all articles of faith to be infallible, because the matter thereof appears to them; as a candle in a lantern, showing itself in its own light. And in his table before his book: The Scriptures translated into English, are the Rule of faith. And in his Defense of his Way c. 28. p. 266. Though it be granted, that the Ministry of men, and rules of art and knowledge of tongues, be all subject to error, yet doth it not follow, that by them we cannot obtain infallible assurance of our translations. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 32. we believe the Scripture, not finally Matter of Scripture, known by itself. and for itself, but for the matter contained in it. And so all Protestants should say, seeing when they exhort the common people to the reading of their translated Bibles, they bear them in hand, that it is the word of God: and that their translation of the word of God is authentical, and worthy to be believed for itself. Besides, they did the people believe what they teach them, because it is in their Bibles, and so make their Bibles, the rule and ground of their people's faith. And no other infallible rule of faith, their common people can pretend to have. Moreover, if they make the matter or true sense of Scripture, the rule of faith, as commonly they do, they cannot deny, but Scripture truly translated, hath the same matter, which the original hath. SECOND SECTION. Sometimes deny it. WHitaker Contro. 1. q. 2. c. 7. We make no edition (of Scripture) authentical, but the Hebrew, in the old, and the Greek, in the New Testament. Translations, if No translation, authentical. they agree, we allow them, if they differ, we reject them. Ibid. c. 8. We do do not say, that we must stand to our translations, as authentical of themselves, but we appeal to the fountains only, as truly authentical. C. 9 Authentical Scripture must come immediately from the Holy Ghost. C. 10. only authentical, is Canonical. Et ibid. q. 5. c. 9 The ignorance of the original tongues, Hebrew and Greek, hath caused many errors. And thus all Protestants should say, because they deny the Vulgar latin, to be authentical, because it is a Translation. For (as Whitaker c. 8. cit. sayeth) An Interpreter translateth authentical Scripture, but maketh not his Translation authentical Scripture. See Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 14. p. 71. White in his Way p. 23. The conclusion Translation not a Rule. (That the English translation is not the Rule) may be granted. P. 1●. All translations be to be tried by the original Hebrew and Greek. And a Rule is not to be ruled itself. Morton in Whites Defense c. 28. p. 259. What English Protestant ever No infallible. affirmed, that our Translations were infallible, or took them for the Rule? Tailor in his liberty of prophesing sec. 4. n. 7. Is there any man, that hath translated perfectly, or expounded Nor authentik. infallibly? No translation challengeth such a prerogative, as to be authentik, but the vulgar latin. Pareus Colleg. Theol. 2. D. 1. We say, that only the Hebrew edition of the old testament, and the Greek of the New, is authentical. Sic etiam Collegio 1. D. 14. Moulins of the judge of Contro. part. 2. c. 6. p. 378. Common sense telleth, that translations are not to be received, but as far as they are agreeable to the originals. TENTH CHAPTER. Whether the Scripture be to be believed to be the word of God, only for the testimony of the Church. FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. SPalatensis l. 7. de Repub. c. 1. n. 9 To inquire (which books are Canonical) The Church hath that alone, singular, and only rule, that the Universal Church ask herself, and what she in actual exercise holdeth, seek and plainly know. And l. contra Suarem c. 1. n. 34. I show, that nether Counsels, nor Popes, nor Fathers, nor Church, can otherwise define, which books be Canonical, which not, but by the only testimony of the whole Church. Chillingworth c. 2. n. 7. The question, Only by the Church. whether such or such a book be Canonical Scripture, cannot be decided affirmatively, but only by the testimony of the ancient Church. The like he hath n. 35. 42. And ibid. n. 1●4. It is upon the authority of universal tradition, that we would have them believe the Scripture. See him supra c. 8. sect. 2. And c. 1. n. 7. I grant, that Christ hath founded a visible Church, stored with all help necessary to salvation, particularly with sufficient means to beget and conserve faith, to mantein unity, and compose schisms, to discover and condemn heresies, and to determine all controversies in religion, which were necessary to be determined.— I grant, that this means to decide controversies in faith and religion, must be endued with an universal infallibility, in whatsoever it propoundeth for a divine truth. C. 2. n. 3. It is superfluous for you to prove out of S. Athanasius, and S. Austin, that we must receive the sacred Canon upon the credit of God's Church, understanding by Church, the credit of tradition.— We will say with Athanasius, that only four Gospels are to be received, because the Canons of the holy and Catholic Church, (understand of all ages since the perfection of the Canon) have so determined. Whitaker l. 1. de script. p. 46. We cannot believe, but by the testimony of the Church, as by the ordinary means. SECOND SECTION. Protestants sometimes deny it. LAude, in his Relation. sec. 16. n. 1. p. 60 The tradition of the Church, taken and considered alone, is Tradition of the Church not sufficient so far from being the only, that it can not be a sufficient proof to believe by divine faith that Scripture is the word of God. n. 19 p. 80. The Tradition of the present Church, is too weak, because it is not absolutely divine. Ibid. 25 p. 88 If Scripture hath an other proof, nay many other Scripture can approve ●t self. proofs to usher it and lead it in, than no question it can prove and approve itself. Potter sec. 5. p. 6. The testimony of present Church, though it be not the last resolution of our faith, yet it is the first external motive to it. It is the key or door, which lets men into the knowledge of divine mysteries.— But the faith of a Christian finds not in all Not ●nie sure ground. this any sure ground, whereon finally to rest or settle itself, till it arise to greater assurance than the present Church alone can give. The same must all Protestants say, who either teach, that the testimony of the Church is fallible, or that the Scripture hath a sufficient light to show itself to be God's word. Humphrey ad Rat. 3. Campiani p. 210. We say, that an argument taken from the authority of the Church simply, Church's authority, little worth. in our Academic, is little worth, effecteth nothing. p. 212. No firm firm and irrefragable argument can be taken from the Church militant.— Brefly, no argument firm and solid, is taken from ani● Church, unless it be the Apostolic. Whitaker Controu. 1. q. 3. c. 3. Scripture, known without the Church. Without the Church's judgement, it may be known to be Christ's voice, and true Scripture. Cont. 2. q. 5. c. 18. It is most falls, that we cannot believe this to be true Scripture, but by the testimony of the Church. l. 2. de Script. p. 280. who is led with the proper testimony of the Church, doth follow but humane testimony. And ibid. sayeth, it is mere humane. l. 1. p. 112. The voice of the masters of the Church, may be public, but Pastor's authority of no moment. their authority is but private, that is, of no moment. l. 1. de Scriptura p. 16. An argument, which is taken from the bare testimony of the Church, for to confirm the Scriptures, or any parcel thereof, I say, is unualid, uneffectual, unfit to persuade l. 2. p. 235. ●he Church hath Hath no authority in matters of faith. no authority in matters of faith. l. 3. p. 345. The judgement of the Church, considered by itself, is mere humane. Caluin in Act. 15. v. 28. Fond Papists think there is some authority in the Church. ELEVENTH CHAPTER. Whether Scripture be the formal cause of Protestants beleuing whatsoever they belleve as of faith? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. 1. WHitaker l. 1. de Scriptura c. 5. sec. vlt. p. 58. Whatsoever we believe, Whatsoever they believe is fo● Scripture. we believe for the scripture, which is the external cause of faith.— I mantein, that in kind of external cause, we believe not for the testimony of the Church, but for the authority and testimony of the scripture itself, which alone, in the ministry of the Church, is the external principal cause of faith. For faith riseth not of the testimony itself of the Church, but only of the authority and divinity of the scripture And p. Only for Scripture. 69. Not for the authority of the Church, by which we are taught, but for the authority of the scripture itself, we acknowledge the scripture. P. 76. Faith, is of scriptures heard. P. 108. Faith, is begotten not of testimony of the Church, but only out of scripture. P. 122. The The omelie sufficient means. scripture is the most strong, the most effectual, I add also now, the only sufficient means to believe. P. 130. Our faith relieth upon the scriptures alone P. 165. scriptures are the foundations of our faith. P. 167. The scripture is the beginning of beleuing. The same he hath p. 168. P. 173. The formal cause of our Scripture, the formal cause of belief. faith, is not the voice of the Church, but God's word revealed in the scriptures. Potter sec. 5 p. 8. The principal motive, and last object of belief, is the divine last object. authority of the scripture itself. P. 10. The chief principle ground, on which faith rests, and for which it firmly The ground of faith. assents unto those truths, which the Church propounds, is the divine revelation made in scripture sec. 7. p. 95. The creed contains only the material The formal object. object of faith: The scripture is further, the formal object of faith, or the motive and ground, whereupon faith is grounded, being both the obiect●m quod, in respect of things therein revealed, and obiectum Obiectum quod, and qu●. quo, in respect of that divine verity and authority, which reveals them. Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 84. Tradition of the present Church, is the first moral motive to believe; but the belief itself, That the scripture is the word of God, rests upon the scripture. P. 89. Do Faith resolved into Scripture. you grant, as you ought to do, that we resolve our faith into scripture, as the ground, and we will never deny, that Tradition is the key, that let's us in. Sec. 18. p. 123. The Prophet's testimony was divine, into which, namely their writings, the jews did resolve their faith. Hooker l. 2. §. 7. Scripture is The ground of all belief. the ground of all belief. Chillingworth c. 3. §. 32. p. 149. I can not know any doctrine to be a divine and supernatural truth, but because the scripture says so. And where says it, that it is the word of God? Uttermost formal cause of faith. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 37. Papists are forced against their will to grant, that thè uttermost formal cause of Catholic faith, doth not consist in the authority of the Church, but in scripture. Ib. The divine authority of the scripture, by virtue of the holy Ghost, doth imprint in the minds of the hearers, the last formal Last formal cause. cause of faith. And l 5. c. 11. scripture, is to the faithful the supreme judge even concerning us, in which our consciences do last rest. In his Appeal. l. Last rest and resolution. 3. c 15. sec. 5. In the doctrine of scripture men's consciences may take their last rest, and resolution White in his Table before his way: The last resolution of our faith, is into the authority of the scripture. And yet they cannot deny, but the authority of the Scripture is create. For they were written by men. And so▪ the formal cause, the uttermost formal cause, the last formal cause, the last rest, Create authority the uttermost formal cause of Protest. faith. the last resolution of their faith, is create authority, and not Prima veritas itself, as they pretend, and condemn catholics for only saying, that the create authority of the true formal cause, but say not (as Protestants say of Scripture) the uttermost the last formal cause, the last resolution of our faith. Besides, Protestants make Protestants inferences out of humane Principles, the last resolution of their faith their own Inferences partly out of some humane principle, to be equal and equivalent unto express Scripture or word of God, as is showed before c. 3 sec. 2. and so make their own Inferences, (and those partly out of humane Principles) the formal cause, the uttermost, the last formal cause, that, into which their faith is last resolved, and withal teach, that L. 1. c. 18▪ n. 1. the Inference cannot be more certain, than the Principle, out of which it is inferred. How then can their faith have more certainty, then humane, as Chillingworth confessed c. 8. sec. 2. SECOND SECTION. Sometimes deny it. CHillingworth c. 2. n. 159. p. 116. For other reasons I conceive this doctrine (that Scripture is the rule of faith) Not fundamental, because if a man should believe Christian religion, Scripture, no fundamental doctrine. wholly and entirely, and live according to it, such a man though he should not know, or not believe the Scripture to be a rule of faith; no nor to be the word of God, my opinion is he may be saved— so that the books of Scripture are not so much the objects of our faith, as the instruments of conveying it to our understanding, and not so much of the being of Christian doctrine, as requisite to the wellbeing of it. Ireneus tells us of some barbarous nations, that believed the doctrine of Christ, and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God. For they never heard of it, and faith comes of hearing— God requiring of us under pain of damnation, only Not damnable, not to be●eue the Scripture. to believe the verities therein contained, and not the divine authority of the books wherein they are contained. Ibid. n. 32. p. 65. Which (Scripture) we believe not finally, and for itself, but for the matter contained in it.— We Scripture, not last ob●●st of faith. are to believe it, not as the last object of out faith, but as the means of it. Ibid. Natural reason, built on principles common Natural ●eason last ●e●olu●●. 〈◊〉 of protest. faith. to all men, is the last resolution (of our faith of the Scripture) into which the Church's authority is but the first inducement. n. 115. p. 96. By you, as well as by Protestants, all is finally resolved into reason. Baro in his Apology pro disput. de obiecto fidei p. 48. Laics believe the doctrine which is proposed to them to be believed, to be in the Protest. believe Scripture but with 〈…〉 ne faith. Scripture, only with humane faith. Behold first (That Scripture is the rule of faith) is no fundamental doctrine. Secondly, one may be saved, though the believe not the Scripture to be the word of God. Thirdly, books of Scripture are not so much objects of our faith, as instruments thereof. Fourthly, are not so much of the being of Christian faith, as of the well being of it. Fiftly, God requires not under pain of damnation, to believe the divine authority of Scripture. Sixtly, we believe not the Scripture finally and for itself. Seavently, It is not the last object of faith. Eightly, natural reason is the last resolution of Protestants faith of the Scripture. Ninthly Laics believe their doctrine to be in the Scripture, but with humane faith. And can that, which is such, be the formal cause, the chief principle, or ground of faith, and into which divine faith is resolved? Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 7. I grant, that Ireney sayeth, some had Faith had without Scripture. faith, and no Scripture— some Barbarians for a time had no Scripture— For some time doctrine may be kept entire, without writing— Scripture, not simply necessary. Hence he concludeth, That scriptures are not simply necessary. Right, And the same generally all Protestants confess. And Contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. p. 548. Many may be good Christians, who never read scripture. Ibid. q 3. c. 3. p. 320. It may be that there be many Christians, who know not the Canon of Scripture, nor ever saw any books. But if Scripture were the formal cause and ground of faith, faith could never be in any men, nor in any time, without Scripture, and Scripture would be simply necessary to faith. For the formal cause of faith is always necessary to faith, and simply necessary to it, because it is the cause or motive for which we believe. And faith. in ordinary course, cannot be but for the external formal cause of it: or thus: The formal cause of beleuing must be known, or be believed of all men, and in all times But Scripture is not so; Therefore it is not the formal cause of faith, and much less the last and uttermost formal cause of faith. Zuinglius in Exegesi to. 2. fol. 347. We do not think, that faith can Zuinglius had his faith not out of Scripture. be gathered out of words (of Scripture) but that words which are proposed, are understood by faith, the Mistress. Ibid. How I pray you should we gather faith of word, seeing we must not come to interpret Scripture, but being strengthened with faith. And ibid. Respons ad sermonem Lutheri fol. 372. Faith cannot be discussed or learned by words, but God is the teacher of it, and after we have known it of him, than we may see the same also in words. Oecolampadius in Hospin. parte 2. historiae Sacram. fol. 70. I myself Nor Oe●ola●padius. come not to Scripture, but first armed with faith. Behold two principal Patriarcks of the Sacramentarians, got not their faith by Scripture, but by Enthusiasms, and if they got it not by Scripture, surely Scripture was not the formal cause, not the principal motive, not the only sufficient means, not the ground or last resolution of their faith. What was then the ground, or into what did these men resolve their faith, but into some special private revelation, of which thus Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. p. 91. It is schismatical, fanatical, furious to boast of, or catch revelations now beside the Scripture. See Laude sec. 16. p. 71 72. 73. 74▪ TWELFH CHAPTER. Whether Protestants had the Scriptures from Catholics or no? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. LVther in c. 1. Galat. to. 5. fol. 293. We had indeed the scripture, Protestants had the Scripture from Papists. and the sacraments from the Papists. In 16. joan. to. 4. German. fol. 227. We are forced to grant, that we received the holy scripture, Baptism, sacraments, and office of preaching, from them (Papists) otherwise what should we have known of all these things? Whitaker Contro. 2. q. 5. c. 14. Papists have the scripture, Baptism, Catechism, the articles of faith, the ten Commandments, the Lords prayer and these things came from them to us. Dove of recusancy p. 13. We hold the Creed of the Apostles, of Athanasius, of Nice, of Ephesus, of Constantinople, which the Papists also do hold, and the same bible, which we received from them. Scusselburg to. 8. Catal. Heret. p. 439. We deny not, that Luther sayeth that in Popery is all Christian good, and from thence came to us. Spalatensis lib. contra Suarem c. 1. n. 34. Albeit England had the scripture, the Creeds, and Catholic Counsels first from the Church of Rome, yet etc. See Alsted l. de notis Ecclesiae c. 21. p. 231. james Andrew's l. contra Hosium p. 3●6. We deny not, that we received the scriptures from you (Papists) Thus they, and others also: but by what honest way or means, they had the Scripture from us, none of them telleth, nor can tell. And therefore they cannot clear themselves from plain theft, or Sacrilege. SECOND SECTION. Sometimes deny it. CHillingworth c. 2. n. 2. p. 52. Not from Papists. Nether is that true, which you pretend, That we possess the Scripture from you, or take it upon the integrity of your custody. But from whom else, then catholics, they possess the Scripture, nether he telleth, nor any Protestant can tell. Nay himself c. 6. §. 73. sayeth, we confess with him (Luther) that in the Papacy are many good things, which have come from them to us. Sutlif in his answer to the Catholics Supplication c. 7 n. 13. we received not the scriptures, nor our service orrites from them (Papists.) Fulk in his Refutation of Rastel. p. 802. we know, from whom we have received the Gospel, not from the Papists. THIRTEENTH CHAPTER. Whether catholics make great account of Scripture, and prove their doctrine out of it, or no? FIRST SECTION. Protestants sometimes affirm. HOspinian part 1. Histor. Sacram. l. 3. p. 216. Thou hearest, (Reader) that the book of the Gospel is had in great reverence of Papists, How greatly catholics honour Scripture. and much honoured of them; Thou hearest, the Reading of the Gospel to be rehearsed religiously in their Temples: Thou hearest, that they incense it with Frankincense, and other odours, yea every word of it, every letter or tittle to be accounted most holy; Thou hearest, that the Hearers rise up, and stand at the reading of it. Finally thou hearest, other ceremonies to be used at this reading of the Gospel. Luther in Math. 5. apud Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 5. c. 16. The Pope, and The Pope relieth on Scripture. sect masters, and we, who rely on the scriptures, do in one sort boast of the Gospel and word of God. And apud Scoppium in Ecclesiastico c. 10. The Papists, as well as we, do boast of God, and his word, and both alike cite scriptures, and of this we agree, and of justification, they bring all most in numerable places of scripture. Caluin in Luc. 22. v. 28. The Papists Papists stick fast to Scripture. are foolishly superstitious, whiles they stick fast to the words (of Scripture) 4. Instit. c 17. §. 20. The good Masters, that they may seem literate, forbidden to departed any whit from the letter. And he calleth catholics, Catchers of sillabes, froward, and stubborn exacters of the letter, foolish and ridiculous masters of the letter. Potter sec. 5. p. 13. They (Papists) pretend Scripture in every controversy. pretend scripture in each controversy against us. White in his Way p. 32. and 19 citeth these words out of Sanders l. of the Rock of the Church, which was Most plain Scripture. printed 80 years since: We have most plain scripture in all points for the Catholic faith. And himself addeth: In all controversies, the Papists with whom we deal, cry, Plain, evident, manifest scripture. P. 49. he citeth Bellarmin l. 1. de Verbo Dei c. 2. saying: other means may deceive me, but nothing is more known, nothing more certain, than the scriptures, that it were the greatest madness in the world, not to believe them. P. 64. some of them say, the scripture is the rule, and the principal Papists make Scripture a Rule. rule too, yea; more, as Bellarmin and others. P. 15. Papists grant, that all other authority is finally resolved into the authority of Scripture. P. 17. We admit the Scripture on all hands, and all the question between us, is about the Church. In his Defense p. 162. Our Adversaries (Papists) grant the last and highest resolutions of our faith to be into the authority of the Scripture. Which he repeateth p. 309. 310. 3●5. Laude sec. 16. n. 24. The greatest upholders of Tradition that ever were, made the Scripture v●ry necessary in all ages of the Church. sec. 20 n. 3. p. 120. The Roman Churches rece●●ues the scripture, as Rule of fait●. Iu●l Defense of A Rule. the Apology part. 1. p. 65. p. 129. You (Harding) say the scriptures are so clear of your side. Luther in psal. 22. tom. So clear on their side. 3. fol. 343. We cannot overcome the Papists bring a huge number of places of scripture for works. Plessie in his preface to his book of the Church: When in the time of our Fathers, men began to protest openly against the abuses, and traditions of the Romish Church by the authority of God's word, they that were then accounted famous for learning in that Church, as Ecbius, Cocleus Prierias, and others, laboured all they could to defend the said abuses by the holy scripture. Behold, how from the very beginning of protestancy, catholics sought to defend their doctrine by Scripture. Morton also tom. 2. Apol l. 5. c. 21. relateth this words of Roffensis against Luther: The words of the Gospel make most plainly for us, all fight for us, more clearly than More clearly than the sun. the sun. And ibid. l. 1. c. 37 citeth this Note of the Rhemist Testament joan. 4. This woman, Mystically being the Church, it is here signified, that they which at the first believe, because the Church teacheth so, afterward be much confirmed, finding it in the Scripture also. And ibid. Morton addeth: ye see then, that your last resolution is founded in the authority of the Scriptures. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 1. c. 1. Papists extol the scriptures, and we higly Papists extol the Scripture. esteem them, and there is no controversy, that we ought to search the scriptures, but how we should search them. Kemnice in Epist. dedicat. 1. partis Exam. The Papists at this time, put all the strength and Defense of their cause in the matter of the scripture and Tradition. Thus catholics esteem and speak of holy Scripture, whereas far otherwise Luther postilla in Domin. 8. post Trinitatem fol. 301. said The scripture is the book of Heretics. Christianus Protestants say, Scripture is the book of Heretikr. ad Portum l. contra Verronem tom. 5. Rupellae p. 31, Luther said most truly, that scripture is the book of heretics. The same Luther postilla in Epiphaniam: It is true, that Heretics are made by occasion of scripture. Daile in his Apology, c. 5. Papists reverence the Gospels, and Epistles of the Apostles as divine books. SECOND SECTION. Sometimes deny it. Apology of the Church of England part 4. c. 18. d. 1. These men (Papists) alway abhor and fly the word of God, even as the thief flies the gallows, Ibid. These men bid the holy scripture away, as dumb and fruitless. Item. They burn the scriptures and call them the books of Heretics. The like hath Whitaker ad Rat. 5. & 6. Campiani, And Contro. 1. q. 6. c. vlt. Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 6. And l. 2. de Scrip. c. 6 sec. 3. And Morton tom. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 47. Martyr in 1. Cor. 15. Papists leave no place, either to God, or scripture. Caluin in Gal. 1. v. 8. The Papists do furiously vex the pure and simple doctrine of the Gospel. In joan. 4. v. 20. The Papists give no place to Prophets or Apostles. Act. 17. v. 2. Papists think nothing can be certainly gathered out of scripture. Contra Anabapt. p. 412. The Papists say, that the holy scriptures Vide Caluin in ●oan. 6. v. 60. c. 8. v. 12. 39 c. 17. v. 20. are to be let go. Luther in l. de Consilijs: The Pope burieth the holy scripture in dirt and dust. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 33. Cardinal Hosius was not ashamed to say impiously: See his Appeal. l. 5. c. 28. s●c. 2. Tom 2. Apol. l. 5 c. 13. Potter sect. 5. p. 3. It had been better, if (Scripture) had not been written. Yet ibid. confesseth: This I have read of Hosius, but not in Hosius. But he is ashamed to tell, where he read it, to wit, in Iuels Apology of the Church of England, part 4 where Iuels best excuse of a manifest lie, is, that some of his lying brethren had told that lewd lie before him. Read Cope Dial. 6. c. 19 of this faceles lie of jewel, And Hardings answer to the Apology, Hosius de Verbo Dei, Bellarm. Praefat in tom. 2. White in his Way p. 18. They know and confess, the most and greatest points of their religion, even well nigh all, wherein they descent from us, have no foundation on the scripture. And in his Epistle Dedicatory; All their spe●ch is of the Church, no mention of the scriptures, nor God their Father, but their Mother the Church. And in his Defense p. 61. accuseth catholics of Enmity, rebellion, and contempt of scriptures. Ibid. p. 346. The words of the scripture itself, the Replier and his Complices despise and revile. But it is well, that both himself, and his fellows do give him the lie herein, as we saw in the former section. Usher's Reionder p. 1. Papists fly from the Scripture, even as the dog flieth from the whip, wherewith he is beaten, they speak evil of it. But now having showed the manifold, and main uncertainties and contradictions of Protestants, touching Scripture, let any judicious Reader judge, whether Protestants can rationally say or think, that the Scripture is the only judge, or only Rule, or only sufficient Proposer of points of faith, appointed by God for to direct and guide us assuredly, and infallibly in matters of assured, and infallible faith: but now let us set down catholics certain and constant doctrine concerning the same. Only let us remember luther's word upon the fift psalm. No Heretics were overcomen by force or craft, but by mutual dissension: nether doth Christ fight otherwise with them then by sending amongst them▪ the spirit of giddiness and dissension. FOURTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture, taken by itself alone, without attestation of the Church, that it is the letter or word of God, cannot sufficiently propose to men any thing to be believed with divine and infallible faith. 1. THat Scripture, taken by itself alone without attestation of the Church, that it is the letter or word of God, doth not sufficiently propose to us, or (to speak more properly) that in Scripture, or by Scripture alone, is not sufficiently proposed to us, any thing to be believed with divine and infallible faith, is evident, because all the Scriptures sufficient proposal a Sup c. 1●. sect. 1 dependeth on this, that itself is the word of God. And b Sup. c. 5. sect. 1. itself sayeth not anie where, that it is the word of God, and if it did anie where say it, that saying would require an other word of God to say the same of it, and so forward without end. And this is so clear, as Hooker l. 2. §. 4. Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 70. and 88 Potter sec. 5. and Chillingworth c. 2. do both grant it, and prove it, and likewise all other c Sup. c. 6. sect. 2. Protestants, who grant, that the light of the Scripture is not so great, that without the Church show it to us, we can see it. And indeed all Protestants should grant the same, who confess (as we related l. 1. c. 14.) that the preaching of the Church, is necessary to engender divine faith. For if that be necessary (as we have proved l. 1. c. 11. 12. 13. 14.) we cannot believe the Scripture to be the word of God before the Church preach it to us. 2. But it is against those Protestants who (as we related supra c. 6. sec. 1.) avouch, that Scripture in itself hath such and so much divine light, as by itself alone, it can be infallibly known to be the word of God. But beside, that this great light is denied by most of their fellows, as is showed c. 6. cit. sec. 2. and feigned without all sufficient ground (as shall hereafter appear) it may be clearly refuted. For as Laude loco cit. p. 7. sayeth well If this inward light were so clear, how could there have been any variety among the ancient Believers, touching the authority of S. james, and S. judes' epistle, and the Apocalypse? For certainly the light which is in the Scripture, was the same then, which is now. And I add: How could the Lutherans not see this light in S. james Epistle, as well as the Caluinists? Nether can it be pretended, that this is, because the Holy Ghost doth not sufficiently lighten their eyes, because this light may be seen even by natural reason, as Whitaker, Hooker, White and other taught supra c. 8. sec. 2. 3. Besides, this light (great or less) is not fit or apt to the end for which it was feigned. For it was feigned to defend, that belief, That Scripture is the word of God dependeth not on the testimony of the Church, but proceedeth of the Scripture itself. And clear light cannot cause belief Light causeth not faith, but sight or vision. (which is of things not appearing, Hebrews 11.) but only causeth certain knowledge or vision. And not light, but only authority, is the formal object of faith. For (as the Apostle sayeth: Faith is of hearing, not of sight. And S. Austin l. deutilitate Credendi c. 11.) That we believe, we own to authority. So that light, wanteth both the material object of faith, which is Things not appearing, Haebrae. 11. and also the formal object, which is Authority. And therefore Whitaker l. 2. de Script. p. 227. 319. 235. l. 1. p. 77. 116. 122. often times granteth, that though certain knowledge, (That the Scripture is the word of God) may be had without the testimony of the Church, yet denieth, that divine faith thereof can be had without the Churches preaching, because the Apostle sayeth plainly, How shall they believe without à Preacher? And, Faith is of hearing. And Potter sec. 5. p. 8. That Scripture is of divine authority, the Belever sees by that glorious beam of divine light, which shines in Scripture, and by many internal arguments found in the letter itself. So this light breedeth sight, not faith. Beside, How do Believers How do Believers se●. see? If therefore the Scripture can sufficiently propose nothing to be believed with divine faith, till itself be believed with divine faith to be the word of God (as is certain) the natural, knowledge or vision, which one may have, that the Scripture is the word of God without the Church's testimony, serveth not to the end, for which it was devised. Besides, I hope, they will not say, that their divine faith, That all that is in Scripture, is true, is resolved into natural Sup c. 8 se. 1. knowledge, That the Scripture is the word of God, as Chillingworth seemeth to say c. 2. p. 53. 72. For so the ground and foundation of divine and infallible faith, should be natural, humane, and fallible knowledge. Moreover, this internal light, is no word of God, but (at most) a quality of the word of God: and nothing can be the material object of divine faith and believed, but what is the word of God, or said of God; Wherefore either they must show, where God hath said, that Scripture is the word of God; or they can never believe it with divine faith; or they must say, that they can believe that with divinefaith, which God hath never said, which is most absurd. And into this absurdity, all Protestants must fall, who say, they believe with divine faith, that the Scripture is the word of God, and yet deny, that there is any unwritten word of God, which sayeth, That the Scripture is the word of God. d Sup. c. 5. sect. 2. For doubtless, there is no such written word, as themselves confess. 4. Moreover, this light (great or less) is either in the letter or words of the Scripture, or in the sense thereof. Some Protestants seem to say, that it is in the letter or words. For thus Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. p. 25 We believe the Scriptures, for the most divine character. P. 88 That they Scripture known by the words. are the Scriptures, is known by the stile and phrase. P. 104. The Scripture doth show à certain kind of divinity in the very words, phrase, and in all the form of the speech. And p. 113. That it came from God, is evident by the inscription, the hand, the seal, the things and all the letter●. And Contro. 1. q. 6 c. 9 As if by the very inscription to the Romans, it were not evident, that it is Paul's. And Laude sec. 16 p. 83. He that believes, resolves his last and full assent, That the Scripture is of divine authority, into internal arguments found in the letter itself. But beside that this internal light in the words of Scripture, is merely feigned, it is clearly refuted, because, so all men should see it, who can read the Scripture. And also, because the words of Scripture are such, as men first invented, and have no divine light in them. Likewise, if the light were only in the original letters of Scripture, as Hebrew, and Greek, no translated Scripture should have this light, and so none should know the Scripture to be God's word, but who know Hebrew and Greek. Moreover, both Fathers teach; and Protestants S. Hierom. Galat 1 Wh●t●ker l 2 cont. Dur. sec. 1. confess, that Scripture consisteth in the sense, not in the letter. or words of Scripture. As Wotton in Whites Defense c. 28. p. 259. denieth the words to be the Rule of faith. And White ibid. affirmeth; the matter contained in the words, so to be. Nay Whitaker himself l. 3. de Scrip. c. 4. p. 39●. sayeth, Nether do I put most certain divinity in the written letter. And surely writing or letters give no divine authority to God's word. For God's word is of the same authority, written and unwritten, as is evident, and Protestants confess. How then can writing or letters give any true light or brightness to God's word? Finally, I add, that e Sup l 1. c. 10. n. 6. faith cannot be resolved into arguments, because it is not discursive, but only into authority. For it is a simple assent to the saying▪ for the authority of the saier. And only the word of God, or which God hath said, can be believed with divine faith. And no collection or inference of man out of the character or letter of God, is God's word, and therefore cannot be the object or formal cause of divine faith. Nor is this feigned light in the sense of the Scripture, because then by it, we could not believe every part of the Scripture to be God's word For (as Protestants before confessed) it Sup. c. 2. sect. 2. were impudency and madness to say, that any know the true sense of every part of Scripture, which is believed to be God's word. S. Austin Epist. 119. professed, that there is more in Scripture, which he knew not, than which he knew. And Whitaker l. 2. de Script▪ p. 220. 235. sayeth; The Eunuch, though he understood not the Scriptures, yet he acknowledged them and certainly knew them to be divine. And l. 1. p. 156. God hath so framed his speech, that though pious men do not always clearly see what he speaketh, yet they clearly see by the very speech, that it is God who speaketh. What divine light of honesty, have those words to Osee, Take a fornicarian, and make sons of fornication? What divine light of humanity, have those words to Abraham: sacrifice thy son? what divine light of truth have those words, that Balaams' ass spoke to him? And the like of many more? 5. Furthermore, the Devisers of this sufficient internal light of the Scripture, are not well resolved, whether not withstanding this light, it need be proved infallibly, that Scripture is the word of God. For Laude sec. 16. p. 64▪ sayeth: It seems to m● very necessary, that we be able to prove the books of scripture to be the word of God, by some authority, that is absolutely divine. And ibid. p. 66. Scripture must be proved by some word of God. This is agreed on by me, that scripture must be known to be scripture, by a sufficient infallible divine proof, And that such proof can be nothing, but the word of God, is agreed also by me. Thus he confesseth, that notwithstanding any light in the Scripture, it must be infallibly proved to be the word of God, and that such proof can be none, but some word of God. Which if he would constantly hold, he must needs grant, that there is some unwritten word of God, by which the Scripture must be proved to be his word. Nevertheless himself soon after p. 104. sayeth, It is most But Protestants can not prove it so. reasonable, that Theologie should be allowed to have some principle, which she proves not, but presupposes; and the chiefest, of these is, Tat the scriptures are of divine authority. And the same he repeateth p. 110. Potter also sec. 5. p. 26. All Christians in the world confess the authority of scripture to be a Principle indemonstrable, yet are we by them (Papists) perpetually urged to prove that authority, and that by scripture. And Whitaker l 1. de Script. 106. What Pastor ever laboureth to prove that it is God, who speaketh in scriptures? He by his right, requireth, that this be granted to him. So that the chiefest principle of Protestants Theology, and that on which dependeth their belief of all they believe, cannot be infallibly proved, but must be praesupposed, and freely granted: and consequently, they can believe nothing infallibly, as Laude p. 64. cit. well inferred. For (as generally Protestant's teach) we Sup. l. 1. c. 18. n. 1. can have no greater certainty of the inference, than we have of the Principle out of which we infer it. And hereupon Chillingworth (as before we shown c. 8. sec. 2.) consequently granted, that Protestants have but humane and moral assurance of what they believe: And (as Laude sayeth sec. 16. p. 59) This question; how do you know scripture to be scripture? driveth some of them into infidelity. Such fruits they see come of their denying the Church's infallibility in all matters of faith. 6. Finally, this sufficient internal light of the Scripture (great or less) hath no sufficient ground. For the pretended ground thereof, is, that the Scripture is called a light psal. 118. To which I answer, First, That arguments taken from Metaphors Arguments taken from metaphors, are deceitful. or similitudes, are most subject to deceit, because the true similitude may be easily mistaken. Secondly, it is not said, that the scripture or Written word, and much less, All scripture, is a light, but simply: The word of God, which may be well understood, either of the word preached. Gal. 1. Without which there is no faith, Rom. 10. or of the engrafted word, which can save our souls. jacobi 1. or of the word written in the hearts of the faithful. Hierem. 31. Thirdly I say, that the word of God is called a light, not because it showeth Why Gods word called a light. itself to be the word of God, as light showeth itself to be light, but because it showeth the way to heaven. And therefore it is called a light to our feet, which can not see but follow. And in this sort job. 2. 29. sayeth: He was an eye to the blind, not that the blind could see him but follow his directions. The like I say to that other place 2. Petri, c. 1. Where he likeneth Prophetical speech to a lamp shining in a dark place. For nether speaketh he of all scripture, but only of Prophecies, nether likeneth he them to a lamp, in that this is seen by itself, but either because Prophecies gave but a darksome light of Christ, in respect of the Gospel, or because they directed to Christ, as a lamp directeth in a darksome room. In like sort, the Apostles were called the light of the world. Math. 5. Not because the world could see them to be Apostles of themselves, but because they gave to others the light of faith and piety And thus much for this first proof, that Scripture cannot sufficiently show itself to be the word of God, for want of the material object of divine faith, which is Gods saying, that it is his word. For God no where sayeth in Scripture, that Scripture is his word, and what God faith divine faith cannot believe. 7. An other argument to the same purpose, may be taken from the Scriptures not having in itself the formal object of faith, which is authority. For albeit Scripture in itself contain most divine and infallible verity, yet taken by itself, as it is such words, and such sense, it hath not proper authority, because Authority, is in an Author, and an Author is a Rational, or intellectual Person, saying something, which for his authority or credit, we believe. And Verity, which we believe, is in his speech, Authority or veracity, for which we believe is in his person. Likewise we cannot believe, but for some witness, who testifieth that, which we are to believe: and a witness, doubtless, is an intellectual person, distinct from his testimony, or that which he witnesseth. And Scripture is no intellectual person, but the testimony of God, who is supreme witness of it. Wherefore it is no formal cause of our belief, as a witness is, but only the material object, which is to be believed. Besides, the Character or stile of Scripture, or the doctrine or majesty thereof, being not authority or veracity, they cannot cause formal faith, or belief, but (at most) opinion or knowledge. For (as we have often repeated out of S. Austin) That we believe, we own to Authority. Which is so evident, as Whitaker l. 3 de Scriptura p. 408. sayeth, Faith relieth upon authority. Authority is the foundation of faith. And p. 509. To believe, some Authority is necessary. Wherefore well wrote Stapleton Contro. 3. q. 1. art. 2. The word of God itself (written or unwritten) is not of itself, and properly à mean to believe, but is that which is believed: Is not the formal object of faith, or any part thereof, but is the material object. For the word speaketh not but is heard by the voice of God, or of the Church speaking, and faith is of hearing the word of God. And therefore properly Scripturam credimus, non Scripturae. And in like manner, Potter sec. 7. p. 95. sayeth: The Creed contains only the material object of faith, not the formal. And yet it contains the words and sense of Scripture. Wherefore the Scripture itself contains not the formal object of faith, but only the material, which is divine verity. And when grave Authors attribute authority to Scripture, either they take authority for verity or credibility to be believed; or they speak figuratively, attributing by prosopopeia a person to the Scripture, as is usual, when men speak of writings, to speak of them, as if they were the writers. So we say, the Scripture speaketh, sayeth, teacheth, and such like, meaning, God by the Scripture doth so. Or else they take not Scripture by itself, but with the writer thereof. And so (no doubt) it hath authority, not in itself, but adjoined to it, to wit, as it is the Scripture of God, or word of God: But this authority is the increate authority of God himself, beside which, we must have (in ordinary course) à create authority for to believe with divine faith, and this create authority is not in the Scripture, but in the Church, and much less is in the Scripture Prima v●ritas, as Whitaker sayeth l. 3. de Scripturâ p. 485. & 509. For so it should not be a made or created thing but God himself. And hence appeareth, that Protestants beleuing, what they believe, merely because they find ●up. c. 11. ●ect. 1. it in Scripture, and making Scripture their formal and uttermost cause of their belief, have no formal faith, because they believe not for any formal authority or veracity, but for seeming verity of the things, which they find in Scripture; which seeming verity, may cause opinion, but not true and formal faith. But to admit, that the original hand writings of the Prophets and Apostles, known to be theirs, had authority sufficient to beget divine faith, how can mere copies of their writings, and those made by fallible men (as all Bible's now extant are made by ordinary writers or Printers) have Copies of authentical writings, are not authentical of themselves. such authority, unless they be signed or testified by some authentical person, that they are agreeable to the Originals? Are mere Copies of never so authentical writings, made by private men, but not testified by any of sufficient credit that they are agreeable to the originals, of sufficient credit to beget humane undoubted belief in any court of justice? And will we have mere copies of the Prophets or Apostles writings made by fallible and ordinary men, to be of themselves alone, of sufficient credit to beget divine faith? can not undoubted humane faith be gotten by such mere copies not attested by any authentical person; and can undoubted divine faith becaused by such? copies made by fallible men cannot reasonably be accounted infallible unless they be attested by some infallible person; and it is the attestation of the infallible person, which maketh them infallibly credible to us. Wherefore out of that which I have hitherto said, I argue What is only the material object of faith, is not the formal. thus in form. What is only thematerial object of faith, or is only believed, cannot be also the formal object of faith, and the reason of beleuing. That which is the word of God (written or unwritten) is only the material object of faith, and what is believed. Therefore it can not be also the formal object, and reason of beleuing. The Mayor is evident. The Minor I prove, because the word of God, taken by itself, hath no formal authority▪ And only formal authority, is the formal object of faith, and reason of beleuing. And here is the difference betwixt the word of God, and the Prophets, Apostles, and Church of God, that these have formal divine authority in themselves, and therefore are not only material objects of faith, and believed to be Prophets, Apostles, Difference between Scripture and Church. and Church of God, but also are formal external reasons of beleuing what they say themselves are, or what else they propose. 8. A third proof, that Scripture of itself cannot sufficiently propose itself to be the word of God, is, because the authority of the true Church, is the formal external cause, for which (in ordinary course) the Scripture is believed with divine faith to be the word of God. This is evident out of those places in Scripture, which we cited before l. 1. c. 11. and 12. which not only prove the necessity of the Churches preaching the Scripture to be God's word, for to be believed as such, but also prove the very authority of the Church to be necessary for to believe it. For faith is said to be of hearing of the word of God lawfully preached: The Church is called the pillar and ground of truth: she is accounted Gods witness, her voice, Christ's voice; her Pastors are accounted Gods Legates, and appointed by God to keep men constant in faith. All which do show, not only that the Churches preaching is necessary to believe, but that also her authority or testimony is necessary. And all authority or testimony, is a formal cause of belief, because That we believe Chilling. c. 1. n. 7. we owe to authority. And Protestants define faith to be an assent to divine Revelations, upon the authority of the Revealer. And doubtless, à Revealer is a living and intellectual person, not a dead letter Whitaker also (as I before cited) Authority is the foundation of faith. ●aith relieth upon authority. Hereupon S. Austin l. contra Epist. Fundam. c. 4. and 5. professeth, that authority held him in the Catholic Church. That Christ by miracles, got authority, and by Authority deserved belief. That religion can no way be rightly gotten, but by authority. And otherwhere, De vtil cred. c. 17. Epist. 5. 6. that in the Church is the height, the top, the castle of authority and that her authority is most firm. And l. 2. contra Crescon. c. 32. I receive not what Cyprian held of baptising heretics, because the Church doth not receive it. l. 2. de Doctrine. Christiana c. 8. The books of wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, are to be accounted Prophetical, because they have been admitted into authority. l. contra Epist. Fund. c. 5. Which books (of the Acts) I must needs believe, if I believe the Gospel because both Books, catholics authority doth alike commend unto me. In which places he plainly maketh the authority of the Catholic Church, a sufficient external cause of his belief, or not belief. 9 Reason also showeth the same. For if God would have us to believe his mysteries, it is most likely he would appoint on earth some external authority, subordinat to his supreme authority, for which we should believe them: Whereupon S. Austin l. de utilit. Credendi c. 16. said; If God have Providence of mankind, we ought not to despair, but that he hath appointed some authority, on which we relying, as on a sure step, may mount to God. And this authority he sayeth, is the authority of the Church. But the authority, on which we rely, is (doubtless) some formal cause of our belief. Protestants also sometimes confess the same. For thus Chillingworth c. 2. Scripture believed for the Church's authority. p. 96. It is upon the authority of universal tradition that we would have them believe Scripture. The same he hath p. 69. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 3. c. 7. We are forced by the Church's Forced to believe. authority, to believe these books to be Canonical. And if her authority can force us to believe, it is a sufficient cause of belief. And l. 1. de Script. p. 15. We may be forced by the authority of the Church, to acknowledge the Scripture. P. 72. The Church, is Mistress and Guide of our faith. P. 87. I am à Disciple of the Church, I acknowledge her my Mother. P. 46. We cannot believe, but by the testimony of the Church, as by the ordinary means. P. 62. We are led to believe, first by the authority of the Church. P. 68 I most willingly grant, the external judgement of the Church to be the help and means ordained by God, and necessary for us to engender, nourish and confirm faith. And l. 2. p. 234. The Authority of the Church, is a certain introduction to believe. P. 289. Catholic authority commending both books, Austin was necessarily induced to believe both books. The same we must do. For what book soever such authority shall commend to us, we must needs believe it. P. 320. I grant, the Scripture is to be received, because it is received of the Church, Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 2. The Church is a witness of holy writ. C. 5. By tradition Tradition convinceth. and authority of the Church, it may be convinced, which books be Canonical. C. 9 what other do all those Fathers prove, than that Scripture is to be received, because it was always received of the Church? And doth not, Because, give a cause of belief? And Hooker, Laude, Potter cited l. 1. c. 14. grant, that the testimony of the present Church, is the key or door that lets men into the Scripture, Laud Relat. sec. 16. p. 102. even to this knowledge of them, that they are the word of God. And Spalatensis and Chillingworth c. 10. libri primi, add, that such a book cannot be known to be Canonical Scripture, but by the testimony of the Church. But authority, testimony, judgement, are formal causes of belief; And if Protestants do think, that the authority S●p. l. 1. c. 14. of the Church is no formal cause of faith, why should they teach, that the Churches preaching, is necessary to faith, and that the preaching, teaching, or proposing by private men, would not suffice? For private men may propose, all the Church proposeth, only they cannot propose any thing with such authority. 10. And hence appeareth evidently that the true Church and her authority, must always (in ordinary course) be believed before Scripture because her authority is the formal external cause of the belief of the Scripture. And also that falsely wrote Whitaker l. 2. de Scrip. p. 235. The Church hath no authority in matters of faith. Ibid. p. 228. The testimony of the Church is no cause of faith And l. p. 122. The So Laud Relat. sec. 1. p. 117. Taude sec. 16. p. 106. Scripture is now the only sufficient means to believe. And Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 18. Faith doth not depend upon the authority of the Church. And ibid. c. 20. The Scripture is more manifest, than the Church. And Chillingworth c. 2. p. 57 we say, every man is to choose his religion first, and then his Church. For beside what we have proved, Whitaker himself hath granted, That the authority of the Church is an introduction to faith, That we are first led to believe by her authority, and that her So laude sec. 16. p. 89. Hooker l. 2. §. 7. Potter sect. 5. testimony is the ordinary and necessary means to engender faith, That her authority causeth faith: and therefore her authority must first of all be believed, because it is an introduction, à first leader, à necessary means to engender faith or (as others say) the key or door, to faith. 1●. And out of that, which hath been said in this Chapter, is easily solued that question: why is tradition Why Traditionerodible of itself, a●d not Scripture. of itself Credible, and not Scripture? I answer, That if we speak of tradition materially, that is, of the doctrine, which we have by tradition, that is no more credible of itself, then is the doctrine, which we have by the Scripture. For example, the doctrine of seven Sacraments, which we have by tradition, is no more credible of itself, than any other point of faith, which we have by Scripture: But if we speak formally of Tradition, as it is an act of the Church, that is of itself credible, because that includeth the delivery of doctrine by the lively or living voice of the Church. Which voice of the Church, is evident to us, and her authority maketh the doctrine, which she delivereth, credible. But the Scripture is delivered to us by dead letters, and it is not evident to us, that the Prophets or Apostles were the Enditers of those letters: and therefore it hath not their authority adjoined to it, as the voice of the Church hath her authority adjoined to it: and so the Scripture, not having the authority of the Authors thereof so annexed to it, as Tradition hath the authority of the Church, it can not be so credible of itself. Hence also is answered that question, which Chillingworth in his Answer to the Preface n. 25. p. Chillingwort the question answered. 18. and c. 3. p. 162. sayeth, He desired to be resolved by many of our side, but never could, to wit: why an implicit faith in Christ and in his word, should not suffice, as well as implicit faith in our Church. Because it implieth, that (in ordinary course) there should be divine faith in Christ and in his word, without faith in his Church. Christ and his word, include not all that is necessary (in ordinary course) to divine faith, because faith is of hearing à lawful Preacher Rom. 10. But faith in his Church includeth all that is (in ordinary course) necessary to divine faith. For we can not believe in Christ's Church, but we must believe in Christ's and in his word: Heretics say, they believe in Christ and in his word, but that will not suffice them, because they do not believe Vhosoever belove in Christ Church believe in Christ, but not contrariwise. also in his Church: But whosoever believe in his Church, believe in him, but not contrariwise, whosoever believe in Christ (so as Heretics do) believe also in his Church, wherefore implicit faith in Christ's Church may suffice, because that necessarily concludeth faith in Christ: but all kinds of faith in Christ (as that of Heretics) doth not include faith in his Church. 12. As for the authority of Fathers, to prove, that the Scripture of itself without the attestation of the Church, can propose nothing sufficiently to be believed with divine faith, it may suffice, what before l. 1. c. 7. we cited out of S. Basil, that Scripture, without tradition of the Church, would have no force, but be like a bare letter: and out of S. Austin, that he could not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Church were weakened, And as for Protestants confessions, it may also suffice, what we cited out of them l. 1. c. 14. and here l. 2. c. 5. and 6. That the Church is a necessary introduction, the key the door, which lets us into the knowledge of the Scripture. And c. 5. That we cannot refel schismatics, or Heretics, who deny the Scripture, out of Scripture. For if the Church, be such evident itis, that without the Church, the Scripture cannot be believed to be God's word; and till it be believed to be God's word, it can not sufficiently propose any thing to us, to be believed with divine faith. FIFTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture (though believed to be God's word) doth not sufficiently propose to men all points of faith. 1. THat Scripture (though believed to be God's word) doth not sufficiently propose to us all points of faith, is evident. First, because, (as is proved in the former Chapter) it doth not at all propose to us this point of faith, That itself is the wodr of God, which yet is a point of a Confess. Angl. art. 6. Gall. art 3 Belg. art 4. faith necessary to be believed, yea in the b Sup. c. 11. sec. 1. Protestants opinion, the chiefest point of all, as on which dependeth their belief of all the rest. If any object, that the Scripture, being believed to be God's word, it need not propose itself to be God's word: I answer, that I speak not, what the Scripture need not do, but what it doth not. Caluin 1. Instit. c. 7. & 8. where he endeauoreth to prove Scripture to be God's word, bringeth no word of God to prove it, but proveth it out of the qualities of Scripture, to wit, dignity, verity, conformity, antiquity and such like. And so doth Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 3 c. 3. and yet there confesseth, c Item l. 1. de Sript p 21. that these arguments cannot persuade these books to be Canonical. And the same sayeth Caluin c. 7. cit. § 4. And what cannot persuade, doth not sufficiently propose to make beleif. For belief cannot be without persuasion. Besides these arguments make not faith, but science. 2. Secondly, the Scripture itself sayeth; There are some necessary traditions, not written. 2. Thessalon. 2. v. 15. Hold the traditions, which you have learned, either by speech, or by our Epistle. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 10. confesseth, that Protestants answer diversely, whose answers, because himself refuteth, we will for brevity's sake omit. His answer is, that d So Pe●kins Cath Refor. cont. 7. c. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 Barom. An. 53. there were some necessary traditions not written, when this Epistle was written. Let Whitaker show as plain testimony of Scripture, that all was written after. You must prove as plainly out of Scripture, as we prove, as Tertullian said to Praxeas c. 11. Secondly, because the Fathers, as S. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophilact, upon this place, S Basil, l de Spiritu Sancto. c 29. S. Epiphanius haeresi 61. and S. Damascen. l. 4. de fide c. 17. out of this place do prove, that even in their times, there were necessary traditions not written. 3. Thirdly, because there are divers points of faith, which nether are expressly in Scripture, nor can be evidently and necessarily inferred out of it: But for brevity's sake, I will speak of one only, which is the perpetual virginity of our Blessed Lady. For that is a point of faith, as is clear, Perpetual Virginity of our B. Lady, a point of faith. because both jovinian, and Heluidius were condemned as Heretics for denying it, as is evident out of S. Ambrose Epist. 7. S. Epiphanius haeresi 78. S. Hierom. l. contra Heluidium, S. Austin haeresi 84. Gennadius l. de Ecclesiast. dogmat. c. 68 And doth any now know, what is a point of faith, or what is true heresy, better than all these Fathers? Nay then all the Church of their time, which condemned, partly tacitly, partly openly, the aforesaid Heretics? S. Basil homil. de humana generatione Christi, sayeth: The ears of those, who love Christ, cannot suffer to here, that the Mother of God at any time left to be a Virgin. S. Epiphanius loc. cit. calleth it Blasphemous. And Confessed by Protestants divers Protestants confess this to be a point of faith. For the Bohemian confession professeth to believe, art. 17. That our Lady was a Virgin before and after her childbirth. Protestants in Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 10. p. 318. Who denies it (her perpetual Virginity) is an heretic Zuinglius serm. de B. Virgin Maria to. 1. fol. 350. I believe with firm and undoubted mind, the pure, chaste, and unspotted Virgin, brought forth Christ, yet so, as without any spot of Chastity, she remained a Chaste Virgin for ever. Luther l. de votis, to. 2. fol. 272. If any deny Marry vas à Virgin, he is damned. Beza in his confession of faith c. 3. sec. 3. professeth, that she was a Virgin after her Childbirth And why put he it into his confession of faith, if he believed it not to be a point of faith? Whitaker also Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 9 dares not deny it plainly: For being pressed with this argument, he sayeth: It belongeth not to me to dispute of the perpetual Virginity of Marie. Field l. 3. of the Church c. 30. If these were the opinions of ●ouinian: That Marie ceased to be a Virgin, when she had born Christ and that all sins are equal: we condemn them, and his error therein, as much, as the Romanists do. Nether can Protestants deny it, if they will observe the definition of Heresy, which sometimes, they give, to wit, Error against the doctrine of the Church. For Beza de puniendis Haeret. p. 150. Moulins l. 1. cont. Peron. c. 7. Potter sect. 2. p. 55 See sup. l. 〈◊〉. 10. that the perpetual Virginity of our B Lady, is the doctrine of the Church is evident by the aforesaid Fathers, Greek, and Latin, in the East, West, and South. Nether have they any reason to deny it, besides their own error, That nothing is of faith, but what is expressly in Scripture, or may be evidently deduced of it. Now, that this is nether expressed, nor evidently collected ou● of Scripture, granteth Perkins Cathol. Refut. Contro. 7. c. 1. I find not in holy Scripture, that Marie remained always a Virgin, and died a Virgin. And all Protestants must grant, because most of them deny it to be a point of faith: as Beza Apologia altera contra Saintem p. 355. Academia Nemausiensis contra jesuit. Tornan p. 566. Feild l 4. de Eccles. p. 240. Rivet Contro. tract. 1. 1. sec. 20. junius Contro. 1. l. 4. c. 9 To this point of faith, I add the question of Schism, which (as Plessie cited supra c. 5. sec. 2. confessed) cannot be decided by Scripture, because it is a matter of fact, of which the Scripture speaketh not. And yet schism is as necessary to be decided, as heresy, because that is as well damnable, as this 4. As for the Fathers, they so plainly and directly say there are traditions not written, as for brevity's sake, I will omit their words, and relate the confessions of Protestants Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. vlt. p. 415. I confess, the Fathers speak much of traditions— The Fathers were sometimes deceived— we grant, that the Fathers defended traditions Ibid. c. 12. I grant, that Ireneus appealed from Scripture to Apostolical traditions So Perkins. — it is clear, he was deceived with traditions. P. 389. Eusebius his testimony (for traditions) is plain enough, but no way to be admitted. Ibid. It is clear, that Basil was too much addicted to traditions. Ibid. Damascen was too much given to traditions. P. 391. Chrysostomus saying (for tradition) is Morton Appeal. p. 315 unadvised, and unworthy of so great a Father.— I do not acknowledge this his tradition. Ibid. Epiphanius was too much delighted with traditions— He allows indeed Apostolical Seultettom. 2. c. 19 20. traditions. P. 392. Let us not regard, what Cyprian, sayeth (of tradition) P. 393. All is not to be admitted, which Ambrose sayeth (of traditions) Ibid. Ether Austin speaketh of unnecessary traditions, or he contradicteth himself. P. 394. Innocentius Primus erred in his traditions. Thus he Kemnitius 1. part Exam. tit. de Traditionibus p. 140. Excellent men in the Church, besides Scripture, gave too much to traditions. P. 141. The admiring of traditions not written, drew many good and excellent men in the Church, from the wholesome rule of faith. And that was done in the first and best times of the Church— soon after the Apostles, traditions beg an to be thrust upon the Church. This opinion remained, and stuck in their successors, as in Clement. P. 142. Even good men in the Church, were deceived by too great esteem of not-written traditions. P. 143. Admiration of not-written traditions, deceived good and great men in the Church— Even in the best times of the Primitive Church admiration of not-written traditions, could draw most excellent men from the rule of faith. Reinolds thesi 1. Basil and Epiphanius, assaying all sorts of helps against Heretics, will have certain things to be contained in traditions, whereto, by the judgement of the Scripture itself, there must be no less credit given, then to Scripture. Perkins in his problem c. de Tradit, some Father's inclining to heretics, did embrace traditions not-written. And he reakoneth S. justin, S. Ireney, Clement Alexandrin, Eusebius, Tertullian. And ibid. sayeth: The Fathers oftentimes speak contradictions about tradition. 5. Surely the Father's testimonies for necessary traditions, must needs be evident, which have forced thes learned and earnest Protestants to confess, that the Fathers avouch such kind of traditions, as they reject, whereas no one learned Catholic ever granted, that the Fathers rejected such kind of traditions, as they defend. Nether can Protestants produce one testimony of any Father, which expressly or directly denieth such traditions: But Protestants infer it out of some Father speeches of the perfection of Scripture, and of its containing all things necessary; which inference is naught: For the perfection of Scripture and its containing all things necessary, may well stand with traditions as we shall see hereafter. 6. Nay Protestants themselves are Protostants admit some traditions. forced to admit some necessary tradition not written. Brentius in Prolegomenis contra Sotum c. de traditionibus; We grant, that the tradition wherewith the holy Scripture, and what is contained in it, is delivered unto us by our Ancestors, is certain, firm, and undoubted: this tradition is necessary to us, and in all manner to be embraced. Kemnitius part 1. exam. tit. de Traditionibus p. 113 This tradition by which the books of the holy Scripture are given into our hands, we reverently receive.— The Fathers, where they deliver this tradition of the books of Scripture, prove it by the testimonies of the Primitive Church. Morton to. 1. Apol. l. 1. c. 32. after he had rehearsed the v words of Brentius of the tradition of Scripture, sayeth: This Lady, and as it were Goddess of all traditions, Protestants reverence, more than you (Papists) And to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 5. The true Canon of Scriptures, we must honour and reverence, as the Queen, and plainly Goddess of traditions. And l. 1. c 36. relateth the foresaid words of Brentius and alloweth them. Feild of the Church l 4. c. 20. Though we reject the uncertain and vain traditions of the Papists, yet we receive the number and names of the Authors of books divine and Canonical, as delivered by tradition— The number, authors, and integrity of the parts of these books (of Scripture) we receive as delivered by Integrity of Scripture believed by Tradition. tradition. Bel in his Downfall art. 7. p 134. We receive this tradition (that the Scripture is the word of God) p. 135. And so this tradition, is not excepted, but virtually included in our affirmation. Moulins of Traditions c. 3. and 2●. we reject not all traditions, for Scripture itself is a tradition. Carleton in Consensu de Scriptura c. 9 I will say freely what I think. I think there are some Apostolical traditions ever conserved, and to be conserved in the Church. For Austin said not in vain: what the whole Church observeth etc. So he proved Baptism of Infants to be an Apostolical tradition, so also before him, Origen. From Apostolical traditiou, we received the true Canon of Scripture, and the true sense of the Canon. From hence the Church doth celebrate the Lord's day. Canon and sense of it received by Tradition. Aretius' loco 33. calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Apostles Creed: what books are Canonical: which is the true exposition of scripture. Item. Universal traditions necessary to be observed, are the Apostles Creed, which books be Canonical, which is the true exposition of the chiefest places of scripture. Laud Relat sec. 16. p. 104. when the Fathers say, we are to rely upon scripture only, they are never to Note this. be understood with exclusion of Tradition, in what case soever it may be had, not, but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient, in, and to itself, for all things, but because it is deep, and may be drawn into different senses, and so mistaken, if any man will presume upon his own strength, and go single without the Church. sec. 11. p. 44. Some traditions I deny not, true and firm, and of great both authority and use in the Church, as being Apostolical. And why is not the Church's tradition concerning Scripture, one of these? Ibid. As for that tradition, That the books of holy Scripture, are divine. I will handle that hereafter. And sec. 16. cit. p. 81. Against this tradition, That the books of Scripture are the word of God, the Church of England never excepted. Sess 15. p. 57 It is not denied, that this (baptism of infants) is an apostolical tradition, and therefore (note) to be believed. Protestants in Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 11. Our adversaries bring that tradition (of Scripture) of which there is no Controversy at all among us. And sess. 1. We grant, that Moses' books are Moses, that this is a tradition by the testimony of the Church, which could witness, that Moses' books were put into the Ark. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 45. The Canon of Scripture, as we receive it, is built upon universal tradition. The Canon is built upon universal Tradition. Universal Tradition, rule of Controversies. §. 155. Universal tradition, is the Rule to judge all Controversies by. §. 114. It is upon the authority of universal tradition, that we would have them believe Scripture. And though sometimes he teach, that this universal tradition is but humane and fallible, and consequently Supra c. 2. sect. 2. grant his faith of the Scripture, and all that is in it, is but humane and fallible (as we have seen before) yet c. 3. n. 45. he avoucheth it to be as infallible as the Scripture. For thus he writeth; you were to prove the Church infallible, not in her traditions, which we willingly grant (if they be as universal as the tradition of the undoubted books of Scripture is) to Universal tradition, as infallible a● Scripture. be as infallible as the Scripture is. Ibid. §. 46. If you can of any thing make it appear, that it is tradition, we will seek no farther Hooker also l. 3 § 8. If Infidels or Atheists chance at any time to call it (Scripture) in question, this giveth us occasion to sift, what reason there is, whereby, the testimony of the Church concerning scripture, and our own persuasion, which scripture itself hath confirmed, may be proved a truth infallible. Lo! the Church's testimony, is a truth infallible. And we may rest our assurance upon a truth infallible; and such is more, than an inducement to faith. Brentius also in the words afore cited, sayeth the Church's tradition concerning Scripture is certain, firm and undoubted. And Morton sayeth, Protestants reverence it, as it were the Goddess of traditions. 7. Moreover they grant, that it is a point of faith, That scripture, or the Bible, is the word of God, and as such, it is put in their Confessions of faith. Nay Hooker l. 1. § 14. sayeth: Of Anglica art. 6. Gallica art. 3. Belgica art. 4. things necessary, the very chiefest is to know, what books we are bound to esteem holy. l. 3. §. 8. The main principle, whereupon our belief of all things therein contained, is, that the scriptures Protestants main Principle. are Oracles of God himself. Laud Relat. sec. 11. §. 2. calleth it, prime principle of faith sec. 16. §. 2. Great principle in Divinity. §. 6. Great principle of faith, the ground and proof of whatsoever is of faith. P. 104. Chiefest principle. P. 110. Main principle of Divinity Chillingworth c. 2. §. 11. First principle. Whitaker l. 2. de Scriptura p. 218. It is most of all necessary, that the certain Canon of scriptures be undoubted among Christians. Usher's Rejoinder p. 63 Of all things, this is most sure, and aught to be believed, that the scripture is the word of God. But this most necessary, most sure, this prime, this great, this main point of faith, is no written word of God. For thus Laude sec. 16. p. 70. There is no place in scripture, which tells us, that such books, containing such and such particulars, are the Canon and infallible will and word of God. Hooker l, 1. §. 14. Being persuaded by other means, that these Scriptures are the Oracles of God, Note. themselves do then teach us the rest. l. 4. §. 4. It is not the word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure us, that we do well, to think it is in his word. White in his Way p. 48. The certainty of the Scripture, is not written indeed with letters in any particular place or book thereof. And I hope it is not written with cyphers. See more of their like Confessions supra c. 5. sec. 2. 8. And yet Hooker l. 5. §. 21. sayeth, We have no word of God, but the Scripture. No word of God for their main Principle. Whitaker Contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. We acknowledge no other word, then written: what doctrine soever is not written, that we say is bastard. Beza in Rom. 1. v. 17. Christians acknowledge no other object of faith, but the written word of God Perkins in his Reform. Cath. Contro. 20. c. 2. We acknowledge the only written word of God. Wherefore either there is some point of faith, nay the chiefest point of all, an unwritten word of God: or this point; That the scripture is the word of God, is no point of faith with Protestants: Which Chillingworth c. 2. § 4. seemeth plainly to teach, where he sayeth: The controversies, wherein the scripture itself is the subject of the question, cannot be determined but by natural reason. §. 32. The scripture is none of the material objects of our faith. Scripture no material object of faith. §. 51. Tradition (by which Scripture is known) is a Principle, not in Christianity, but in reason. §. 159. God requireth of us under pain of damnation, only to believe the verities therein contained, not the divine authority of the books wherein they are contained. And the same insinuate Whitaker, Hooker, and White cited supra c. 8. sec. 2. Who say, that Scripture may be known by reason and light of nature to be the word of God. So that the most necessary, most sure, prime, great, main ground of Protestants faith, is a principle of natural reason, and no object of divine faith, or which we are bound to believe under pain of damnation. Surely I see not, how Protestants can make agree these two main points of their doctrine: There is no word of God unwritten, necessary to be believed and, That scripture is the word of God, is a word of God unwritten, necessary to be believed. The first is the common doctrine of all Protestants, who therefore deny, that there is any tradition, that is word of God unwritten, necessary to be believed, and say, the Scripture is the perfect and entire rule of faith, containing all, that is necessary to be believed. The second also is their usual doctrine. For that with them it is a word of God: That the Scripture is the word of God, is evident both because they put the Canon of Scripture in their Confessions of faith, as a part of their belief, and Sup n. 7. also because Laude loco cit. calleth it a prime principle of faith; And Usher; That of all things, this aught to be believed. And seeing they say, their belief of all other points dependeth on this, I suppose, they will not deny this to be a point of faith, or God's word, and say it is but a humane principle, or word of man. That this point is not written is evident. For no where it can be showed: and also because Laude, White and others cited supra c. 5. sec. 2 confess, that it is not where written in Scripture. And if it were any where written, we could prove Scripture by itself, which Whitaker, Feild, Hooker, Covel, Chillingworth, and others cited c. 5. do deny. And that they account this point necessary to be believed, I need not prove, because they account it the most necessary of all, and on which dependeth whatsoever else they believe. 9 An other proof, that the Scripture doth not sufficiently propose all points of faith, may be taken from the Protestants confession, That they cannot deduce most of their points of faith, in which they differ from us, out of Scripture by any necessary Inference; but by adding to Scripture some humane principle As they cannot infer out of that saying of Scripture: Do this in Commemoration of me, that the Eucharist is not substantially the body of Christ, but by adding this humane principle, A Commemoration cannot be substantially the thing which is commemorated. And the like will appear in their proof of other their points of faith, if they be brought into syllogistical form. And how can that be said to propose See Whites. 〈◊〉. 16 p. 138. sufficiently all points of faith, which doth but partly propose them and needeth the addition of another How can it be called the perfect rule of faith which needeth addition? seening we have showed before out of the Fathers, and their own confession, that a Rule needeth no addition. C. 5. sect. 2. Nay how can they say, they believe those conclusions, as points to be infallibly believed, which they being fallible men, do also infer partly out of fallible and humane principles? seeing (as Laude sayeth sec. 16. §. 3.) This is an inviolable See him sect. 19 p. 125. ground of reason, That the principle of any conclusion, must be of more credit, than the conclusion itself. And the same say Whitaker Contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. l. 〈◊〉. de Script. p. 166. 392. 416. Potter sec. 5. p 14. 15 33. 40 Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 37. Chillingworth Fallible Principles can never produce an infallible conclusion. c. 2. p. 57 and others commonly. Thus have we proved, that Scripture doth not sufficiently propose all points of faith: now we will prove, that it doth not propose to all men. SIXTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture doth not sufficiently propose points of faith to all men capable of external proposal. 1. THat Scripture doth not sufficiently propose points of faith to all men, who are capable of external proposal, is evident in the blind, and those who cannot read. For the blind cannot so much as see the letters of the Scripture, and those who cannot read, cannot see their signification, or what they signify: Therefore Scripture of itself doth propose nothing sufficiently unto them. If any answer, that Scripture may be read to them, and so propose sufficiently to them, I reply: First, that if Scripture cannot propose to them but by some others reading of it, of itself alone it cannot propose, and so can be no Rule of faith to them, because a Rule needeth no help to direct. And yet White in his Defense c. 24. p. 105. saith; This Rule (of faith) is of such nature, as it is able to direct all men, yea the simplest and vnlea●nedest aline. Secondly, that according to Protestants, all men are fallible, and may read wrong, either of purpose or of ignorance. And the Scriptures proposal were not infallible, if it used a fallible help. Surely the blind or ignorant men, can have no greater assurance, then moral, that the Reader readeth true. For what divine infallible assistance can he be thought to have in reading true? And it were madness to say, he hath divine assistance in reading true, and to deny that the true Church of God hath the like assistance in teaching true. 2. And (as D. Potter sayeth sec. 5. p. 7.) The assent of divine faith is absolutely divine, which requires an object and motive so infallibly true, as that it nether hath nor can possibly admit any mixture of error or falsehood. And he should have said; it cannot possibly admit any mixture of fallibility. And doubtless any particular man's reading, is fallible: How then can the blind or ignorant men have faith, absolutely divine, whose motive is God's word read by a particular fallible man? If any answer, that Reading, to them is but à condition of their beleuing, but the whole motive, is God's word, which is written: I reply, First, that their belief dependeth upon this condition, and how can infallible faith depend upon à condition, which is fallible? Secondly, that thus the word Read, and not, Written, must be the formal cause of their belief: And so Scripture is not the formal cause of their faith: For Scripture is only the word written. I ask therefore, what is the external formal cause of the blind and ignorant men's belief of that which is in Scripture? For some such external cause there must be, as Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. c. 6. p. 64. Potter and others grant; not the doctrine itself: For that is the material object of their faith, and the thing, which is believed. Nor the writing of it, or letters of the Scripture. For that they perceive or understand not: Nor the Reading, For that is fallible. 3. If any say, that the doctrine is both the material and formal cause of their belief, because it is credible for itself. I reply: First, that this credibility for itself, or internal light in the doctrine, is feigned and refuted heretofore, in that we said before c. 14. of the Scripture. Secondly, that assent to doctrine for itself, cannot be faith, because faith is an assent for authority of some that proposeth doctrine. Thirdly, that thus Scripture or writing, is no formal cause of belief (as Protestants said before c. 11. sec. 1.) but merely doctrine is that cause, and that writing is but a conserver, or pointer to divine doctrine, but no cause at all of beleuing it. Let them then not say, that Scripture is the principal external formal cause of their beleuing, what they believe; but confess, that Scripture, or writing of divine doctrine, serves them to no more, then Reading serves the blind or ignorant, who, as they have the same faith, which the learned, so must they have the same external formal cause of faith, which they have: but that all the formal cause of their beleuing what they find in Scripture, is the internal light of the doctrine itself, and that they have no external formal cause of their belief of it; and that writing or reading of it, doth but point to the verity or light of the doctrine, as they say of the Church's testimony of the Scripture, that it doth but point at the word of God, which is to destroy all formal faith, which is an assent for authority, and to become Enthusiasts and to make all Christian doctrine ridiculous to Infidels, in telling them, that Christians have no external formal cause, why they believe, either the Scripture to be written by God's inspiration, or that which is in it, to be God's doctrine, beside the Scripture or doctrine itself. And that, as the Church doth but point to the divinity of the Scripture, but is no formal cause of our beleuing it to be divine: So the Scripture doth but point at the divinity of the doctrine which it containeth, but is no formal cause of beleuing it to be divine doctrine. Nether can they give a good reason, why they should say, that God's writing should be credible of be credible of itself to be God's writing, and need only the Churches pointing to it for to believe, that it is God's writing; and that God's doctrine should not be credible of itself to be his doctrine, and need only the Scriptures pointing to it, that it is his doctrine. For why should not God's doctrine be as credible of itself, to be his writing? And so all external formal causing of belief is gone, and only pointing to the object of beleeif, is left. And Protestants must not say: that they believe any thing, because it is in Scripture, but only pointeth to what they believe, as they say, they believe not Scripture to be the word of God, because the Church testifieth, that it is so, but for itself, being pointed to by the Church. See Chillingworth supra c. 11. sec. 2. SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER. That the Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in all times, when faith was had. 1. THat Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in all times, when points of faith were believed, is evident: For there was no Scripture till Moses, and yet therewas true faith ever before since Adam. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 7. I grant, that there is no Scripture ancienter than Moses books, and that religion remained pure all that time without Scripture. Ibid. c. 16 I grant, that God from Adam to Moses, kept Religion kept by tradition more than 2000 years. doctrine delivered by living voice, that is traditions not written. Item c. 7. cit. Some barbarous men for a time wanted Scripture: For a time doctrine may be kept entire without writing. Item q. 3. c. 10. I grant there was a time when the word was not written, and then was the Church. Kemnice 1. part Exam. tit. de Scriptura p. 14. From the beginning of the world for 2450. years, heavenly Moulins of Tradition c. 17. doctrine, by divine voice revealed, was proposed, and from hand delivered, without Scripture divinely inspired. And ibid. p. 41. It is clear, that the Apostles for some first years delivered and spread Apostolic doctrine, without any writing of theirs, by only lively voice. 2. Chillingworth c 2 n. 159. Ireneus tells us of some barbarous Nations, that believed the doctrine of Christ, and yet believed not the Scripture to be the word of God: For they never heard of it, and faith comes of hearing. 3. Davenant de judice c. 5. We grant that before Moses, the word of God Before Moses, Tradition was sufficient. not written, and propagated to Posterity by continual tradition, was a sufficient Rule of faith. Rainolds Conclus. 1. God revealed his will without writing to Adam, and from Adam's time, till Moses. 4. And was the Church of God, for 2400. years before Christ, infallible in all points of faith, and is she not after Christ, infallible in the most fundamental point of all concerning Scripture? was the tradition of the Church for all that time, an infallible rule of faith, and it is not now? Is the Church since Christ's Hebr. 7. time, of worse condition, than it was then? or did men in that time, ordinarily believe either without some external means or motive, (which is Prophetical and miraculous) or did they believe infallibly for the tradition of the Church at that time which was fallible? Whitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 64. sayeth: We ask which is that external cause, for which we must believe: For there must Some external cause infallible. be some external cause, seeing faith is not bred in us, nor produced of the Holy Ghost, without external causes, unless miraculously, and is of hearing. And l. 3. c. 10. p. 415. As the Doctrine and religion which we profess, is heavenly and divine, such also must be the reason and authority of beleuing. And ibid. c. 4. p. 392. Our faith must rely upon an external a Chilling. c. 1. n. 7. Laud sect. 33 p. 2. 8 Field l. 4. c. 7. infallible means, and which is an external infallible means, causeth faith. Potter sec. 5. p. 7. The assent of divine faith is absolutely divine, which requires an object and motive so infallibly true, as that it nether hath, nor can possibly admit any mixture of error or falsehood. And what external means had men to believe ordinarily, before there was Scripture, but the Church? For what external infallible cause, did they believe, but for the Church? or was the belief of every man for those 2400. years, Prophetical or miraculous, without any external infallible motive or cause? What motive so infallibly true, as that it could not possibly admit any mixture of error or falsehood, had the ordinary Believers, before there was any Scripture, beside the Church? EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in all places, where faith was had. 1. THis is evident by the testimony of S. Ireney, who l. 3. c. 4. sayeth, that in his time, many Barbarous Nations believed in Christ, Augustin l. 1. de Doctr. Christ. c. 39 without letters or ink. which made Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 7. to confess, that some Barbarous men for a time, wanted Scriptures, and that for a Scripture not simply necessary. time, doctrine may be conserved entire without writing, and that hence is rightly concluded, that Scripture is not simply necessary. And l. 1. de Script. c 14. sec. 4. p. 159. Those Barbarians, of whom Ireney speaketh, who had salvation written in their hearts, were indeed true Christians, though they knew not Scripture: But (sayeth he) they were not simply ignorant of the Scripture, because they held the doctrine of the Scripture. But I reply, that Scripture and doctrine of Scripture, are different, and relatively opposite. Moreover, the doctrine of Scripture is no Proposer to believe, but the thing proposed to be believed. And we speak of the Proposer of points of faith, not of points of faith, or doctrine of faith proposed: Though therefore these Barbarians believed the doctrine, which is in Scripture, yet they believed not it by means of Scripture. We therefore ask, by what infallible external means, they believed it, if not by the Church? For some infallible means they must have had to believe in ordinary course, as Whitaker and Potter cited in the former Chapter confess, and is evident: And howsoever the doctrine or sense of the Scripture, may be said to be the Scripture, because it is the more principal part of Scripture; yet in this question of the Proposer of points of faith, it ought not to be meant by the word Scripture, because the doctrine of Scripture, is the points of faith, and is that, which is to be sufficiently proposed and believed; and so it is not the Proposer, but the Proposed. Wherefore Whitaker So also White in his Way p. 2●. and in his Defensep. 259. loco iam citato, and Contro. 1. q. 3. c. 10. equivocateth: For when Catholics argue, that the Church is ancienter than Scripture, because it was before any Scripture; Or that Scripture is not necessary to faith, because divers Nations believed without Scripture, he answereth, that the Church is not ancienter than the word of God, None believed without knowledge of that doctrine, which is in Scripture: For Scripture is Whitaker Contr. 2 q. 5. c. 19 Praedicatio, & verbum ●c iptum, ratione differuns. not the word of God, or doctrine of God, simply taken, but the word or doctrine of God, written. Wherefore it is a Sophism à Coniunctis ad divisa, to speak of God's word simply, when he should speak of God's word written: For Catholics speak of the word or doctrine of God written, not simply taken; and confess, that the word of God simply taken, is ancienter than the Church; and that none can believe without this doctrine, because it is that, which is to be believed. And they ask, what is the infallible external cause, for which this doctrine, or word of God was believed of those Barbarians, seeing that could not be the letter of God, or the Scripture, which they had not. Ether therefore they believed the word of God, and doctrine of Scripture, for no external infallible cause, and so they believed miraculously and extraordinarily: or they believed it for the infallible authority of the Church. When therefore Whitaker sayeth, that Scripture is the L. 1 de Scrip. c. 11. sec. 1. Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 9 14. Caluin 1 Instit. c. 6. §. 2. Vide supra c. 5. sec. 1. only sufficient means to believe, either he meaneth by Scripture, the letter of Scripture, or the sense; if the letter, those Barbarians had not, nor blind and ignorant men, have that means to believe: if the sense, that is not the means to believe but the object to be believed; and we ask, what is the infallible external means for to believe this sense. For (as Whitaker sayeth l. 1. de Script. p. 151.) We seek some external means, for which we believe the Scripture. And Contro 2. q. 4. c. 3. To interpret Scripture without means, is Enthusiastical, Anabaptistical, and extraordinary; For the spirit now teacheth only by means, and such as the means are, such must needs be the Interpretation. 2. Protestants Confessions, that all things which are to be believed, are not in Scripture, are related supra c. 5 sec. 2. to wit: That all things absolutely cannot be proved by scripture; not all things simply; that it is not an absolutely perfect Rule; not safe to judge by Scripture alone; that scripture cannot assure us; cannot prove itself to be God's word: That Schism cannot be decided by scripture. NINTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture doth not clearly enough propose all points of faith. 1. THat Scripture doth not clearly enough propose all points of faith, is evident: First, because (as we have already proved) it teacheth not all points of faith immediately, and much less so clearly, as is necessary to beget divine faith of them all Secondly, because Scripture nowhere sayeth, that it teacheth all points of faith so clearly And therefore Protestants can have no divine faith, that it teacheth all points so clearly, as is necessary to faith. Thirdly, because the Scripture itself sayeth, that in it are some hard and difficult things 2. Petri 3. And Acts 8. When S. Philip had asked the Eunuch, whether he understood, what he read in Scripture, He answered; And how can I, unless sums hue me? and the place which he read, was of the passion of Christ, which is a most necessary point of faith. Whereupon Whitaker l. 2. de Scriptura p. 229. sayeth; The Eunuch, without Philip, nether believed, nor understood, what was sufficient to salvation. And yet he was a pious man. And Luke. 24. jesus beginning from Moses, and all the Prophets, interpreted to them in all Scriptures, which were of him. And what needed he to interpret the places of Scripture, which were of him, if they had been of themselves clear enough to beget faith? And yet the knowledge of Christ, is a point most necessary. Fourthly, holy Fathers frequently say, that the Scripture is obscure, or hard to be understood, whose testimonies I omit for brevity's sake: And to say, they mean not of any point of faith, as Protestants say, is mere voluntary. Fiftly, if the Scripture were plain enough in all points of faith, there would need no gift of Interpretation for points faith. For to what end need Interpretation, where there is clarity enough to breed faith. 2. Finally, this is so evident, as Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 4. c. 1. sayeth When he (Bellarmin) maketh this See sup. c. 〈◊〉. sect. 2. the state of the question, whether Scripture of itself be so clear, as without Interpretation, it sufficeth of itself to end and decide all Controversies of faith, he fighteth without an adversary: For in this he hath not us for Adversaries. And ibid. They say, but falsely, that we think that Scripture, without interpretation, sufficeth to decide all Controversies. Behold, Scripture of itself, and without Interpretation, sufficeth not to end all Controversies of faith. Caluin also 4. Instit. c. 7. §. 25. being urged, that the words of the institution of the Eucharist, did plainly teach the real and substantial presence of Christ, answereth; As if you could cast the gift of Interpretation out of the Church, which giveth light to the word. So that the Scripture doth not clearly enough teach, what the Eucharist is, without the light Interpretation: And yet it is a great point of faith And the same is evident in the dissensions of Protestans about so many points of faith. For they being (forsooth) holy men, would not gainsay clear Scripture. At least true learned and holy men could hardly fall into any errors in faith, because all points thereof were clearly set down in Scripture: And yet S. Hierom. l. 2. contra Pelagium, and S. Austin l. 2. de Baptis. c. 1. 5. l. 3. c. 14. and De dono perseverantiae c. 21. say it is hard, even for the best learned, not to fall into some such errors. And we see it in S. Cyprian and his Fellows, and in others. 3. Protestants Confessions, that all points of faith are not clear enough in Scripture, may be seen supra c. 2. sec. 2. and c. 4. sec. 2. TWENTITH CHAPTER. That the Scriptures proposal, is not necessary, in ordinary course, to have divine faith. 1. THat the Scriptures proposal of points of faith, is not necessary in ordinary course, to have divine faith, is evident First; because the Scripture no where sayeth it. Secondly, because the Scripture is not the external formal cause of faith, as we have showed, that the authority of the Church is. Thirdly, because divine faith was for more than a Caluin 1. Instit. c. 6. §. 2. See supra c. 17. 18. 2000 years, before there was any Scripture. Fourthly, because even after Scripture was, there was in S. b L. 3. c. 7. Irenes' time, faith among some barbarous nations, where was no Scripture. And this is so evident, that although Protestants must needs say the contrary, because commonly they teach, (as we saw c. 11. sec. 1.) that Scripture is the utmost formal cause of their faith (without which cause, undoubtedly, there can be no formal faith) yet sometimes they confess it. Whitaker Contro. 1. q 6. c. 7. Hence he concludeth, Therefore scriptures are not simply necessary: Rightly: And it is clear out of which Protestants grant that there was divine faith in the world for 2000 years before any Scripture was: and since Christ also, where there was no Scripture: which convinceth, that Scripture nether of its nature, nor of God's institution, is an absolutely necessary means (in ordinary course) to have faith. For then the Barbarians, of whom L. 3. c. 4. S. Ireney speaketh, could not have had divine faith. And Chillingworth c. 2. n. 159. sayeth: scripture is not so much of the being of Christian doctrine, as requisite to the well being of it. And Why Scripture is not the sufficient Proposer. out of all which we have hitherto said of Scripture, it is evident, that it is not the All— sufficient Proposer, instituted by God for to believe with divine faith. For first, it is no intellectual person, as doubtless a proper Proposer of points of faith, is. Secondly, it proposeth not all points, which God will have us to believe with divine faith. Thirdly, it doth not propose clearly enough all the points of faith, which it proposeth. Fourthly, it proposeth not points of faith to all kinds of men, who are capable of external proposal. Fiftly, it hath not been in all times, nor in all places, when and where divine faith was. Sixtly, in ordinary course, it is not necessary, to have divine faith. All which agree to the proper Proposer of points of faith instituted by God. But now having seen, what the Scripture is not, let us see, what it is. For though it be not the proper Proposer of faith instituted by God, yet it hath many excellent properties conducing to that end. ONE AND TWENTITH CHAPTER. That the Scripture containeth the sum of Christian faith, and all things, that are necessary to be believed, of all kinds of men, explicitly. 1. THat the Scripture containeth the sum of Christian faith, and all things necessary to be explicitly believed of all kinds of men, is manifest. First, because it containeth the mystery of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and all the Articles of the Apostles Creed. Secondly, because the Scripture professeth this: For joan. 20. v. 51. it is said: These are written, that you may believe that jesus is Christ, the son of God, and that believing, you may have life in his name. And S. Luke c. 1. It seemed good unto me, having diligently attained to all things, from the beginning to write to thee in order (good Teophilus) that thou mayst know the verity of those words, whereof thou hast been instructed. Where it seems, that both S. John, and S. Luke profess, that they wrote in their Gospel, the sum of Christian faith, and all that is absolutely necessary to salvation: Rom. 15. v. 4. Whatsoever are written, are written for our learning, that by patience and comfort of scriptures, we may have hope. And if we may have hope, why not faith? 2. And this, Fathers teach, as we shall see in the next Chapter. And this is all, which some Protestants a Laud sect. 17. p. 117. Potter sect. 4. p. 96. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 19 White Defense c 29. p. 270. Plessie de Eccles c. 4. p. 85. Sum of religion. desire, though in words they will seem to say more. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 6. We affirm, that the sum of our Religion, is written. Q. 4. c. 4. If he confess, that the knowledge of Christ is manifest in Scripture, surely we desire no more: For this is as much as we desire. Ibid. If by all the scripture, he mean the sum of doctrine, necessary to every one for salvation, than we Knowledge of Christ. Necessary to every one. acknowledge the argument, and say, it is all clear. Again: If he confess, that the scripture is like an open book for the mysteries of our Redemption, truly we have not to demand any more: For thence will follow, that all things are manifest in scripture, which are necessary to salvation, which is the ground of our Defense. Morton to 1. Apol. l. 2. c. 9 after he had cited out of Coster these words. We deny not, but that the chiefest points of faith necessary to every one's salvation, are clearly enough set down in scripture, sayeth: A pure and right doctrine of Protestants. And in his Appeal. l. 2. c. 28. scriptures be All fundamental points. the perfect treasury of all fundamental Principles of faith. Musculus in locis, tit. de Nomine Dei p. 425. All things could not be namely expressed in scripture, which desire of God's glory doth require, it sufficeth, that the sum of them Sum and general rules and certain general rules should be inserted in scripture, to which we might frame all our life. Humphrey ad Rat. 2 damn Campiani p. 114. We know, that cases or points of law, cannot be set down in laws, as Aristotle and Lawyers say well: yet the sum of all religion Summe of religion. and all heads of faith, are contained in those writings, out of which, all our dogmes may be fully and abundantly drawn, as out of fountains. Caluin l. 2. de lib. arbit. p. 151. Not all sermons were taken word for word, yet their Gospel was faithfully drawn into a sum, which may fully suffice us. 3. Now that Catholics teach, that Stat. le●on l 13. de Principijs c. 6. Bellar. l. 4. de Verbo Dei c. 11. Gordon Cont. 1. c. 21. 32. the sum of Christian religion, and all things necessarily to be believed explicitly, of all men, are contained in Scripture, Protestants themselves confess: For thus Rainolds in the Preface to his Conclusions citeth out of the Preface of Gregory 13. in Biblia Regia: In these Books, See Whit●k Count 2 q. 5. c. 20. Morton to. 2. Apol l. 1. c. 19 & in 〈◊〉. p. 317. Chilling. c. 〈◊〉. §. 80. are explained all the Mysteries of our religion. And ibid. sayeth. The Church of Rome itself doth acknowledge, that the whole doctrine, religion and faith which leadeth the Faithful to salvation and life, by the true worship of God, is contained in God's word. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. vlt. Bellarmin confesseth Whole doctrine of religion. All dogmes simply necessary to al. White Way p ●3. and in Defense 〈◊〉. 35. Potter sect. 4. p 95. that all Dogmes simply necessary to all men, are had in the Scripture. Laud Relat. sec. 11. n. 1. Bellarmin confesseth, that all things simply necessary for all men's salvation, are in the Creed, and the Decalogue. See him sec. 20. n. 3. See also Chillingworth c. 2. n. 144. c. 3. n. 80. Potter sec. 4. p. 95. sec. 5. p 4. 13. 4. Wherefore the true difference between us, is not, whether all things simply necessary to be explicitly believed, or all, necessary to every one, be in Scripture; but whether all things any way necessary, or necessary to any men, be in Scripture: For they will have all points, that are of faith, to be either actually contained in Scripture, or to be clearly inferred out of it, as we shown supra c. 9 sec. 1. Nay Rainolds in his first Conclusion, defendeth, that the Scripture teacheth, whatsoever is behooful for salvation: which he often repeateth; so that Whatsoever is behooful. they will have not only all things necessary, but also all things behooful to salvation, to be contained in Scripture. And nevertheless they confess, that it doth not teach, that itself is the word of God, which, with them, is the most fundamental point of al. Whereas we confess, that it containeth all, which we acknowledge to be fundamental, that is by God's institution absolutely necessary to salvation: so that in effect we grant more to Scripture, than they do, though they in words give more to it, than we. 5. I add also, that the Scripture, sufficiently teacheth the far greater part of points of faith: This I prove, because the Fathers heretofore, and other Catholics since, have confuted all most all the heresies, that have risen, by plain testimonies of Scripture: Hereupon Catholic writers (as we heard Protestants Confess. c. 13. sec. 1.) say, they have plain Scripture in all places for the Catholic faith, an in all Controversies, cry, Plain evident, manifest Scripture. And hereupon also both Fathers and catholics sometimes, by the word Scripture, understand the whole word of God; because it containeth the far greater, and principaller part of the word of God. catholics (sayeth Stapleton Act. 17. v. 2.) expressly teach, that the far greatest part, and in general In general all doctrine of faith. all doctrine of faith, may be, and must be gathered out of Scriptuie. 6. Moreover I add, that the Scripture teacheth mediately, every point of faith, because it sendeth us to the Church, which teacheth us all points of faith. S. Austin l. 1. cont. Crescon. c. 33. Albeit of this matter, there be no example brought out of holy Scriptures, yet even in this matter, the truth of the same holic Scriptures is held, when we do, what b Present Church. now seemeth to the whole Church, which the authority of the same Scriptures doth commend: that seeing the holy scripture cannot deceive, whosoever feareth to be deceived by the obscurity of this question, let him of it ask the same Church, which the holy Scripture showeth without all doubt. And the like he sayeth in other places. And Protestants in Colloq Ratisb. sess. 6. p. 144. confess, That it seemeth a fair saying: By means of the infallible authority of the Church, all matters of faith or manners, may be deduced out of scripture. Hence appareth how untruly D. Potter sec. 5. p. 12. said of us: They teach, that much of the object, or matter of faith, is not contained in Scripture any way. TWO AND TWENTITH CHAPTER. That the Scripture teacheth plainly enough, the sum of Christian faith, and all things absolutely necessary to be believed explicitly. 1. THat Scripture teacheth plainly enough the sum of Christian faith, and all things absolutely necessary to be believed explicitly, I prove because (as is showed in the former Chapter) it teacheth all such points; and that it teacheth them clearly enough, appeareth by that it teacheth them in the plain and usual sense of these words, which is to teach plainly enough, as can be by writing. And this may be showed by Induction though all the Articles of the Apostles Creed, which a Catechimus' Trident p. 13. containeth all the points, which are absolutely necessary to be believed explicitly, and is called of the b August. serm. 194. de Temp. See more inf●a c. 24. Laude sec. 11. § 11. Plessie de Eccles. c. 4. Leo Epist. ●om. 13. See him 〈◊〉 de unit. c. 1. 3. 5. 7. 10. 11. 16. 18. 20. Father's Regula fidei. And of ordination the Council of Trent sess. 23. c. 3. sayeth, that by the testimony of Scripture, it is manifest, that grace is given by ordination. And sess. 13. c. 1. professeth, that Christ gave his Body to his Apostles in plain and express words, and in a most manifest sense: And proveth all most all its Decrees of faith, by manifest places of Scripture. The same also teacheth S. Austin l. 2. de peccatorum meritis c. ult I believe, that herein the authority of scriptures would be most clear, if man could not be ignorant of it, without loss of promised salvation. And l. 2 de Doctrina Christiana c. 9 In those things, which are plainly set down in scripture, are found all which contain faith and manner of life: In which words, I note those: If man, that is, if man could not be ignorant of it, without loss of Salvation! which clearly show, that he speaketh of things necessary to be actually believed of all men: And in the second place he sayeth not, which contain all faith, but which is necessary to salvation, and which before he had called Regula credendi. And l. 3. c. 2. he sayeth: the Rule of faith is gathered out of the plainer places of scripture. And the Rule of faith or Rule of belief, containeth not all faith, but all that is absolutely necessary to Salvation. For a Rule is not to contain, but to regulate al. Regula dicta est, eo quod recte ducit, nec aliquem trahit D. 3. apu● Gratian. aliorsum. 2. Nether is this contrary to that, which Fathers and catholics say, that the Scriptures are hard or obscure, First because to say, that the Scriptures are easy for the sum of Christian faith, and points by God's appointment absolutely necessary to be believed explicitly of all, is not to say absolutely, that the Scriptures are easy, but only that they are easy in some part, and that a small one too. Secondly, because a way may be said dangerous, if in some part it be so, though not in all parts: so the Scripture may be said hard and obscure, if in some part it be such. Thirdly, because though the Scripture may be easy to be understood, yet it may be hard to be infallibly sure, that we rightly understand it, without the assurance of the Church. THREE AND TWENTITH CHAPTER. That the Scripture is necessary to the better being of Christian faith. 1. THat Scripture is necessary to the better being of Christian faith, is evident, both by what the Apostle sayeth 2. Tim. 3. All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to instruct etc. and also by what hath been said in the former Chapter, that it teacheth all points fundamental, or absolutely necessary to be believed explicitly of all, that it teacheth the most points of Christian faith in sending us to the Church, which teacheth them al. Besides, it helpeth to remember better what we are to believe; it describeth what is the true Church, and which are the Notes, and giveth testimony to her; And it is a main confirmation of the true Christian faith, and a great confutation of heresies contrary to it, and the only arms proper to Christians, which they have against most heretics. For they denying the Infallibility of the Church, Counsels, or Fathers, and rejecting all testimony of miracles, leave the true Christian Church no proper arms to fight against them, but the Scripture, which God hath made to be of so great esteem among Christians, as S. Austin sayeth: None will refuse Scripture who will be accounted in any sort a Christian. And otherwhere: No Christian will go against scripture, no quiet man against the Church, no man in his wits against reason. And Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 39 addeth: we must either impugn older heresies only with scripture, or avoid them being condemned by General Counsels. Moreover, it is not likely, that either the holy Writers; would have been so careful to write, or the Church, to conserve the holy Scripture, if it had not been thought to have been in some sort necessary to Christian faith. And what great necessity soever some Protestants pretend, that there is of Scripture, Whitaker confesseth, that there is no absolute necessity of it, and that some part of Scripture helpeth, though not to the being, yet to the better being of faith. And Chillingworth, that it is not so much of the being of Christian doctrine, as requisite to the well being of it, as we shown c. 11. sec. 2. which is but in other terms to say, as we do, that it is but necessary to the better being of Christian faith, and religion. So that indeed they make no greater necessity of Scripture, than we do, whatsoever they pretend in words, as we shown before, that they say, that the Scripture containeth not so much, as we say, nor is more clear than we say it is; yet because sometimes they pretend the contrary, we will now answer to their objections. FOUR AND TWENTITH CHAPTER. Protestants arguments out of Scripture, that it containeth all points of faith answered. 1. THeir chiefest place out of Scripture, that it containeth all points of faith is 2. Tim. 3. All scripture divinely inspired, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God be perfect, instructed to every good work: out of which they infer, that the Scripture sufficiently teacheth all points of faith. Catholics answer: First, that S. Paul speaketh only of the old Testament, is as evident, because, much of the New●, was not then written, as also, because he sayeth, that Timothy had known it from his Childhood, and he had not known the New Testament from his Childhood. And if Protestants will say, the Old testament sufficiently teacheth all points of faith, they make the New Testament needles, which none of them dare say, at least it were not necessary. For how can the New testament be necessary, if the old be sufficient? And I think, they will not say, the New Testament is not necessary: And that S. Paul speaketh of the New testament, Protestants nether prove nor can prove: whereas we prove plainly, that he speaketh only of the old Testament. 2. Their second answer is, that the Apostle sayeth not, that the Scripture is sufficient, but only sayeth profitable: And a thing may be profitable, which is not sufficient: Their third is, that the Apostle sayeth not, that the Scripture is profitable to teach all things, to correct all things, to reprove all things, to instruct in all things, but simply to teach, to correct, to reprove, to instruct so that: by to every good work, he comprehendeth not every particular good work, but all kinds of good works, as are teaching, correcting, reproving, instructing. And so three ways they answer sufficiently to this argument to which Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 14. sayeth: no Papist ever answered suffictently, or can answer. 3. The Protestants second place is Galat. 1 where is said: If any Euangelize to you, be side what we have evangelized let him be Anathema: catholics answer, that the Apostle by Beside, meaneth so beside, as is contrary: First, because both the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin Praeter, is usually so taken: And Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 14. sayeth I grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may well be translated contra. Secondly, because else he should have accursed S. John, who after this wrote his Apocalyps, in which there are some things, which S. Paul never told to the Galathians. Thirdly, because the Fathers, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecumenius, Austin, so plainly expound it, as Whitaker loco cir. sayeth: we need not answer them. And S. Chrysostom eypoundeth it of such an addition to the Scripture, which overturneth either all, or any part of the Gospel. And S. Austin tract. 98. in joan proveth it, because otherwise S. Paul had accursed himself, who desired to come again to the Thessalonians, that he might have add what was wanting to their faith. Fourthly, because the Apostle there, speaketh of a thing which was not only beside, but also contrary to what he had preached, to wit the keeping of the law of Moses, which he called an other Gospel. And of it and such like, he said justly, that he deserved to be accursed, who should teach beside what he had preached to the Galathians, to whom, being but rude, it is not like, he had, as then, preached all points of faith whatsoever. I may add also, that Traditions are not beside the Scripture, because the Scripture teacheth them mediately, in sending us to the Church, whom it testifieth to teach all truth. In which sense, it may be S. Austin l. 3. contra Petilian c. 6. said, that he were Anathema, who should teach any thing which belongeth to our faith and life, beside that which we have received in the legal and Euangelical scripture, because all that belongeth to our faith or life, is mediately in Scripture, though perhaps by beside, he mean contrary, as he doth tract. 98. cit, and l. 17. contra Faustum c. 3. and l. 23. c. 7. For in the aforesaid place he speaketh of flying schism contraunitatem Christi, which is not only beside, but indeed contrarietoholie Scripture. And Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 14. even urging this place of the Apostle, sayeth: Traditions agreeable to scripture are to be received and who receive them not, are condemned.— These Fathers speak of Traditions agreeable to scriptures. So that Traditions agreeable to Scripture, are not condemned here by the Apostle: and approved by Fathers, and admitted by Protestants. 4. As for what they allege out of some Fathers, that Scripture containeth all things necessary, proveth no more, than what we have said before, that it containeth the sum of Christian faith, all things that are necessary to be explicitly believed of every one, and the greatest part of the rest, and mediately all points of faith whatsoever: but not that it containeth immediately all points whatsoever. For S. Hilaire l. 2. de Trinit. speaking of the form of Baptism, sayeth: what is it, that is not contained in that sacrament of man's salvation? Hierom. praefat. in libros Paralipomenon. All learning of scripture, is contained in this book. S. Austin serm. 194. & serm. 130. The Creed containeth all the mysteries of our faith. Nor the Fathers only speak thus, but even both Catholics and Protestants also: For Catechismus ad Parachos in Praefat. §. 12. saith: the Apostles Creed containeth all things; that are to be believed: and our Lord's prayer, all that is asked. The like sayeth the Caluinist French Catechism, Luther in c. 15. Genesis that Melchisedeches speech to Abraham, containeth all that can be said of Religion. Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 48. The Lord's prayer containeth all, that we are to ask of God: And in Math. 16. v. 18. That Peter's Confession containeth the whole sum of our salvation. Which kind of speeches no man understandeth of every particular thing, that we are to believe or ask of God. Besides, many Protestants do grant, that Scripture doth not contain every particular point of faith, no not their most fundamental point of all, which is, that itself is the word of God. And Laud cited l. 2. c. 5. sec. 2. sayeth, that when the Fathers say; we are to rely upon Scripture only, they are never to be understood with exclusion of Tradition, in whatsoever it may be had, and that without the Churches help, we may mistake the Scripture. And Feild ibid. That they do not make the Scripture, the rule of their faith, but that other things in their kind are Rules likewise, in such sort, as it is not safe without respect had unto them, to judge of things by the Scripture alone. And also White cited l. 1. c. 10. That the Doctrine of the Church is an infallible Rule, and the Rule of faith And Baro ibid. That Tradition is an infallible Rule. And Chillingworth ibid. That universal Tradition, is as infallible as the Scripture. And out of this, is also answered, that the Fathers call Scripture The Rule, or, A Rule of faith. For they call also the Apostles Cred so: As Tertullian l. Praescrip. c. 13. S. Austin serm. de Symbolo, S. Ireney l. 1. c. 1. S. Epiphanius haeres. 31. and others; And Protestants, as Kemnice in locis p. 10. Perkins in his reformed Catholic at the end, and upon the Creed, in the beginning, and Plessie de Eccles. c. 8. sayeth; The Fathers call it ordinarily, the Rule of faith, Potter sec. 7. p. 78. 89. And yet mean not, that it containeth immediately all points of faith whatsoever. Nay a Rule is not to contain all faith, but to regulate al. 5. Hence also may be answered, what Protestants object, that if the Scripture contain not all points of faith whatsoever, it should be imperfect. For imperfect is that only, which hath not all, that it ought to have. And Scripture hath all the points of faith, which it ought to have, and therefore is perfect. As the Creed containeth all that it ought to have, and therefore is a perfect Rule, though it contain not absolutely all points of faith whatsoever. And yet Chillingworth cited above c. 5. granteth, that Scripture is not absolutely a perfect Rule. But seeing Scripture, and the Creed, have all, for which they were made, both are to be accounted perfect Rules; and not to be accounted imperfect, because they have not something for which they were not made. It sufficeth, that they can sufficiently rule all that, for ruling of which, they were made. And Protestants suppose (but never can prove) that either the Creed was made, or the Scripture written, to rule immediately all points of faith whatsoever. Nay some of them confess the contrary, as we shown before c. 5. sec. 2. who must as well answer, what is brought to prove the Scripture to contain immediately all points of faith whatsoever, or to be the immediate Rule of all points of faith, as we. Faults of Print to be Corrected. Page 4. lin. 13. know. cor. known. ibid. lin. 24. weet. cor. were. P. 12. lin. 1. mate. cor. make. P. 42. lin. 16. sells. cor. self. P. 80. lin 17. add. cor. and. P. 94. lin. 14. as. cor. is. P. 101. lin. vlt. us. cor. as. P. 157. lin 2. they. cor. is. P. 189. lin. 9 after, sinless ignorance. ad. of sinful ignorance. P. 217. lin. 18. lightly. cor. highly. P. 223. in margin Et. cor. Est. P. 259. lin. 21. enough. cor. is enough. P. 260. lin. 6. is divine, cor. is not divine. P. 330. lin. 19 believe not, deal not. P. 343. lin. 12. ad. be. P. 352. lin. 23. ad. such. P. 260. lin. 5. deal and. P. 481. lin. 3. add. of. P. 489. lin. 18. fof. cor. for. P. 502. lin. 11. add. cor. added.