of the priuiledge of trafficke which the King thereof tenders to our countrimen in this case if the Relators credit bee suspitious it were dangerous to build vpon his report because here he is the principall and only cause vpon whose sole affirmation we can finally rest In like manner if two persons onely bee present at the death of a friend and depose that in this or that manner he bestowed legacies in this case if they be of doubtfull repute it will be hard to determine positiuely what is the truth because that here they are the principall and onely witnesses and there are no other authentike proofes whereby their depositions may be examined But where the Propounder is onely the instrument by whose meanes wee are brought to see proofes of an higher nature and by whose ministerie arguments of greater importance doe display themselues as if the Trauailer shall bring letters of Credence vnder the Hand Seale of the Prince confirming his Relation or if the persons present at the death of their friend shall besides their owne testimonie produce a formall will subscribed by the hands of lawfull witnesses and strengthened by an authentike seale here the possibilitie of erring in the Propounder takes not away the certaintie of the things propounded by him because in this case the same may be supplyed by other more sufficient demonstrations vpon which as the principall causes of our beliefe wee may finally rest Now to apply this to the Church I say that if the Church were the principall or onely Cause for whose authoritie our faith doth finally assent to the mysteries propounded by her then and vpon this supposition it were to be acknowledged that if the Church might erre and that her testimonie were not infallible the assured truth of things so assented vnto could not bee attayned by vs. But wee say that in working an vndoubted assent vnto the mysteries propounded and deliuered vnto vs the Church though it bee one cause to wit an inductiue or preparatiue yet is it not the onely no nor the principall or finall vpon which wee lastly depend The principall and finall causes for whose sake we firmely beleeue those truths which the Church propounds vnto vs touching the Scriptures are two The one the Word of God it selfe with the properties notes and characters aboue mentioned imprinted in the letter thereof which serue as the hand-writing and Deed of the great Maker produced by the Church in confirmation of what shee vtters The other the inward testimonie of Gods Spirit enlightning the eyes of our vnderstanding to discerne the Scriptures by those notes and perswading vs what we discerne stedfastly to beleeue seruing as a seale which confirmes to the consciences of the Elect the Deed to bee lawfull and authentike The former which is the Word it selfe and the notes thereof cannot bee denyed by an ingenious Papist to bee there found for howsoeuer some of them by a iust iudgement of God for being iniurious to the Scriptures in branding them with obscuritie imperfection c. haue beene so blinded by the Prince of darknesse that setting aside the iudgement of the Church no reason to them hath appeared wherefore Aesops Fables should not as well as the Scriptures themselues bee thought Canonicall yet others as Bellarmine Greg. de Valentia Gretser c. doe acknowledge these distinguishing notes to be in their kinde argumentatiue and to shine in them as the excellency of the Doctrine concord efficacie and the like whereby may be verified of the whole Booke of God what the Officers sent by the Pharisies and Priests said of our Sauiour Ioh. 7. Neuer man spake like this man Nor is the later which is the inward testimonie of the Spirit denyed by the learneder sort of Papists to possesse another chief place in the discouerie of the Scriptures For although in popular aire they seeme to vent the contrarie yet when they are called to giue a more sober account in writing they vtter the same in effect which we doe The Church saith Stapleton by reason of her ministerie and mastership receiued of God doth make vs to beleeue but yet the formall reason wherefore we beleeue is not the Church but God speaking within vs. Againe The minde of a faithfull beleeuer saith hee doth rest in the iudgement but not by the iudgement of the Church but by the inward grace of the holy Spirit So Gregorie de Valentia The infallible proposition of the Church saith he is as obscure to vs as any other article of faith whatsoeuer alleadging out of Canus That if a man should aske wherefore he beleeues the Trinitie he should answer incommodiously in saying because the Church doth infallibly propose it And Canus giues the reason Because the last resolution of faith saith he is not into the testimonie of the Church but into a more inward efficient cause that is into God inwardly mouing vs to beleeue If therefore addes Becanus you be asked wherefore you beleeue that God reuealed such a thing and you answere that you beleeue it for the authoritie of the Church it is not the assent of a theologicall faith but of some other faith of an inferiour ranke Many more testimonies might bee added it being a firme position amongst the Schoolemen that principles of faith such as the Scriptures are cannot bee beleeued as they ought to bee but by infused faith But I will conclude where I began with our Countriman Stapleton because he layes downe the very fundamentall reason vpon which this Doctrine is grounded There is the same faith saith hee in the rest of the whole Church which is in the Prophets Apostles and all those who are immediately taught of God They haue one and the same formall reason of their act of beleeuing But the faith of the Apostles and Prophets which was by immediate reuelation was lastly resolued into God alone the Reuealer and did end and rest vpon him onely as the supreme and last cause of beleeuing therefore the faith of the rest of the whole Church hath the same formall obiect These foundations being laid it shall not be hard to shape distinct answeres to the seuerall questions aboue propounded To the first if the testimonie of the Church bee not infallible how shall wee vndoubtedly knowe the Scriptures to bee the Word of God I answere that wee may know them to bee so partly by the light of the Word that is the diuine notes and characters therein imprinted and partly by the enlightning and perswading grace of Gods Spirit enabling vs to see and mouing vs to beleeue what wee see Now on the contrarie I demand of them If one cannot bee assured of the certaintie of the Scriptures propounded by the Church vnlesse the proposition of the Church bee infallible how the lay Papists in this Land doe know any article of faith to be infallibly true considering that few or none of them euer heard the voyce of that Church which they
man faith also by consequence that Socrates is a substance that he is a liuing creature and that hee is reasonable because Man contaynes all these things in his nature So the Scripture saying that Christ hath a body saith by consequence that according to his humane condition he is finite and being finite hath a limited and bounded existencie and therefore cannot bee in many places at the same instant For arte in this is grounded vpon nature and in nature the immediate cause implyes the effect the species the genus the subject the properties the whole the parts one contrarie remooues the other so that these Maximes of Philosophie are but dilated verities being before contractedly contayned in the Letter and adde not any thing to the Scriptures fulnesse but onely are displayed by the vnderstanding facultie as the species and formes of an obiect are by a perspectiue glasse multiplyed and made more visible 3. If we presse them with the force and necessitie of our consequence they bid them demand of vs whether we cannot erre in the deducing of a Consequence if we say we cannot then to tell vs that we oppugne a doctrine of our owne which determineth that the Church may erre and if wee say wee may then they will them to aske vs how wee can build an article of faith vpon a Consequence which by our owne confession is fallible To which wee say first that a posse ad esse non valet argumentum from a possibilitie of erring to an actuall erring an argument will not follow Againe the necessitie of a Consequence depends not vpon the person of him which deduceth it but vpon the intrinsecall vnion and reall affinitie betweene the termes of the Antecedent and Consequent But lastly because they presse vs to shew how we can assure our selues that in this or that particular Consequence we doe not erre considering that there is no subiect wherein we do not acknowledge that we may erre Let me aske them againe how any of them can assure themselues that they know the meaning of the Church in any one article of faith considering that there is none of them in particular the Pope in his chaire excepted which may not by their owne Tenets mistake a word or misse-conceiue the Churches meaning Sure if this reason were of force wee should for the same Cause take away all certaintie of knowledge which comes by the sense which was the error of the Academikes and Pirrhonians For what sense is there which at sometimes by reason of the Medium Organ or Object is not lyable to erre and be deceiued But as Nature which Philosophers say is not defectiue in things necessarie hath for the remedying of these inconueniences endowed man with reason common notions and principles whereby hee is able to iudge of the due site habitude and disposition of things so the God of Nature which is also the God of Grace and knowes the necessitie of his children giues vnto them besides that portion of reason common notions and principles aboue-mentioned the spirit also of discretion for the spirituall man iudgeth all things 1. Cor. 2. So Saint Iohn These things haue I written vnto you concerning them that seduce you but the anointing which you haue receiued of him teacheth you all things 1. Ioh. 2. 26. 4. If the Consequence bee so euident that they cannot for shame denie it then they counsell them to aske vs where the Scripture saith in expresse termes that whatsoeuer followeth by euident and necessarie consequence from her Pages is an article of faith Where they hope to choake vs with an equiuocall acception of the word article For an article of faith is sometimes taken strictly for one of those verities which so neerly touch the foundation of faith that a man cannot be saued vnlesse he expresly know and beleeue it sometimes largely for any Catholike truth whatsoeuer If they take it in the former sense they fight with their owne shadowes for which of our men euer said that whatsoeuer followeth from the Scriptures by euident and necessarie consequence is in such manner and sense an article of faith But if they take it in the latter sense wee need not runne farre for Texts to proue that such consequences are articles of faith and require according to the nature of the subiect and euidence of the deduction a beliefe either explicit or implicit of them because that conclusions as I shewed before lye hid in their principles as a kernell in the shell and that consequences are materially in their premises and being in them are to be esteemed part of them and therefore he which is bound to an absolute beliefe of the one is bound also at least conditionally that is vpon the appearance of the euidence of the consequence to beleeue the other 5. If wee dispute syllogistically they bid them tell vs that not the Scriptures but Aristotle prescribes rules for syllogismes and that Aristotles rules cannot binde the faith As though syllogisticke formes were principall causes of the truth of things and not onely instruments whereby the Truth which was before and might otherwise by naturall Logick and the strength of the common apprehension be perceiued is made somewhat the more easie and apparant For many Conclusions follow necessarily in regard of the matter which are vicious in regard of the forme Galen inuented a fourth figure which others reiect And therefore wee build no more vpon Aristotle in matters of faith then an house is built vpon the Carpenters Hammer Square or Rule which are neither whole nor part of the building though otherwise they conduce thereunto as instruments 6. If wee stop their mouthes either with manifest Texts of Scripture or pregnant consequences then they bid them demand of vs Who shal be iudge Which is a peece of Sophistrie beyond the Deuils who being taken tardie by our Sauiour in misse-quoting places of Scripture forgot to aske the question Who shal be iudge This cauill is squint-eyed and lookes three wayes at once If we say the Holy Ghost then they vpbraid vs with flying to priuate spirits and making our selues Iudges in our owne cause If we say the Scriptures they reply that the Scriptures are not sufficient to execute the place being mute and wanting a voyce to declare which amongst many senses is their owne and if we say the Church then they conceiue the victorie to runne on their side and think we haue granted them their Conclusion But what if we make neither the one nor the other sitting alone to be this Iudge but acknowledge a Concurrency though not equall in all of them and that Concurrency though not to the enacting of the sentence as it is considered in se in it selfe yet to the publication of it quoad nos as it hath reference to vs What then shall become of these sequells And so it is indeed For howsoeuer we make one supreme Iudge in this high Court of Veritie yet wee doe not imagine
the holy Ghost communicating it selfe to this and the subsequent and that chiefely for two reasons The one to teach vs that the principall obiect of our faith is God himselfe considered in vnitie of Essence and Trinitie of persons and therefore to each of the persons there is either a Beleeue prefixed or the Particle in set before to shew that on them we are to build the certaintie and assurance of our hope but as for these Articles of the Church the forgiuenesse of sinnes the Resurrection of the body and the like they being creatures are but the secondarie obiects of our Faith not to be trusted vpon immediately in themselues but onely vnder God and through God and therefore haue not a Credo a Beleeue a part to themselues but prefixt to one of the persons I beleeue in the holy Ghost The other to set out and diuide by this meanes vnto euery of the persons an appropriate and speciall worke For as God the father hath Creation in the Articles attributed vnto him and the Sonne Redemptionem merito Redemption by the merit of his Death and Passion vnto him so the holy Ghost by the Beleeue which is prefixt to his Article and is in part of sense to be conuei'd vnto the following hath the application of our redemption Virtute efficacia by his vertue and efficacie appropriated vnto him also to wit The sanctifying of the holy Catholicke Church the vniting of the members in a communion with their head the infusion of iustifying faith which apprehends the remission of sinnes the quickning of the dead in the Resurrection and the conferring of life both vitam gratiae the life of Grace and vitam gloriae the life of glorie in the world to come So then the act of faith I beleeue which belongs to this Article of the Church is to bee fetch'd and deriued from the preceding Article of the holy Ghost And yet because it descends not in the same forme and garbe of sense altogether which it beares there but something altered and transfigured the question will be what act it properly imports in this place towards his obiect the holy Catholicke Church For the better resoluing whereof we must necessarily call to minde that ancient distinction of Saint Austens and the Schoolemen touching Credere to beleeue That there is 1. Credere in aliquem to beleeue and put ones trust confidence in one 2. Credere alicui to beleeue or giue credit to one 3. Credere aliquem to beleeue that one is in being or to beleeue that one is after this or that manner in being The first of these which is Credere in aliquem to beleeue in one doth virtually indeed include the other two for one cannot beleeue in one but he must presuppose that hee is and that hee is to be credited but yet the proper obiect of it is bonum a thing as it is good and the formall act which it exerciseth is chiefly an act of the will whereas the rest haue rather for their obiect verum a thing as it is true and the act which they exercise appertaines onely to the vnderstanding but with this difference that when I say credo alicui I giue credit to ones saying the act of faith hath relation to his obiect as to obiectum formale a kind of principle for whose sake and cause I beleeue but when I say Credo aliquem I beleeue that one is in being the act of faith hath relation here to his obiect as onely to obiectum materiale or quod as the Schoolemen speake a conclusion which it beleeues and not as to the motiue or inducement for which it beleeues Now to bring this home to the marke The Church of Rome and we doe agree that the beleeue which is prefixt to the Article of the holy Ghost doth not communicate it selfe with the restriction caused by the Particle in to this Article of the Church and the rest which follow it for that were to beleeue in them and then no difference should be made betweene the Creator and the Creatures but simply and without addition and the question is what act it now exerciseth whether such an one as whereby our faith hath relation to the Catholicke Church as onely to a materiall obiect or bare conclusion which it beleeues by reason wherof we may say Credo Ecclesiam I beleeue that there is a Catholicke Church or moreouer such as whereby our faith may reflect vpon the Church as a formall obiect cause and principle for whose sake it yeelds credit and assent to all other things so that thereby though not expresly yet tacitly is implied Credo Ecclesiae I yeeld faith beliefe To the Catholicke Church The Iesuites howsoeuer they would palliate the matter and make shew that the Church is onely a condition and not a formall cause of our beliefe yet others of them speake more plainely what the rest ayme at For Scotus and Biel to whom Canus ioynes Durand doe teach that our faith is last resolued into the authoritie of the Church and Stapleton yet more punctually affirmes that this Article of the Church is inserted into the Creede Tanquam medium credendi alia omnia as the onely meanes whereby we beleeue all other things importing thus much Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docet I beleeue all those things which God teacheth me by the Church Whereby we may easily collect that the Papists by this Credo Ecclesiam I beleeue that there is a Church doe vnderstand also Credo Ecclesiae I yeeld faith and beliefe to the Church We for our parts doe reuerence the name and testimonie of the Church we acknowledge it to bee of all humane the greatest wee confesse moreouer that the Catholicke Church in the whole neuer hath erred nor euer shall erre in fundamentall points the prouidence of God sustayning it In regard whereof it hath the promise of our Sauiour that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it that the spirit shall lead it into all truth and it is called by the Apostle the pillar of truth as who would say that it retayneth a sauing profession of heauenly truth and vpholdeth the same against all the stratagems of Satan and his complices But that it is not either in it selfe or in this place to be taken for the formall cause of our beliefe that is the foundation of our faith vpon whose credit and authoritie wee are wholy to depend I shall by these following reasons drawen out of the Creed it selfe easily make apparant First by the Grammaticall construction of this Credo I beleeue which when it imports to yeeld credit or assent to a thing is not ioyned with an Accusatiue case as here in the Creede but with a Datiue whereas wee say not Credo Ecclesiae but Credo Ecclesiam to shew that the Creede in this place implies veritatem in essendo a beliefe of the Churches being and not veritatem in significando
shall please God farther to enlighten one as in the question of the authoritie of the Scriptures the knowing of the Instrument or Pen-man whether it bee Saint Matthew or Saint Paul is not simply so requisite as to know the principall Authour which is God nor to determine punctually of the wordes so oblieging as to beleeue the sense nor againe of the sense of some places and texts as of other all are to striue vnto perfection but as the difference is in the gifts of arte grace and nature so shall the difference be in the measure of the knowledge of all or some The third trick and sleight of theirs which they put vpon the people in this kinde is that bidding them to vrge vs to proue the Scriptures to bee the Word of God or that they are cleare and easie in points necessarie to saluation and knowing that the chiefe proofes vpon which we rest are embowelled in the very body of the Text itselfe first they forbid the lay people to reade the Scriptures vnlesse they obtayne speciall licence from the Bishop or Inquisitor to doe it as appeares by the fourth rule of prohibited bookes which is at the end of the Tridentine Councell And the granting of these licences is now againe taken away by Clement the eighth as may bee seene in his Index of prohibited bookes printed at Paris by Laurentius Sonius and cited also by Iustinianus a Priest of the Congregation of the Oratorie lib. 1. de Scriptura cap. 9. Secondly because they know that some people will bee itching notwithstanding this prohibition to looke into the Scriptures and to see whether matters bee so as wee affirme them to bee therefore they crie downe our Bibles and present a Bible of their owne translation which to argue the obscuritie of the Scriptures they patch vp with such gallimaufrie and inke-horne termes that an ordinarie man may bee confounded with the strangenesse of the wordes As in the old Testament publisht by the Colledge of Doway in stead of Fore-skin they put Prepuce Gen. 17. for Passeouer Phase for vnleauened bread Azims Exod. 12. for high places Excelses 2. King 15. for the holy of holyest Sancta Sanctorum 1. Chr. 6. Nor are they lesse ridiculous in the new Testament set forth by the Colledge of Rhemes where you haue these English wordes piping hot out of the Popes mint Depositum Exinanited Parasceue Didragmes Neophyte Gratis with the spirituals of wickednesse in the Celestials and many more labouring by what meanes they can as our learned Fulke shewes in his Preface to that Testament to suppresse the light of Truth vnder one pretence or another Their fourth stratagem is that after their lay disciples haue giuen so loud a defiance to our Cause as may make simple standers by conceiue so great a crie must needes carrie some wooll with it then if by chance any of the companie vndertake to answere them to fetch them off againe with aduantage by making it knowne afore-hand vnto their Pupils that howsoeuer they may bragge it is forbidden yet vnto a lay man vnder paine of excommunication to dispute of matters of faith which constitution is in the Popes owne Decretals and Emanuel Sa hath it in his Aphorismes voce fides By which meanes they both barre vs after iust prouocation to informe and satisfie their adherents and with all cherish presumption in their followers as not being silenced by the weaknesse of their cause but by the command of their Superiors Their fifth deuice is that if notwithstanding the prohibition to dispute aboue mentioned some of their lay Auditors should be so hardie as to venture a skirmish then to diuert them from reasoning out of the Scriptures least the light thereof should some manner of way or other display it selfe they busie their heads with questions aboue their capacitie as where was our Church before Luther what the exposition of the Doctors in all Ages what the Doctrine of the Fathers Councells and Schoolemen which is the common Theame of this Age hoping that either a few old wiues fables or fragments of antiquitie shall serue to puffe vp their men with conceit of victorie where they finde not equall opponents or where they doe yet they shall not abate thereby any whit of their courage as being for want of artes and languages vnable to see the point of the weapon which is darted at them I meane the truth of those things which are alleaged Their sixt deuice is that if any of their laytie notwithstanding those prohibitions and this diuersion will presume so farre vpon the indulgencie of their ghostly Fathers as to hazard a dispute out of the Bible yet to doe it with aduantage enough on their side they counsell him to make no thrusts but to lie onely vpon the ward and therein to enioyne vs to shew the articles of Faith established in our Church in iust so many wordes and syllables in the Scriptures and as if grace destroyed nature to forbid vs the benefit of Reason or Consequences 1. If we infer any thing by way of consequence they tell vs that wee violate that which wee haue promised to the World which is to proue all our Assertions out of the pure Word of God Whereas according to the grand principle of Logicke De omni de nullo a truth deduced out of another truth is acknowledged to bee contayned therein for otherwise it could not bee drawne from thence So that to bee in the Word of God is to bee the Word of God As Gregorie de Valentia saith of the more distinct conceptions of any obiect that they are contayned implicitly in the more generall as particulars are in vniuersalls And therefore Bellarmine speaking of matters of faith makes those things as well to bee knowne by certaintie of faith which are deduced by necessarie consequences from the Scriptures as those which are immediatly contayned therein 2. If we deduce an article from premises whereof any one proposition is not in the Bible though otherwise it be a principle of nature as for example that a body cannot be in two places at the same time they aske how such a Conclusion can bee of faith or how wee can auerre that our articles of faith are proued out of the pure Word of God considering that a Conclusion takes his efficacie not from one but from both the premises Which argument concludes our Aduersaries as much if not more then it doth vs. For the maynest principle of their to wit That those which professe the faith vnder the Bishop of Rome are the Church of Christ cannot be deduced by Bellarmines logick but search made in the Court Rolls of Nature and by borrowing an Euidence from thence to supply the place of one of the premisses But to speake more punctually we say that those principles of Nature which we imploy in this kinde are also vertually included in the Scriptures though not expresly As hee that faith Socrates is a
excludes no sort or condition of men There is neither Iew nor Greeke there is neither Bond nor Free there is neither Male nor Female for yee are all one in Christ Iesus saith the Apostle Gal. 3. 3. Thirdly in respect of time because it shall neuer cease nor faile but continue in one place or other vntill the last day according to that promise of our Sauiour that hee would be with vs alwayes euen vnto the end of the world Matth. 28. Thus you see modum essendi the manner of the Church Catholikes being but modus cognoscendi the manner of knowing it is more questionable for on it depends that great question of our dayes wherein the Iesuites so triumph concerning the perpetuitie and visibilitie of our Church in all Ages For our better progresse wherein wee are to note that a thing may bee knowne two manner of wayes Viz. 1. The one a priori that is by arguments drawne from causes or principles which force an assent to a thing though as yet one sees not the truth of the same by experience Thus from that principle in Philosophie that heauie things tend downewards to the center I know that a plummet of lead would fall to the center of the earth if no thicke or grosse body interposed it selfe although I neuer saw any conclusion or practice of the fame Thus from that principle in Diuinitie that there is a resurrection of the body I beleeue that who euer lye buried in their Sepulchres shall rise againe although mine eyes were neuer witnesses of any such resurrection 2. The other a posteriori that is by arguments drawn from the effects to the cause or by grounding ones knowledge and certaintie vpon the sense of an experiment as when one beleeues that the fire is hot because hee feeles it burne or that the Sea is salt because he tastes it brinish Both these haue their vses being rightly and with due circumspection applyed but they are not alwayes and in all subiects alike demonstratiue and therefore the question will bee which of them the Creed requires for the procuring of a firme beliefe and assent to this article of the Catholike Church I must confesse that arguments a posteriori that is from testimonies of men pointing out by name the Professors and vpholders of any Religion in all Ages is a great motiue and inducement to perswade that such a Religion is Catholike that is vniuersall in respect of place persons and time and that the Church professing such a Religion is of the like amplitude and antiquitie But yet this is not that modus cognoscendi that manner of knowing the true Church to be Catholike which is proper to the Creed or by which Faith cleaues vnto it and beleeues it as an article of saluation that manner of knowing it to be so is onely a priori by diuine principles that is by Gods promises made vnto it in the Scriptures where wee reade that of Christs Kingdome there shall be no end Psal 2. that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it Matth. 16. and that our Sauiour will continue with vs vnto the end Math. 28. these are the pedigrees of Christs Church by these it proues it selfe to be of an ancient stemme that it had noble Progenitors he which playes the Herald and points out the seuerall descents of her sonnes with their lots and portions in all Ages he may somewhat illustrate the Church Catholike he cannot strengthen or confirme it hee may bee a Thomas Didimus which will not beleeue vnlesse hee sees hee cannot bee any of those blessed of our Sauiour which see not and yet beleeue Ioh. 20. Now that the Catholicisme of the Church that is the vniuersalitie duration and perpetuitie thereof so farre as it enters the Creed is to bee knowne onely a priori by the promises made in the Scriptures vnto it and not a posteriori that is by instances shewing the visible Professors of the same in all Ages I shall not neede to trauaile farther then the Creed it selfe to make it good My first reason shall be drawne from the condition of the Church Catholike as it is an article of our Creed and as we say I beleeue the Catholike Church From whence I thus argue Whatsoeuer wee are to beleeue as an article of the Creed the same must bee endowed with these foure conditions The first that the proofe of it be perfect for otherwise if it prooue but in part it cannot suffice for an article of faith The second that the ground vpon which it depends be some diuine and infallible principle for otherwise it may create an opinion in one but it cannot beget a faith Thirdly that all those who are bound to beleeue it be capable of the manner of prouing it as Valentia requires in these cases And lastly that it bee not the obiect of sense For Faith saith the Apostle to the Hebrewes chap. 11. is the euidence of things not seene and Thom. Aquin. 2◠2◠q. 1. saith plainly vt fidei obiectum sit aliquod visum fieri non potest it cannot bee that the obiect of faith should bee any thing seene But the proofe of the vniuersalitie of the Church which is a posteriori by the seuerall visible Professors of the same first is no perfect proofe for it depends vpon the testimonie of Doctors whereof in some ages few haue written and those which haue written haue not written of all points so that their consent in diuers Articles is rather charitably presumed than certainely knowne Secondly it is no proofe depending vpon diuine and infallible principles but vpon the testimonie and credit of men who may erre and bee deceiued Thirdly it is not a proofe of which all men are capeable for it consists partly of the voluminous writings of Historians partly of the immense dictates of the Fathers partly of the perplexe and inextricable subtilties of the Schoole-men to which few haue time and meanes all not capacitie to attaine Lastly by demonstrating the vniuersality and perpetuitie of the Church from the visibilitie of it it makes the Church as Catholicke to bee the obiect of the sense and so by consequence makes it to bee no Article of Faith My second reason shal be drawen from the nature of the Church Catholick in it selfe and the incapability of it to be subiect to arguments a posteriori that is of sense visibility it being not properly or if properly yet not alwaies snfficiently visible for this purpose Forthe better vnderstāding wherof we must premise some distinctions touching the Church Catholicke The Catholicke Church may bee considered either in respect of its 1. Matter of which it is composed which are men 2. Forme In respect of its Matter so it may be taken either according to its full Latitude and extent excluding no time no places nor any condition of men or in a limited sense in respect of its parts and those considered not together but seuerally with relation to their proper