euer since the time of our Sauiour vnto this present I doe beleeue with the same faith and vpon the same grounds that I beleeue the Catholike Church because I beleeue our Church of England to be a member of the Catholike and this I beleeue a priori that is for the promise sake made in the Scriptures that it shall bee so But where our Church was before Luther or who were the Professors of it euer since the time of our blessed Sauiour vntill this present is no part of my Creed There is not a syllable in it which inuites me to proceed that way Doe I say I beleeue the vniuersalitie of Christs Church and must my foundation be such onely as can breed in me but an opinion or naked hope doe I begin in Faith and with the Galathians must I end in the flesh that is with sense Doe I build with one hand a Church Catholike which cannot bee seene and with the other must I draw it in a Map or point it out to the eye Nay set the Church as Catholike aside and consider it but in her parts which consideration of it belongs not to the Creed yet in this sense also is the Church at sometimes so obscured that by our Aduersaries owne confession none but the prudent and wise are able to discerne it The Church is I confesse compared in the Reuelation to a woman clothed with the Sunne in Isaiah to a Citie built vpon an Hill and by the Fathers to the Moone the Sunne the Moone and a Hill are things most easie to be discerned yet we know this Sunne may be obscured with a Clowd an Hill may be hid with a mist and the Moone as Saint Austen in his 119. Epist alluding to the Church obserueth hath her wanes and eclipses in the time of her peregrination SECT II. The second way whereby one may know the Church to be Catholike or Vniuersall IF any should mistake me and thinke that pressing so earnestly the preeminencie of knowing the Church to be Catholike and Vniuersall a priori that is from the promises made vnto it in the Scriptures we doe suspect our proofs a posteriori from the Professors of our Religion in all Ages to be either none or weake let them know that we want not those who haue scored out varietie of sufficient paths to proceed this way also which howsoeuer they bee not like the testimonie of our Sauiour to beget a faith yet are they like the testimonie of the Samaritan woman to induce a credulitie For not to tyre you with large discourses which were to exceed my limits onely for satisfaction herein to the reasonable and impartiall Hearer let vs take along with vs these few considerations 1. The first that we are to distinguish betweene our affirmatiues that is such things as are purely affirmed by vs and our negatiues such as in whole or in part we denie betweene which there is a great difference to be made in all sciences For affirmatiue propositions onely are the proper parts and ingredients of a discipline Negatiues are admitted say Logicians not so much by way of Precept as of Cautell and of Commentaries to vindicate the other from misconstruction 2. The second that such affirmatiues of ours as are established by our Church of England at least such as concerne the foundation of faith haue beene in all ages professed by the Church of Rome it selfe For explication whereof we are to obserue that the Popes Arithmetick which he vseth in calculating the articles of faith is not substraction but addition what wee purely affirme the Popish writers for the most part doe affirme the same the difference is that they affirme somewhat more then wee doe They denie not so much that our affirmations are truth as that they say we affirme not all the truth wherevpon they vsually stile vs in their writings Negatiuists For example sake Wee agree on both sides the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith the Bookes of the old Testament written in Hebrew to bee Canonicall that we are iustified by Faith that God hath made two receptacles for mens soules after death Heauen and Hell that God may bee worshipped in spirit without an Image that wee are to pray vnto God by Christ that there be two Sacraments that Christ is really receaued in the Lords Supper that Christ made one oblation of himselfe vpon the Crosse for the redemption propitiation and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world In a word where they take the Negatiue part as in with-holding the Cup from the Laytie forbidding the administration of the Sacraments in the vulgar tongue and restrayning the marriage of Priests yet euen in these they condescend vnto vs for the lawfulnesse of the things in themselues and in respect of the Law of God and oppose them onely in regard of their necessitie and conueniencie and for that the Church of Rome hath otherwise ordayned But see our affirmations content them not To the Scriptures they adde and equalize vnwritten Traditions To the Hebrew Canon the Apocrypha To Faith in the act of Iustification Workes To Heauen and Hell Purgatorie Limbus Patrum and Limbus Puerorum To the worship of God in spirit Images To prayer to God by Christ inuocation and intercession of Saints To Baptisme and the Lords Supper fiue other Sacraments To the realitie of Christ in the Sacrament his corporall presence To the sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse the sacrifice in the Masse with other like and these we denie 3. The third that our affirmations by the iudgement of the Church of Rome haue beene in all ages deemed sufficient to saluation so that our Negatiues take not away any doctrine the explicit beliefe whereof is absolutely necessarie For first in regard of knowledge the Schoolemen hold that much lesse is needfull to bee explicitly beleeued then what is contayned in our affirmations For whereas wee entertayne and embrace amongst our affirmatiue articles not onely the doctrine of the three Creedes but also sundrie other assertions as may appeare by the booke of Articles and Homilies established in our Church Albertus Magnus on the contrarie with Bonauenture Richardus and Durandus thinke that so much onely of the Creed is necessarie as the Church solemnizeth in her holidayes Thomas Aquinas Scotus Gabriel Biel and Pope Adrian the sixth which goe farther thinke it needfull to beleeue but the whole Creed and Alexander ab Hales which goes farthest thinkes that one need but adde to the Apostolicall Creed the Nicen and Athanasian to make a compleat beleeuer quanquam hoc nimis durum videtur though this seemes too hard an imposition saith Gregorie de Valentia in his third Tom. vpon Thom. 1. disp although one wade no farther therein then the proper sense and haue no great distinct knowledge of the matters Nay Bellarmine is so confident in this point that he sticks not to say that the Apostles themselues neuer vsed to preach openly
pronounce him to bee an Heriticke who after so great a pudder as hath beene kept about Saint Francis shall yet deny him to bee in heauen Secondly Turrecremata in his second booke de Ecclesia and Syluester in his summes do grant that the Pope may so farre as in him lyes endeà uour to establish his owne heresie and obtrude it vpon the Church nor doe Valentia and Bellarmine dissalow their position vnder these two prouiso's the one that if he doe it effectually then the contrary hath beene formerly determined by the Church so that the Church can then receiue no danger thereby of erring the other that if the contrary was neuer before determined then the Pope may indeed attempt it as did Ioh. 22. in a question touching the state of the soule after death but God in his prouidence will take such course as that he neuer shall accomplish it The fifth Gradation BVt fiftly grant for the matters that the Pope be this Church in determining any matter of Faith whatsoeuer yet is it not resolued clearely by them for the person in generall whether the Pope vpon which wee are so to relie bee the present Pope or whether the Popes deceased 1. For the voice of the Iesuites speakes this that it is the present Pope nay Gregorie de Valentia is so confident therein that neque Scriptura sacra saith hee neque etiam sola traditio si ab ea separes praesentem in ecclesia authoritatem est illa authoritas infallibilis magistra fidei c. that is neither the Scriptures nor yet traditions if you separat from the present authoritie in the Church is that infallible mistresse of Faith Iudge of controuersies So Bellarmine omnium conciliorum veterum omnium dogmatum firmitas pendet ab authoritate praesentis Ecclesiae the strength of all ancient Councells and all assertions doth depend vpon the authoritie of the present Church and their reasons alleadgedare for that without the authoritie of the present Church wee neither can be assured of the certainty of Traditions and Councells nor of the sense meaning of them 2. But contrariwise the case being put as you haue heard by Turrecremata and Siluester that the Pope may doe what lyes in him to propose an heresie both Valentia and Bellarmine grant the position not to be impossible vpon condition that the heresie haue beene condemned formerly by the Church for then according to their doctrine the Church is to examin the errors of the present Pope by truthes resolued by precedent Popes So that if in all points necessarie to saluation the truth haue beene already determined by former Popes as in 1600. yeeres space they haue had leasure enough to doe it the present Pope ceaseth to bee a competent Iudge in such matters hee may erre touching them hee may doe his best indeuour to obtrude vpon the Church heresies concerning them nay hee stands himselfe to bee arrained at the barre and Tribunall of his Clergie whether he be Orthodoxe or no and that by the prescripts of his predecessors The sixt Gradation SIxtly graunt for the Person in generall that it bee the present Pope which is the Church in that no danger can accrue from the Popes propounding an heresie if that heresie haue beene formerly condemned because as they say the Church may then know him not to bee their Shepherd but a Wolfe yet is it not agreed or determined sufficiently amongst them for the meanes how the Church may bee able to iudge or truly discerne him to be such an one 1. For they which hold a Generall Councell to be aboue the Pope and that it cannot erre as Gerson Cameracensis and others aboue mentioned doe hold likewise that the Pope so erring may bee iudged both for his person and doctrine by the church in a Generall Councell 2. But they which hold a Generall Councell not to be aboue the Pope but that wanting his companie it may erre euen in matters of faith as Bellarmine Valentia Cajetan Turrecremata and others these disable any for being competent Iudges of the Popes doctrine For howsoeuer they may pretend that the Councell proceeding according to former Popes declarations cannot erre yet because they teach that the certaintie sense of former Decrees depends vpon the iudgement of the present Pope I cannot see what meanes may according to their opinion be affoorded for the triall of the Popes doctrine if he should chance to erre The seuenth Gradation SEauenthly graunt for the meanes that the Church neuer neede to passe verdict vpon the Popes doctrine yet is it not agreed vpon by them for the See whether the Popedome bee necessarily vnited to the See of Rome so that the word Roman for ought they know assuredly is not conuertible with Catholike but that he which brags he is a Roman Catholike to day may if the Pope should chance to die prooue a Geneua Catholike tomorrow 1. For Dominicus a Soto vpon the fourth of the Senten saith that the Apostolicall seate and power of vniuersall Bishop is annext to the Bishoprick of Rome onely jure Ecclesiastico that is not by the Law of God but by the Churches constitution so that by the authoritie of the Church a Bishop of another See may be chosen Pope And Bellarmine graunts that it is no matter of faith that the Apostolicall seate may not bee separated from the Church of Rome forasmuch as neither Scripture nor Tradition doe auouch it 2. But Canus Driedo Turrecremata and Gregorie de Valentia doe hold the contrarie that the Bishop of Rome is Peters successor not onely by the constitution of the Church but also by the institution of Christ though Valentia confesseth varias hac de re doctorum sententias that the opinions of the Doctors be diuers in this point The eighth Gradation EIghtly for I shall not yet leaue them graunt for the See that the Bishop of Rome bee the ordayned Successour of Peter by the institution of Christ not onely in the Popedome but also in the particular See of Rome yet is it not certayne for the particular person of this or any present Pope whether hee bee the true and lawfull Bishop of Rome or no 1. For although Gregorie de Valentia doth thinke that Gods prouidence will alwayes secure the Church of a lawfull Pope 2. Yet hee confesseth that graue Doctors doe admit the case as possible and this according to them may fall out diuers wayes First if the Pope be promoted by Simonie and that this is not impossible Aquinas affirmes it 2a. 2a. q. 100. where hee saith Papa potest incurrere vitium Simoniae sicut quilibet alius the Pope may incurre the sinne of Simonie as well as any other The which opinion Cajetan and others vpon Thomas doe follow and it is moreouer a clause in the Bull of Pope Iulius the second That if any Pope happen to be chosen simoniacally the same
shall please God farther to enlighten one as in the question of the authoritie of the Scriptures the knowing of the Instrument or Pen-man whether it bee Saint Matthew or Saint Paul is not simply so requisite as to know the principall Authour which is God nor to determine punctually of the wordes so oblieging as to beleeue the sense nor againe of the sense of some places and texts as of other all are to striue vnto perfection but as the difference is in the gifts of arte grace and nature so shall the difference be in the measure of the knowledge of all or some The third trick and sleight of theirs which they put vpon the people in this kinde is that bidding them to vrge vs to proue the Scriptures to bee the Word of God or that they are cleare and easie in points necessarie to saluation and knowing that the chiefe proofes vpon which we rest are embowelled in the very body of the Text itselfe first they forbid the lay people to reade the Scriptures vnlesse they obtayne speciall licence from the Bishop or Inquisitor to doe it as appeares by the fourth rule of prohibited bookes which is at the end of the Tridentine Councell And the granting of these licences is now againe taken away by Clement the eighth as may bee seene in his Index of prohibited bookes printed at Paris by Laurentius Sonius and cited also by Iustinianus a Priest of the Congregation of the Oratorie lib. 1. de Scriptura cap. 9. Secondly because they know that some people will bee itching notwithstanding this prohibition to looke into the Scriptures and to see whether matters bee so as wee affirme them to bee therefore they crie downe our Bibles and present a Bible of their owne translation which to argue the obscuritie of the Scriptures they patch vp with such gallimaufrie and inke-horne termes that an ordinarie man may bee confounded with the strangenesse of the wordes As in the old Testament publisht by the Colledge of Doway in stead of Fore-skin they put Prepuce Gen. 17. for Passeouer Phase for vnleauened bread Azims Exod. 12. for high places Excelses 2. King 15. for the holy of holyest Sancta Sanctorum 1. Chr. 6. Nor are they lesse ridiculous in the new Testament set forth by the Colledge of Rhemes where you haue these English wordes piping hot out of the Popes mint Depositum Exinanited Parasceue Didragmes Neophyte Gratis with the spirituals of wickednesse in the Celestials and many more labouring by what meanes they can as our learned Fulke shewes in his Preface to that Testament to suppresse the light of Truth vnder one pretence or another Their fourth stratagem is that after their lay disciples haue giuen so loud a defiance to our Cause as may make simple standers by conceiue so great a crie must needes carrie some wooll with it then if by chance any of the companie vndertake to answere them to fetch them off againe with aduantage by making it knowne afore-hand vnto their Pupils that howsoeuer they may bragge it is forbidden yet vnto a lay man vnder paine of excommunication to dispute of matters of faith which constitution is in the Popes owne Decretals and Emanuel Sa hath it in his Aphorismes voce fides By which meanes they both barre vs after iust prouocation to informe and satisfie their adherents and with all cherish presumption in their followers as not being silenced by the weaknesse of their cause but by the command of their Superiors Their fifth deuice is that if notwithstanding the prohibition to dispute aboue mentioned some of their lay Auditors should be so hardie as to venture a skirmish then to diuert them from reasoning out of the Scriptures least the light thereof should some manner of way or other display it selfe they busie their heads with questions aboue their capacitie as where was our Church before Luther what the exposition of the Doctors in all Ages what the Doctrine of the Fathers Councells and Schoolemen which is the common Theame of this Age hoping that either a few old wiues fables or fragments of antiquitie shall serue to puffe vp their men with conceit of victorie where they finde not equall opponents or where they doe yet they shall not abate thereby any whit of their courage as being for want of artes and languages vnable to see the point of the weapon which is darted at them I meane the truth of those things which are alleaged Their sixt deuice is that if any of their laytie notwithstanding those prohibitions and this diuersion will presume so farre vpon the indulgencie of their ghostly Fathers as to hazard a dispute out of the Bible yet to doe it with aduantage enough on their side they counsell him to make no thrusts but to lie onely vpon the ward and therein to enioyne vs to shew the articles of Faith established in our Church in iust so many wordes and syllables in the Scriptures and as if grace destroyed nature to forbid vs the benefit of Reason or Consequences 1. If we infer any thing by way of consequence they tell vs that wee violate that which wee haue promised to the World which is to proue all our Assertions out of the pure Word of God Whereas according to the grand principle of Logicke De omni de nullo a truth deduced out of another truth is acknowledged to bee contayned therein for otherwise it could not bee drawne from thence So that to bee in the Word of God is to bee the Word of God As Gregorie de Valentia saith of the more distinct conceptions of any obiect that they are contayned implicitly in the more generall as particulars are in vniuersalls And therefore Bellarmine speaking of matters of faith makes those things as well to bee knowne by certaintie of faith which are deduced by necessarie consequences from the Scriptures as those which are immediatly contayned therein 2. If we deduce an article from premises whereof any one proposition is not in the Bible though otherwise it be a principle of nature as for example that a body cannot be in two places at the same time they aske how such a Conclusion can bee of faith or how wee can auerre that our articles of faith are proued out of the pure Word of God considering that a Conclusion takes his efficacie not from one but from both the premises Which argument concludes our Aduersaries as much if not more then it doth vs. For the maynest principle of their to wit That those which professe the faith vnder the Bishop of Rome are the Church of Christ cannot be deduced by Bellarmines logick but search made in the Court Rolls of Nature and by borrowing an Euidence from thence to supply the place of one of the premisses But to speake more punctually we say that those principles of Nature which we imploy in this kinde are also vertually included in the Scriptures though not expresly As hee that faith Socrates is a
man faith also by consequence that Socrates is a substance that he is a liuing creature and that hee is reasonable because Man contaynes all these things in his nature So the Scripture saying that Christ hath a body saith by consequence that according to his humane condition he is finite and being finite hath a limited and bounded existencie and therefore cannot bee in many places at the same instant For arte in this is grounded vpon nature and in nature the immediate cause implyes the effect the species the genus the subject the properties the whole the parts one contrarie remooues the other so that these Maximes of Philosophie are but dilated verities being before contractedly contayned in the Letter and adde not any thing to the Scriptures fulnesse but onely are displayed by the vnderstanding facultie as the species and formes of an obiect are by a perspectiue glasse multiplyed and made more visible 3. If we presse them with the force and necessitie of our consequence they bid them demand of vs whether we cannot erre in the deducing of a Consequence if we say we cannot then to tell vs that we oppugne a doctrine of our owne which determineth that the Church may erre and if wee say wee may then they will them to aske vs how wee can build an article of faith vpon a Consequence which by our owne confession is fallible To which wee say first that a posse ad esse non valet argumentum from a possibilitie of erring to an actuall erring an argument will not follow Againe the necessitie of a Consequence depends not vpon the person of him which deduceth it but vpon the intrinsecall vnion and reall affinitie betweene the termes of the Antecedent and Consequent But lastly because they presse vs to shew how we can assure our selues that in this or that particular Consequence we doe not erre considering that there is no subiect wherein we do not acknowledge that we may erre Let me aske them againe how any of them can assure themselues that they know the meaning of the Church in any one article of faith considering that there is none of them in particular the Pope in his chaire excepted which may not by their owne Tenets mistake a word or misse-conceiue the Churches meaning Sure if this reason were of force wee should for the same Cause take away all certaintie of knowledge which comes by the sense which was the error of the Academikes and Pirrhonians For what sense is there which at sometimes by reason of the Medium Organ or Object is not lyable to erre and be deceiued But as Nature which Philosophers say is not defectiue in things necessarie hath for the remedying of these inconueniences endowed man with reason common notions and principles whereby hee is able to iudge of the due site habitude and disposition of things so the God of Nature which is also the God of Grace and knowes the necessitie of his children giues vnto them besides that portion of reason common notions and principles aboue-mentioned the spirit also of discretion for the spirituall man iudgeth all things 1. Cor. 2. So Saint Iohn These things haue I written vnto you concerning them that seduce you but the anointing which you haue receiued of him teacheth you all things 1. Ioh. 2. 26. 4. If the Consequence bee so euident that they cannot for shame denie it then they counsell them to aske vs where the Scripture saith in expresse termes that whatsoeuer followeth by euident and necessarie consequence from her Pages is an article of faith Where they hope to choake vs with an equiuocall acception of the word article For an article of faith is sometimes taken strictly for one of those verities which so neerly touch the foundation of faith that a man cannot be saued vnlesse he expresly know and beleeue it sometimes largely for any Catholike truth whatsoeuer If they take it in the former sense they fight with their owne shadowes for which of our men euer said that whatsoeuer followeth from the Scriptures by euident and necessarie consequence is in such manner and sense an article of faith But if they take it in the latter sense wee need not runne farre for Texts to proue that such consequences are articles of faith and require according to the nature of the subiect and euidence of the deduction a beliefe either explicit or implicit of them because that conclusions as I shewed before lye hid in their principles as a kernell in the shell and that consequences are materially in their premises and being in them are to be esteemed part of them and therefore he which is bound to an absolute beliefe of the one is bound also at least conditionally that is vpon the appearance of the euidence of the consequence to beleeue the other 5. If wee dispute syllogistically they bid them tell vs that not the Scriptures but Aristotle prescribes rules for syllogismes and that Aristotles rules cannot binde the faith As though syllogisticke formes were principall causes of the truth of things and not onely instruments whereby the Truth which was before and might otherwise by naturall Logick and the strength of the common apprehension be perceiued is made somewhat the more easie and apparant For many Conclusions follow necessarily in regard of the matter which are vicious in regard of the forme Galen inuented a fourth figure which others reiect And therefore wee build no more vpon Aristotle in matters of faith then an house is built vpon the Carpenters Hammer Square or Rule which are neither whole nor part of the building though otherwise they conduce thereunto as instruments 6. If wee stop their mouthes either with manifest Texts of Scripture or pregnant consequences then they bid them demand of vs Who shal be iudge Which is a peece of Sophistrie beyond the Deuils who being taken tardie by our Sauiour in misse-quoting places of Scripture forgot to aske the question Who shal be iudge This cauill is squint-eyed and lookes three wayes at once If we say the Holy Ghost then they vpbraid vs with flying to priuate spirits and making our selues Iudges in our owne cause If we say the Scriptures they reply that the Scriptures are not sufficient to execute the place being mute and wanting a voyce to declare which amongst many senses is their owne and if we say the Church then they conceiue the victorie to runne on their side and think we haue granted them their Conclusion But what if we make neither the one nor the other sitting alone to be this Iudge but acknowledge a Concurrency though not equall in all of them and that Concurrency though not to the enacting of the sentence as it is considered in se in it selfe yet to the publication of it quoad nos as it hath reference to vs What then shall become of these sequells And so it is indeed For howsoeuer we make one supreme Iudge in this high Court of Veritie yet wee doe not imagine
excludes no sort or condition of men There is neither Iew nor Greeke there is neither Bond nor Free there is neither Male nor Female for yee are all one in Christ Iesus saith the Apostle Gal. 3. 3. Thirdly in respect of time because it shall neuer cease nor faile but continue in one place or other vntill the last day according to that promise of our Sauiour that hee would be with vs alwayes euen vnto the end of the world Matth. 28. Thus you see modum essendi the manner of the Church Catholikes being but modus cognoscendi the manner of knowing it is more questionable for on it depends that great question of our dayes wherein the Iesuites so triumph concerning the perpetuitie and visibilitie of our Church in all Ages For our better progresse wherein wee are to note that a thing may bee knowne two manner of wayes Viz. 1. The one a priori that is by arguments drawne from causes or principles which force an assent to a thing though as yet one sees not the truth of the same by experience Thus from that principle in Philosophie that heauie things tend downewards to the center I know that a plummet of lead would fall to the center of the earth if no thicke or grosse body interposed it selfe although I neuer saw any conclusion or practice of the fame Thus from that principle in Diuinitie that there is a resurrection of the body I beleeue that who euer lye buried in their Sepulchres shall rise againe although mine eyes were neuer witnesses of any such resurrection 2. The other a posteriori that is by arguments drawn from the effects to the cause or by grounding ones knowledge and certaintie vpon the sense of an experiment as when one beleeues that the fire is hot because hee feeles it burne or that the Sea is salt because he tastes it brinish Both these haue their vses being rightly and with due circumspection applyed but they are not alwayes and in all subiects alike demonstratiue and therefore the question will bee which of them the Creed requires for the procuring of a firme beliefe and assent to this article of the Catholike Church I must confesse that arguments a posteriori that is from testimonies of men pointing out by name the Professors and vpholders of any Religion in all Ages is a great motiue and inducement to perswade that such a Religion is Catholike that is vniuersall in respect of place persons and time and that the Church professing such a Religion is of the like amplitude and antiquitie But yet this is not that modus cognoscendi that manner of knowing the true Church to be Catholike which is proper to the Creed or by which Faith cleaues vnto it and beleeues it as an article of saluation that manner of knowing it to be so is onely a priori by diuine principles that is by Gods promises made vnto it in the Scriptures where wee reade that of Christs Kingdome there shall be no end Psal 2. that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it Matth. 16. and that our Sauiour will continue with vs vnto the end Math. 28. these are the pedigrees of Christs Church by these it proues it selfe to be of an ancient stemme that it had noble Progenitors he which playes the Herald and points out the seuerall descents of her sonnes with their lots and portions in all Ages he may somewhat illustrate the Church Catholike he cannot strengthen or confirme it hee may bee a Thomas Didimus which will not beleeue vnlesse hee sees hee cannot bee any of those blessed of our Sauiour which see not and yet beleeue Ioh. 20. Now that the Catholicisme of the Church that is the vniuersalitie duration and perpetuitie thereof so farre as it enters the Creed is to bee knowne onely a priori by the promises made in the Scriptures vnto it and not a posteriori that is by instances shewing the visible Professors of the same in all Ages I shall not neede to trauaile farther then the Creed it selfe to make it good My first reason shall be drawne from the condition of the Church Catholike as it is an article of our Creed and as we say I beleeue the Catholike Church From whence I thus argue Whatsoeuer wee are to beleeue as an article of the Creed the same must bee endowed with these foure conditions The first that the proofe of it be perfect for otherwise if it prooue but in part it cannot suffice for an article of faith The second that the ground vpon which it depends be some diuine and infallible principle for otherwise it may create an opinion in one but it cannot beget a faith Thirdly that all those who are bound to beleeue it be capable of the manner of prouing it as Valentia requires in these cases And lastly that it bee not the obiect of sense For Faith saith the Apostle to the Hebrewes chap. 11. is the euidence of things not seene and Thom. Aquin. 2◠2◠q. 1. saith plainly vt fidei obiectum sit aliquod visum fieri non potest it cannot bee that the obiect of faith should bee any thing seene But the proofe of the vniuersalitie of the Church which is a posteriori by the seuerall visible Professors of the same first is no perfect proofe for it depends vpon the testimonie of Doctors whereof in some ages few haue written and those which haue written haue not written of all points so that their consent in diuers Articles is rather charitably presumed than certainely knowne Secondly it is no proofe depending vpon diuine and infallible principles but vpon the testimonie and credit of men who may erre and bee deceiued Thirdly it is not a proofe of which all men are capeable for it consists partly of the voluminous writings of Historians partly of the immense dictates of the Fathers partly of the perplexe and inextricable subtilties of the Schoole-men to which few haue time and meanes all not capacitie to attaine Lastly by demonstrating the vniuersality and perpetuitie of the Church from the visibilitie of it it makes the Church as Catholicke to bee the obiect of the sense and so by consequence makes it to bee no Article of Faith My second reason shal be drawen from the nature of the Church Catholick in it selfe and the incapability of it to be subiect to arguments a posteriori that is of sense visibility it being not properly or if properly yet not alwaies snfficiently visible for this purpose Forthe better vnderstāding wherof we must premise some distinctions touching the Church Catholicke The Catholicke Church may bee considered either in respect of its 1. Matter of which it is composed which are men 2. Forme In respect of its Matter so it may be taken either according to its full Latitude and extent excluding no time no places nor any condition of men or in a limited sense in respect of its parts and those considered not together but seuerally with relation to their proper
suppose to bee infallible that Church being according to their supposition either the Pope in his chaire or a Generall Councell but are engaged altogether to the reports of particular Priests and Iesuites whom none will exempt from being subiect to error and deceit 2. To the second question if the exposition of the Church be not infallible how doe we know the sense and meaning of the Scriptures I answere that although all places of the Scripture are not alike perspicuous as all are not alike necessarie to saluation yet for the opening of the sense thereof so farre as is behoofefull for his Church God is the best Interpreter of his owne meaning expounding outwardly one place of the Word by another inwardly both opening ones eyes to discerne and enclining ones heart to assent vnto the truth As for those which cannot see but with the Popes spectacles and pretend the Scriptures to bee euery where throughout so ouershadowed with a mist that nothing presents it selfe cleerly to their view I wonder the lesse at them because their blindnesse is such that they cannot see to serue God without burning Tapers and lighted Candles at noone day Now on the other side I demand of them if one cannot know the certaine meaning and sense of the Scriptures vnlesse the exposition of the Church be infallible 1. Wherefore hath not the Church of Rome all this while publisht a set interpretation vpon any one book of the Bible considering that they say it is so necessarie and that the Popes Commentaries vpon it haue for so many Marts beene expected 2. How a man which cannot discerne the sense of the Scriptures in plaine places shall be able to shun the processe in infinitum and not runne his wits out of breath considering that according to the Papists themselues the voyce of the Church vttered in former Decrees requires the exposition of the present Church meaning the Pope and that the Churches Canons are inuol'd with no lesse if not more perplexeties than the Scriptures I could instance in ancient Councells as the Nicen and aske whether the sixth Canon wherein these wordes be Quoniam talis est Episcopo Romano consuetudo are to bee vnderstood according to the opinion of Ruffinus or Balsamon or Caranza or Bellarmine which foure are recounted by Bellarmine lib 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 13. But because I desire to confine my selfe to that which is pure Roman let 's cast the water of the Tridentine Synagogue and see whether that runnes so cleere as they pretend I aske therefore first touching the Canonicall bookes the number and names whereof the Fathers therein assembled were so carefull to set downe Sess 4. whether that which we call the Apocrypha Esther be there canonized as Bellarmine affirmeth lib. 1. de verbo Dei c. 7. or whether that booke and those which are called additaments bee there excluded from the Canon as Sixtus Senensis in lib. 1. 8. biblioth sanct doth auouch Secondly for the intention required by the Councell in him which administers the Sacrament Sess 7. I aske whether the wordes of the Councell be to be vnderstood according to Catharinus opinion in opusc or Bellarmines lib. 1. de Sacram in Gen. c. 27. Thirdly I aske how it comes to passe that Priscian and our old Grammarians will not serue to construe the text of the Councel if the Roman Church can endite with so perspicuous a stile but that Sess 7. Can. 8. Opus operatum must contrarie to the Grammar rules as Bellarmine confesseth lib. 2. de Sacram. c. 1. be vnderstood passiuely And that in the sixth Sess cap. 5. de iustif it is said Neque homo ipse nihil omninò agat wherein contrarie to Grammar are two negatiues expressed which cannot bee resolued into an affirmatiue Fourthly if the interpretations of the Church are so facile and easie whether was the Councell of Trents meaning concerning Originall sinne and Iustification the same that Dominicus a Soto affirms it to be or that which Ambrosius Catharinus attributes vnto it seeing both were present at the drawing of the Canons both presented books for proofe of their opinions to the Councell which are now extant and the Councell it selfe being appealed vnto could not decide the Controuersie nor agree what was her owne meaning therein To the third question if the tradition of the Church be not infallible how shall we know whether the Scriptures be perfect and entire or maimed and corrupted I answer that there is a double perfection of the Scriptures the one of integrall parts which appertaines to the perfection of each booke Chapter and verse in particular the other of essentiall parts which pertaine to the perfection of sauing knowledge If the question be of the integrall puritie and perfection how I know that there be copies of the Scriptures in the world by iudicious comparing whereof light may bee giuen to correct all manifest errors and defects crept into the Text whether by negligence or ignorance of the transcribers or otherwise I answer that I am assured thereof by the promises of God in generall to establish a perpetuitie of sauing knowledge and true beliefe in his Church and consequently by that firme foundation of his prouidence which appointing the end to witte eternall life will neuer suffer the meanes conducting thereunto either to perish or being disparaged by corruptions to become fruitlesse Neither doth Greg de Valentia run for farther proofes to secure the Popes legitimacie and salue the danger to which the Latine vulgar edition of the Bible is lyable by often impressions then this prouidence of God But if the question be of the essentiall puritie and perfection of the Scriptures how one may be assured that so much as contaynes points necesarie to saluation is preserued perfect and entire in them I answer that to resolue ones selfe herein he hath besides the generall promises of God and his neuer fayling prouidence an experimentall knowledge also springing from that amplitude of comfort and consolation which Gods Spirit effects by the Scriptures in the hearts and consciences of true beleeuers For such is the vnion and coherence of points necessarie to saluation on with the other that one workes not his proper effect where the other is not at least in some reasonable and conuenient measure knowne and beleeued Now on the contrarie I demaund of them if we cannot bee assured of the puritie and perfection of the Scriptures vnlesse the Tradition of the Church concerning it bee infallible how a man can euer bee resolued thereof from the Church of Rome Which first could neither heretofore preserue her Latine vulgar editions of the Bible which shee preferres before the originall from manifest Corruptions as may appeare by the corrections of Origen and Hierom nor at this day hath been able to Canonize any edition without permitting faults solecismes Barbarismes Misinterpretations Ambiguities Additions Substractions Transpositions Immutations Deprauations and the like which are confest by