of beliefe And the Formall motiue or meanes that is reuelation of God is the formall finall and last resolution why we belieue infallibly such verityes to be true So that if one aske by what we are before prepared and disposed to belieue the truth it is by the credible testimonies if by what we are directed guided to know the truth it is by the Churches propositiō if by what we are assisted and enabled to assent infallibly to this truth it is by the habit of Faith if for what and why we doe actually formally and finally assent belieue the same truth it is for the reuelation of God As therefore the Samaritans at the first were prepared by the womans relation who told them that surely it was the Messias who had told her all that she had done to thinke it probable that he might be the Messias and the woman was as it were a proponent or propounding cause to them of him Many of the Samaritans belieued in him for the word of the woman giuing testimony that he told me all thinges whatsoeuer I haue done But afterwards hauing heard and conuersed with our Sauiour himselfe for two dayes they now sayd Not for thy saying O woman do we belieue for our selues haue heard and do know that this is the Sauiour of the world indeed So all Christians are first prepared by credible testimonies directed by Church authority to the knowledge and certainty of that truth but afterwards when the diuine reuelation it selfe as the word of our Sauiour is made knowne to them then do they now formally and finally not for the testimonies of credibility or Church proposition but for the diuine reuelation it self giue firme and infallible assent and beliefe to the verityes or articles of fayth And thus Catholike fayth is that which is for probable testimonies accepted as credible by Church proposed as infallible by an infused habit effected as supernaturall by diuine verity reuealed as truth infallible and necessary to be belieued This fayth is that which is the beginning and ground of iustification the way and gate to saluation vpō which the Church of Christ is founded and is as the life and soule of it which maketh vs members and partes of Christs Church we being by it and Baptisme inserted into his mystical body which maketh vs certainly infallibly belieue either expresly or implicitè all whatsoeuer articles of sayth God hath reuealed to his Church by his Apostles which is a necessary meane instrument or dispositiō to our iustification and saluation without which none are iustified and by which informed with charity all are iustifyed which is one entire fayth in all faithfull who for one motiue and by one proponent cause do belieue all one doctrine which being one and entire belieue as they ought eyther all articles of fayth explicitè or implicitè or none at all which by refusing to assent to any one article in which is questioned the ground of all is by infidelity lost to all and to conclude which distinguisheth a Catholike from an Heretike in that whosoeuer hath this fayth is a Catholike and whosoeuer wants it or looses it is an Infidell or Heretike and so out of state of grace and saluation And thus much for the order and manner of Gods working of fayth by these meanes in vs. Secondly for the necessity and efficacy of these meanes though all and euery one in particuler be ordinarily necessary to true and diuine supernaturall faith the credible testimonies as exteriour motiues to conuince our Vnderstanding that it may prudently accept of this faith as credible and worthy of beliefe the motion of grace and habit of fayth as interiour assistants that the Will may not resist but piously incline to consent determine the Vnderstāding to assent and that the Vnderstanding may obediently yeild assent to the misteries of fayth the materiall obiects as those which we are to belieue and the formall as that why we are to belieue all which are absolutly necessary to make fayth credible free and supernaturall and without them all faith is but humane false or fained yet in respect of vs and of our certainty of beliefe a proponent cause and that infallible which can be no other but the Churches authority is most important and necessary And first that a proponent cause is needfull all grant because faith being by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ some preacher or teacher is necessary to propose and teach vs what is to be belieued by vs for as fayth depends not vpon reason but vpon authority that of God affirming this or that to be true and commanding it to be belieued so this authority thus affirming this verity must be made knowne to vs by some directing or proponent meanes or els we cannot come to the knowledge of it 2. That this directing and proponent cause must be infallible so that it cannot erre it selfe nor propose to vs an errour or falshood to be belieued for a truth is proued for since God requires of vs a certainty infallibility of fayth and this our certainty must be had by some direction and proposition by which it is proposed made knowne to vs what we are certainly to belieue it must needes follow that this Proponent cause must be certaine and infallible or els our fayth directed and guided by it cannot be certaine Thence it followes that they who admit a proponent cause as the Protestants do their church and yet do admit it to be fallible and subiect to errour as all of them do their Church cannot haue any certaine and infallible fayth at all as wanting a necessary certaine and infallible meanes to propose and teach them this certaine and infallible fayth which is confirmed by S. Augustine who sayth That if Gods prouidence rule and gouerne humane matters we may not despaire but that there is a certaine authority appointed by the same God vpon which staying our selues as vpon a sure step we may be lifted vp to God Thirdly this certaine infallible proponent or directing cause is Church-authority which Church that it may infallibly direct vs we securely rely vpon it first Iesus Christ selected and made it not only his inheritance Which he hath chosen Or his house which he builded and gouerned Or his Temple of which himselfe is Priest but also his dearest spouse VVhich he espoused to himselfe alone in fayth and truth As a Virgin pure and vnspotted without corruption Yea as his owne body And one body with him VVhich as head he nourisheth cherisheth and sanctifieth making her glorious without spot And which he hath purchased with his pretious bloud Secondly he priuiledged it first with his owne presence promising to be with it all dayes euen to the consūmation of the world Next with the presence of the Holy Ghost The spirit of truth
must needs by consequence hould so for the most part do hould that there are no infused and permanent guiftes or habits of fayth which concurre or help to our Iustification but that all is wrought by the motion of a transeunt spirit which motiō as it worketh according to them in them by it selfe only wholy all internall good workes without any cooperatiō of man or mans freewill so it is only a motion which worketh in whome it will when it will and how it will al and whatsoeuer it wil in man to his iustification and saluation by which it is euident that as in all their opinions they are neyther constant nor permanent but are wafted with euery wind of new doctrine and so fly from the beliefe of one thing to another so they are not guided by any permanent guift or quality but by certaine flashes motions of an vncertaine spirit which leads them from one vncertainty to another and so leaues them in al vncertaine 5. That the Protestants want the first of the eternall meanes or helps of Fayth that is the materiall obiects or articles of beliefe which are to be belieued as reuealed by Christ vnto the Apostles and by the Apostles left to their Successours and by them to vs and posterity is proued 1. Because they belieue many thinges as obiects of Fayth which are not reuealed eyther in Scripture or Traditions of which are many instances giuen in the former parte so do they not belieue many articles which are reuealed both in Scripture and Tradition for which cause they reiect all tradition and in it many mysteries of fayth which the Apostles left only by Tradition and refuse many partes of Scripture and that chiefly because they containe many points of doctrine which they will not belieue 2. Because as they admit many points of doctrine into the number of their articles of fayth which the ancient Church condemned for heresies as contrary to Apostolicall doctrine witnesse the ancient condemned heresies of Heluidius Vigilantius Arius Iouinian and others by them reuiued so they cōdemne many pointes of doctrine as erroneous superstitious or idolatrous which the ancient Church receaued for articles of Fayth as agreable to Apostolicall tradition witnesse all the poyntes of doctrine which the Magdeburgenses and others before cyted condemne as errours and staines in the ancient Fathers in euery age since Christ in both which they erre in the materiall obiects of Fayth as well in receauing condemned heresies for Apostolicall verities as in cōdemning receaued Apostolicall verities reuealed by Christ for erroneous heresyes 3. Because as they admit speciall Fayth only whose obiect is only their remission of sinnes and iustification for diuine Fayth by which they are iustified so all other fayth by which they belieue for example the B. Trinity Incarnation Passion and Resurrection and Ascension of Christ with the rest of the articles of faith vsually belieued they acknowledge for no other but for a general Faith common as well to the damned and Diuells as to them which faith in the Diuel and damned as it is no voluntary and free act proceeding from a pious disposition of the Will nor a diuine and supernaturall worke depending vpon any authority of God reuealing but a meere naturall and necessary act of knowledge◠conuincing their vnderstāding eyther by force of experience or by euidence of reason or by apparent and euident notes of credibility or by some manifestly knowne testimonies of God of the verity of that which they belieue and tremble at so in the same manner their Faith of the same articles by their owne confession is not diuine but a meere humane fayth grounded vpon some generall receaued opinion or vpon some meere human authority and so what they conceaue of the generall articles of faith they do not receaue them as any articles of doctrine and supernaturall fayth but as generall receaued positions humane coniectures and their owne selfe-seeming and chosen opinions 6. That the Protestants want all diuine Reuelation for which as the formall cause and the finall resolution they should belieue al which is by God reuealed is proued 1. Because what they belieue they belieue not for that it was reuealed to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost eyther at Pentecost when it did visibly teach and confirme them or in successe of tyme when vpon occasion as at the conuersion of Gentils it did reueale to them all the mysteries euer after to be belieued which Reuelation made to the Apostles is the formall cause of fayth nor yet for that it is proposed to them by Church infallible authority as a condition necessary to know what is reuealed but for that it is reuealed to them a new by their owne priuate spirit from which they receaue all their directions and certainty both what is reuealed why it is reuealed and also by what meanes it is reuealed 2. Because the meanes by which Christ doth manifest and declare vnto vs his diuine reuelations they eyther plainely reiect or wholy subiect to their priuate spirit for the authority of traditions by which part of the diuine reuelations are deliuered to vs and the Proposition of the Church by which we are secured of the certainty of them they reiect and deny The authority of the Scripture which is an other meane by which God hath reuealed his truth and which they chalenge as the only means both of knowledge certainty of diuine reuelations they wholy subiect to their priuate spirit by which they are assured which is true Canon which is true edition which true trāslation which true sense of it And so for diuine reuelation they haue neyther any at all nor yet any meanes to know or attaine vnto it And thus much of the Protestants want of all the necessary helps meanes by which true and diuine supernaturall Catholike fayth is produced conserued and increased in the soule of euery faithfull belieuer and member of Christs holy body and Church How the Catholikes and Protestants differ in these six meanes and how the Protestants make their priuate spirit the only meanes of all SECT IIII. THE fourth consideration is to reflect vpon the aduantage which we Catholiks haue against the Protestāts and the difference that is betweene vs and them in these meanes of Fayth and how that the Protestants do substitute one only deluding and deceitfull meanes that is this their priuate Spirit in place of all the six former meanes of fayth And first for the materiall obiect they professe to belieue 1. only the doctrine which is reuealed in scripture 2. that only which is reuealed in that one parte of Scripture which they are pleased to accept as Scripture by their spirit 3. that only in that part of Scripture which is according to their precōceaued opinion so interpreted by their spirit so that Scripture alone and that not in whole but in part and that part of Scripture as it is
that he may abide with you for euer And shall not depart out of thy mouth and out of the mouth of thy seed and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed for euer And for what end That he may teach you all thinges That spirit of truth shall teach you all truth Thirdly he armed it with all power and authority To remit or retaine all sinnes to bind or loose whatsoeuer is to be bound or loosed in earth or in heauen to correct punish with the rod of correction To excommunicate and deliuer vp to Sathā And to determine all questions or controuersies as it should seeme good to the Holy Ghost and it Fourthly he established and cōfirmed it As the pillar and foundation of truth that being in it selfe grounded in truth and also grounding others in the same it should stand so firmely that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it Fifthly he gaue to it commission and charge to teach all nations and to preach the Ghospell to all creatures Sixtly he gaue vs warrant and security that we might safely heare and obey it He that heareth you heareth me Seauenthly he gaue vs charge and command by precept of obligation that whatsoeuer they shal say to you speaking of the Scribes and Pharisies in Moyses chaire but à fortiori of the Pastours and Prelats in Peters Chaire that doe you Eightly he threats and terrifyes vnder great punishment first of danger and of contempt of himselfe by contemning it He that despiseth you despiseth me Secondly of infidelity and losse of his fauour and grace He that will not heare the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican Thirdly of hell and damnation for euer He that belieueth not shal be condemned All which doe proue not only an authority and that infallible in the Church to direct and teach vs but also an obligation in vs to obey submit our selues for fayth to the direction and instruction of it And least any should doubt of this Church what it is the holy Ghost explicates the meaning of our Sauiour tells vs that it is Some Apostles some Prophets and other some Euangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours to the consumation of the Saints vnto the worke of the ministery vnto the edifying of the body of Christ vntill we meet all into the vnity of Fayth Which Pastours he will giue vs according to his owne hart who shall feed vs with knowledge doctrine And how shall they feed vs by preaching and proposing to vs the doctrine of fayth for as hearing is a necessary meanes to belieuing How shall they belieue him whome they haue not heard so preaching and proposing what is to be belieued by Church-pastours is necessary to hearing so to belieuing How shall they heare without a Preacher By which is apparently proued the necessity and infallibility of Church authority for a propounding and directing cause in matters of fayth and Religion All which may be confirmed First by authority of holy Fathers among whome I will cyte S. Irenaeus and S. Augustine for the rest Irenaeus that learned Doctour and holy Martyr sayth VVe ought not to seeke among others the truth which we may easily take and receaue from the Church seeing that the Apostles haue most fully layd vp in her all thinges which are of truth that euery man that will may take out of her the drinke of life For which those thinges that are of the Church are with diligence to be loued and the tradition of truth is to be receaued S. Augustine sayth The truth of the Scripture is holden of vs when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall or whole Church the which is commended by the authority of the Scriptures themselues that because the Holy Scriptures cannot deceaue whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued with the obscurity of this question let him require the iudgement of the Church which without any ambiguity the holy Scripture doth demonstrate In which is affirmed First that all truth is left by the Apostles in the Church not in Scripture only Secondly that the same truth is to be learned and receaued of all by the sayd Church Thirdly that the truth thus receaued is most true and is to be loued and followed of all See more of the Fathers aboue in the first part to whome I add a confirmation out of Luther against himselfe and his followers who sayth that The Church neither can nor ought to teach errours no not in the least thinges since God is the mouth of the Church and as God cannot lye so neither can the Church Secondly by Reason for since of all the rest of the means and rules also of fayth there may be and often is question doubt as for example of the articles which be true which not of reuelation which is reuelation of God which an illusion of the enemy of the motion of the spirit which is of God which of nature which of Sathan of the inclination of the Will which is a pious disposition and which an illuding affectation of tradition which is diuine Apostolicall or Ecclesiasticall which not of Scripture which is true which false of true which is the incorrupted translation which corrupted of the incorrupted trāslation which is the true sense which is false and of the true sense which is to be belieued as fundamentall and necessary which is not to be belieued as fundamentall but only voluntary Of all which since I say there euer hath beene and now is great question contentiō some infallible directing iudge propounding cause is a necessary meane to end these all like controuersies and to settle and resolue vs in the assured certainty of the one or other or els will the contention be euer endlesse and we in our opinions restlesse Among which seeing no other can be assigned but the Church and that God hath giuen so large commission and priuiledge for that end to it as we haue produced it remaines that the Church and Church authority is of all necessary meanes of fayth the most necessary for vs to settle and satisfy vs in the certainty of our diuine fayth And thus much of the order necessity of these six meanes and chiefly of Church-proposition or the Proponent cause How the Protestants want all these six meanes of Fayth SECT III. THE third Consideration is to reflect how that of all these six meanes necessary to diuine fayth the Protestants haue not any one but are defectiue in all These meanes are either External as the credible testimonies which by euidence of reason conuinceth that such a faith is credible and may prudently be belieued and Church proposition which by the credit of authotity assures that the same is true and is to be belieued both which are externall to the person belieuing or Eternall
differ in the extension of it for we affirme this grace to be extended offered and giuen sufficiently though not effectually to all so that all and euery one of reason haue sufficient meanes and ability to know God by Faith and to loue him by Charity so far as is needfull for their saluation They affirme their spirit to be restrayned offered and giuen only to the elect faithfull whome they make all one and that all others neither haue nor can haue it but are by the absolut will and decree of God debarred from it therby made incapable of it 3. We differ in the manner of operation of it for we affirme that grace doth worke or cooperate with vs and we with it so that the grace of God and our Free-will as two concurring causes though Grace the more principall do ioyntly effect and produce euery good worke of Faith Hope or Charity or the rest in vs whereby our good works haue of grace that they are diuine supernaturall and of our selues that they are voluntary and free of both that they are meritorious of more grace present in vs and of glory in heauen to come to vs. They doe attribute so much to the worke of their spirit in them that they take away all cooperation of our free-will in vs wherby they make man as dead without all action or operation to any spirituall and good workes make the spirit soâ—e whole worker of all in man Fourthly We differ in the nature and permanency of this grace or spirit for we acknowledge grace to be an inherent quality permanent guift infused into our soule which doth enlighten enable our vnderstanding to giue assent by faith to the diuine mysteries proposed and inspire our will to be sorrowfull by contrition for our sins committed which guift once infused is not so permanent perpetuall but that the habit of Charity is lost by mortall sinne against Charity the habit of Hope by desperation against hope the habit of faith by infidelity against faith They or many of theÌ„ deny all infused guifts of faith hope charity or the rest admit only a transeunt motion or operatioÌ„ of the spirit which working in man without mans cooperation when what how and in whome it pleaseth is neuer totally or finally lost after it be receaued doth make a man alwayes faythfull and beloued of God and doth giue that vertue to all his workes though neuer so bad that they make them gratefull and acceptable to him so that according to them no worke of a faithfull man though neuer so bad can make any enmity betweene God him God neither imputing it as an offence to him nor man incurring the displeasure of God for it Fiftly We differ in the effect and operation assigned to it for we assigne the function and office for example Of the guift of faith to be the eleuation enabling of our Vnderstanding to giue assent to what is reuealed by God deliuered in scripture or tradition and proposed by Church authority Of the guift of hope to be the inflammation of the soule to loue God as our chiefest end to desire him as our greatest Good to hope for him as our good absent and to delight in him as our good present Of the guift of charity or grace to be the forgiuenes of our sinnes the sanctification of our soule adoption to be the sonnes of God title and right to the kingdome of heauen and a valew dignity of merit to our good workes They assigne to their priuate spirit a double effect the one of proposing the obiect the other of working in the subiect In respect of the obiect it proposeth to them what they are to belieue and why they are to beleeue it and how they are to know both In respect of the subiect it workes in them say they a firme and infallible assurance of all the former thinges belieued so that they stand sure and certaine not only of the Scripture the sense of it and of their doctrine and verity of it but also of their spirit that it is of the Lord and of their saluation that it is as due to them as it is to vse Caluins owne words due to Christ and that they can no more loose heauen then can Christ nor be no more damned then can Christ In which they attribute to their priuate spirit all the reason of credibility exteriour and all the operation interiour both in the will and vnderstanding which they haue of the certainty of all their faith and saluation By all which is apparent that as they made it the sole ground foundation which is in the former part at large proued on which their faith is built so they make it the sole meanes as is here proued and the totall cause materiall formall finall and efficient both exteriourly reuealing proposing and persuading and interiourly working or rather deluding them in the obstinacy rather then certainty of their supposed faith And this priuate spirit and this effect of it is that which they rest vpon and that which in this second Part we intend by the assistance of Gods grace to confute and disproue THE PRIVATE SPIRITS INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTVRE Deciding of controuersies iudging of mysteries of Fayth coÌ„futed by holy Scripture CHAP. II. Out of 1. S. Iohn 4. 1. S. Paul 1. Tim. 4.11 Act. 20.30 2. S. Pet. 2. describing this Spirit SECT I. THE holy Ghost in holy Writ borh foreseeing and also forshewing to vs the abuse of this priuate spirit the better to forewarne vs of it to arme vs against it doth not only in generall as it doth many other abuses but euen in particuler and as it were on set purpose both plainely decipher and describe it also fully confute and condemne it Out of it therefore we will draw our first arguments of confutation and by it conuince of falsity this deceitfull and deceauing spirit And first to begin with the new Testament for the more full instruction of our selues and the plainer confutation of this spirit I will for one proofe conioine in one argument the testimonies of the chiefest Apostles that is of S. Iohn S. Peter and S. Paul First S. Iohn 1. epist chap. 4 v. 1. doth plainely giue admonitions against this spirit 1 Belieue not euery spirit 2 but try the spirits if they be of God Secondly both S. Iohn and S. Paul doe giue the reasons why we should not belieue but try these spirits S. Iohn v. 2. Because many false spirits are gone out into the world S. Paul 1. Tim. 4.11 Because in the last tymes certaine shall depart from the fayth attending to spirits of errour and doctrine of Diuells Againe 2. Cor. 11.14 For that Satan himselfe doth transfigure himselfe into an Angell of light that is doth make shew of workes of piety iustice and deuotion thereby to allure men by opinioÌ„
it be contained among the chief articles of the Creed or plainly expressed in scripture 9. So sufficient that it be able to explicate determine all articles and doubtes in religion 10. So complet that it containe virtually be able to resolue plainly all questions and conclusions of Faith which may at any time vpon any occasion arise All which are necessary for such a rule and foundation vpon which so important a matter as faith and religion is grounded And this is the first thing to be obserued for the properties and conditions both of the Iudge and his rule of faith The whole body of the Church cannot be this Iudge SECT II. SECONDLY We may note that this infallible authority to iudge of controuersies of faith is giuen neither to the whole body and congregation of the Church of God as the rigid Lutherans with Brentius do hould nor to the secular Princes and Parlamentes as all the Lutherans at first and the State-Protestants of England do yet defend nor to the lay-people and priuate persons as Caluin and the Caluinists do maintaine nor yet is it residing in the wordes and text or scripture as the ordinary preachers pretend but only is giuen to the Pastours and Prelates of the Church of Christ who are lawfully by authority from Apostolicall succession ordained and Catholickly continue without diuision of heresy or schisme in the same and among them principally to the chiefe head and Pastour the successor of Peter and Bishop of Rome All which concerning euery one shall be briefly proued First therefore although the whole body of the Church collected haue the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost that it cannot erre or be deceaued in faith yet hath it not the same assistance that it may ought to be iudge determiner of faith For as in a naturall body the soule doth informe and giue life to the whole body and euery member of it but doth not discourse and giue vse of reason to the whole or euery part but only to the head so the spirit of God assistes the whole Church with the priuiledge of freedome from errour in faith but doth not likewise giue to it the priuiledg◠of authority to teach and iudge of faith and direct others in the same for which cause God hath giuen a measure of donation diuisions of graces and ministrations and made some not al Apostles Doctours Prophets that some may rule others be ruled some teach and others be taught some be superiours to iudge and direct others be inferiours to be iudged and directed and so an order and subordination a peace and vnity may be obserued and kept in the whole body among the members of Christs Church Whereof see more in the next fourth Section Secular Princes cannot be this Iudge SECT III. THIRDLY That this infallible authority is not in secular Princes or their Assemblies and Parlaments either as particuler members of the Church against Melancthon or as Princes and Superiours among the rest against Brentius so that they can and may lawfully and infallibly iudge of Controuersies make ecclesiasticall lawes giue authority to preach and prescribe a forme of doctrine a manner of seruice and an order of Sacraments and sacrifice though it be largely by many proued against the supremacy of Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall and requires a treatise more large yet in briefe it shall by these reasons be proued First because Kinges and Princes are in the Church of God and spirituall affaires as sheep to be ruled and ordered not as sheepheardes to rule and gouerne they are Lambes to be fed by Peter Sheep of the fold of Christ Members of the Church of God and seruants of the family of Christ Thus did the ancient and holy Fathers freely tell and admonish them and the Christian and good Emperours themselues acknowledged it S. Gregory Nazianzen told Valentinian That the law of Christ did subiect them Emperours to his power and Tribunall and that they were holy sheep of his holy fold S. Ambrose told Theodosius the Great that he was a sonne of the Church and that a good Emperour is within not aboue the Church Theodoret sayes of Constantine the Great that as a louing sonne he did propose busines to the Bishops and Priests as Fathers Constantine himselfe cōfesses that God gaue Priests power to iudge of Emperours witnesse Ruffinus that they were bishops within the Church he without it witnes Eusebius Valentinian the elder confesses that he as a laye man might not interpose himselfe in Church affaires but the Bishops and Priestes had care of such affaires witnes Sozom. And that himselfe was to submit himselfe to them witnes Paulus Diaconus And Theodosius the Great obeyed S. Ambrose his excommunication departed out of the Chancell at his command and cōfessed that thereby he had learned to know what difference there was betweene an Emperour and a Bishop witnes Theodoret and Nicephorus Secondly because the offices of the Bishops and Emperours are diuers and distinct the one of bodyes and goods the other of soules and fayth the one of life and death for offences against the King and common-wealth the other of sinnes and sacraments belonging to Gods lawes mans conscience the one is temporall of the kingdome and common-wealth the other is spirituall of the Church flocke of Christ which the hereticall Emperours forgetting were stoutly and zealously admonished and reprehended by the holy Bishops vnder them for the same As for example Cōstantius the Arian 1. by Hosius of Corduba willing him not to medle with Ecclesiasticall affaires nor to commaund them but to learne of them because to him God had committed the Empire but to them the Church 2. By Leontius of Tripolis because being ruler of military and politicke affaires he should not rule in thinges that belong only to Bishops 3. By S. Hilary of Arles wishing him to writ to Iudges of Prouincies that they should not presume or vsurpe to intermedle with the causes of Clergy men 4. By S. Athanasius of Alexandria that he and such who will be Presidents in ecclesiasticall iudgments who will make the Tribunals of the Court the seales of deciding ecclesiasticall causes themselues Princes and Authours of Church affaires are the abomination of desolation yea euen Antichrist himselfe Valentinian the yonger seduced by his wife was told by S. Ambrose of Milane That he had no Imperiall right in thinges that are diuine for the Court doth belong to the Emperour but the Church to the Priest And being called by the Emperour to reason with Auxentius the Arian he answered That if a conference was to be made of fayth it was to be made by the Priestes as it was vnder Constantine who prescribed no lawes but gaue free iudgement to Priests That it was neuer heard that in a cause of fayth Lay
reuelation thus proposed we settle our last resolution of fayth and the certainty of it as vpon the former credible motiues or humane fayth we setled our preparation or acceptation of fayth and the credibility of it Now if we compare or apply these togeather it will euidently appeare that in neither is committed any Circle because the former that is the acceptation depends vpon credible motiues which are as the Samaritan womans word making it seeme probable that Christ was the Messias and the later that is the assent to Fayth dependes â—pon diuine reuelation which is as our Sauiours word reuealing to them that he is the true Messias and so both haue seuerall grounds and principles on which they depend the one credible testimonies the other diuine reuelation wherby comparing them togeather no appearance of any circular proofe can be found betweene them For the actuall assent and beliefe it selfe whereby we infallibly belieue the mysteries reuealed though we belieue the verity of Scripture reuelations by the authority of Church proposition and Church proposition for the authority of Scripture reuelation whereby Scripture reuelation doth giue vs testimony of Church proposition and againe Church proposition of Scripture reuelation Yet that this reciprocall testimony and proofe is not any proper and vitious Circle is proued First because it is in diuerso genere causa in diuers kinds of causes which before out of Aristotle is admitted for good and lawfull for the testimonyes of Scripture reuelation to the infallibility of Church proposition is causall as a cause and that formall why we belieue and assent to Church proposition But Church proposition is only conditionall as conditio sine quae non to know Scripture reuelation and so they are reciprocall in a different manner of proofe the one that is Scripture à priori as including diuine reuelation the other that is Church à posteriori required only as a condition The former as a formall precedent cause the latter as a subsequent annexed condition Both of them not much vnlike to our Sauiours testimony of S. Iohn Baptist and to S. Iohns testimony of our Sauiour the one as of God and infallible the other as of an holy man credible or to the testimony of our B. Sauiour the woman to the Samaritans the one as giuing certainty the other as proposing credibility of his being the Messias Or to the former example of rationale and risibile of the Sun-shine and the Day of the Vapours and Raine of the opening the Window and the entring of the Wind. All which reciprocally proue one another as the cause and the effect or as seuerall causes And all which doe much resemble the testimony of Scripture to the Church and of the Church to the Scripture which is likewise in a seuerall kind of causality and a different manner of probation Secondly because this reciprocall proofe is not ad omnino idem as Aristotle requires to a proper Circle that is the one is not the totall and sole cause of knowing the other For Church proposition is not knowne only by Scripture reuelation and no other way but also by other proofes signes and credible testimonies conuincing that Church authority is necessary and infallible to distinguish true sense of Scripture from false and to end Controuersies about Scripture And therefore as Aristotle admits that though the premises haue proued the conclusion yet the conclusion may againe proue the premises that in eodem genere causae so that the conclusion be proued by another medium then by the premises So though the Scripture reuelation proue Church proposition yet Church proposition may againe reciprocally proue Scripture reuelation so it be knowne by another meanes as we see it is then only by Scripture reuelation for this according to Aristotle is only an improper Circle and not a bad and vnlawfull Circle Thirdly because this reciprocall proofe is not to one the same person who is ignorant or doubtful of both but to diuers persons and such as suppose the one For to a Catholike who admits as belieued Church propositioÌ„ we proue by it Scripture-sense or reuelation and so an vnknowne thing to him by another thing supposed and knowne to him but to a Protestant who admits as by him belieued Scripture reuelation we proue by it Church proposition so to him a thing vnknowne by another more knowne But to a Pagan who admits neither Scripture reuelation nor Church proposition we proue neither of them one by another but both the one and the other by other probable motiues and credible testimonies more agreeable to his natural capacity and by them persuade him first to accept as credible Church proposition and by it Scripture reuelation by which Scripture and Church or scripture expounded by Church we persuade him to assent and belieue the articles reuealed In all which we proue ignotum per notius the vnknowne by the more knowne to him and so preparing him to giue credit to one do by that induce him to belieue the other By which meanes we still proceed from a thing knowne to an vnknowne to that person and so auoyd the Circle and begging of the question into which the Protestants runne and there sticke fast In which note the difference betweene them and vs for they proue reciprocally and circularly the Scripture by the spirit and the spirit againe by scripture in the same kind of proofe to wit formally as shal be shewed We proue scripture by Church and Church by scripture in diuers kindes of cause to wit the one causall and the other conditionall as is shewed 2. They proue the one by the other no otherwise knowne then by the other as the scripture by the spirit which spirit is only and by no other meanes knowne then by scripture and é contra as shal be shewed But we haue more means to know the Church then by scripture as is shewed 3. They proue one by the other to the same person to wit the Protestant doubtfull of both we to diuers persons who suppose belieue the one so ad hominem by that we proue the other Al which as it is true as presently shal be shewed so it shewes an apparent difference between the Protestant circular maÌ„ner of proofe of scripture by spirit and of spirit by scripture and of our Catholike improper Circle and lawfull manner of proofe of scripture by Church and of Church by scripture And thus much to cleare the imputation layd vpon Catholikes for their circular manner of proceeding in their proofe of scripture by the Church and of Church by scripture The Protestants diuers manners of Circles SECT III. SVBDIV. â— The Circle betweene the Scripture and the Spirit IT remaynes to shew that the Protestants doe seuerall wayes fall into this vnlawfull Circular manner of probation for which we may note how the Protestants for their doctrine of fayth iustification and saluation do make this gradation concatenation
himselfe gaue testimony to his Epistle and his Epistle to him as the maister giues to the seruant and the seruant to the maister when both are in question And if it were absurd for any to belieue Simon Magus and Selena or Hellena or Montanus and his Priscilla and Maximilla Prophetesses or Mahomet and his Sergius the Arian to be true Prophets because one did affirme and proue the other his companion to be a Prophet both being suspected and vnknowne and both wanting other kind of proofe then mutuall and Circular affection one of another Then in like manner it is as great absurdity and folly for one to belieue the scripture and sense of it because the priuate spirit affirmes it to be the true sense and againe the priuate spirit to be the true spirit of God because the Scripture interpreted by that priuate spirit affirmes it to be so In which manner of proofe all the conditions do concurre which Aristotle requires to a proper and vnlawfull Circle or circular demonstration For 1. They proue circularly and reciprocally one another as the spirit proues the scripture and the scripture againe the spirit in which is regressus ab eodem ad idem 2. They proue circularly one another in eodem genere causae for the spirit is the formall cause why they belieue the sense of the scripture and that sense of scripture is the formall cause why they belieue that to be the spirit of God 3. They proue one another totally and wholy that is the sole and whole reason why they belieue that is the sense of scripture is the spirit and the sole whole reason why they belieue this is the spirit is that sense of Scripture framed by that spirit 4. They proue one another not only circularly wholy and in the same manner of causes but also to one and the same person For as this spirit can assure only him who hath it not another that this is true sense of scripture and this true sense of scripture can assure only him not another that this is the true spirit for according to their doctrine no man can be assured of anothers spirit that it is of God but only himselfe who hath it so doth this priuate spirit and this scripture both assure one person to wit him that hath it and that circularly that this spirit is of God that this scripture is truly vnderstood by this spirit which is most proper to that Circle condemned by Aristotle for vnlawfull And thus much of the first proofe Secondly the same absurdities which Aristotle infers vpon a circular demonstration betweene the premises and coÌ„clusion do follow vpon this Circle betweene the scripture and the spirit For 1. The same thing doth proue it selfe For if by A I proue B and againe by B I proue A then I proue A by A or if I proue the conclusion by the premises and the premises againe by the conclusion then I proue the conclusion by it selfe as Aristotle reasons So if I proue the spirit by the scripture and the scripture againe by the spirit then I proue the spirit by the spirit it selfe for the spirit which proues that the scripture is true by the same scripture proues that it selfe is the true spirit therefore the same is proued by the same 2. The same thing is prius notum posterius notum in respect of the same thing For as the conclusion is knowne after the premises as it is proued by them and therefore the premises as it proues them so the spirit is knowne after the scripture as it is proued by scripture to be the spirit and knowne also before the same scripture as it proues it to be scripture and so it is posterius prius cognitum respectu eiusdem first knowne and after knowne in respect of the same 3. The same thing vnknowne is proued by another vnknowne For as when Simon Magus vnknowne to be a Prophet is proued to be a Prophet by his Selena as vnknowne Or when Montanus is so proued by his Maximilla Or Manes by his Epistle and Mahomet by his Sergius the one vnknowne Prophet is proued by another vnknowne So when this scripture and sense of it is knowne by a spirit as vnknowne doubtfull as is the scripture and sense it selfe then one vnknowne is proued by another as vnknowne which is against all manner of lawfull proofe where one ignotum vnknowne must be proued by another notius more knowne Whereupon follow these absurdities 1. That the spirit doth proue it selfe 2. That it doth proue ignotum por ignotum that is the vnknowne sense of scripture by the spirit vnknowne 3. That this spirit is prius posterius notum in respect of the same scripture By which absurdities as Aristotle did disproue the Philosophers circular demonstration of the conclusion by the premises and of the premises againe by the conclusion so we disproue the Protestants circular proofe of the spirit by the scripture and of the scripture by the spirit And as S. Augustine did reiect the Manichees proofe who by Manes did proue their Fundamentall Epistle and by their Epistle Manes And as the Fathers reiected the Monâ—anists proofe who by Montanus proued Maximilla to be a Prophetesse and by Maximilla Montanus to be an Apostle So do we reiect the Protestants proofe who by the Scripture will proue their spirit to be of God and by the spirit the sense of scripture to be true And as a Iudge should be partiall and vnwise who should admit the Maister to cleare the seruant and the seruant to cleare the maister when both are accused as guilty of the same crime so should we be partiall and vnwise if we should admit their spirit to proue their sense of scripture and their true sense of scripture to proue their spirit when both are in the same Circle and both vnknowne and doubtfull By which we see that Protestants walke in a circle and performe that which Dauid sayth The wicked walke in a Circle And that which S. Augustine out of the 139. Psal sayth VVhat is this circuit To go round not to stand to go in a round of errour where they trauell without end for they who go on forward begin in one place and end in another but he who goes in a round neuer ends This is the labour of the wicked as is shewed in another Psalme The wicked walke in a round Thus S. Augustine and that truely for they haue neither beginning from which to deriue nor end wheron to rest themselues and their groundes of doctrine but caput circuitus the head the ground and foundation of their doctrine consists in a Circle in which they still wheele in a round out of which they can neuer vnwind themselues and by which they can neuer proue any thing to be true as Aristotle sayth And thus much of the first kind of Circle made by the Protestants betweene the spirit and the scripture let vs proceed to the
Doctour Montague in his appeale to Caesar and condemned by Lutherans as well as Catholicks Out of which doctrine it followes 1. That those actions which we esteeme sinnes as idolatry periury adultery murder theft pride malice and the rest are no offences against God because he wils commands and works them himselfe 2. That they are no sinnes because sinne is against the will and law of God but these are according to the will decree and commandement of God which is the rule according to which all actions are to be squared 3. That sinne is nothing but as the Libertins confuted by Caluin do hould an opinion of men because it is not contrary but conformable to the will decree and commandement of God 4. That God in words forbidding sinne and these actions as sinne doth either dissemble as inwardly willing and working that which exteriourly he prohibits or els is contrary to himsele as willing and not willing the same sinnes 5. That if there be any sins at all then God who is the principall authour agent and not man who is the instrumēt only is the sinner offender 6. That men are excusable in committing any or all the foresayd actions because they do that which God wils works and which themselues cannot but worke 7. That no credit can be giuen to the word of God in Scripture because God may as well lye in it as he doth in other bookes of Pagans or Heretikes of both which he is equally the principal authour and dictatour All which absurdities as they are most horrible and blasphemous so do they all necessarily follow vpon the former Protestant positions and must needs be true if the former Protestant doctrine and positions be true SVBDIV. 3. Protestant doctrine of Predestination makes God a sinner SECONDLY that God is by this doctrine not only the authour of sinne but a very sinner and worker not only of the materiall entity or action by which sinne is cōmitted but also of the formall malice or defect of goodnesse in which sinne consisteth and so is formally a sinner and committer of sinne according to this doctrine is proued 1. Because the teachers of this doctrine as before call God the principall authour actour and the worker of sinne but as sinne is in like manner as a picture a denominate concreet including the malice as the forme and the action as the matter of sinne as the picture doth the forme of a man and the matter of colours of which it is made so he that affirms God to be the author or worker of sinne doth as properly affirme him to be the authour of the malice in sinne as the painter is sayd to be the authour worker of the forme of the picture and so God is as properly a sinner by being the authour and worker of sinne as the workmā is a painter by being the authour and worker of the picture And though in the Catholike doctrine God is no more a sinner in that he is in somesort the efficient cause of the reall entity of the sinnefull action to which as the authour of Nature he concurs with man as an vniuersall and indifferent agent to any action then the soule is the authour of the lamenesse in the legge or the writer the cause of the ill writing of the penne the defect o◠formality of sinne proceeding from the particular agent man who is the deficient cause as the formall lamenesse or ill writing proceeds from the legge penne in whome is the defect of lamenesse or writing Yet in the Protestant doctrine which makes God the authour of sinne formally as sinne thereby to shew his iustice in punishing sinne as sinne and sinnefull men for sinne it cannot be auoided but that God is a sinner as the authour of sinne and that formally as sinne and if it would excuse God from being a sinner in that he wills and workes sinne for a good end to shew his iustice then it would also excuse man from sinne in that he sinned for a good end as if he stole to giue almes or kild a man to send him to heauen by which reason euill might be committed that good might come thereupon which is contrary to S. Paul Secondly because the same teachers make God the principall willer commander and worker of sinne who that he may iustly punish men for sinne whome he hath vpon his owne meere will without any preuision of their sinne ordained and created to be punished and damned doth therefore ordaine will command worke sinne doth force necessitate them to sinne that for the same sinne he may execute his decree of damnation vpon them but whosoeuer is the principal willer commander and worker of sinne must needes be a sinner and more properly a sinner thē the instrument which is vsed or the subiect in which the sinne is committed that is man Therefore God must be a sinner properly a sinner and more properly a sinner then man yea and the greatest sinner of all sinners as the chiefe willer commander and worker of all sinnes which is a horrible blasphemy SVBDIV. 4. Protestant doctrine of Predestination makes God the only sinner THIRDLY that God is by this doctrine not only a sinner but also the only sinner and that the Diuell Man are innocent and no sinners at all is proued Because if the Diuell in tempting to sin be ruled by the will of God to whose command he obeyes If in alluring to sinne he be cōpelled to obey and do what God doth compell him to do And if the wicked who sinne are not excusable in that they cannot auoid the necessity of sinning which by the ordination of God is imposed vpon them as Caluin affirmes If Iudas did necessarily betray Christ and Herod Pilate did necessarily condemne him as Beza affirms If the thiefe be compelled to steale by the compulsion of God that for the theft he may be hanged as Zuinglius affirmes then surely is not the thiefe who is compelled but God who cōpels both the Diuell to set on the thiefe and the thiefe who steales the sinner who sinnes For if the goodnesse and badnesse of the worke in euery action is to be attributed to the principall authour willer and worker of it not to the instrument especially such as want freewill vsed in working it as the well building of the house is to the architect not to the axe and tooles then is the malice of sinne to be imputed to God the principal and chiefe authour not to man only the enforced instrument of it and so only God is the sinner and man innocent and no sinner at all Which is also confirmed out of that saying of S. Augustine that sinne is so voluntary that except it be voluntary it is not sinne but it is voluntary only in God according to these teachers not in man in whom it is necessary therefore it is a sinne only in God not in