whereof all this question rises 5 Our Aduersaries holding many points of religion which we refuse we require them to shew vs the said points in the Scriptures if they will either haue vs to beleeue them or free themselues from heresie their Tradition their Purgatory their Masse their Latine seruice their Transubstantiation their Images their seuen Sacraments their Inuocation of Saints and all the rest wherein we differ * This is shewed c. 28. n. 3. Their answer is that many diuine truthes and articles of faith are not contained in the Scriptures but reuealed by Tradition and Church authoritie which are to be receiued and beleeued as well as that which is written * The original cause why the Papists set a foot the question touching the insufficiency of the Scripture This is the originall reason why they stand thus against the sufficiency of the written word for their Church authoritie and to proue this they vse the Argument here propounded by the Reply and descant with it as you see Which is an impertinent kinde of proceeding when this point whether the Bookes contained in holy writ be Gods word is no question betweene vs but agreed vpon of all hands but the question is touching other speciall articles Images adoration halfe communion and such like a number more whether not being contained in the Scripture men are bound to beleeue them For touching these things it is properly that we say Nothing is necessary to be beleeued as a point of faith which cannot be prooued euidently by Scripture And therefore this argument is impertinent For where we affirme all points of faith to be comprised within the body of the Scripture we distinguish first of the things which we say are comprised for albeit we firmely hold the diuine truth and authoritie of these Bookes to be euident in themselues yet the points that we meane in this question are touching other matters for neither they nor we deny the Scripture but both they and we deny many things to be contained in it Secondly then againe of the manner how things are comprised for all other things are comprised in Scripture as the duty obedience of subiects is in the kings lawes and as true speaking is contained in Grammar or the right forme of resoluing in Logicke but this one point is so contained as light is in the Sunne or sweete in hony and according to the same notion whereby the authoritie of the Law and truth of Principles is contained in themselues This is it which very briefly I answered in * THE WAIE § 9. 3. digr 11. n. 17. two seuerall places of my Booke Now let us see what the Iesuite replies to it To this saith he I reply that principles insciences are either euident to vs and knowne by the onely light of nature and so neede no proofe but onely declaration of termes or words in which they be vttered or if they be not euident to vs they must be demonstrated either in the same science or in some superiour science by some other principle more euident to vs. But that these Bookes which are in the Bible are diuine Scripture is not euident therefore if M. Whites similitude be good it must be demonstrated by some other principle more euident to vs that these Bookes which are in the Bible be diuine Scripture The substance of his Reply is that all principles are either euident of themselues or not euident such principles as are euident he grants need no prouing but the Scriptures are principles of religiō not euident of themselues but such as need to be demonstrated to be Gods word by some other principle in a higher science more euident to vs both denying them to be euident and also to be made so by onely declaring the words wherein they are vttered And to proue this he saies in the margent if it were euident that these Bookes in the Bible are diuine Scripture how is it onely beleeued by faith for Saint Paule cals faith Argumentū non apparentium Heb. 11.1 1. My answer is that the Scriptures are principles euident of themselues to those that haue the Spirit of God and such as need not to be proued by Church authoritie but onely to be reuealed and expounded according to that which is in themselues This my answer to helpe the reader out of the Iesuits perplexed discourse I will lay downe and explicate in 3. propositions First the Scripture in diuinitie hath the same office that principles haue in sciences that as the rules and principles of Grammar teach all true speaking and as the elements of Arithmeticke teach all right numbring so the doctrine contained in the Scriptures teaches all true faith Secondly as they are the principles of religion and rule of faith so they enioy the same priuiledge that principles do in forren Professions that is to be receiued and assented to for themselues without discourse For e Atist Poster c. 1. no humane science proues it owne principles or disputes against him that denies them and although the principles of an inferiour science may be demonstrated in a superiour yet this befalles not that which is the highest as the Metaphysicks which hauing no superiour science neither stands to demonstrate it selfe nor to receiue demonstration from another but our vnderstanding assents immediatly to the principles thereof and so goes forward by them to discerne of other things In the same manner the Scripture hauing no superiour science or rule aboue it is like these principles receiued for it selfe and is not occupied in prouing it selfe and the principles therin contained but shewing other things by them it selfe must be assented to without discourse by faith before we can argue out of it Thirdly all demonstration and proofe of principles is onely voluntary not necessarie against him that denies them as in Musicke the Musitian demonstrates his precepts not thereby to teach his arte but to conuince him that denies it Hence appeares the insufficiency of my aduersaries reply First in that he saies principles are not euident but need demonstration that so the Scriptures being yeelded to be the principles of religion yet they should not be receiued vnlesse they proue themselues vntill the authoritie of the Church come There is no man acquainted with f Principia per seipsa nata sunt cognosci reliqua verò per principia Arist prio l. 2 c. 18. idem Procl in Euclid l. 2. c. 2. humane art will say so His owne Thomas g Tho. 1. part q. 1. art 8. sayes that like as other sciences do not argue to proue their owne principles but out of the principles argue to shew other things so the sacred doctrine doth not argue to proue the owne principles but from them proceeds to shew something The same is said by h Capreol prol in 1. part q. 1. pag. 24. Greg. Valent. tom 1. pag. 50. a. others Next it is false that the Scripture is like those principles which need
is one thing it selfe that is beleeued the fore to be grounded on some superior authoritie Can loc l. ◠§. 8. D Weston layes the resolution of faith thus Our faith of any mystery is resolued into a former act wherby the Scripture containing this mystery is beleeued to be the word of God and this also is resolued into a former act as the cause thereof that the Church cannot erre Which we beleeue for the signes and notes which shew it to be a true Church Thus resoluing all diuine faith into humane motiues de Tripl offic c. 3. pag. 143. aduersaries themselues as I haue often shewed after all authoritie of Fathers Church Councels Pope and all do rest and resolue their faith vpon the second proposition of this Syllogisme I am taught this by Scripture our aduersaries denie not but Fathers Councels Popes may erre or if they cannot yet the authoritie of these things is not the reason of our faith for then faith should be humane but the inward authoritie of the Scripture and the Spirit of God If it be demanded how the Protestants can giue infallible assurance to others that they vnderstand the Scripture aright I answer that the same question is to be made to the Papists and both they and we must answer that vnlesse God illuminate their hearts we can giue no assurance neither they by the Church nor we by the Scripture but such as haue this illumination do see manifestly the truth of the things they haue beleeued But Luther he sayes held against the vniuersall Catholicke Church I answer and let all Papists well consider of it that they must proue this which I call the Papacie to be the vniuersall Catholicke Church afore they can say Luther was deceiued That they cannot proue but by the Scripture in which triall Luther shall retire to the Scripture no faster then themselues and then they may be deceiued as well as Luther in as much vnlesse they will runne in a round as all their other authoritie proofes and motiues must be tried by the Scriptures OVER WHICH GOD HATH SET NO VISIBLE IVDGE IN THIS WORLD THAT CAN INFALLIBLY CONVINCE AND PERSWADE ALL MEN. I wil make this plaine by laying downe the maner how Luther and how a Papist assures himselfe Luther and the Protestants for their part beleeue for example that a man is iustified by faith onely because the Scripture in plaine places excluding workes and proposing Gods free grace in Christ and maintaining the sole merits of Christ applied by faith debarres euery thing from iustifying that is in our selues and so teaches expresly that we are iustified onely by faith in Christ The Papists hold the contrary alledging the Church and the Pope whose doctrine they say it is that we are iustified by our workes But being demanded how we know infallibly that the Church or the Pope hath not erred in holding so they grant they may erre and answer that yet they are known not to erre in this point by the Scriptures which Scripture and the true sence thereof is knowne and beleeued for it selfe Here they are fallen into the same issue that the Protestants are I am taught this by the Scripture Now if they reply that we are infallibly assured the Scripture is meant as we say because the Church expounds it so who sees not that they make a circle thus to beleeue the Church first because of the Scripture and then againe to beleeue the Scripture because of the Church Their maine resolution therfore is the euidence and authoritie of the Scripture perswading them both that the doctrine is true and that the Church which teaches it is the true Church And so they lie open to the same cauils that are made against the Protestāts Luther in vnderstanding the Scripture may be deceiued so may they It is Luthers own cause so is this the Papists Luthers iudgment is to be suspected when he preferred himself before the iudgement of the Church The same say we to them They preferre their iudgement before the Church and all the Fathers in as much as we can shew the Church and Fathers to be against them and themselues professe that the Popes authoritie is aboue both Church and Fathers 2 Indeed if M. Luther had had a thousand Austins and Cyprians and other Fathers of the Church with one consent and plainly against him he had bin so much the more to be suspected for this is one maine thing that makes vs abhorre the present Roman Church because it prefers it selfe and the Popes determination before all the Doctors in the world but he neuer thought so nor said so His words are these in c Tom. 2. Wittemb pag 344. a booke that he writ against King Henry the 8. Lastly he produces the sayings of the Fathers for the establishing of the sacrifice of the Masse and sees my foolishnes who alone will be wiser then all other This is is it I say that by this my opinion is confirmed For this I said that these * His vnciuill speeches to the King himselfe afterward retracted Sleid. They are but a weak argumēt to discredit his reformation Lucifer Caralitanus his books against the Emperor Constantius are as bitter and violent If Luther offended against K. Harry the Iesuites and their supplies repay it to K. Iames and long since haue returned it with the interest to good Q. Elizabeth Thomisticall asses haue nothing to produce but a multitude of men and antique vse and then to him that brings the Scriptures to say Thou art the foolishest of all men that liue Art thou onely wise and then it must needs be so But to me who am the foolishest of all men it is sufficient that the most wise Henry can bring no Scripture against me nor answer that which is brought against him besides he is constrained to grant his Fathers haue often erred and his antique vse makes no article of faith in which it is lawfull but for the multitude of that Church to trust whereof he himselfe with his pardons is defender But against the saying of Fathers men Angels and diuels I oppose not ancient custome nor a multitude of men o This is that which the Fathers themselues aduise vnto when heresies haue long continued preuailed in the Church to flie to the Scriptures because the writings of the Fathers after the long continuance of heresie are in danger of corruption See Chrysost op imperf hom 49. sub init §. Tūo cum videritis abominationē Vincen. Lyrin cōmonit c. 39. but the word the Gospel of one eternal maiestie which themselues are constrained to allow wherein the Masse is euidently taught to be the signe and testament of God wherein he promises and by a signe certifies to vs his grace For this worke and word of God is not in our power here I set my foote here I sit here I abide here I glorie here I triumph here I insult ouer Papists Thomists Sophisters and
such a rule say againe whether it be not something distinct from the teaching and authority of the teachers for so much as that wherby the teaching and authority is discerned and tried cannot be confounded with the teaching and if there be such a distinct rule what can it be but the Scripture which onely is the thing that all Church teaching must agree with Thus therefore I reason ad hominem In the doctrine taught by the Pastours of the Church it sufficeth that I can distinguish the priuate from the publicke that which is taught with authority from that which is without authority Therefore I MAY yea must thus distinguish I may DISTINGVISH therefore I may EXAMINE for by examining things we distinguish them We may examine therefore we must haue a RVLE whereby we do it we must haue a rule therefore it must either be the Scripture or the teaching it selfe of the Church that is examined for a third cannot be giuen But it cannot be the teaching of the Church for that is the thing it selfe examined It must of necessity therefore be the SCRIPTVRE ALONE And for so much as it belongs to euery priuate man thus to distinguish therefore it is true also that I said Euery priuate man inlightned with Gods grace which must alway be supposed and our aduersaries necessarily require it may be able to guide himselfe and to discerne of the Church teaching by the SCRIPTVRE Pag. 223. 1 Tim. 3. v 15. Wootton pag. 154. White p. 80. A. D. Wherefore it is not without cause that S. Paule called the Church the pillar and ground of truth not onely as my aduersaries expound that truth is found in it or fastened to it as a paper is fastened to Pasquin in Rome which is M. Whites grosse similitude but also in that it selfe is free from all error in faith and Religion and is to vs a sure although a secondary foundation of faith in that it doth truely yea infallibly propound to vs what is and what is not to be beleeued by faith it being therefore vnto vs a pillar and stay to leane vnto in all doubts of doctrine and an assured ground or establishment of verity whereupon we may securely stand against all heresies and errors It is not also without cause that S. Augustine said whosoeuer is afraid to be deceaued with the obscuritie of this question let him require the iudgement of the Church signifying that to require the iudgement of the Church is a good meanes to preserue one from being deceaued not onely as M. Wootton expoundeth in that particular question which there S. Augustine mentioneth and such like of lesser moment and much lesse doth he meane as M. White minceth the matter to wit in that particular question at this time but also and that à fortiori in other questions of greatest weight and most concerning saluation and at other times c. 8 I find 2. faults in this place with the Repliar 1. that he doth not report the whole expositions that I gaue to these places but onely part of them and yet tels me of mincing Next that hauing confirmed my exposition of the wordes of the Apostle by foure reasons and my exposition of Saint Austine by as many and hauing confuted his sense that here he repeates by manifest arguments he stands dumbe to all and onely repeates the places againe no otherwise then when I answered them I need not therefore trouble my selfe with confuting him here but referre * THE WAY §. 15. me to that I writ much accusing my selfe for medling with so base a trifler that hath neither heart nor strength to go forward in the argument nor wit nor grace to hold his tongue this one passage is the liuely image not onely of all this his Reply but of all his fellowes writings now in request to bring in authority of Scripture and Fathers as a Bride is led into the Church with state and ceremony and some grauity and furniture of words but when they should reply to that we answer and maintaine their expositions then to tergiuerfate and onely repeate that which is confuted CHAP. XXXVI An entrance into the question touching the visibility of the Protestant Church in the former ages Wherein it is briefly shewed where and in whom it was A. D. Concerning the eleuenth Chapter Hauing proued in the precedent Chapter that the doctrine of the Church is the rule Pag. 227. and meanes to instruct all men in faith in this Chapter I vndertake to shew that the Church whose doctrine is the rule and meanes White pag. 86. Wootton p. 104 White pag. 86. continueth in all ages Both my Aduersaries grant that the Church continueth in all ages M. White saith We confesse the Church neuer coased to be but continueth alwaies without interruption to the worlds end M. Wootton saith the truth of your assertion needeth no proofe and findeth great fault with me for making such a question as though Protestants did deny the Church to continue As concerning this their granting the continuance of the Church I gratefully accept it especially with M. Whites addition who yeeldeth that if we can proue that the very faith which Protestants now confesse hath not * If Protestants faith so far as they differ from vs continued alwaies I aske whether in the aire or in some faithfull men if in men who be those men successiuely continued in all ages since Christ or that it was interrupted so much as one yeare moneth or day it is sufficient to proue them no part of Gods Church For which he citeth in the Margent Dan. 7. ver 27. Psal 102. v. 26. Mat. 16.18 Luk. 1 v. 33. 1 AS no Protestant denies the doctrine of the Church to be the rule taking the Church for a So Waldens doctrinal tom 1. l. 2. c. 19. Haec est Ecclesia Symbolica Ecclesia Christi Catholica Apostolica mater credentiū per totum mundum dispersae à Baptismo Christi per Apostolos ceteros successores eorum ad haec tempora deuoluta quae vtique veram fidem continent c. pag. 99. the whole company of beleeuers which haue bene from Christ to this day so neither do they deny this Church to continue in all ages the which because I granted the Repliar in my answer to his booke you see how he ioyes in himselfe as if he had wonne the cause touching his visiblenesse of the Church But as I noted to him the question is not whether the Church continue in all ages to the worlds end for that we grant but whether the outward state thereof free from all corruption be alway so visible as the Papists say I shewed the Negatiue and in the 17. Digression made it plaine that our Aduersaries themselues cannot deny it the Repliar therefore in this place was to quit his owne D. D. whom I alledged and not to stand gratefully accepting that which no man denies The marginall question is
Papists to explicate proue their transubstantiation that it is confessed to be too grosse and meerly false if the words be vnderstood as they sound of the bodie of Christ So the Glosse Nisi sanc intelligas verba Berengarij in maiorem incides haeresim quà m ipse habuit §. Dentibus Turrecremata Nec iste modus loquendi est tenendus Ibi. nu 1. §. Respondeo Hervaeus Quod quidem vocabulum vt sc à dentibus tereatur non est extendendum sed exponendum restringendum vt sit sensus non quod corpus verum Christi teratur dentibus sed quod illae species sub quibus realiter est tereantur dentibus Et ideo est alia opinio communior verior c. 4. d. 10. qu. 1. pag. 17. But this Glosse is proued vntrue by this that the words thus expounded containe nothing against Berengarius opinion who had denied onely the grosse and reall presence of Christs flesh it was sometime therefore beleeued by some bodie in the Church of Rome belike that his blessed bodie touching the place and maner of presence was as far from them that receiue the Sacrament as heauen is from earth This for the reall and spirituall presence If the Iesuite dare put his Transubstantiation to the triall let him looke into m Digress 49. nu 9. THE WAY and hearken what many of his owne learned men say of it and when he hath done let him take a view of the poore answer that in this his Reply he hath made vnto them Pag. 32. A.D. The fourth marke is set downe by M. White in these words The most points of Papistrie are directly and at the first sight absurd and against common sence and the law of nature If he meane that they seeme at the first sight absurd c. to the seduced people of his sect who neither beleeue nor rightly vnderstand either the things by vs beleeued or the reason or authoritie for which we beleeue them then it may be he saith true but nothing to the purpose For if this were a sufficient marke to make vs misdoubt our religion by the like reason other heretickes or infidels who do not beleeue the mysteries of the blessed Trinitie the Incarnation c. might thinke to make vs misdoubt the truth of these mysteries because they who neither beleeue these mysteries nor rightly vnderstand them nor the reasons and motiues which make vs beleeue them will say that these mysteries are directly and at first sight absurd c. yet in truth they are not absurd nor against but aboue our reason and sense so I say to M. White although other points of our religion seeme to him absurd yet in truth they are not absurd neither are they contrary to but at most aboue the reach of naturall reason 4 I do not obiect against the religion of the Papacie that it is but aboue the reach of reason For many mysteries of the true faith are so the which we must beleeue and n Nec quisquam potest intelligentiam Dei apprehendere nisi qui toto se despecto conuersus ad sapientiam Dei omnem quaerendi ratiocinationem transtuleriâ— ad credendi fideÌ„ Oros l. 6. c. 1. not examine by sence but that many points thereof are absurd and directly against sence and the light of nature which no peece of true religion is as for example that a man endued with reason should fall downe and adore and inuocate an image o Shewed in THE WAY §. 50. n. â—6 51. n 7. and below chap. 54. the which in the Church of Rome is taught and practised As many other points are as absurd as it But if it be true which the Iesuite sayes that they are mysteries which we vnderstand not being a seduced people not acquainted with the authority whereupon they are beleeued that is another matter that I knew not before for they are to blame that will demand reason for the mysteries of Rome that haue authoritie beyond reason p Apoc. 17.5 whose forehead hath the word Mysterie written in it and I had forgotten q Quia in his quae vult ei est pro ratione voluntas Nec est qui ei dicat cur ita facis Gloss §. Veri c. Quanto de transl ep Sacrilegij instaâ— esset disputare de facto suo Glos §. Quis enim d. 40. Non nos Jta nos ad iudices reuocas ac si nescires omnia iura in scrinio pectoris nostri collecata esse sic flat sententia Loco cedant omnes Pontifex sum Paul 2. Platin. p. 304. a rule in his law that forbids men to aske any reason of his doings But in the mean time where are the Iesuites r Introd q. 4. p. 100. prudentiall motiues without which nothing ought to be beleeued because the vnderstanding cannot assent to the thing propounded without some probable motiue For religion bids not men be stockes A. D. And one cause why the common sort of Protestants do at the first sight thinke them absurd is because they haue not heard points of our doctrine truly related and declared as our Authors declare them nor the reasons and authorities set downe for which we beleeue them but haue heard such ignorant or malicious Ministers as M White make false relation of points of absurd doctrine to be held by vs which we do not hold but abhorre As to go no further M. White falsely relateth in this very place that we hold the Pope to haue right to Lord it ouer the Scriptures Fathers Councels Church and all the world That we teach also men to murther the King to pay no debts to blow vp the Parliament to dispense with murther and whoredome c. These and such like be not points of our doctrine but shamelesse and slanderous vntruths by which simple people are drawne by ignorant or malicious Ministers to mislike our doctrine in generall and to be apt to haue a worse conceit of euery point of it in particular especially at the first sight then by due examination they shall finde it to deserue 5 Not Protestants onely thinke Poperie absurd but many Papists also censuring the points I haue named and misliking them shew plainly that I spake true yet the Reply sayes the cause why the common sort of Protestants thinke Poperie absurd is because they heare not the points of Papistrie truly related but their ignorant and malicious Ministers charge them to hold what they hold not This is false for first these Protestants that thus condemne Papistrie do dayly reade the Papists owne bookes which are not restrained and prohibited with a The reading and vse of Lutheran bookes forbidden not onely the vulgar but all others of what state degree order or condition soeuer they be though Bishops Archbishops or greater onely the Jnquisitors are excepted by a Decretall of Iulius the 3. See Sept. Decr. l. 5. tit 4. de lib. prohib c. 2. that seueritie wherewith
for him The l Heb. 11.36 Scripture reports how many of the children of God were tried by mocking and scourging by bonds and prisonment they were stoned hewen apeeces tempted they wandered vp and downe destitute and afflicted All which the Apostle saies they did by faith and confidence of the Promises and yet their assurance was no other nor otherwise begotten then the ordinary assurance of all Gods children which is concluded by ioyning the light of their conscience kindled by the holy Ghost to the immediate light of the conditions reuealed in the Scriptures 5 That which our Aduersaries assigne to be the cause why a man cannot be sure of his saluation because no man is sure of his Perseuerance is easily answered by affirming likewise that the grace of perseuerance with other gifts is giuen all the elect in their iustification For S. Paule m Rom. 8.38 sayes he was certaine of it and what he in that place auouches of himselfe belongs to others as well as himselfe by the confession of n Staplet de iustif l. 9. c. 13. Tolet. in Rom. 8. v. vlt. our strongest aduersaries and he auouches not onely that Gods loue to him but more properly that his loue to God shall neuer faile o Perer. in Ro. 5. d 12. n. 59. The Iesuit also confesses it to be the doctrine of p De Bono perseuerant Saint Austine that grace is giuen by Christ whereby not onely man may perseuere but â—â—lso that he shall perseuere q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost hom 9. in Rom. The fauorits of Princes are aduanced to honour and riches but their preseuerance therein is vncertaine But it is not so with the grace of God bestowed in Iustification and therefore we may beleeue as well our Perseuerance as our Grace And if the iustified be certaine of the grace of Iustification that he hath then may he be certaine and well assured of his Perseuerance because it is a grace purchased vs by Christ and included in that Peace which the iustified by faith haue with God through him or else let him shew that can where any firme and setled peace of minde is where there is vncertainty and doubtfulnesse touching Perseuerance r Concil Trid. sess 6. can 22. Vega pro Concil l. 12. cap. 23. Barth Mediâ— 12. qu. 109. art 10. ad 3. Greg. de Valent. tom 2. pag. 849. c. And that it is in the power of a iustified man with Gods helpe to perseuere in grace to the end is defined by the Trent Councell and holden to be the doctrine of all Catholikes which power a 1. Pet. 5.1 Saint Peter also testifies to be reduced into act by the almightie power of God keeping him * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as with a garrison through faith to saluation according to that of b Ier. 32.40 the Prophet I will put my feare into their hearts that they shall not depart from me Which ouerthrowes all them that make the vncertaintie of Perseuerance a reason against the certainty of saluation CHAP. XVII Concerning points Fundamentall and not Fundamentall The distinction expounded and defended 4. Who shall iudge what is Fundamentall and what not A iest at the election of Pope Leo the tenth A. D. * White p. 100. M. White by the foundation or points fundamentall Pag 66. vnderstandeth all truthes which are necessary for the saluation of all men but this definition is not found in * Act. 4.12 1. Cor. 3.11 Ephes 2.19 the texts of Scripture cited by him in the margent Neither doth it helpe the matter for the question may still be how many and which truthes those be which be necessarie The which questioÌ„ if we leaue to be determined by euerie mans priuate spirit or particular iudgement we shall either haue no point of faith to be accouÌ„ted a point fundamentall in regard the ignorance of some may be such that they may thinke a man may be saued by morall good life although through ignorance he beleeue nothing at all or else we may haue so many fundamentall points of faith as it shall please euerie braine-sicke fellow to hold to be necessary to saluation The which how great confusion it will breed in the Church euery man of meane capacity may easily see And therfore euery man ought to see how necessary it is that the determinatioÌ„ of this necessary question be not left to the priuate spirit or particular iudgement of this or that man but to the iudgement of the Catholike Church accounting with S. Austine all those points which are diligently digested and confirmed by full authority of the same Church to be fundameÌ„tall or to pertaine to the foundation and consequently to be such as must necessarily be beleeued actually or vertually by all men and such as may not doubtfully be disputed of and much lesse rashly and obstinately be denied by any man 1 OVr doctrine is that in the things reuealed in the Scripture and belonging to the obiect of faith there is a difference whereby some are more necessary to be knowne and without error to be vnderstood then othersome For though it be lawfull for no man either to misbeleeue or obstinately not to beleeue any thing that is writteÌ„ yet the simple ignorance or error in many things hinders not saluation nor the substance of Faith but either a priuate man or a whole particular Church thus ignorant or erring either inuincibly or not affectedly and obstinately in such things and yet holding others aright hath sauing faith and is in the state of grace This difference of things arises from 3. respects First of the commandement enioyning and vrging the knowledge of one thing more then the knowledge of another as for example the knowledge of Christ crucified more then the knowledge of his Genealogy for though both be reuealed alike yet not both vnder the like penalty Secondly of the nature and condition of the things when this doth more properly and necessarilie belong to saluation then that for without the knowledge of story of Gedeon I may be saued but without the knowledge of Christs nature and office I cannot Thirdly of their vse WheÌ„ one thing is the foundatioÌ„ and ground that giues light and subsistence to another as the knowledge of Christs office merits brings light to the vnderstanding of the doctrine touching our owne vnworthinesse c. Out of these respects and degrees of things that are beleeued as they stand in order one to another and in vse to vs we call some FVNDAMENTALL and some NOT FVNDAMENTALL not with relation to our faith so much as to our knowledge in as much as it is daÌ„gerous to misdoubt the truth of any thing that is reuealed to us if it were but a 2. Sam. 24.9 1. Chro. 21.5 Whether the number of the children of Israell able to beare armes when Dauid numbred them were 1500000 though no man will say an error or ignorance in this matter were
it may be the easing of him may do him good He complains this distinction when it is granted will not helpe the matter neither for the question may still be how many and which truthes those be that are necessary the which question if we leaue to be determinated by euery priuate spirit either we shall haue no point to be counted Fundamentall in regard the ignorance of some may be such that they may thinke a man may be saued by morall good life although through ignorance he beleeue nothing at all or else so many as shall please euery brainsicke fellow The determination therefore of this necessary question is to be left to the iudgement of the Catholicke Church that all such points that are confirmed by full authority of the said Church he receiued for such as must necessarily be beleeued by all men Wherein first I blame his discretion for where I mentioned the distinction I had no cause to inquire whose the authority is to iudge what is Fundamentall and what otherwise but assuming it as a thing iudged already I onely mentioned it affirming some points to be Fundamentall and some otherwise How it helps the matter therefore I had nothing to do in that my words were not vsed in this question Next I pittie his wretched state that in no controuersie running betweene vs no not so much as in this a poore distinction can preuaile vnlesse his owne Church and the Pope therein for * Shewed plainely below cap 35. 36. that he meanes by the authority of the Catholicke Church be made the iudge This is a very meane shift when a question depends betweene vs and them to put the Scripture and the consent of the Ancient Church by and require themselues to be iudges Thirdly this question as all other matters belonging to faith must be iudged by no mans priuate spirit but by the Catholicke Church of Christ as the Iudge and by the Scripture onely as the Rule and if they be no competent Iudges who through ignorance may thinke a man may be saued by morall good life though he beleeue nothing at all then away with the Church of Rome and let it be acknowledged as erroneous as any priuate spirit i See cap. 22. n. 1. wherein it is frequently holden that the Gentiles were iustified and might be saued onely by their morall life without beleeueing any thing at all Fourthly supposing the Protest left the determining of this question to priuate spirit which they do not but to the true Church of God following the Scripture yet let my Iesuite answer if the practise of his owne Church be not as bad where the Pope hath power k See cap. 36. n. 3. to make a new article of faith and that to be a Fundamentall point belonging to faith at one time which is not so at another so that all men shall then be bound to beleeue it which before were free to beleeue it l Scot. 4. d. 11. q. 3 §. ad argu Tonstall de verit corp p 46. as it hath already bene practised in the point of transubstantiation and may when the Pope will in the points of m Dico primò veritatem hanc sc virginem esse conceptam sine peccato originali posse definiti ab Ecclesia quando id expedire indicauerit probatur Nam imprimis EcclesiaÌ„ posse controuersiam hanc in alterutram partem decidere apertè supponunt Sixtus 4. Pius 5. Suar. tom 2. disp 3. sect 6. the conception of the B. Virgin and n Paul Benc Eugub l. de effic auxil c. 1. the concourse of Gods grace with mans wil and the o Staplet Princip doctr l. 9. c. 4. Relect. coÌ„tro 5. q. 2. art 4. Canonizing of Hermes or Clement into the sacred Scripture In which case his Holinesse might possible if not be brain-sicke which betides yonger men which Popes commonly are not vnlesse it be sometime when the yong Cardinâ—â— are in an humor to elect a Bennet or Iohn or * When Leo the tenth a yong man was elected in the Conclaue Alphonsus Petrucius a yong Cardinall proclaimed his election at the window Pontificem habemus Leonem decimum ac viuant vigeantque iuniores Pap. Masso in LeoÌ„ 10. he should haue cried by the order Annutiâ— vobis gaudium magnum Papam habemus Marcell sacr cerem pag. 19 Leo yet doâ—e at least by vertue of his age or for his recreation play the vice of a Play as p Alex. ab Alexand. genial dicr l. 3. c. 21. Amasis the King of Egipt would sometime do among his Courtiers and as q Aelian var. hist l. 12. c. 15. Agesilaus ride vpon a sticke among his children to make them sport the which comparisons howsoeuer his creatures will take vnkindly yet all the world knowes his Consistorie hath bene a stage whereon he hath many a time and often plaied these parts ere now as formally as the priuatest spirit or braine-sickest companion aliue can do and so I leaue him CHAP. XVIII 1. Touching the perpetuall virginity of Mary 2. The celebration of Easter 3. The Baptisme of Infants The Iesuits halting 4. And the Scriptures sufficiency A. D. I for breuitie sake will omit to vrge other points Pag. 68. which Protestants beleeue with vs viz the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgine against the errour of Heluidius White pag. 12. the celebration of Easter on the Sunday against those heretikes that denied it the Baptisme of Infants against Anabaptists who will not allow it c. 1 HEre my name is cited in the Margent and the page of my Booke as if I had written or some way insinuated that these 3. points were matters of faith and yet not contained in the Scripture But I writ nothing that sounds that way neither in the place cited nor any where else yet because I will misse no place where he cites me I answer he affirmes 3. things First that we hold the perpetuall virginity of the blessed Virgine the Celebration of Easter vpon the Sunday and the Baptisme of Infants to be a For that is the question expressed by himselfe a litle before pag. 67. of his Repl. points of faith necessary to be beleeued â—â—condly that these 3. are not contained in Scripture Thirdly that we beleeue all this with the Papists Wherein there is neuer a true word For to the first the perpetuall virginity of the Virgine Marie after the birth of our Sauiour as well as before we beleeue as a probable and likely truth but not as a matter of faith the which if my aduersarie mislike I require him to forbeare me and answer Saint Basil with whom we consent b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil pa. 233. graec Froben an 1551. That she denyed not the workes of mariage to her husband after the birth of her Sonne though it nothing hinder godly doctrine yet what was done after without medling with it let vs leaue to the
all points contained in Scripture all which are points of faith and consequently are points necessary to be beleeued either expressely and in particular or implicitely and in generall vnder paine of damnation Indeed I do grant and neuer did deny but that there are some points necessary to be particularly knowne of all sorts necessitate medij and some necessary to be known necessitate praecepti In which points implicite beleefe doth not suffice but expresse particular knowledge is required by Catholicke Diuines to be ioyned to the assent of our faith Whereby appeareth that M. White doth vtter two grosse vntruthes 2 White p. 5. 7. when he saies that we vtterly refuse knowledge and that the Colliars faith is canonized for our Creed In other points so farre as we neither know nor haue sufficient meanes to know them we may well commend the Colliars faith in beleeuing in generall as the Church beleeueth For in this generall act is infolded a vertuall or implicite beleefe of all points both in regard a generall includeth all particulars contained in it as also for that this particular act of beleeuing the Church eo ipso in that we are moued vnto it by the authority of diuine reuelation as the primary or formall cause and by the authoritie of the Church it selfe as a necessary condition or the secondary cause doth so dispose the minde of the beleeuer that he is ready to beleeue euerie other point reuealed by God and propounded by the Church Againe * Pag. 140. Thirdly whereas M. White 3 White p. 5. requireth particular knowledge to be ioyned with the assent of faith as though he meant that one could not beleeue any point of faith which he did not first expressely and in particular know this his assertion is not onely contrarie to his fellow M. Wotton Wotton p. 46. who admitteth a generall or implicite beleefe of some points which we do not in particular know 1. Cor. 13. v. 2. but it is also against the Scriptures Fathers and naturall reason it selfe In the Scriptures we haue that not onely Faith and knowledge Heb. 11. v. 1. are 2. distinct things but also that faith is of things not apparant or not knowne and that faith doth captiuate the vnderstanding for the seruice of Christ 2. Cor. 10 v. 5. Rom. 10. v. 16. requiring an obedience in the beleeuer all which were not verified if expresse particular distinct knowledge were presupposed before beleefe or if beleefe and such knowledge were all one thing The Fathers do not onely distinguish faith and knowledge but do also affirme Faith to be without knowledge of things beleeued Iren. l. 2. c. 45. It is better saith Irenaeus that one that knoweth nothing beleeue God and perseuere in his loue which doth quicken a man then by subtilties of questions and by much speech to fall into impietie Not to know saith S. Hilary that which thou must beleeue Hilar. l. 5. de Trin. ante medium Aug. Ep. 102. ad Euodium doth not so much require pardon as reward because it is the greatest stipend of faith to hope for those things which thou knowest not If saith Saint Augustine Christ was borne onely for those that can discerne these things with certaine knowledge in vaine almost do we labour in the Church which he saith in regard the common sort cannot with all the preaching in the world discerne with certaine knowledge the high and hard Mysteries of the blessed Trinitie Incarnation and other such mysteries of faith and therefore not the viuacitie or quickenesse of vnderstanding saith the same Saint Augustine but the simplicitie of beleeuing Aug. cont Fund c. 4. Tract 40. in Ioan. doth make the common sort of people most safe And againe he saith of some they did not beleeue because they knew but they beleeued that they might know And in the same place he asketh what is faith but to beleeue that thou seest not Conformable to which also he saith Serm. 120. de tempore After we haue receiued Baptisme we say I am a faithfull man I beleeue that which I know not Reason also and experience it selfe teacheth that beleefe and knowledge are distinct and that beleefe doth not necessarily presuppose knowledge but is rather sometimes an antecedent to it Insomuch that euen in naturall things the Philosopher acknowledgeth that one that learneth must beleeue before he come to knowledge M. White may aske how one can assent to the veritie which he doth not first apprehend or know I answer that some apprehension at least confuse rude and generall I do not deny to be requisite in the assent of faith but expresse particular distinct or cleare apprehension or knowledge is not necessary otherwise not onely the common sort but the learnedest in the world might despaire of saluationâ— in regard they could not beleeue the mysterie of the blessed Trinity which no man in this life can distinctly and clearely vnderstand and know and yet all sorts of men are bound to beleeue it explicite and much lesse could they beleeue both it and all other mysteries contained in the whole corps of the holy Scripture all which are necessary to be beleeued in one sort or other explicite or implicite as hath bene proued and yet no one learned man hath particular distinct knowledge of euerie truth contained in the Scriptures Quis enim est hic laudabimus eum 1 FOr the reducing of this wilde discourse into some order and the better discerning of the controuersie you are to note that the Iesuite in the beginning of his Treatise laied downe 4. propositions touching faith out of the which he would spin his motiues to Papistry the first is that Faith is necessary to saluation The second that this faith is but only one The third that it must be infallible The fourth that it must be entire extending it selfe to all points vniuersally This conclusion I graunted in one sense and denied in another That our beleefe must be entire whole and sound in all points by obtaining a particular distinct knowledge of the same in our selues that so our faith might include an apprehension and knowledge of that we beleeue as well as an assent in the will I granted but if his meaning were that which then I suspected and now he bewraies that the implicite faith taught by the Iesuites and schoolemen destitute of knowledge and onely beleeuing as the Church beleeues were this entire faith so necessary and infallible then I denied it and gaue my reasons and a Dig. 2. in a speciall Digress shewed and confuted it All which he passes by and onely mentions as you see my bare assertion against his implicite faith but what I said in describing it confuting it and shewing the drift and purpose of it he touches not though it concerned his cause more then that which he replies to This is his method whereto he cleaues in all his booke to reply entirely to
praed sect 6. others that hold predestination to be ex praeuisis to deliuer it in the same maner Lessius a Iesuite among the rest hath one c 5. assert pag 367. n. 75. assertion that containes all this All the iustified are elected and predestinate to glorie but this election and predestination is not complete but requires a condition on our behalfe that it may be complete the which condition it is in our own power to accomplish or not to accomplish and therefore it is also in our owne power to make that our predestination may be complete Aureolus d 1. d. 41. art 1. pag. 490. edit Rom. sayes that all Schoole men which hold predestination ex praeuisis expound that God wils all men to be saued antecedently before their working but not consequently by his will following the foresight of their workes Which words make the doctrine of Gods antecedent and consequent will thus expounded to set the first act of Gods louing Iacob after the foresight of Iacobs good life and to make the foresight of mens good or ill deserts to be the cause of their election and reprobation The question then between the Iesuite and me touching predestination The state of the question touching Gods Anâ—ecedent will is this not whether God from all eternitie decreed to punish the reprobate eternally for their sinnes so that their sinnes should be the immediate cause of their damnation for this I denie not but the true state is touching the CAVSE OF THE DECREE IT SELF that is to say what is the cause why God foreseeing that all men should equally in Adam be sinners yet notwithstanding decreed to shew his mercy in forgiuing some electing them to life and to shew his iustice and wrath in other some by reiecting them from this election forsaking them in their sinnes that they might eternally be condemned I say there can no other cause of this decree be assigned then onely the free will of God whereas the Iesuite in his doctrine of antecedent and consequent will exemplified in this his comparison of an earthly King makes the reason of this decree to be works foreseene so that on the behalfe of the elect their foreseene grace should be the cause of their election and on the behalfe of the reprobate their foreseene sinne should be the cause of their reiection 11 The which doctrine of my aduersary how plaine soeuer he thinke it to iudicious wits whether predestination were in the corrupted masse of sinne or before and whether the foreseene workes be vnderstood to be of grace or of nature is false vpon fiue grounds First it seemes to be the very opinion of the Massilians who of all hands are holden to haue bene Semi-pelagians or the relicks of Pelagius Prosper e Epist ad August sayes This is their profession that euery man sinned in Adam and that no man is regenerate to saluation by his workes but by the grace of God neuerthelesse the propitiation which is in the mysterie of Christs bloud is propounded to all men without exception that whosoeuer will come to faith and baptisme may be saued but who would beleeue and who would perseuere in that faith which afterward should be holpen by Gods grace those God foreknew before the world was made and those he predestinate vnto his kingdome who he foresaw being freely called would be worthy of election and would depart this life well And Faustus that was a Bishop of that sect f De grat lib arb l. 2. c. 2. sayes What God may foresee or fore-ordaine touching vs concerning that which is to come that consists in our well or ill doing g Cap. 3. pag. 833. It is one thing for God to foreknow and another to predestinate praescience foresees what is to be done and then afterwards predestination appoints the rewards that foresees the merits this fore-ordaines the rewards when that hath pronounced a cause then this foretels the sentence and so vnlesse Gods praescience discouer something his predestination decrees nothing This is the selfe same that my aduersarie h Pag. 166. writes how God vpon the foresight and respect of mens liuing and dying well in the secret chamber of his diuine knowledge and will pronounces a particular sentence and decree of saluation to some and of damnation to others Which also is the doctrine whereinto this exposition of Gods antecedent and consequent will is resolued Againe if God predestinate no man to his end but vpon the foresight and respect of his workes then he hath no perfect or formall will to elect any but after the foresight of his good life nor to reprobate any but after the foresight of his euill life which being so I demaund whence it comes that the elect beleeue and the reprobate beleeue not and how it comes to passe that God foresees grace in the one and sinne in the other It must needs be answered either that it is Gods will the elect shall haue grace and the reprobate no grace giuen them or that they beleeue or not beleeue of their owne free will by the strength of nature without any working of God This latter is grosse Pelagianisme making nature the beginning of grace But if the former be granted that God foresees no grace but what himselfe predestinates to giue nor no sinne but what vpon the withholding of his grace the reprobate will freely worke then against all discourse this makes that the cause of predestination which is an effect ensuing on it for therefore God will and doth giue grace because first he hath elected and will giue no grace because he hath reprobated as I will shew by and by 12 Secondly it is a ground both in Diuinitie and nature that the will intends the end before the meanes hence it followes that God cannot haue this consequent will to saue vpon the foresight of grace For I reason thus * Quia volens ordinatè finem ea quae sunt ad finem prius vult fineÌ„ quam aliquod entium ad finem propter talem finem alia vult Ergo cum in toto processâ— quo creatura beatâ—ficabilis perducitur ad perfectum finem cum finis vltimus sit beatitudo perfecta Deus volens huic aliquid istius ordinis PRIMO VVLT HVIC CREATVRAE BEATIFICABILI FINEM ET QVASI POSTERIVS VVLT SIBI ALIA QVAE SVNT IN ORDINE ILLORVM QVAE PERTINENT AD FINEM scilicet Gratia Fides Meritum bonus vsus liberi arbitrij Omnia ista ad istum finem sunt ordinata licet quaedam remotiùs quaedam propinquiùs Ergo PRIMO ISTI VVLT DEVE BEATITVDINEM QVAM ALIQVID ISTORVM ET PRIVS VVLT â—I QVODCVNQVE ISTORVM QVAM PRAEVIDEAT IPSVM HABITVRVM quodcunque istorum Jgitur PROPTER NVLLVM ISTORVM PRAEVISVM VVLT EI BEATITVDINEM Scot. 1. d. 4. qu vnic §. Potest aliter Media vt media non possunt appeti nisi propter finem non igitur potuit Deus
velle dare certiâ— hominibus media infallibilia ad salutem nisi prius dare vellet ijsdem hominibus ipsam salutem Bellarm. de grat lib. arbiâ— l 2. c. 15. pag. 472 D. In the order of reason and causalitie the will of the end goes before the will of the meanes that brings to the end in that the meanes are not intended but for a certaine end and so the said end is entred the will and propounded by it before the meanes But Gods will to elect men to glorie is his will of the end because glorie is the end of faith and a good life and faith and a good life are the meanes because they bring to glorie o Deus nulli electorum ab aeterno ideo ordinauit dare finalem beatitudinem in patria quia praeordinauit dare ei gratiam iustitiam in via sed potiùs è conuerso ideo praeordinauit ab aeterno dare ei graetiam pro via quia gratis pure praedestinauit ei dare finalem beatitudinem pro patriae Andrae Castrens 1. d. 40. concl 5. Deus prius vult glorium Petro deinde gratiam c. Fra. Mayro 1. d. 41. qu. 4. §. Hoc autem declar Therefore Gods will to elect men to glorie goes before his will to giue them faith and grace therefore he elects not after or vpon the foresight of faith and grace therefore before hee see faith or grace in Iacob which he wil giue him he purposes to giue him life eternall therefore he purposes to giue faith and grace after his will to giue him eternall life and therefore he elects no man consequently vpon the foresight of his faith and good life nor antecedently wills the saluation of the reprobate from whom by his eternall purpose he decreed as the meanes to withhold his grace 13 Thirdly this antecedent and consequent will supposes that God elects none to glorie but for the grace and perseuerance he foresees in him nor reprobates or refuses any from glory but for the sinnes he foresees in him Thus my Aduersary sayes i Pag. 163. We must hold for certaine God did not effectually ordaine any to saluation or damnation without foresight of their good or ill desert k Pag. 164. God hath decreed in generall that all and onely those shall be effectually saued who by vsing the meanes of saluation and helpes of grace shall depart this life in good state and that those and onely those shall be damned who by neglecting grace depart this life in the state of sinne l Pag. 165. Leauing it to the libertie and free choise of men whether they will vse or not vse those helpes and meanes And so vpon this foresight and respect of mens liuing and dying well or ill pronounces the sentence of saluation and damnation Against this I reason thus He that neither elects nor reprobates any vpon the foresight of their good or ill vsing of grace and meanes offered by their owne freewill hath no such antecedent will to saue all nor consequent will to reprobate any onely vpon the foresight of their sin This is plaine because this antecedent and consequent will is defined by willing and not willing vpon foresight of that which man by his freewill will do and if the definition be not in God then neither is the thing defined But God neither elects nor reprobates any vpon the foresight of their good or ill vsing of grace and meanes offered by their owne freewill Ergo God hath no such antecedent will to saue all nor consequent will to reprobate any vpon the condition of their workes The second proposition I proue by reason and authoritie By reason for whatsoeuer he foresaw in any that himselfe purposed to worke If he foresaw grace and the good vse of freewill in Iacob he purposed to worke it by infusing it if he foresaw sin and the ill vse of freewill in Esaw he purposed m Rom. 9.18 Habemus ex doctrina Thomae quod diuina reprobatio est CAVSA de relictionis in peccato aeternae poenae Bann 1. p. pag. 665. e. to worke it by withholding grace and hardening and he not onely purposed to worke this which he foresaw but to worke and effect it as the meanes and as a subordinate second cause to bring man to the end appointed For grace freewill perseuerance and the rest are but causes leading to the end and therefore n Inter primam causam agenteÌ„ secundam est ordo quo vna necessario pendet ab altera Ergo secunda non agit nisi à prima ad agendum mota applicata ideo enim dici videtur causa secunda quia mouetur à prima alioqui enim solùm esset causa eum prima Azo instit moral tom 1. l. 1. cap. 21 ad 8. secondary and subordinate causes and therefore decreed and intended after the end and lesse principally then the end The o Suar. latè de praedest lib. 3. c. 2. inde Qâ—ic quid est in homine ordinans ipsam in salutem TOTVM coÌ„prehenditur sub effectu praedestinationis Capreol 1. d. 41. art 1. Fra. Mayron qu 4. D Thomâ—s vt Catholicus in doctrina Augustini conciliorum valde versatus considerat bonum vsum liberi arbitrij quo quis liberè vti ur auxilio Dei tanquam effectum gratiae diuinae praedestinationis praeordinatum praedefinitum à Deo Vnde colligit necessario quod ille bonus vsus non potest esse ratio praedestinationis cum ipsemet sit effectus praedestinationis praedefinitionis Dei Bann 1. pag. 632. e. Iesuites confesse not onely glory in the life to come but the first grace and iustification and all supernaturall workes and the cooperation of freewill and all the goodnes and strength of nature and perseuerance in this life to be the effects of predestination intended and effectually giuen of God to the elect for the bringing of them to glory This glory therefore could not be intended vpon the foresight of them but by the meanes of them and therefore Iacob could not be elected nor Esaw reprobated vpon the foresight of the good and ill vse of grace and freewill as any cause mouing God thereunto but the cause must be his owne will mouing it selfe in manner vnknowne to vs and Iacobs well vsing grace was the means intended by God to bring him to saluation and Esawes wickednes which God decreed to permit was the meanes intended by him to bring him to the condemnation whereunto the masse of sin would leade Secondly that neither election nor reprobation specially negatiue which alone containes the whole reason of reprobation q Odio habere non sonat solum priuationem dilectionis sed significat velle malum Caieta comm in Rom. 9.13 or his purpose not to saue or elect Esaw which is negatiue reprobation puts him into the state that he must be damned is vpon the foresight of works or vpon the condition of
mans will is the constant iudgement of the most of our aduersaries I will not ground this authoritie vpon the Scripture or r See his last chap. de praedest grat Ambrosius Catharinus vehementer in eos inuohitur qui dicunt Deum ex se aliquos reprobare excludere à vita aeterna non quidem propter eorum praeuisa mala opera sed quia ipse vult non dare illis vitam eternam Et hanc opinionem vocat ipse durissimam intolerabilem causam desperationis hominum impiam eamque assignat ipse Luthero CVMEA TAMEN SIT IPSISSIMA B. AVGVSTINI SENTENTIA Peter selâ—ct disp in Rom. 9. n. 31. And that the iudgement of S. Austin is that neither election nor reprobation is for workes foreseene is affirmed by Grego Arimin d. 40. Dom. Bann 1. p. q. 23. art 5. Sixt. Senens biblioth l. 6. annot 251. Tolet. in Rom. 11. annot 4 Suar. opusc de auxil l. 3. c. 16. 17. tract de diuin praedest l. 1. c. 8. pag. 179. Zumel var. disp part 3. pag. 358. S. Austin because I intend no solemne discourse about the question and haue to do with an aduersary whose arrogancy p Rom 9 11. 11.33 Eph. 1 11. and ignorance is fittest to be buffeted with the authority of his owne side but I will make it appeare that going about to confute Caluine and expound his antecedent will he is fallen into that grosse opinion about predestination that scarce any of his owne Doctors hold That predestination therefore to eternall life was according to the doctrine of Caluine without and before the foresight of workes so that it was made without any respect of them so freely and in that manner that grace and good works rather are effects of it is affirmed by diuers of the principall Schoole Doctors in the Church of Rome Gregorius Ariminensis and after him the Cardinall of Cambray lay downe r Arim. 1. pag. 163. Camerac 1. pag. 175. their iudgement in fiue propositions the first No man is predestinated for the good vse of his freewill which God knew he would haue howsoeuer the goodnesse thereof be considered The second No man is predestinated for that he was foreordained to perseuere in habituall grace without let to the end The third Whomsoeuer God predestinated he predestinated onely freely and of mercy The fourth No man is reprobated for the euill vse of his freewill that God foresaw he would haue The fift No man is reprobated because it was foreseene that he would finally hinder grace Andreas Castrensis Å¿ Andrae Castrens 1. d. 40. pag. 179. inde sets downe fiue conclusions The first God from eternity neuer predestinated to giue to any iustifying grace that should make him worthy eternall life because he foresaw any merit of theirs to come whereby they should either of condignity or congruity merit that grace The second God from all eternity foreordained to giue grace and charity to some in time not therefore because he foresaw they would vse that grace well The third God from all eternity predestinated to giue euery one of the elect some grace and supernaturall benefit of his meere free goodnesse and not because he foresaw any merit of that man whereupon he should either condignily or of congruity merit the gift The fourth God from all eternity predestinated none of the elect because he foresaw his good works or merits nor for his good workes to come or merits foreseene The fift God from all eternity ordained to giue eternall life to none of the elect BECAVSE HE FOREORDAINED TO GIVE HIM GRACE CHARITY AND IVSTICE IN THIS LIFE BVT CONTRARY therefore he foreordained from all eternity to giue him grace in this life because he freely and purely predestinated to giue him eternall life Dominicus Bannes t Dom. Bann 1. p. q. 23. art 5. â— Pag. 634. b. layes downe diuers conclusions but fiue to this matter 1. There can none cause be assigned not onely of the act of Gods predestination but neither any reason or motiue on the behalfe of the creature 2 Pag. 6 32. b. or of God himselfe 2. It cannot bee said that merits preexisting in this life are the reason or cause of the effect of predestination 3 Ibid. d. 3. It cannot be said that merits following the effect of predestination are the reason of predestination the meaning is that therefore God should be vnderstood to giue any man grace or predestinate to giue him grace because he foresaw he would vse that grace well 4 Pag. 650. b. 4. No cause of predestination is giuen on our behalfe 5 Pag. 664. c. cum 665. a. 5. It is the opinion of Thomas that speaking simply there is NO CAVSE OR REASON OF REPROBATION ASSIGNED ON THE PART OF THE REPROBATE AS NO CAVSE OR REASON OF ELECION IS ASSIGNED ON THE PART OF THE ELECT and the sense is not speaking comparatiuely why he should reprobate Esau rather then Iacob but absolutely considering the reprobate themselues THERE CAN NO CAVSE BE ASSIGNED ON THEIR OWNE PART OF THEIR REPROBATION AND THIS IS THOMAS HIS MEANING and this is proued c. Capreolus shews his owne and Aquinas his iudgement in 7. conclusions u Capreol 1. d. 41. q. vnic whereof the first is Neither merits nor demerits are the cause of predestination on the part of the act of him that predestinateth The fourth is The merits which follow the effect of predestination are not the cause of the effect of predestination in that manner that some say that God therefore giues a man grace and predestinated to giue it him because he foresaw he would vse it well as when the King giues a horse to him that he foreknowes will vse him well The fift Though some particular effect of predestination haue cause on our behalfe yet the totall effect of predestination in common hath no cause on our behalfe The sixt The goodnesse of God is the cause of the totall effect of predestination The seauenth The reason of the election of some and reprobation of other some is takeÌ„ out of the goodnesse of God whose diuine will alone is the reason why he reprobates these and elects them * Aâ—t 2. arg 2. There is no cause in speciall why this man is reprobated and that man elected but the simple will of God These conclusions of Cameracensis Andreas Castrensis Bannes and Capreolus are extracted out of x 1 d. 41. qu. 1. 1. p. q. 23. art 2. 3 4. 5. cont Gent. l. 3. c. 1 61. Lect. in Ro. 9. Aquine followed for substaÌ„ce y Magist 1. d. 40. 41. Altisiod sum l 1. c. 9. 〈◊〉 1. 2. Scot. 1. d. 41. q. 1. Mayron ibi qu. 4. art 1 Maisil art 2. Concl 4. Duran qu. 2. Egid qu. 1. art 2. Dionys qu. 2. Maior d. 40. qu. 2. Ferrat contr Gent. l. 3. c 61. §. pro solutione Gerson consol
his eternall counsell ordained them to the end 15 Fourthly this opinion of Gods antecedent will necessarily implies that he also giues grace and meanes sufficient for saluation to all men and supposes that there is no mortall man old or yong or Christian or Pagan from the beginning of the world to the end therof but God reueales to him the meanes of saluation and at the least in some instant of his life sets him in a state that he may enioy the meanes if he will and be saued The consequence is proued because if God will onely saue such as vse the meanes of saluation well and damne such as vse them ill and that consequently because they vse them well or ill he must in iustice reueale and exhibite these meanes vnto them forasmuch as no man of himselfe can recouer them and he must reueale and exhibite them to man when he is in such state that he hath the vse of his freewill as my aduersaries king that wils the saluation of his subiects on condition they keepe his lawes is bound to publish and make his lawes knowne vnto them else if he execute any of them it must be vpon a new point and not consequently vpon their not keeping his lawes so it is vnpossible that God should onely consequently reprobate them for the ill vse of his grace and contempt of the meanes of saluation that neuer had these meanes nor euer heard of this grace or euer were in state that they could vse them as many millions of people in all ages haue bene and now are The first sort whereof are infants that either die in the wombe or vnbaptized or reach not the yeares of discretion and vse of reason and freewill of whom Gregorius Ariminensis k 1. d. 46. qu. vnic ad argum Occha sayes It is false that God antecedently giues sufficient meanes of saluation to all for it is manifest that vnto children dying without baptisme in their mothers wombe or after they are borne he giues no such sufficient antecedent meanes wherby they may obtaine saluation The same must consequently be holden by all them l Tom. 1. d. 6. art 1 qu. 1. ad 1. Gabr. 4. d. 4. qu. 2. art 3. dub 2. sub sin Soto de Nat. Gr. l 2. c. 10. p. 90. that teach baptisme to be the onely meanes out of the case of martyrdome of saluation for infants and yet many haue not the meanes of baptisme prouided them Vasquez m Vasqu 1. p. qu. 96. n. 2. 3. sayes The controuersie is not whether Christ haue instituted meanes sufficient of themselues for all infants But whether he hath so prouided and disposed them that he hath left it in the free power of any to apply them for if these meanes which of themselues are sufficient be so disposed that by no diligence of man they can be applied we cannot say the infant was prouided of sufficient meanes because it must be said that sufficient meanes are prouided for him alone to whom they may be applied And his iudgement is that such infants haue not this sufficient meanes adding that * Omnes eodem modo sentiunt the Schoole Doctors are all of the same minde that vnto some infants God hath in no wise granted that by any humane diligence the sufficient meanes of saluation can be applied 16 The second sort are such as are borne naturals without the vse of reason of whom the same is to be said that is of infants that for want of reason and the vse of their free-will they cannot be said to haue sufficient meanes n Vt aliquis iudicetur habere gratiam sufficientem ad piam actionem supernaturalem requiritur eum habere ea auxilia quae ad eandem piam actionem exiguntâ—r tanquam supernaturales formae tanquaÌ„ principiâ— sufficientia quibus homo vocatus excitatus praeuentus possit vsu aliquo liberae facultatis suae Deo adiuuante auxiliante adquiâ—ere reliqua omnia huiusmodi dona gratiae siue auxilij Zumel disp var. 3. part pag. 56. a. for to the sufficiency of the meanes must concurre not onely the perfection of the helpe reuealed but also the ability of the subiect to whom the said helpe is offered for if God haue left his word to leade and direct a man and yet immediatly withholds reason and faculty from him that he cannot heare nor vse it it cannot be conceiued how he may be said to haue left sufficient meanes to that man 17 The third sort are Barbarians and Pagans that neuer heard of God or Christ and his Gospell these also cannot be said to haue sufficient meanes of saluation because o Ioh. 17.3 art 4.12 Rom 1.17 10.14 1. Co 1.21 Fides sacramenta fidei opera bona à principio ad obtinendam salutem homini propofita videÌ„tur Hugo quem refert Cassal de quad instit pag. 49 b. Sine fide impossibile est de potentia Dei ordinata quenquam saluare Ariminens vbi sup Non est adiutorium sufficiens sine fide nec tamen omnibus à Deo datur Ruard art 7. the reuelation of Christ and his Gospell is the meanes and they neuer had it p Ruard ib. The Deane of Louan debating this matter sayes The Schoole Doctors are not agreed whether all men at some time in this life haue sufficient helpe whereby they may turne themselues to God And setting downe his owne opinion that they haue not he sayes It is more agreeable to S. Austin and the ancient Councels that vnto all men God hath not allowed such sufficient helpe but as of his meere will he predestinates some to saluation to whom of his onely goodnes he disposes to giue his free gifts necessary to their saluation so of his meere will not for any cause foreseene in the reprobate he reiects some from glory he is not therefore ready so much as is in him to giue them glory or grace or helpe to hold and recouer that grace There is no question but God in his prouidence hath iustly withholden the meanes of his grace from these men either for the sinnes of their predecessours or for their owne originall sinne but yet it cannot be denied they haue not sufficient meanes 18 My Aduersarie q Pag. 170. sayes afterward in his reply that he speakes not of infants but men of ripe age when he sayes God giues sufficient helpe to all but he must speake of infants if he will speake consequently and vphold his distinction for predestination is of no other reason in infants then in old folke but vpon the same grounds and in the same manner that he wils the saluation of the one he wils the saluation of the other and therefore willing the saluation of such as haue the vse of reason antecedently he must will the saluation of infants in the same manner also therefore hee must giue them sufficient meanes also which not doing it is plaine he hath
1. d. 39. qu. vnic Ioh. Bassol 1. d. 38. Dom. Bann 1. part ou 14. art 13. pag. 450. God foresees all contingent effects to come in his owne determination of the causes thereof and therefore foreseeing the contingent operation of our will he determines it to the effect Secondly Else there should be two seuerall beginnings of one and the same effect in asmuch as mans will should begin to worke as soone as God and concurre to the effect willed as principally as God Thirdly The will of man is but Gods x Quid dubitamus fateri nos miseras creaturas esse instrumenta Dei cum Deo per Deum operari sicut instrumentum operatur cum artifice per artificem à quo mouetur excitatur applicatur ad agendum Fra Sylu. expl p. 35. instrument whereby God works his owne pleasure but euery one that vses an instrument mooues applies and determines it to his owne will Fourthly And it is a secondary and subordinate cause vnder the first cause which is God and exceedes not the measure of second causes but if it were not determined by the first cause it should be all one with the first cause it selfe for first and second causes differ in their eleuation the second being alway mooued to their effect by the first and in their operation reduced to the motion of the vniuersall cause which is God Fiftly therefore the Scripture saies y Ier. 10.23 The way of man is not in himselfe neither is it in man to direct his own steps but z God giues a new heart x Ier. 31.33 32 39. Ezech. 11.19 36.26 and puts a new spirit into men and takes away their stony heart and giues them a heart of flesh and puts his Spirit into them and causes them to walke in his statutes and to keepe and do them a 1. Cor. 12.16 He workes all things in all men b Ph. 2.13 He workes in vs both the will and the deed c Pro. 21.1 The Kings heart is in the hands of God and he turnes it whither soeuer it pleaseth him d Exod. 7 3. 9.12 1 6. Rom. 9.17 He stirres vp Pharao hardens his heart for he hath mercie on whom he wil whō he wil he hardens The meaning wherof e Can. loc l. 2. c. 4. ad 7. Tolet in Ioh. 12 annot 22. Perer. select disp in Exod. 11. disp 6. 8. our aduersaries grant to be that God hardens the wicked partly by forsaking them withholding his grace whereby they should be preserued from hardening partly by working many things within thē and about them whereupon they become hardened and so consequently determines their will f Minimè periculosum iudico si PERMISSIONI NON NIHIL ADDAMVS quod nec actio propriè Dei sit nec sola permissio Can loc p. 24. further then by bare permitting it so that it may truly be said that mans minde and will g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. Odyss Augustinus sententiam Homeri approbat Zum vv qq 3. p pag. 120. A. is such as it pleaseth God to giue him Whence I infer and so will end God is not mooued consequently by any thing which himselfe as a superior cause mooues and determines to the effect But God himselfe as a superiour cause mooues and determines the will of man to the effect or that which it wils whether good or ill Therefore God is not consequently mooued by the good or ill vse of the will of man Therefore the good vse of mans will foreseene mooued not God to elect him and the euill vse of mans will foreseene was not the cause that God reprobated him therefore God had no such antecedent will to saue the reprobate if they would by their freewill vse and receiue his grace aright Therefore Gods decree touching the saluation and reprobation of men is lastly and finally resolued into his owne pure will as into the first and highest cause thereof To the Reader WHatsoeuer followes in the Reply from this place to that wherewith I begin the next Chapter is but a continuance of the matter of Predestination transcribed out of Becanus his Enchiridion wherewith I haue nothing to do For albeit that which he quarrels in M. Caluine be no more then were easily defended and then many Schoolemen haue written long since yet I haue propounded to meddle with no more of the Booke then directly touches what I writ it being a taske for him that knowes not the price of time to stand answering euery thing that fals from a Seminarie especially when we plainely see them to be set a-worke onely with barking for I dare say themselues conceite no substance in their books to interrupt and detaine men from better duties then is the answering of their vnsauory writings farced with rudenesse and intemperance and vnworthy for their immodesty to beare the name of Christian Authors CHAP. XXVI 1. The properties of the rule of faith described 2. None follow priuate spirits more then our Aduersaries 3. How the rule must be vnpartiall and of Authority A. D. Pag. 173 Concerning the sixt Chapter hauing shewed in the former Chapter that Almighty God of his part hath prouided a meanes necessary and sufficient to the saluation of all sorts yea of all men and consequently that he hath prouided some rule and meanes sufficient to instruct men of all sorts in that one infallible entire faith which is necessary to saluation In this Chapter I did set downe certaine conditions of this rule and meanes by which men that seeke may be directed towards the finding of it My Aduersaries do not deny that the rule and meanes must in some sence haue these three properties which here I speake of For the first to wit infallibility M. White saith White pag. 10. that faith must be with full assurance and perswasion the which saith he we cannot obtaine vnlesse the rule giue it vs. Now it is certaine that the rule and meanes which here I speake of cannot giue infallible assurance if it selfe were not infallible and knowne or such as may bee knowne to be infallible For nothing can giue more then it selfe hath neither can it breed more certainety in our knowledge then it selfe is or may be knowne to haue For the second to wit easinesse to be knowne or vnderstood of all sorts M. Wootton interpreteth Wootton p. 74. that it must be such as may be knowne although with paines As for some paines I shall not gainesay For I did neuer dreame that one might attaine knowledge of matters of faith by onely dreaming as M. Wootton seemeth to interprete my meaning Onely I would not haue it so difficult or hard as that it should be morally impossible for any sort of men hauing sought found and attended to the rule and meanes without miraculous illumination or extraordinary and excessiue difficulty to vnderstand the determinate meaning of it In which M. White
say the people might not reade that which they had in their owne language b Act 15 21. which they daily heard read in their Synagogues and c Deut. 6.7 which they must rehearse continually to their families d 2. Tim. 3.15 and wherein they brought vp their children from their infancy Secondly he saies either they containe no precept or but a conditional precept or licence that when they would not beleeue Christ himselfe they might search the Scripture Faine he would say absolutely it is no precept because it would serue his turne better But belike he read in his Cyrill e In Ioh. l. 3 c. 4 that the common and receaued expopositionis that with a certen COMMAND our Sauiour stirres them vp to search the Scripture Athanasius f Tom 2 p. 248. Commelin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saies He COMMANDED them to search the Scripture g Aschet p. 599. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil wheÌ„ a COMMANDEMENT is giuen vs let vs obey our Lord saying Search the Scripture h Ho 40. 39. in Ioh. Chrysostome he COMMANDS to digge deepe into the Scripture he sends them away to the Scripture i Pag. 343. in Ioh. Euthymius He COMMANDS them to search k Iansen concord c. 36. Peter seleâ—â— disp to 4. in Ioh. 5. d. 20. Our aduersaries confesse this to be the commonest exposition and some of them the best l In Ioh. 5. Maldonat the Iesuite Cyrill thinkes the word SEARCH not to be the imperatiue but the indicatiue mood but Chrysostom Theophylact. Austine I thinke ALL GRAVE AVTHORS except Cyrill do BETTER thinke it to be the imperatiue And this is confirmed by manifest reason For in case of error the Iewes and all men are bound by precept to haue recourse to such meanes as can reforme them But the Repliar is content it be a precept so he may haue the hammering of it First therefore he saies It s but a conditionall precept or rather a licence that seeing they would not beleeue our Sauiour himselfe they might search the Scripture which they did beleeue This is transparently against the Fathers yet it will serue my turne and vtterly destroy his cause For such a licence the Pope and the Inquisitors will neuer grant as Clement 8. hath professed And if our Sauiour when the Iewes beleeued not him permitteâ— them to search the Scripture then by this text when the People beleeue not the Pope but misdoubt his doctrine he must giue licence to them to reade the Scripture which he will neuer do Gretser to helpe the Repliar a little m Tom. 1. pag. 893. c. answers There is not the same reason of Christians that there was of the Iewes and why so the Iewes beleeued not in Christ but opposed both his doctrine and person whereas he that is a true Christian beleeues Christ and honours him This is true that is said both of the Iewes and Christians but this difference is no reason why a beleeuing Christian may not search the Scripture as well as an vnbeleeuing Iew. For the Christian though he beleeue in Christ yet is ignorant of much of his wil or weake in faith or assailed with heresies increasing in the world or desirous to confirme himselfe and others in the truth in which cases let the Iesuite shew why Christ for the curing of the Iew should allow him to reade the Scripture and yet debar the Christian whose state needes the support of the Scripture one way as much as the state of the Iew doth another Nay this is a good argument against himselfe and my Repliar For if the reason why the laity may not reade the Scripture be because our Sauiour hath commanded vs not to giue holy things to dogges nor to cast pearles before hogges and the Iewes not beleeuing Christ but opposing his doctrine and person be more dogges and hogges then Christians hence it will follow roundly that the Scripture is to be permitted to Christians much more then to the Iewes because the Iewes were permitted to reade the Scriptures though they were dogges and hogges 5 Secondly he sayes that allowing it to containe an absolute precept which he doth as a child kisses the rod for he must do it if he wil follow the coÌ„sent of the Doctors yet being an affirmatiue precept it obliges not all meÌ„ nor at all times but may be limited to particular times as to the time of the Primitiue Church to particular persons as now only the Clergy and other circumstances which the Church of Rome shal think meet I answer affirmatiue precepts first binde all persons to whom they are giuen Secondly they binde at all such times as the matter therein contained agrees vnto Thirdly they receiue limitation or restraint from none but from the lawgiuer himselfe in all which properties they agree with negatiue commandemeÌ„ts therefore omitting all intricate discourse touching this matter the precept of searching the Scripture binding in this manner it is sufficient for the allowance thereof to the people For first they that cannot reade may fulfill it by hearing it read Searching being restrained no more to the one then to the other Secondly there is none but by searching that is to say by diligent labour may vnderstand them in their mother tongue better then in Hebrew Because I haue shewed many times ouer that the articles of faith and rules of good life are set downe so plainely that the simplest may vnderstand them vnlesse he will make lay people so sencelesse that they haue not the common light of nature Thirdly we binde not euery man to reade all the Scriptures and at all houres doing nothing else because there is no such thing in the precept Then I haue satisfied his questions and admit a limitation in things wherein the precept limits it selfe but how followes this Affirmatiue precepts haue their limitations therefore the Pope may limit them Or this Circumstances limit precepts therefore the Church of Rome vpon her Antichristian circumstances may restraine the precept of Christ Or this Some lawfull and legitimate circumstances may stay the execution of an affirmatiue precept therefore the malicious and desperate imputations layed vpon the people or some misdemeanors committed by them indeed may lawfully debarre the people from hauing the Scripture any more Away with these circumstances and giue vs substance CHAP. LII 1 The mariage of Priests and Bishops lawfull and allowed by Antiquitie 2 Some examples hereof in the ancient Church The restraint hereof is a late corruption Priests were married euen in these Westerne parts a thousand yeares after Christ Pag. 281. A. D. Fourthly touching the mariage of Priests M. White citeth * See Bellar. de cleric c. 19. Prot Apol. tract 1. sect 3. n. 1. sect 7. tract 2. c. 1. sect 3. a mistaken sentence out of the Apostle and boldly affirmeth after his fashion that mariage of Priests was ordinarily in the Primitiue Church But he
moraliter id fieri sine magnus incommodis periculis contra reuereÌ„tiam huit sacramento debitam quae vel propter multitudinem comunicantiuÌ„ vel propter eorum varietatem tam in conditionibus affectibus corporu quà m in animi prudentia circumspectione vel denique propter ministraÌ„tiuÌ„ incuriaÌ„ nullatenus possent iuxta humanaÌ„ conditionem euitarâ— Suar. defens fid cathol l. 2. c. 5. n. 20. giues First for the reuerence and decencie of the Sacrament that the cup be not spilled and the wine shed in so great and confused a companie Next for vniformitie that all people euery where might receiue alike which should not be if the cup were ministred for some people loue no wine Thirdly to auoid their error that hold it may not be ministred in one kind Fourthly for the preseruation of the Sacrament and that it might be carried to the sicke which in wine it could not for sowring and spilling Lastly for the instruction of the ignorant that they may know Christ by Thomas his concomitancie is perfectly vnder either kind It were no hard matter throughly to shew the vanitie of these reasons and merrily to whip them but the Cardinall had forgot that all these reasons in his owne opinion held in the primitiue Church and yet then they moued not the Church to take away the cup. I haue read of words vttered in a great frost which freezed in the venting as they were spoken and were not hard till a thaw came a long time after so belike our aduersaries will answer These reasons might be vttered in the ancient Church but they could not be conceiued till d Praeterea nosse debueras quod fecit Deus duo magna luminaria c. de maiorit obed Solitae in decr l. 1. tit 33. the great light in the firmament of the Church had shewed them with his beames now of late within these three hundred yeares CHAP. LVI Touching Transubstantiation 1. It was made an article of faith by the Lateran Councell 1200 yeares after Christ 2. How it came in by degrees 3. The Fathers neuer beleeued nor knew it Pag. 286. A. D. Lastly concerning Transubstantiation 1 White pag. 343. 350. M. White setteth down some coniectures whereby he endeuoureth to perswade his Reader that the beliefe of Transubstantiation came into the Church of late to wit at the Lateran Councell But 2 See the Prot. Apol. tract 1. §. 3 n. 2. where it is shewed that eueÌ„ ProtestaÌ„ts far better learned then M. White will be in haste doe grant the Transubstantiation was beleeued long before the Lateran Councel See Bellar. l. 3. de sacram euchar c. 19.20 21. Gre. de Val. tom 4. disp 6. q. 3. p. 2. §. 2. 3. this is false For although the name Transubstantiation was not perhaps vsed before the Councell of Lateran yet the thing signified by this name to wit the reall presence of Christs body succeeding in the place of the substance of bread was held and beleeued from the beginning as appeareth by plaine and sound authorities of Scriptures and Fathers set downe by Bellarmine and others And although the Church had no necessary occasion to make expresse determination what was to be held in that point before contrary heresies arose which might be one cause that some men did not or were not bound to know it so expresly as after the matter was explaned and determined by full authoritie from the Church yet at least implicitè all did were bound from the beginning to beleeue it And although some in their ignorance did before this declaratioÌ„ of the Church doubt or hold opinion to the contrary yet this hindreth not that they might beleeue this by implicite faith in regard priuate doubts and opinions so long as they are in ignorance without obstinacie especially with resolution and readinesse to yeeld to the Church do not take away implicite faith infolded in the generall assent which euery Catholicke giueth to that article I beleeue the Catholicke Church 1 TO shew the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be contrary to the faith of the Primitiue Church and to be brought in afterward and neuer to haue bin an article of faith before the Lateran Councell I set not downe coniectures but direct full testimonies first * Another like hereticall and most daÌ„gerous aâ—sertion of theirs the Iesuites is that the ancient Fathers Rem transubstantiationis ne attigerunt Quodl p. 31. of the Fathers expounding the words of Christ touching the Sacrament and auouching the substance of bread and wine to remaine as we do then of diuers great Papists Schoole-men and others who confesse the same I say either in expresse words or in effect that not only the NAME of Transubstantiation but the DOCTRINE and thing it selfe was made a matter of faith by the Lateran Councell no man being bound to beleeue it before Their words are reported in the Digression and will giue testimonie to themselues without my contending about them The Reply sayes though the name Transubstantiation were not perhaps vsed before the Councell of Lateran yet the thing to wit the reall presence of Christs bodie succeeding in the place of the substance of bread was held from the beginning as Bellarmine and others haue shewed and euen Protestants farre better learned then M. White will be in hast do grant But the authorities alledged in the Digress shew the contrary not onely the name but the thing it selfe to be new as will appeare by viewing them And though Bellarmine take vpon him to proue Transubstantiation by the Scripture and Fathers yet he confesses it is not improbable that Scotus said There is not extant any place of Scripture so expresse that without the Church declaration can euidently constraine vs to admit it For though the Scripture which I haue brought seeme to vs so cleare that it may constraine a man not froward yet whether it be so or not IT MAY WORTHILY BE DOVBTED when men MOST LEARNED AND ACVTE doe thinke the contrarie Let this be noted he bring a De Euch. l. 3. c. 23. §. Non dissimili Scripture to proue that which may worthily be doubted whether it be so or no and such Scripture as cannot conuince without his Churches declaration b Decernit Synodus vt nemo sacraÌ„ ScripturaÌ„ contra eum sensum quem tenuit tenet sancta mater Ecclesia cuius est iudicare de vero sensiâ— interpretari audeat Con. Trid. sess 4. that is to say vnlesse it be expounded so as shall agree with the doctrine of the Church of Rome The Reply therefore must not call them sound authorities of Scripture which without this wresting proue nothing and with all this wresting proue not so much but a man may still worthily doubt and most learned and acute men do doubt and the reader may see in what case he is that shall follow Bellarmine and the Reply in this opinion of Transubstantiation
Theol. l. 1. pros 3. Soto in Rom. 9. tract de Praedestinat Caietan 1 p. qu. 23. art 3. in Rom. 9. whereof all are cleare for election and many also for reprobation by the best anciēt Schoolmen that I haue looked into so that if the matter were to be caried by nūber and voices Caluines doctrin z Reported by the Reply pag. 151. That God hath predestinated without any merit or demerit of their parts that are predestinated onely because it so pleased him must be acknowledged the truth and my Aduersaries doctrine transcribed and stolne out of Becanus a dozen leaues together must be awarded to containe a The poison of the most pestelent opinion which Caluine holdeth A.D. pag. 145. the poyson and the pestilence The Iesuits also and moderne Diuines of latter time in the Church of Rome follow the same conclusions and maintaine them though I do not deny that some by vertue of the vnity alway found in the Church of Rome dissent from them Henriquez a Iesuite touching election b Sum. de fin hom cap. 11. n. 3. sayes The true and common opinion of the Diuines supposes no motiue cause or condition no mans behalfe foreseene of God why he should by the immutable will of God be loued and predestinated to eternall life and to all the effectuall meanes thereof but all men that shall effectually be saued are freely chosen out of the masse of corruption and predestinate for the merit of Christ before the preuision of the course of their life and their vse of reason and so consequently before the preuision of their perseuerance in grace or any free worke worthy reward and loue and the whole reason is the free will of God Touching reprobation he holds otherwise Bellarmine c De Grat l. 2 c. 9. sayes there can no reason of our part be giuen of Gods predestination I say there cā no reason be assigned to exclud not only merits properly so called but also the good vse of freewill or grace foreseene d Cap. 15. ad 4. God reprobates before the foresight of workes in as much as he will not deliuer the partie reprobated out of the masse of sinne e Cap. 16. prop. 9. Reprobation which S. Austin calles Predestination to death comprehends two acts the one Negatiue whereby God will not saue them whereof there is no cause on the part of men The other positiue whereby he will damne them the cause whereof is the preuision of sinne f Dried concord part 1. c 3. Sixt. Sē l. 6. ann 251. Pomponat de praedest pag. 955. Tolet. in Ro 9. ann 19. 26. c. 11. ann 4. Peter select disp in Rom. 9. disp 5 Suar. de praedest l. 1. c 8. n. 32. l. 2. c 23. nu 14. 20. 27. Pezant 1. p. qu. 23. art 5. disp 6. p. 157. concl 4. Zumel disput vv part 3. pag. 343 345. 346. Rispol lib. 1. qu. 1. concl 3. the same is affirmed by othes though the most of them hold which I deny not that predestinatiō is in the masse of sinne and reprobation positiue which onely is Gods purpose to punish the reprobate is to punish them for workes foreseene yet that helpes not my aduersaries opinion who affirmes predestination in what state soeuer it were to be ex praeuisis and sayes that not onely positiue reprobation which is no more but Gods purpose to damne and to execute that which is called negatiue reprobation but election it selfe is for the preuision of workes done by our owne free will which the workes euen of the corrupt masse are not but are done by Adams will which all these confute Vasquez g Vasqu 1 p. disp 95. n 2. the same thing affirmed by Suar. de praedest l. 5. c. 3. n. 1. saies There be not a few Thomists that affirme God to haue kept the same order in reprobation that he did in election that before any foresight of their sinnes of his owne will alone he decreed to exclude some from the kingdome of heauen though he did not ordaine them to the punishment of sense and then that such as he would exclude he permitted to fall into sinne with that intent that he might exclude them from the kingdome of heauen as he had decreed in such sort as he calles effectually after election to glory And Cardinall Tolet speaking of reprobation seemes h In Rom. 9 annot 26. pag. 428. to say the same thing that our aduersaries so much obiect to M. Caluine that by the right of the dominion and power which God hath ouer man and euery creature God may without any iniustice do and exercise whatsoeuer it pleaseth him be it good or euill for if a man that is lord but of a little wood or stone may of the said wood or stone make what he list either a vile and base or an honorable worke or burne it much more may God do the same thing whose dominion is full and absolute and hereupon he concludes that if it were so that no man can resist Gods will but he hardens whom he will yet we might not pleade with him because all men are vnto God as the clay to the potter and so he may by his good right inflict his punishments shew his wrath and power according to his owne will I haue bene something curious in alleadging or citing these authors because I would make it manifest that neuer a one of my aduersaries assertions either that God elected to saluation vpon foresight of grace and good workes or left it to mans owne will whether he would vse the meanes offered well or ill or that the reprobate are reiected from election and saluation for their sinne foreseene or that the meanes of saluation are giuen alike to all is the doctrine of the Church of Rome but these assertions proceede from the ignorance and rashnesse of a few therein that care not what they say so they may be barking against Caluine And albeit many of these Authors hold all predestination to be in the masse of sinne yet for so much as out of the masse God first i Reprobat Deus ante praeuisionem operum quatenus nō vult aliquē ex massa peccati liberare Bellar. de grat lib. arb l. 2. c 15. quarta obiect p. 474. freely and then determinately and lastly absolutely elects whom he will hence it will follow necessarily that this foresight of the good and ill vse of freewill and this consequent will to saue and refuse vpon the preuision of after workes can haue no place because God once for all in a corrupted masse makes his decree absolute vpon the state of sinne wherein he findes Adam and his posteritie and not conditionall vpon the condition and foresight of that which they themselues shall also do hereafter their workes good or euill being subordinate meanes to bring them to their end but not any cause or condition whereupon God in