word read by a particular fallible man If anie answer that Reading to them is but à condition of their beleuing but the whole motiue is Gods word which is written I replie First that their beleif dependeth vpon this condition and how can infallible faith depend vpon à condition which is fallible Secondly that thus the word Read and not Written must be the formal cause of their beleif And so Scripture is not the formal cause of their faith For Scripture is onely the word written I ask therfore what is the external formal cause of the blinde and ignorant mens beleif of that which is in Scripture For some such external cause there must be as Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. c. 6. p. 64. Potter and others grant not the doctrin it self For that is the material obiect of their faith and the thing which is beleued Nor the writing of it or letters of the Scripture For that they perceaue or vnderstand not Nor the Reading For that is fallible 3. If anie say that the doctrin is both the material and formal cause of their beleif becaus it is credible for itself I replie First that this Credibilitie for itself or internal light in the doctrin is feigned and refuted heretofore in that we said before c. 14. of the Scripture Secondly that assent to doctrin for itself cannot be faith becaus faith is an assent for authoritie of some that proposeth doctrin Thirdly that thus Scripture or writing is no formal cause of beleif as Protestants said before c. 11. sec 1. but meerly doctrin is that cause and that writing is but a conseruer or pointer to diuine doctrin but no cause at al of beleuing it Let them then not say that Scripture is the principal external formal cause of their beleuing what they beleue but confess that Scripture or writing of diuine doctrin serues them to no more then Reading serues the blind or ignorant who as they haue the same faith which the learned so must they haue the same external formal cause of faith which they haue but that al the formal cause of their beleuing what they finde in Scripture is the internal light of the doctrin it self and that they haue no external formal cause of their beleif of it and that writing or reading of it doth but point to the veritie or light of the doctrin as they say of the Churches testimonie of the Scripture that it doth but point at the word of God which is to destroie al formal faith which is an assent for authoritie and to become Enthusiasts and to make al Christian doctrin ridiculous to Infidels in telling them that Christians haue no external formal cause why they beleue ether the Scripture to be written by Gods inspiration or that which is in it to be Gods doctrin beside the Scripture or doctrin itself And that as the Church doth but point to the diuinitie of the Scripture but is no formal cause of our beleuing it to be diuine So the Scripture doth but point at the diuinitie of the doctrin which it conteineth but is no formal cause of beleuing it to be diuine doctrin Nether can they giue a good reason why they should say that Gods writing should be credible of be credible of itself to be Gods writing and need onely the Churches pointing to it for to beleue that it is Gods writing and that Gods doctrin should not be credible of itself to be his doctrin and need onely the Scriptures pointing to it that it is his doctrin For why should not Gods doctrin be as credible of itself to be his writing And so al external formal causing of beleif is gon and onely pointing to the obiect of beleeif is left And Protestants must not say that they beleue anie thing becaus it is in Scripture but onely pointeth to what they beleue as they say they beleue not Scripture to be the word of God becaus the Church testifieth that it is so but for it self being pointed to by the Church See Chillingworth supra c. 11. sec 2. SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER That the Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in al times vvhen faith vvas had 1. THat Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in al times when points of faith were beleued is euident For there was no Scripture til Moises and yet therewas true faith euer before since Adam Whitaker Contro 1. q. 6. c. 7. I grant that there is no Scripture ancienter then Moises books and that religion remained pure al that time without Scripture Ibid. c. 16 I grant that God from Adam to Moises kept Religion kept by tradition more then 2000. years doctrin deliuered by liuing voice that is traditions not written Item c. 7. cit Some barbarous men for a time wanted Scripture For a time doctrin may be kept entire without writing Item q. 3. c. 10. I grant there was a time when the word was not written and then was the Church Kemnice 1. parte Exam. tit de Scriptura p. 14. From the beginning of the world for 2450. yeares heauenly Moulins of Tradition c. 17. doctrin by diuine voice reuealed was proposed and from hand deliuered without Scripture diuinely inspired And ibid. p. 41. It is clear that the Apostles for some first yeares deliuered and spread Apostolik doctrin without anie writing of theirs by onely liuelie voice 2. Chillingworth c 2 n. 159. Ireneus tels vs of some barbarous Nations that beleued the doctrin of Christ and yet beleued not the Scripture to be the word of God For they neuer heard of it and faith comes of hearing 3. Dauenant de Iudice c. 5. We grant that before Moyses the word of God Before Moyses Tradition was sufficient not written and propagated to Posteritie by continual tradition was a sufficient Rule of faith Rainolds Conclus 1. God reuealed his wil without writing to Adam and from Adams time til Moises 4. And was the Church of God for 2400. years before Christ infallible in al points of faith and is she not after Christ infallible in the most fundamental point of al concerning Scripture was the tradition of the Church for al that time an infallible rule of faith and it is not now Is the Church since Christs Hebr. 7. time of worse condition then it was then or did men in that time ordinarily beleue ether without some external means or motiue which is Prophetical and miraculous or did they beleue infallibly for the tradition of the Church at that time which was fallible Whitaker l. 1. de Script p. 64. saieth We ask which is that external cause for which we must beleue For there must Some external cause infallible be some external cause seing faith is not bred in vs nor produced of the Holie Ghost without external causes vnles miraculously and is of hearing And l. 3. c. 10. p. 415. As the Doctrin and religion which we profess is heauenlie and diuine such also must be the reason and
OF THE AL-SVFFICIENT EXTERNAL PROPOSER OF MATTERS OF FAITH DEVIDED INTO TVVO BOOKES IN THE FIRST Is proued that the true Church of God is the Al-sufficient external Proposer of matters of Faith IN THE SECOND Is shewed the manifold vncertanities of Protestants concerning the scripture and how scripture is or is not an entire Rule of Faith By C. R. Doctor of Diuinitie 1. Timothe 4. The Church of the liuing God the pillar and ground of truthe At PARIS M. DC LIII THE PREFACE to the Reader 1. NAtural reason gentle Twoe waies to learn truthe Reader teacheth vs that what we can not know by ourselues we should learne by authoritie of others and according as their authoritie is vndoubted or probable toyeeld assured or probable assent therto and the same reason teacheth vs also that as the See infra l. 2. c. 8. sect 1. clear sight of God in heauen is supernatural to vs and far aboue the reach of our reason so is also the right way therto Wherfore as S. Devâ—â—l â—redendi 〈◊〉 16. 8. 17. Augustin rightly sayeth if God wil haue men come to him in heauen he must needs haue instituted some authoritie on earth for to direct them assuredlie in the right way becaus by reason we cannot finde way to heauen known by authoritie out that way Which authoritie must be infallible because otherwise it could not assuredlie direct vs as also becaus it is to direct vs by diuine faith which is altogether infallible And herein is Gods goodnes to be admired that he would bring men to heauen rather by authoritie and faith then by knowledg and reason becaus euerie one can beleeue but not euerie one konw hard matters And in al that is hitherto saied Catholiks and Protestants generally agree The controuersie between them is in whome God hath setled this assured authoritie for to direct and guide vs infallibly in our way to heauen 2. For Catholiks say that as God Authoritie setled in men at the first set this authoritie in his Prophets and Apostles so becaus they were not to liue with vs for euer he continueth it in his Church which he hath made his spouse the mother and mistres of the faithful the pillar and ground of truth his mistical body wherof Christ is head and the Holy Ghost the Soule who is to teach her all truth and in whose heart is alwaies Gods Word beleued in her mouth his word preached and in her hands his word written But Protestants becaus they can shew no Church before Luther who taught in substance the same waie to heauen which they doe as I haue otherwere Lib. 2. de Authore Protestâ— Ecclesia shewed by their own plaine and manifold confessions are forced to denie that God hath setled this infallible authoritie in his Church for to direct vs and guide vs infalliblie to heauen and doe grant her no more authoritie in matters of faith then a whâ—tat Cont. 1. q. 5. c. 20. l. 1. dâ— script 144. l. 2. p. 254. â—71 l 3. p. 435. mere humane enen in the b Laude sec 16. n. 26. 61. most fundamental points of al. Naie some of them saïe she hath c whitat Cont. 1. q. 3 c. 3. l. 1. de script p. 153. l. 2. p. 235. Caluin Actor 15 v. 28. See infra l. 2. c. 10. sec 2. and l. 1. c. 2. §. 8. no authoritie at al in matters of faith So they abase the authoritie or rather take awaie al authoritie in matters of faith from their Mother and Mistres in faith from the spouse of Christ from the pillar and ground of truth from her whose head Christ is and whose soule is the Holie Ghost who teacheth her al truth And this The roote of al heresie is the true roote of al heresies not to beleue that the true Church of God the pillar an t ground of truth whome the Holie Ghost teacheth al truth is an infaillible guide apointed by God to direct vs assuredly to heauen For euerie one would follow her none would oppose her whome they confess to be an infallible Guide 3. Protestants grant euerie one of the Prophets or Apostles to haue been infallible in matters of faith and yet cannot shew so mainie nor so plaine testimonies of Scripture for their infallibilitie as we can shew for the infallibilitie of the Church But al infallibilitie in matter of faith they wil put in the scripture as vsually al d Tâ—rtul dâ— prâ—wr c 15. Hilar l. ad Constant. August epâ—s 222. Hâ—eron in Galat. 〈◊〉 Sed infrâ— l. 2. c. 14. seq heretiks did because they wil vnderstand that as thy please and so indeed put al infallibilitie in themselues though nether scripture saith that itselfe is infallible nor was it written for aboue 2000. yeares before Moyses nor was it in al places or times when and where infallible faith was nor itself can shew the way to heauen to them that cannot read it nor sheweth that which Protestants account the most fundamental point of faith or al other points so clearly as it neede no interpreter See infra l. 2. c. 4. see 2. as we shal hear Protestants themselues confess 4. And can any reasonable man perswade himself that God hath setled al infallible authoritie forto direct men assuredly to heauen in that which he conffessth God neuer saied is infallible nor it was in al times or places where and when men were infallibly guided in their way to heauen which cannot by it self guide the greatest part of men which teacheth them not the most necessaire point of al nor al points so clearly as it need not some interpreter and yet say they withal God hath not giuen vs any infallible interpreter I add also that who follow it for their onlie guide in matters of faith haue no constancie nor vnitie in faith nor yet any hope of vnitie Is such â e See infra l. 1. c. 8. n. 6. one mens onelie assured guide to heauen 5. We produce the express word of God that his true Church is the pillar and ground of truthe and that the holie Ghost teacheth her al truth let Protestants produce the like express word of God that the book called scripture is the pillar and ground of truth and that it teacheth al truth You must saieth f Cont. Pra. â—eam l. 11. Tertullian proue as clearly as I doe Bring á proof like to mine And S. Augustin Read as plaine words as these are which we read to you Doe l. de vnis c. 6. 14. not bring vs your consequences or inferences of which we may â—ay with S. Augustin g Serm. 14. de verb. Apost This is a humane argument not diuine authoritie h See iâ—fra l. 25. 3. sâ—c 1. Protestants vse to say that al things necessarie to be beleued are expresly in scripture and need no inference and that faith relieth not on argument but on authoritie let
c Potter sec 5. p. 2â— 89. laude p. â—â—7 165. Caluin Admonâ—s vlt. p. 3â—2 martyâ— laâ— 4. c. 10. Protestants differ from Catholiks in that they doe not beleue al points of faith euen such as are necessarie to be beleued onâ—ly by reason of their clear reuelation sufficienly proposed to be necessarie to the wel being of faith euen by reason of the matter which they conteâ—ne when as indeed al points of faith are necessarie to the better being or perfection of faith euen by reason of the matter which they contein For as in natural things God doth not giue what is superfluous both to their being and also to their wel being or perfection so nether doth he in supernatural matters as are points of faith Whererpon the Apostle 1. Thessal 3. desired to add somethings which were wanting to their faith and yet doubtless nothing was wanting to the verie being of their sauing faith but only to the wel being or perfection thereof And Ephes. 4. he saith that God gaue Pastors to the consummation or perfection of Saints Wherfore as far as the better being or perfection of Christian faith or consummation of Saints reacheth so far also reacheth the infallibilitie of the Church And when some Catholiks say that the Church is infallible onely in things necessarie to saluation as Canus l. 5. loco 5. Stapleton Controu 4. q. 2. ad quartum argumentum and Bellarmin l. 4. de Pontifice c. 5. they doe not mean as some d Potter sec 5. p. 16. 17. 22. 29. Protestants think that she is infallible in things merely fundamental which are necessarie to saluation by reason of the matter or necessitate medij as the principal points of faith are necessarie but of things which are any way necessarie to saluation either by reason of their matter and their reuelation also or by reason of their reuelation only as other The Church infallible onely in things some way necessarie points of faith are necessarie and also which are necessarie ether to the verie being or to the berter being of saluation by reason of their matter as al points of faith are necessarie For in al things which are anie way necessarie to saluation and onely in things which are some way necessarie to saluation God hath giuen Infallibilitie to his Church Becaus as I said as in natural things he faileth not in any thing which is anie way necessarie to their being or better being so nether doth he faile or abound in supernatural things as is saluation 6. The last particle to be explicated whas meant by al and euerie one is To al and euerie one In which Protestants differ from Catholicks becaus they attribute Infallibilitie to the Church onely in things e Potter sec 5. p. 19. 29. absolutly necessarie to al mens faluation as Laude speaketh Relat. p. 355. or in things absolutly necessarie in themselues as he speaketh ibid. â—p 357. and generally Protestants say the Church is infallible bâ—t in fundamental points by which they mean onely such as are necessarie to euerie Christian as Potter saieth sect 7. p. 74. not such as are necessarie onely to some But seing Christ hath instituted his Church as a necessarie mean to saue al and euerie kinde of men she must needs be as in fallible in matters which are necessarie for the saluation onely of some as she is in matters which are necessarie for the saluation of al. For els he should faile in a necessaire meanes for the saluation of some kinde of men which were impious to think seing he came to saue al kinds of men and therfore he hath made his Church infallible as wel in matters of faith which are necessarie onely to the saluation of some kindes of men as which are necessarie to al kinds of men And this is so euident as whitaker Controu 2. q. 4. c. 2. confesâ—eth that in things necessarie to anie The ful sense of this question the Church erreth not So that our meaning in this question of the infallibilitie of the Church is that the Catholick or vniuersal Church throughe Gods efficatious assistance certainly or infallibly neuer erreth in anie point necessarie to saluation ether for the matter and diuine reuelation too or onely for diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed or necessarie ether to the being or wel being of faith ether of al men or of anie kinde of men So that in what point soeuer which is anie way necessarie to saluation ether of al or of anie men the Church infallibly neuer erreth through Gods efficatious assistance of her which assistance Christ hath most clearly promised to her as he hath promised to her remission of al sinnes and Protestants might as wel question her power for remission of some kindes of sinnes as question her infallibilitie in some points of faith SECOND CHAPTER In vvhich are laid dovvn rational grounds of that vvhich vve shal say of the Infallibilitie of the Church in matters of faith 1. THe first ground is that only Onely Gods word can be beleued with diuine faith Quomodo credet quem non audâ—e runt Rom. 10. the word of God or what is said of God can be the material obiect or that which is beleeued with diuine faith This is euident becaus only that word which implieth contradiction to be fals can be the material obiect of diuine faith which implieth contradiction to beleeue aniething that is nottrue and such only is the word of God and no word of man or of anie creature And hence il followeth thaâ— Protestants cannot beleue with diuine saith either of these propositions The Bible is the word of God The present copies of the Bible are couformable to the original For a Chillinh c. 〈◊〉 p 90. laâ—dâ— sect 16. p 69. 70 〈◊〉 117. Hoober l. 2. §. 〈◊〉 Beza in Rom. 1. â—ee l. 2. c. 15. n. 8. and c. 5. sest 1. they maintein that the scripture is the sole and adaequat obiect of diuine faith and confessing which is euident that neither of the said propositions is in scripture nor is anie written word of God they must needs also confess that they haue no diuine faith of the said propositions Wherefore thus I argue in forme against them Onely the scripture or written word of God is the material obiect of diuine faith The said propositions are no scripture or written word of God Therefore they are no material obiect of diuine faith 2. The second ground is that onely Onely Authoritie or veracitie the formâ—l cause of belâ—ef Authoritie or veracitie can be the formal obiect or formal cause of anie beleef whatsoeuer This also is euident For as the Apostle saieth Rom. 10. faith is of hearing and S. Austin lib. de vtil cred c. 11. That we beleue we owâ— to authoritie that we Know to reason Which he hath also lib. de vera Religione c. 24. And it is confessed by Protestants For thus Whitaker l. 3. de scriptuta
Scripture to be the word of God by some authoritie that is absolutly diuine and he proueth it thus For if they be warranted vnto vs by anie authoritie less then diuine then al things conteined in them which haue no greater assurance then the scripture in which they are read are not obiects of diuine beleif and that once granted wil enforce vs to yeeld that al the articles of Christian beleef haue no greater assurance then humane or moral faith or credulitie can affoord Thus he both confesseth and proueth that the Scriptures must be proued to be the word of God by some infallible diuine proof and that such a proof can be nothing but a word of God and by some authoritie that is absolutly diuine But where this word of God by which the scripture is to be proued is where this absolutly diuine authoritie is out of the Church he cannot tel For himself saieth sec 16. cit p. 70. There is no place in Scripture which tells vs that such books conteining such and such particulars are the word of God And p. 88. Scripture cannot bear witness to it self nor one parte of it to an other White also in his way p. 48. The certaintie of the scripture is not written indeed with letters in anie particular place or book of the scripture So there is no written word of God that See infâ—a l. 〈◊〉 c. 6 sec 2. auoucheth the Scripture to be the word of God And vnwritten word of God they admit none Wherefore Laude flieth to a diuine light in See infra l. 2. c. 5 sec 2. scripture which saieth he after the present Church hath testified the Scripture to be the word clearly sheweth to vs that it is the word of God But beside that this light is feigned as we shal see more hereafter light is no word of God which Laude requireth to pâ—â—ue the scripture by but a quali 〈…〉 of the word of God nor is anie formal obiect of beleef which authoritie or veracitie onely is but is obiect of science or of vision And so this light is nether the material obiect of faith nor sufficient proof of the Scripture becaus it is no word of God nor anie formal obiector cause of faith becaus it is no authoritie Wherefore Chillingworth finding no surer motiue to beleue the Scripture then the testimonie of the Church and yet not granting that to be infallible granteth that consequence which Laud would auoid See l. 2. 〈◊〉 8. sec 2. to wit that al their assurance that the Scripture is Gods word and of al things conteined in it is but humane and fallible and so Protestants faith is not diuine or infallible and may deceaue them An other main inconueniencie is that if the Catholik A fallible Church menâ— force to professor in faith or to forsake her communion Church could err in matters of faith she might force vs to profess her error if she exacted â—t as a condition of her communâ—â—â— which were great sin or so forsake her communion which were to put our selues out of the state of Saluation becaus there is no saluation out of the Church as there Caluin 4. Inst. c. 1. §. 4. Vvhitaker contr 2. q. 5. c. 3. was not out of the Arck of Noe Wherby we see that the Infallibilitie of the Church and Necessitie of being in the Church doe mutually infer one the other 7. To al these proofs out of Reason I may add that Reason forceth Protestants to confess that the Church is infallible in fundamental points and if it were not to haue some pretence to refuse the Churches iudgment in some points it wold force them to confess that she is also infallible in Not-fundamental points and making fundamental or Not-fundamental which they please they take pretence to admit or refuse the Churches iudgment-in which points they please And this is the true ground of their denial of the Churches diuine Infallibilitie in al points of faith which to haue discouered is to haue refuted I may add also that for more then 2000. yeares God Protestants make she Church more infallible in the law of nature then after gaue infallibilitie to his Church and that he neuer said that he wold take it from her and that the Church is not less infallible now then it was before Moyses but rather founded as the Apostles saieth in better promises NINTH CHAPTER Some of the Protestants arguments against the Infallibilitie of the true Church of God in matters of faith ansvvered 1. PRotestants heap vp great store of Arguments but no express testimonie of Scripture against the Infallibilitie of the Church in matters of faith that so they may by number supplie the weakness of them and if not conuince the Reader yet confound him wherfore I wil not relate them al but the chiefest by answer to which the Reader may see how he may answer the rest The first argument is this The Church may a Vvhitaker cont 2. q. 4. 6. 2. 3. Chilling c. 5. n. 93. err in matters of manners therfore also in matters of faith I answer that if they mean in the Antecedent of the vniuersal Church I distinguish of damnably erring or venially erring and denie that the whole Church can damnably err in manners becaus that would make her not holie and so that article of our Creed I beleue the holie Catholik Church should be fals and as Laude said sec 25 § 5. The whole militant Church is holie and so we beleue Item If we wil keep vp our Creed the whole militant Church must be holie Secondly I denie the consequence For etror in manners destroieth onely a qualitie of the Church which is holiness and without which the substance of the Church may be but sinful error in faith destroieth her b See part 1. l. 2. c. 6. substance and maketh her no true Church of God but a fals and heretical Church becaus sinful error in faith is the sin of heresie And also euen euerie sinless error in faith destroieth the end for which the Church is instituted which is to be a sure and vndoubted c See sup c. 2. n. 2. and c. 8 n. 2. Guide in matters of faith and to perswade them which she could not if she erred in anie point of faith For as S. d Epist. 8. 9. Austin saieth of the Scripture if anie error were found in anie point of her doctrin her doctrin in other points would be vnsure and suspected of error Besids we might argue thus against Protestants the Church may err fundamentally in manners Therfore also fundamentally in faith 2. A second argument is that the Church may for some time be ignorant of some points of faith Therfore may also err I distinguish the antecedent of points of faith necessarie necessitate medij or Adesse fidei and then I denie it For then she should not be a sufficient guide of faith or of points not so necessarie and
or beleued with diuine faith EIGHTENTH CHAPTER Hovv vve are to ansvver that question VVherfore or hovv vve beleue or knovv the Church to be Infallible 1. OVT of that which hath been hitherto saied is clearly answered that question How or Wherfore we beleue or know the true Church of God to be absolutly infallible in al which she teacheth as matter of faith Laude sec 16. p. 60. saieth The tradition of the Church taken alone cannot be a sufficient proof to beleue by diuine faith that Scripture is the word of God For that which is a ful and sufficient proof is able of it self to settle the soule of man which Tradition is not alone able to doe For it may be further asked why we should beleue the Churches Tradition And if it be answered Becaus the Church is infallibly gouerned by the holie Ghost it may be demanded How that may appeare And if thâ—â— be demanded ether you must say you haue it by special Reuelation or els you must attempt to proue it by Scripture And the verie offer to proue it by Scripture is a sufficient acknoâ—ledgment that the Scripture is a higher proof then the Churches tradition which in your own ground is or may be questionable til you come thither Besids it is an inuiolable ground of reason that the Principles of anie conclusion Thus he whose words I haue related at large that I might not seem to dissemble the difficultie 2. First therfore we must note that Beleef and Knowledg are different For Beleef is a simple assent for the authoritie of the speaker Knowledg if it be not of such things as are euident of themselues as that the whole is greater then a parte and such like is discursiue inferring one thing out of an other Therfore these are different questions Wherfore we know the Church to be infallible in al matters of faith and Wherfore we beleue her to be so infallible And we wil answer to both questions differently and distinctly To the question Wherfore we beleue the Chrch to be infallible I answer that if you demand the material Gods vocal word the material obiect of faith obiect of my beleef therof it is Gods vocal word vttered to me by the Church For as is shewed before out of the Apostle Faith is of hearing and Hearing is by the vocal word of God vttered by the Church And for this vocal word of God as his testimonie the Church was beleued to be infallible before there was anie Scripture and of the aforesaied Barbarians who had no Scripture and could be so beleued though al Scripture should perish And this Luther and other Protestants before cited doe confess when they say The Church is conceaued bred by the vocal word of God Supra c. 14. â— 1. and 3. 3. And if you ask the formal obiect for whose authoritie we beleue the Church to be thus infallible I answer For the authoritie of God principally and for the authoritie of the Church which is the pillar and ground of faith subordinatly As we beleue what the Embassador saieth principally for the King who sent him and subordinatly for the authoritie of the Embassador himself as apointed by the king And as before anie Scripture was written Prophets were beleued not for anie Scripture but principally for the authoritie of God who sent them and secondarily for their own Prophetical authoritie instituted by God Wherfore we need not as Laude thinketh proue the Church to be infallible ether by special reuelation or by Scripture as Chillingworth saieth c. 3. p. 141. Becaus beside the priuat word of God which is by special reuelation and his publik written word Publik vocal word of God Videsup c. 14. n. 1. which is Scripture there is also his publik vocal word which he vttereth and speaketh by the mouth of the Church as wel as there is his written word which he wrot by Vvhitak l 3. descript p. 414. Spiritus per as Ecclesia loquitur â—ic etiam cont 1. q. 3. c. 11. cont 2. q. 4. c. 2. Quâ— ecclesiam audiunt Christum ipsum audiunt the hands of his prophets and Euangelists And Gods word by whom soeuer it is ether spoke nor written is of equal authoritie and his vocal word equally to be beleued as his written Wherfore we haue no need to proue the Church to be infallible by the Scripture as there was no need nor possibilitie by it to proue that or anie other point of faith before anie Scripture was written vnles it be against such heretiks as beleue the Scripture but beleue not the Church But Catholiks doe onely confirme their faith which before they had of the infallibilitie of the Church by Gods vocal Gods vocal word confirmed by his written word vttered by the Church by his written word of the Scripture As we vse to be confirmed in the beleef of a thing which a man doth not only say by word of mouth but also by writing 4. And moreouer it is not alwaies necessarie as laude thinks that the mean of knowing be more known then the thing known by it as when they mutually make each other known as Relatiues and the Cause and proper Effect doe For in these a Circle is not vitious As from a Father we proue a sonn and from a sonn à Father From Rational Risible and from Risible Rational from the suns rising the Daie and from the Daie the suns rising And as Whitaker saieth contr 1. q. 3. c. 3. of the old and new Testament Something 's mutually proue each other The old and new Testament doe mutually confirme one the other In other matters this mutual confirmation would not auaile but in this it auaileth much For none is so fit a witnes of God and of his word as God in his word And contro 2. q. 5. c. 18. As the cause doth bring forth and shew the effect so the effect in like manner doth illustrat the cause Ibid. c. 9. Relatiues are not before or after one the other And lib. 3. contra Dureum sec 3. doth this seem ridiculous to the to seek the word out of the word White in his Defense p. 301. It is no more a Circle in vs to proue our Spirit by the Scripture and again to be assured of the Scripture by the Spirit then it is in discours to goe too and and fro between causes and effects The like he hath in his way p. 117. Field in his Appendice part 2. p. 16. That the cause may be proued by the effect and the effect by the cause and that such a kinde of argumentation is not a circulation but a demonstratiue regress that two causes may becauses ether of other we make no question Caluin 1. Instit c. 9. § 3. God hath ioyned together the certaintie of his word and Spirit with a mutual knot The samesay I of Gods vocal word vttered by the Church and his written word signed by the Euangelists that
they mutually confirme each other yet with this difference that the true Church giueth sufficient testimonie to her self sufficient I say to beleue her with diuine faith to be the true Church of God becaus her authoritie in matters of faith is diuine as the Apostles was and therfore needeth not the testimonie of the Scripture to be beleued to be such as Christ gaue sufficient testimonie to himself Ioan. 5. S. Ihon Baptist to himself If particular men were credible of themselues why not the whole Church of God Math. 3. S. Ihon Euangelist to himself Ioan. 21. and S. Paul to himself Galat. 1. 2. Cor. 4. and so doth the pillar and ground of truth to her self But the Scripture giueth not sufficient testimonie of it self to be infallibly beleued to be Gods word but needeth authoritie of some infallible Author or Person becaus Scripture is onely the material obiect which is to be beleued and authoritie is the formal obiect or cause of beleef without which there can be no true or formal beleef but onely science or opinion For as S. Austin saieth That we beleue we owe to authoritie And Whitaker l. 3. de Script p. 408. Faith relieth vpon authoritie Authoritie is the foundation of faith Yet Scripture being beleued to be Gods word is a sufficient testimonie to confirme the beleef already had of the Church and also to produce such beleef in those who beleue not the Church And thus much for answer to that question How we beleue the Church to be infallible For we first beleue the Church God speaketh by the mouth of the Church Vvhitaker l. 3 de Scrip 414. so also Contr. 1 q. 3. c. 11. see c. 4. n. 4. and c. 14. n. 1. to be infallible for Gods vocal word vttered by the Church And we are confirmed in that beleef for Gods written word in the Scripture And to Catholiks we giue Gods vocal word as the first subordinat cause of that our beleef but to such as beleue the Scripture and not the Church we giue onely Gods written word And therfore no maruel if to Protestants who admit not the authoritie of Gods Church or his vocal word we proue the infallibilitie of the Church onely by Scripture wheras if they did equally admit as wel Gods vocal word as his written word or his true Church as his Scripture we might without anie vitious Circle at al mutually proue Gods vocal word by his written word and his written by his vocal and his Church by his Scripture and his Scripture by his Church becaus Gods testimonie is sufficient for proof of whatsoeuer and by what means soeuer it be vttered to wit by speech by writing or howsoeuer els Wherfore this is no vitious Circle God saieth by his Church that God speaketh by his Church Vvhitaker supra such Scripture is his word Therfore it is so God saieth by his Scripture that such are his Church Therfore they are so 5. And as for answer to the question How know you the true Church to be infallible in al matters of faith I say that beside the reasons grounded in Scripture giuen before we may giue a natural reason therof For as S. Austin saieth rightly If God haue L. de vâ—il cred c. 16. prouidence of mankinde he hath on earth setled some authoritie on which we relying may mount to him And this authoritie must not be blinde or deceiptful in matters of saluation as al matters of faith are as al fallible authoritie is and therfore is infallible in al such matters And as the same S. Austin saieth of the Scripture that if the lest lie be found in it the authoritie of al the rest faileth so if in the authoritie which God hath setled on earth for matters of Saluation there were found anie error we could not securely relie vpon it And the same reason teacheth vs that if God would setle this infallible authoritie on earth in anie he would setle it in his Church who is his beloued Spouse and Mother of the Faithful whome he hath apointed to conceaue them by the diuine seed of his word to beare nourish and guide them in their way to saluation For who can be imagined to be more fit to be infallible in matters of Saluation then the spouse of God the mother Nurse and Guide of the Faithful Would God apoint to mankinde a blinde or deceiptful guide to saluation surely no if he effectually meant to saue mankinde Nether wil it suffice to grant as Protestants doe that the Church is infallible in fundamental points first becaus there are no fundamental points 〈◊〉 their sense that is such as suffice to saluation though others sufficiently proposed be not beleued Secondly becaus if as S. Austin saied of the Scripture she lie in some points of faith we cannot be sure she doth not in others Wherfore wel saied Chillingworth c. 3. n. 36. An authoritie subiect to error can be no stable or firme foundation of my beleef in anie thing Thirdly becaus Protestants cannot tel which precisely are such fundamental points as they imagin and therfore cannot be certain in which points the Church erreth not Fourthly becaus they say the Church is fallible euen in their most fundamental point of al which is That Scripture is the word of God and sometimes also in other fundamental points as is shewed parte 1. l. 1. c. 7. Fiftly Chillingworth denieth that there is anie one certain Church vniuersal or particular which is infallible euen in fundamental points but onely that there are alwaies some vncertain men who hold al the fundamental points and therfore denieth that anie certain Church is an infallible Guide euen in fundamentals and saieth c. 2 n 139. p. 105. you must know there is a wide difference between infallible in No certain Church infaâ—lible euen â—â—fundamental points fundamentals and being an Infallible guide euen in fundamentals and we vtterly denie the Church to be the latter For to say so were to oblidge ourselues to finde some certain societie of men of whome we might be certain that they nether doe nor can err in fundamentals nor in declaring what is fundamental what not fundamental and consequently to make anie Church an infallible Guide in fundamentals would be to make it infallible in al things which Note this she proposeth and requireth to beleued Which he often times repeateth c. 3. as n. 39. 55. 58. and 60. where he addeth that it is falsly supposed that they grant that in some certain points No certain Church to be obeied vnder pain â—f damnation fundamental some certain Church is infallibly assisted and vnder pain of damnation to be obeyed So that no certain Church vniuersal or particular is ether an infallible Guide or to be beleued or obeyed vnder pain of damnation euen in fundamental points Beside The Church and Some Church are different For The Church signifieth the whole true Church as himself confesseth c. 5. n. 26. p. 263. or The
not written that we say is bastard Beza in Rom. 1. v. 17. Christians acknowledg no other obiect of faith but the written word of God Perkins in his Reform Cath. Contro 20. c. 2. We acknowledg the onely written word of God Wherfore ether there is some point of faith nay the cheifest point of al an vnwritten word of God or this point That the scripture is the word of God is no point of faith with Protestants Which Chillingworth c. 2. § 4. seemeth plainly to teach where he saieth The controuersies wherin the scripture it self is the subiect of the question cannot be determined but by natural reason § 32. The scripture is none of the material obiects of our faith Scripture no material obiect of faith § 51. Tradition by which Scripture is known is a Principle not in Christianitie but in reason § 159. God requireth of vs vnder pain of damnation onely to beleue the verities therin conteined not the diuine authoritie of the books wherin they are conteined And the same insinuate Whitaker Hooker and White cited supra c. 8. sec 2. Who say that Scripture may be known by reason and light of nature to be the word of God So that the most necessarie most sure prime great main ground of Protestants faith is a principle of natural reason and no obiect of diuine faith or which we are bound to beleue vnder pain of damnation Surely I see not how Protestants can make agree these two main points of their doctrin There is no word of God vnwritten necessarie to be beleued and That scripture is the word of God is a word of God vnwritten necessarie to be beleued The first is the common doctrin of al Protestants who therfore denie that there is anie tradition that is word of God vnwritten necessarie to be beleued and say the Scripture is the perfect and entire rule of faith conteining al that is necessarie to be beleued The second also is their vsual doctrin For that with them it is a word of God That the Scripture is the word of God is euident both becaus they put the Canon of Scripture in their Confessions of faith as a parte of their beleif and Sup n. 7. also because Laude loco cit calleth it a prime principle of faith And Vsher That of al things this ought to be beleued And seing they say their beleif of al other points dependeth on this I suppose they wil not denie this to be a point of faith or Gods word and say it is but a humane principle or word of man That this point is not written is euident For no where it can be shewed and also because Laude White and others cited supra c. 5. sec 2 confess that it is no where written in Scripture And if it were anie where written we could proue Scripture by itself which Whitaker Feild Hooker Couel Chillingworth and others cited c. 5. doe denie And that they account this point necessarie to be beleued I need not proue becaus they account it the most necessarie of al and on which dependeth whatsoeuer els they beleue 9. An other proof that the Scripture doth not sufficiently propose al points of faith may be taken from the Protestants confession That they cannot deduce most of their points of faith in which they differ from vs out of Scripture by anie necessarie Inference but by adding to Scripture some humane principle As they caÌ„not infer out of that saying of Scripture Doe this in Commemoration of me that the Eucharist is not substantially the bodie of Christ but by adding this humane principle A Commemoration cannot be substantially the thing which is commemorated And the like wil appeare in their proof of other their points of faith if they be brought into syllogistical forme And how can that be saied to propose See Vvhites 〈◊〉 16 p. 138. sufficiently al points of faith which doth but partly propose them and needeth the addition of another How can it be called the perfect rule of faith which needeth addition seening we haue shewed before out of the Fathers and their own confession that a Rule needeth no addition C. 5. sect 2. Nay how can they say they beleue those conclusions as points to be infallibly beleued which they being fallible men doe also infer partly out of fallible and humane principles seeing as Laude saieth sec 16. § 3. This is an inuiolable See him sect 19. p. 125. ground of reason That the principle of anie conclusion must be of more credit then the conclusion itself And the same say Whitaker Contro 2. q. 5. c. 18. l. 〈◊〉 de Script p. 166. 392. 416. Potter sec 5. p 14. 15 33. 40 Morton to 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 37. Chillingworth Fallible Principles can neuer produce an infallible conclusion c. 2. p. 57. and others commonly Thus haue we proued that Scripture doth not sufficiently propose al points of faith now we wil proue that it doth not propose to al men SIXTEENTH CHAPTER That Scripture doth not sufficiently propose points of faith to al men capable of external proposal 1. THat Scripture doth not sufficiently propose points of faith to al men who are capable of external proposal is euident in the blinde and those who cannot read For the blinde cannot so much as see the letters of the Scripture and those who cannot read cannot see their signification or what they signifie Therfore Scripture of itself doth propose nothing sufficiently vnto them If anie answer that Scripture may be read to them and so propose sufficiently to them I reply First that if Scripture cannot propose to them but by some others reading of it of itself alone it cannot propose and so can be no Rule of faith to them becaus a Rule needeth no help to direct And yet White in his Defense c. 24. p. 105. saith This Rule of faith is of such nature as it is able to direct al men yea the simplest and vnleaâ—nedest aline Secondly that according to Protestants al men are fallible and may read wrong ether of purpose or of ignorance And the Scriptures proposal were not infallible if it vsed a fallible help Surely the blinde or ignorant men can haue no greater assurance then moral that the Reader readeth true For what diuine infallible assistance can he be thought to haue in reading true And it were madness to say he hath diuine assistance in reading true and to denie that the true Church of God hath the like assistance in teaching true 2. And as D. Potter saieth sec 5. p. 7. The assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine which requires an obiect and motiue so infallibly true as that it nether hath nor can possibly admit anie mixture of error or falshood And he should haue said it cannot possibly admit anie mixture of fallibilitie And doubtles anie particular mans reading is fallible How then can the blinde or ignorant men haue faith absolutly diuine whose motiue is Gods
for the authoritie of the reuealer or as Chillingworth c. 1. p. 35. saieth an assentto diuine reuelation vpon the authoritie of the reuealer And the same saieth laude sec 38. p. 344. Potter sect 5. p. 3. and others But a Reuealer is a person intelligent Therefore the authoritie of some person intelligent is the formal cause of faith and not anie words or writings which are rather the external reuelation then the reuealer And hence it is that though in holie Scripture there be diuine veritie and that which is to be beleued with diuine faith yet if scripture be taken alone by it self meerely as it is such words or writings it hath no formal authoritie or veracitie to cause its veritie to be beleued For as such it is neither anie intellectuall person nor hath any intellectuall person adioned to it for whose authoritie it should be beleued Wherefore wel said Stapleton Controu 3. q. 1. ar 2. credimus scripturam non scripturae becaus scripture hath in it self truth which is beleued but not authoritie for which it is beleued And likewise wel wrote Chillingw c. 2. p. 69. That the diuinitie of a writing cannot Note this be known for it self alone but by some extrinsecal authoritie you need not proue for no wise man denieth it And ibid. p. 114. A written rule must always need something els which either is euidently true or euidently credible to giue attestation to it And laude sect 16. p. 88. Scripture cannot bear witnes to it self nor one part of it to an other The same saieth Hooker l. 2. § 4. And g See infra l. 1. c. 14. Protestants generally confess that the scripture cannot be beleued of vs without the attestation of the Church The true cause whereof is that scripture of it self hath no authoritie but al the authoritie for which it is beleued is out of it self to wit in God who is author of it and in his Church who is witnes to it And when graue authors attribute authoritee to the scripture ether by authoritie they mean veritie or they take not scripture by it sels alone but as it is the scripture of God As in like manner they say the scripture saiâ—th this teacheth this affirmeth this speaketh this meaning God by scripture But Gods authoritie alone doth not in ordinarie course engender faith and we seeke that authoritie on earth without which Gods authoritie alone wil not in ordinarie course engender diuine faith of the scripture or of any thing els which authoritie euidently and confessedly is not in the scripture it self 8. The eight ground is that to a Four things in a proposer Proposer of points of faith properly so called there be long foure things 1. is his person 2. his Authoritie to propose such matters 3. his proposal which is his words or writings And 4 the truth proposed and signified by his words or writings For a Propoâ—er of matters of faith is a Preacher who proposeth or preacheth ether by word onely as most of the Apostles did or by writings also as S. Paul and some other Apostles Netherwords nor writings are proposers did And as their words were no Proposers but that by which they proposed so nether were theire writings anie Proposers but were that by which they proposed And of all the four said things only the twoe last are in the scripture and therefore it cannot be properly the Proposâ—r of faith but onely the Proposal if we consider the words and the Proposed if we consider the truth which the words signifie But al the foure are in the Church of God And Protestants cannot denie that she is a person or persons nor that her words or writings are her Proposals or the truth signified by them her truth Proposed Nether do they whereim Protestants grant diuine authoritie to the Châ—râ—h deny that she hath diuine authoritie to propose matters of faith as to teach Gods word and administer his Sacraments giuen to her in the last of S. Mathew onely they denie that her authoritie to testifie or persuade that which she teacheth is infallible and sufficient as an external and subordinat cause to engender diuine beleef of what she teacheth In which they do not consequently why Protestants de not speake consequently proceed For first how can the authoritie of the Church be diuine in proposing Gods word and be not infallible in proposing it secondly how can she haue diuine and infallible authoritie to preach Gods word and not haue the like authoritie to testifie and perswade that it is Gods word which she preacheth seing persuation that it is Gods word which she preacheth Persuasion is the end of preaching is the end of her preaching as is euident and Whitaker confesseth in these words l. 2. de scriptura p. 281. Preaching is instituted for persuation Would God giue to his Church diuine auctoritie for the means and not for the end seing The end more desired then 〈◊〉 the means euerie rational desirer desireth more the end then the means Thirdly Protestants grant that God hath giuen diuine authoritie to the Pastors of his Church for to gouern her Whitaker l. 2. de scrip p. 246. Ministers of the Church are iâ—strvments of the holy Ghost enduâ—d with diuine authoritie to gouern the Church committed to them And if Pastors haue diuineauthoritie to gouern the Church haue they not also diuine authoritie to persuade her that it is Gods word which they teach her Is not diuine authoritie as necessarie to Pastors for to persuade the Church as to gouern it and right beleef as necessarie to the Church as good gouernment More ouer Chillingw c. 2. p. 105. Protestants generally confess that the church of God is infallible in fundamental points and so infallible that it implieth contradiction that she should err in them And how can she be so infallible in them and be not infallible by Gods special and effectual assistance can the church of her own nature or power be infallible in such high matters aboue nature and reason Nay it seems so absurd euen to Protestants themselues to deny the church of God to haue diuine authoritie to testifie Gods truth as sometimes they deny it but restritctly as i Laude sec 16. 19. and 10. that it is not simplâ— diuine not absolutely diuine or that she is not k Potter sec 5. p. â—5 I whitaker Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. absolutly infallible and confess that the iudgment of the church is in some sorte diuine and call it a slander that they say the iudgment of the church is meer humane But in truth they make her authoritie in matters of faith meer humane yea less and none at al. For thus Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 5. c. 10. In the church thou shalt finde nothing but humane and therefore vncertain l. 3. de script p. 395. The perpetual testimonie of the church as far as it is of the Church is but humane testimonie p.
both books alike Which Present Church authoritie made Whitaker contr 1. q. 3. c. 7. to say we may be forced by the authoritie of the Church to beleue these books to be Canonical And if forced to beleue by authoritie of the Church then the authoritie of the Church is a most effectual and sufficient cause of infallible beleif And in the same place S. Austin I would not beleue the Gospel vnles the Authoritie of the Catholik Church did moue me which clearly testifieth the necessitie of the Churches proposal and made Whitaker q. cit c. 8. to grant that it is true we should not beleue the Gospel vnles thâ— Catholik Church did propose it But S Austin saieth more If the Catholik Churches authoritie did not moue me And it is far more for Catholik authoritie to moue vs to beleue then for the Church onely to propose Men of no authoritie may propose but authoritie which moueth to beleue the Gospel and with out which we cannot beleue the Gospel must needs be necessarie and infallible authoritie For beleif of the Gospel is infallible and such must be the authoritie that so moueth vs to it as without which we cannot beleue Commonly Protestants answer that S. Austin spake these words of himself as he was an heretik But this cannot be becaus as he was an heretik he did not beleue the authoritie it self of the Catholik Church and therfore as such he could not be moued to beleue the Scripture for her authoritie For how could he be moued to beleue the Scripture for that which it self he did not beleue Secondly becaus he saieth not non credidissem as Morton tom Apol. l. 1 c. 37 falsly citeth him but non crederem which words properly are to be vnderstood of him as he was minded at that present And al a August de Doctrina l. 3 c. 10. 11. Tertul de â—arnâ— Christi c. 13 15. words are to be vnderstood according to their proprietie if the contrarie be not manifest For otherwise we should be vncertain how to vnderstand men And it is not manifest that S. Austin did not vse those his words according to their proprietie Wherfore Morton loco cit granteth that S. Austin maketh the Church the meanes by which a Catholik beleueth and the reason without which not which sufficeth for my present purpose to shew the necessitie of the Churches proposal for the meanes by which and reason without which not are necessarie Thirdly becaus afterward S. Austin addeth The authoritie of Catholiks being weakned I can no more beleue the Gospel which he spake plainly of himself as he was then a Catholik and shew that his beleef of the Gospel euen both then and for the time after depended on the authoritie of the Church I add also that though S. Austin had saied the foresaied word of himself onely as he was an heretik yet it would thence follow that the proposal and authoritie of the Church is at least necessarie to begin beleif of the Gospel howsoeuer it be not necessarie for to continue it And it cannot be saied that is is necessarie so onely as an inducement or disposition to such beleef becaus as S. b L. de vtil cred c. 11. Austin saieth That we know we owe to reason that we beleue to authoritie So that as Reason is the formal cause of our knowledg so is Authoritie the formal cause of our beleef and such cause of our beleef of the Gospel is the authoritie of the Catholik Church such not principal but subordinate to Gods authoritie Chillingworth c. 2. § 54 p. 54. p. 73. and § 97. p. 88. saieth That S. Austin by Catholik Church meanerh the Church of al ages including Christ and the Apostles But nether proueth he that nor can tel how S. Austin could be infallibly certain of the testimonie of the Church of Christ and the Apostles time but by the testimonie of the Church of his time Which if it were not infallible he could not be infallibly certain of the testimonie of the Church of Christ and the Apostles time Beside S. Austin sheweth that he meaneth of the authoritie of the present Church in saying The Catholik authoritie doth commend to me both books alike And l. 1. contra Crescon c. 33. The truth of Scripture is held when we doe what now seemeth to the whole Church Which is plainly ment of the present Church The same S. Austin as is before cited saieth l. 10. de Gen. ad literam c. 23. That baptisme of Infants were not to be beleued vnles it were an Apostolical tradition And l. 2. de baptismo c. 4. that he durst not defend the baptisme giuen by heretiks vnles he were assured by the authoritie of the Church Therfore he thought the authoritie of the Church necessarie to beleue those points of faith Vincentius l. 1. c. 2. Here possibly one may demand when the rule of Scripture is perfect and in it self more then enough sufficient vnto al things what need is there to ioine vnto it the authoritie of the Churches sense And he answereth this is becaus al men doe not take it in one sense therfore it is necessarie that the line of interpretation be directed according to the rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholik sense Behold the sense of the Church necessarie to vnderstand the Scripture rightly And the same Vincent 16. c. 41. It is necessarie that the vnderstanding of the holie Scripture be directed according to the onely rule of the Churches sense And if the vnderstanding of the Scripture must be directed according to the sense of the Church doubtles the sense of the Church is necessarie THIRTEENTH CHAPTER That the true Church of God is a necessarie proposer of al points of faith proued by reason grounded in Scripture 1. FIrst What is Gods ordinarie meanes of teaching faith is in ordinarie course necessarie to haue faith Gods ordinarie means of teaching faith is by the Church therfore his means of teaching by the Church is in ordinarie course necessarie The Maior seemeth euident by it self and the Minor is proued by those places Rom. 10. Faithis of hearing lawful preaching Ephes 4. God hath put Pastors for consummation of Saints 1. Tim. 5. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth and so euident as Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. p. 73. saieth That the ordinarie manner by which God teacheth is by the Church I willingly grant 2. Secondly becaus nether Scripture nor reading of Scripture is a necessarie cause of engendring faith in ordinarie course Therfore the preaching of the Church is such a means For there is doubtles some ordinarie means instituted by God which in ordinarie course is necessarie and if not Scripture nor reading of Scripture surely the Church and her preaching For no other can be reasonably imagined The Antecedent I proue becaus as I saied before for manie ages before Moyses there was no Scripture at al nor for some yeares after Christ was there anie Scripture of
authoritie with which in ordinarie course it maketh one total or entire formal cause of faith SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER Hovv a vicious circle is auoided in prouing the Scripture by the Church and the Church by the Scripture 1. PRotestants greatly obiect to Catholiks that they Laude sect 16. p. 64. 116. Châ—ling c. 2. n. 118. c. 3. n. 27. Field l. 4. c. 7 Morton 10. 1. Apol. l. 1. c. 55 make a vicious circle becaus they proue the Church by the Scripture and likewise the Scripture by the Church Wheras themselues vse the same proof and haue the same difficultie and auoidles apparently as we shal make manifest a vicious circle For as is euident by their confessions relate din the fourteenth Chapter commonly they teach that the testimonie of the Church is necessarie to beleue the Scripture to be the word of God and that it cannot be known to be such by its own light alone and yet they proue the Church to be the true Church onely by the scripture Laude Relat. sec 16. p. 38. and 102. thinketh to See inâ—â—a l. 2. c. 6. seâ— 2. auoid a vicious circle thus That though they doe mutually yet they doe not equally confirme the authoritie ether of other For the Scripture doth infallibly confirme the authoritie of the tradition of the Church but tradition doth but morally and probably confirme the authoritie of the Scripture But first it is fals that the Church doth but probably confirme the authoritie of the Scripture For as we haue shewed before the Churches testimonie is a sufficient external and ministerial means to beget diuine faith and the holie Fathers also proued sufficiently the diuine veritie of Scripture against such as denied anie parte of it by the authoritie of the Church and it were to expose the credit of Scripture to the laughter of Infidels to say that it cannot be proued otherwise then probably and that al Christian faith of what is in scripture relieth vpon onely probable proof that the scripture Seesup c. 8. n. 13. is the word of God Besids it is euidently fals and no way proued that after the Church hath probably proued that the Scripture is the word of God the Scripture it self sheweth a clear light that it is the the word of God For that the Scripture hath such a clear light ether before the Churches testimonie or after is merely faigned without al proof and if it had it would not cause faith in vs that it is the word of God becaus faith is of things not appearing but science or knowledg Moreouer seing Laude and Protestants generally confess that the Church is infallible in fundamental points they cannot consequently say that she is not infallible in this point That the Scripture is the word of God becaus they account this the Hooker l. 1. §. 14. Laudesest 11. p. 43. sect 16. p. 59. 65. 110. See infral 2. 6. 11. sect 1. fundation of al other points whatsoeuer And what is infallible affordeth an infallible and more then a moral and probable proof Besids this circle were vicious becaus the proof were not equal on ether side For on the Scriptures side it were infallible and on the Churches side but fallible And we ask for an infallible proof of Scripture as wel as of the Church becaus we must be infallibly assured of both and to giue vs a fallible proof of the Scripture by the Church were to delude vs. Finally I ask if the Scripture doe infallibly confirme the tradition of the Church as Laude saieth how doth the tradition of the Church onely probably confirme the authoritie of the Scripture can not that which is infallibly proued or confirmed make an infallible proof of some other thing 2. But Catholiks far more clearly auoid al vicious circles For euerie circular proof is not vicious but that onely wherby our knowledg is no way bettered For the effect may be proued a priori or propter quid by the cause and the cause a posteriori or quia by the effect and say that our diuine faith of the Church nether first riseth nor dependeth of the certaine of the Scripture but onely is confirmed by the Scripture but that the certaintie of the Scripture both first riseth and stil dependeth for vs on the authoritie of the Church For the true Church of God whosoeuer she is was beleued more then two thousand yeares before there was anie Scripture and she hath sufficient authoritie to testifie of herself This we proue by al the waies by which we proued that she is a sufficient proposer of al points of faith For if of al euen of herself that she is the true Church For this is a point and a principal one of faith Besids the foresaid proofs not onely proue that she is a sufficient proposer of points of faith but also that she is such of herself or of her own authoritie giuen to her by God For if of her preaching faith riseth if she be the pillar and ground of truth if she be a witnes apointed by God if her voice be one with the voice of Christ her authoritie is diuine and she is euen for herself to be beleued as the Apostles were to be beleued for Sup. c. 4 â— 5. themselues The Fathers also who by her authoritie proued the Scriptures against such heretiks as denied them and as they thought sufficiently and infallibly surely did think that she was to be beleued for her own authoritie For by Scripture they could not proue her against such as denied Scripture Reason also confirmeth the same For if a Disciple of Christ be to be beleued for himself why not the Spouse of Christ one mistical person with him whose head he is and whose soule is the holie Ghost And if S. Paul could say I Paul say vnto you If you be circumcised Galat. 5. Christ wil not profit you Why not the Church Whitaker l 1. de Script p. 86. saieth who haue such a Spirit as Paul had may by some iudgment testifie their Spirit And contr 1. q. 3. c. 3. Paul doth aproue his epistles with his own name and iudgment The old and new Testament doe confirme and signe one the other In other causes this mutual confirmation is naught worth But in this it is much worth becaus none is so fit a witnes of God and of his word as God himself in his word And why may we not say the same of the Church and Scripture which he saieth of the old and new Testament becaus none is so fit a witnes of God and of his Church and of his word as God in his Church and in his word If S. Iohn could say of himself we know that his testimonie is true why may not the Spouse C. 21. of Christ who is one mistical person with him and whose head he is to whome he promised the assistance of the Holie Ghost to teach her al truth and the Holie Ghost is her soule say the
152. The word of God is perfect and easie to be vnderstood of those that desire their saluation as wel of it self as compared with it self c. 4. p. 111. S. Peter saieth not that there is anie obscuritie in the Epistles of S. Paul Brentius in his Prolegomenies contra Sotum They babble that the scripture is obscure and therfore needeth interpretation Sutclif in his Chalenge c. 3. p. 94. Papists slander the scriptures as if they were dark and hard to be vnderstood And thus they write when they exhort al men weemen and Children to read the Scripture or say that they know euerie parcel of the Scripture to be Gods words by the matter contained therin For how can they know euerie parte of the Scripture to be Gods word by the matter vnles they know the matter of euerie parte therof SECOND SECTION Sometimes denie it LVther praefat in psalmos It is Impudencie to brag of vnderstanding al Scripture most impudent rashnes to say one vnderstands anie book of scripture in al points Whitaker Contro 1. q. 4. c. 1. We neuer saied that al things in scripture are easie plain nothing obscure nothing hard to be vnderstood but we openly confess that manie places of scripture are obscure and hard Ibid. Luther was far from that madnes to say that nothing in the scriptures is hard and that it need no interpretation C. 3. p. 340. When the◠proue that there is great difficultie to vnderstand scripture they dispute not against vs. Et c. 4. p. 345. Nether did we euer say or think that al things in scripture be open Lib. 1. de Script p. 56. What man on earth canst thou finde who vnderstandeth al the Misteries of scriptures who is ignorant of nothing who can declare al See him p. 102. and 149. Potter sec 5. p. 19. How manie obscure texts of scriptures which she the Church vnderstands not Moulins of the Iudge of Controuersies c. 17. p. 281. Whosoeuer should vaunt of the vnderstanding al scripture shold vaunt of◠perfection to which the Angels are not comen as I think Chillingworth c. 3. § 25. some texts of scripture are so obscure and ambiguous that to say this and this is the certain sense of them were high presumption Morton tom High presumption 1. Apologiae l. 1. c. 19. denieth that this is the Controuersie betwixt Catholiks and Protestants Whether scripture be of it self so plain as it needeth no interpreter Plessie of the Church c. 4 p. 113. yea but yet are not there some places in Scripture plainly known to be hard Who can denie that Feild l. 4. Eccles c. 15. There is no question but there are manifold difficulties in the scripture Fulk against Heskins p. 7. who is so mad to deny but that there are diuers places both in the old and new testament which be obscure and hard to be vnderstood not onely of the ignorant but euen of the best learned Idem p. 12. And if it be impudencie and madnes for anie to say He vnderstands the Scripture in al points how can Protestants say they know the Scripture to be the word of God by the matter therof as diuers Protestants doe say who affirme that al the Scripture is infallibly known to be the word of God not by the authoritie or testimonie of the Church of God but by the matter therof THIRD CHAPTER VVhether al points necessarie to be belued be actually or expresly in scripture or no. FIRST SECTION Protestants sometimes affirme THe confession of Scotland c. 18. In which Canonical books we affirme al things to be Sufficiently expressed beleued for mans saluation are sufficiently expressed Luther in Postilla in ferias S. Stephani Nothing is to be affirmed but what is expressed in scripture Melancthon and Brentius in Hospin parte 2 Histor Sacram. fol. 107. Of Zuinglius his doctrin we cannot be certain seing of it we haue no clear and express word of God Smidelin l. contra Hosium p. 169. Faith is not faith but an vncertain opinion which doth not rely vpon some express testimonie of scripture Wigandus apud Schusselburg to 7. Catal. Heret p. 681. Onely those dogmes are to be auoched and taught Vvhose very words or equiualent are in Scripture in the Church whose verie words or equiualent are in Scripture Protestants in Conference at Ratisbone sess 10. p. 310. There cannot by the Churches testimonie anie new or peculiar dogme be deuised which afterward may be added to the other dogmes expressed in Scripture Caluin in Gratulat ad Praecentorem p. 337. Nothing is to be beleued which is not expressed in Scripture Contra Heshusium p. 844. where is the express word of God the touchstone Moulins l. contra Peron c. 45. We receaue no doctrin as necessarie to saluation vnles it be in Scripture ether in express termes or equiualent Epist Ether in express termes or equiualent 3. ad Episcopum Wintoniensem p. 183. The Principle by which our religion mainteineth it self against Papistrie is which are of diuine law are sufficiently and euidently conteined in Scripture And D Andrews answering admitteth this Principle For those things which belong to faith and manner of life Whitaker contr 1. q. 6. c. 6. we say Al things necessarie ether to faith or life are plainly and Abundantly expressed abundantly expressed in Scripture See him l. 3. de script c. 12. p. 419. Laude Relat. sec 33. p. 268. If the Popes decision be infallible legant Let them read it to vs out of the holie Scripture and we beleue it Morton in his Appeal l. 1. c. 2. sec 15. In al doctrins of faith we are to adheare precisely to the written word as vnto the sufficient and infallible rule of faith Tom. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 46. The holie Scripture is to be held for the onely rule of faith The absolute rule of faith the total rule of the Church And c. 49 A most exact rule Tailor of Libertie of Prophesing sec 9. n. 4. In scripture al that is necessarie is plain King Iames in his speech to the Parlament An. 1603. My faith is grounded vpon the Scriptures and the express word of God Fulk in Acts c. 15. Al things necessarie to saluation are expressed in the holie Scripture Perkins contr 16. c. 2. we say that al things which belong to faith and good life and are necessarie to saluation are clearly expressed in Scripture Chillingworth in the praeface n. Clearly expressed 21. Moderate Protestants wil damne no man without express and certain warrant from Gods word See ib. n. 10. 30. 37. Item p. 18. Author Praefationis in to 5. Iesuiticae doctrinae impressae Rupellae 1596. calleth it a detestable lye That Scripture conteineth not al the misteries Explicitly of religion explicitly Vorstius Respons ad Sladum what is necessarie to be beleued is conteined word for word in Scripture Who wil see more Protestants that there is no necessarie point of faith which is not
God onely which is expressed in scriptures or preached in the Church but also what necessarily followeth out of it Gomarus apud Costerum in Apologia p. 75. There is no question between vs whether al things which are to be beleued are express in holie Scripture The like say Beza Respons ad Acta Colloq Montisbel part 2. p. 46. Morton to 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 41. 52. 53. l. 5. c. 9. Field l. 4. c. 20. Pareus l. 1. de Iustificat c 16. Riuet Contr. tract 1. sec 18. Moulins de fugis Arnoldi c. 1. and generally al Protestants when they themselues are put to proue anie point out of Scripture as is to be seen of the Caluinists in Colloq Frankendalensi art 12. fol. 549. 552. Particularly here I note What Fulk saieth that their Inferences out of Scripture are as Good and of as great authoritie are as Gods express words Laude That what is grounded vpon their Consequences is as wel as As wel vpon express text Which is to equalize their Inferences to Gods express words And White loco cit Are they not as wel conclusions of Scripture which are deduced By Protestants by true discourse as which are expressed verbatim Perkins of the Creed col 737. We must know that a lawful consequence drawn out of Scripture is as wel the word of God as that which is expressed Al wel in words Whitaker It is al one to be expresly and to be inferred They condemn vs for saying that Alone Gods word tradid is equal to his Written Potter sec 1. p. 14. To the word of God she Rom. Church addes and equals her own traditions Laude Relat. sec 16. p. 91. Equaling the tradition of the present Church to the written word of Gods Frets vpon the verie foundation it self by iustling with it And they wil haue their Consequences and Inferences as good as Gods express word When we say that the Churches traditions are equal to Gods word we mean nothing but that one word of God is equal to an other For we profess that both of them came immediatly from God one by tradition the other by writing But when they say that their inferences are equal to Gods word they must needs Protestants make fallible mens Inferences Gods word mean that fallible mens Inference and that out of one humane principle too is equal to Gods word For they cannot denie but their Inferences are fallible mens Inferences becaus they are not made by God but by fallible men onely Perkins also in his Reformed Catholik Controu 3. c. 3. and Caluin in Lucae 10. v. 16. make the Ministers word equiualent Confessio Bâ—â—em c. 14. Apologia Confess August c. de Poenitentia to Gods promise and a sufficient ground of faith And Peter Martyr praefat l. de Euchar professeth that the Base strength and foundation of his opinion of the Eucharist Make humane principles ground of their faith is That it is proper to the Deitie to be euerie where and to the humane nature to be in a certain place So the basis and ground of their faith concerning the Eucharist is partly their humane principle For express Scripture they can pretend none FOVRTH CHAPTER VVhether al necessarie points of faith be euidently or clearly conteined in Scripture FIRST SECTION Protestants sometimes affirme ONe thing it is to be conteined actually in Scripture an other to be conteined clearly For something may be conteined actually and yet obscurely and therfore we make these distinct Chapters Protestants in Colloq Ratisbon p. 20. We acknowledg that by Gods Plainely and clearly goodness whatsoeuer are necessarie to saluation are plainly enough and clearly put before our eies in both especially in the New Testament Caluin contra Versipellem p. 358. I stoutly affirme that Heretiks are ouercomen by open Scriptures l. de scandalis Clear p. 101. We receaue nothing but what is proued with clear and sound testimonies of Scripture Beza l. Quaestionum Resp vol. 1. Theol. p. 673. The dogmes of true religion are plainly enough and clearly Plainely and clearly explaned in holie writ In Confess c. 4. sec 25. The Apostles and Euangelists haue so written those things which they haue written as the dullest and most ignorant of al men may thence perceaue vnles themselues doe hinder whatsoeuer sufficeth for their Saluation Zanchius l. 1. Epistolarum p. 16. Whatsoeuer is necessarie to saluation al that is plainly conteined in holie writ And p. 98. The places of holie Scripture from whence the dogmes of Christian Need no clearer expression religion are taken are so clear and open as they need no more diligent or clearer expression Academia Nemausiensis Resp ad Iesuitas Tournonios Rupellae 1584. p. 531. Hence it followeth that al matters of faith are plainly and clearly conteined in that written word that is in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles Moulins in his Buckler sec 94. Al difficulties being set aside that which in Scripture remaineth clear and needeth no interpretation is sufficient to saluation Needeth no interpretation In his answer to Card. Peron l. 1. c. 1. The articles in which the substance of religion consisteth are proposed Need no interpretation in scripture in so clear termes as they need no Interpretation So also de Iudice Contro c. 17. Piscator in Thesibus l. 1. c. 1. we say that al dogmes of faith are clearly deliuered in scripture Whitgift in Defence c. p. 573. what is this els but together with the Papists to condemn the scriptures of Plainely and clearly expressed obscuritie as though al things necessarie to saluation were not plainly and clearly expressed in them p. 367. we are wel assured that Christ in his word hath fully and plainly comprehended al things requisite to faith and good life Fully Fulk Answer to the Preface of the Rhemes testament so manie partes of scriptures as are able to instruct vs to saluation are so plain and easie Vnderstood of euerie reader or hearer as they may be vnderstood ofeuerie one that readeth or heareth them Whitaker Contro 1. q. 4. c. 1. These are ouraxiomes First that scriptures are so plain as they may be read of the people and of the vnlearned with some fruit and profit Secondly that al things necessarie to saluation are proposed in scripture in plain words Ibid. Inplain words c. 4. Hence it followeth that al things necessarie to saluation are manifest in scripture which is the ground of our Defense which he often repeateth Manifest And q. 5. c. 7. We may gather the true As certainly as if God spoke to vs. sense out of scripture no less certainly then if god himself spake to vs. Morton to 2. Apol. l. 2. c. 19. That is the question whether al those things which are necessarie to saluation be so plain in Scripture as the Faithful Vven to the mostignorant euen the most ignorant may be
reading of them be instructed to pietie and Heretiks euen the most learned sufficiently refâ—ted by them And to 1. l. 2. c. 9. He calleth it pure and plain Protestant doctrin That the principal points of faith necessarie to the saluation of al are clearly conteined in scripture See his Appeal l. 2. c. 7. sec 9. Euidently Chillingworth in the preface n. 30. 33. 37. Al things necessarie to saluation are euidently conteined in scripture And n. 37. he saieth That is the base and adequat foundation of his answer and that al Protestants vnanimously profess and mantain it c. 2. n. 157. p. 115. In a word al things necessarie to beleued are euidently conteined in scripture and what is not there euidently conteined can not be necessarie to be beleued Ibid. n. 11. p. 58. The scripture in things necessarie we pretend is plain P. 83. n. 84. If you speak of plain places and in such al Need no Interpreter necessarie things are conteined we are sufficiently certain of the meaning of them nether need they anie interpteter p. 59. n. 12. Thoses places which contein things necessarie and wherin error were dangerous need no infallible Interpreter becaus they are plain C. 6. p. 375. we want no vnitie nor meanes to procure it in things necassarie Plain places of scripture and such as need no interpretation are our meanes to obtein it c. 3. n. 52. p. 159. Protestants agree that the scripture euidently containes al things necessarie to saluation Plessie of the Church c. 4. p. 108. Euidently He who hath mercifully vouch safed to saue his people and who onely may be called a true Father would make his couenant with them in as plain termes and express clauses as could be deuised Ibid. There is nothing more clear or As plain and express as could be deuised more plain then the doctrin of saluation White in his Way p. 31. The scriptures plainly determin al points of faith As plainly as anie can p. 32. He can name no one necessarie article of our saith but the word teacheth it as plainly as himself can P. 39. The scripture by its own light perswadeth as and in alcases doubts questions and coutrouersies clearly testifieth with vs or against vs. And in his Defense c. 31. p. 294. The question is whether the written scripture conteines in express words or sense the whole and entire doctrin of faith and good life Vshers Reioinder p. 114. scriptures are sufficient for the final determination of al questions of faith Tailor in his libertie of Prophesing sec 3. n. 1. Al the articles of faith are clearly and plainly set down in scripture sec 5. n. 2. scripture in its plain Expression is an abundant rule of faith and manners SECOND SECTION Sometimes denie it PRotestants in Colloq Ratisbon in Respons ad testimonia Patrum p. 470. None of vs euer dreamed that the scripture is so clear and easie as anie man may straight as it were at the first sight and without help of teachers vnderstand it Whitaker Contro 1. q. 4. c. 1. when Bellarmin maketh this to be the state of the question whether the scripture be of it self so plain as without interpretation Needeth Interpretation for matters of faith it sufficeth of it self to end and determin al controuersies of faith he fighteth without an aduersarie For in this matter he hath not vs Aduersaries They say but falsly that we think that al things in scriptures are plain and that they suffice without â—â—edeth Interpretation For controuersies Interpretation to end al controuersies C. 2. God would haue the holie Misteries of his word to be imparted to pure and holie men not to be cast before hoggs and doggs C. 3. when they proue that there is great difficultie to vnderstand the Scriptures they dispute not against vs. l. 2. de Scrip. c. 4. sec 4. p. 229. The Eunuch without Phillip nether beleued nor vnderstood what was sufficient For matter of saluation to saluation Laude Relat. sec 39. n. 9. Scripture interpreted by the Primitiue Church General Councel judge and a lawful and free General Councel determining according to these is Iudge of Controuersies Dauenantius de Iudice c. 15. We defend not which the Papists impose vpon vs the doctrin of faith conteined in Scripture to be so plain and perspicuous Needeth an Interpreter for doctrin of faith that it need not at al the help of an Interpreter or Doctor And need not this needful Interpreter to be infallible in interpreting And who is such if not the Church FIFT CHAPTER VVhether Scripture be the sole and entire Rule of al Christian beleif or no FIRST SECTION Protestants sometimes affirme PRotestants in Colloq Ratisbon Thesi 1. p. 19. We vndoubtedly acknowledg the word of God conteined in the writings of the Prophets Euangelists and Apostles to be the sole certain and infallible rule square and measure of doctrin worship and Christian Sole Rule faith The Confession of Basil art 1. Canonical Scripture alone conteineth perfectly Perfectly al pie tie al manner of life Confessio Belgica art 7. We beleue this holie Scripture to contein most perfectly al the wil of God and that in it are abundantly taught al those things whatsoeuer be necessarie to be beleued of Abundantly men for to obtein saluation Caluin ad art 20. Paris p. 2 9. We determin that right faith is grounded in the Scriptures onely In Confess p. Onely 107. Our saluation relieth on Scriptures onely We embrace it for the onely rule of faith In Refutat Catalani p. 383. We beleue and with a loud voice doe euermore crie that the Gospel is the onely rule by which al must be reformed Onelierule Daneus Contro 7. p. 1350. The onely foundation of Christian faith is the word of God and that alone written Hospinian parte 2. Histor Sacram fol. 23. The Magistrate of Zurich commanded that hereafter they propound no other thing to their Churches but the pure mere word of God conteined Mere written word in the words of the Prophets and Apostles K. Iames Resp ad Card. Peron p. 397. The king iudgeth that before aâ— things alagrâ—e of this Rule That points of faith and whatsoeuer deserueth necessarily Alone to be beleued be taken out of Scripture alone Laude Relat. § 17. p. 117. The Scripture Onely onely is the foundation of faith Potter sec 6. p. 65. Scripture the onely foundaiion and rule of faith Pareus Collegio Theol. 3. d. 2. scripture in this time is no les necessarie to the saluation of the Church then meat for the life Scripture as necessarie as meal for life of man And Collegio 9. d. 4. scripture now is necessarie not onely to the wel being of the Church but euen to her being Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. c. 11. sec 1. scripture is the onely sufficient means to beleue So Contro 1. q. 3. c. 10. q. 6. c. 9.
p. 376. and c. 14. p. 399. Contro The onelie sufficient means 2. q. 5. c. 6. 9. Chillingworth c. 2. n. 3. scriptures be the sole Iudge of Controuersies that is the sole rule for man to iudg them Sole Rule by And he inscribeth that Chapter thus scripture the onely rule wherby to iudg of Controuersies Where § 32. he saieth I cannot know anie doctrin to be a diuine and supernatural truth or a part of Christianitie but onely becaus the scripture saies so And where saieth the Scripture that it self is the word of God Who wil see more Protestants may read Zuinglius in Hospin part 2. Histor fol. 23. Bernenses ibid. fol. 52. Beza Apol. contra Sanitem p. 289. and in Colloq Montisbel p. 10. Whitaker l. 1 de Script p. 146. l. 3. p. 483. l. 9. contra Dureum sec 64. Morton to 2. Apologiae l. 1. c. 45. 46. 47. 49. l. 5. c. 12. he saieth Matters of faith must relie onely on the light of the letters of faith Martyr in Disput Oxon p. 143. and Pareus Colleg. Theol. 3. disp 2. affirme that Scripture is the onely Onelie external infallible means external infallible means to get faith and as necessarie to the saluation of the Church as meat to life as also Pareus before said and Whitaker also White in his Defense p. 69. The whole rule of the Churches iudgment Vvhole Rule is onely scripture onely scripture onely scripture and nothing but scripture SECOND SECTION Protestants sometimes denie it PRotestants doe diuers waies denie Scripture to be the sole or entire rule of faith First in formal termes For thus Chillinhworth c. 2. n. 8. p. 55. when Protestants affirme against Papists that the scripture is a perfect rule of faith their meaning is not that by scripture al things absolutly may be proued which are to be beleued For it can neuer be proued by scripture to Not al things absolutely a Gainsayer that there is a God or that the Book called the scripture is the word of God Ibid. n. 155. p. 114. scripture is not a Iudge of Controuersies but a Rule to iudge them by and that not an absolutly perfect Rule but as perfect Not an absolutey perfect Rule as a written Rule can be which must alwaies need something els which is ether euidently true oreuidently credible to giue attestation to it See also n. 156. Feild l 4. de Eccles c. 15. we doe not so make the scripture the Rule of our faith but that other things in their kinde are Rules likewise in such sort as it is not safe without respect had vnto Not safe by Sctipture alâ—ne them to iudg of things by Scripture alone Hooker l. 1 § 14. Albeit scripture doe profess to contein in it al things which are necessarie to saluation yet the meaning cannot be simply of al things Not simply al things necessarie which are necessarie Secondly they confess that Scripture is no sufficient Rule to beleue that it self is the word of God or who are Schismatiks Hooker l. 2. § 4. It is not the word of God which Scripture can not assure vs that it iâ— the word of God doth or possibly can assure vs that it is the word of God By what then are you infallibly assured Is it by the word of man Laude Relat. sec 16. p. 70. There is no place in scripture which tels vs that such books conteining such and particulars No place in Scâ—iptuâ—e are the Canon and infallible wil and word of God And p. 69. That scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by diuine and infallible testimonie lumine proprio by resplendencie of that light which it hath in it self onely and by the witnes that it can so giue to it self I could neuer yet see cause to allow P. 80. The light which is in Scripture itself is not bright enough it cannot beare sufficient witnes to itself P. 88. Where he Hooker speaks so Can not bear witnes to it self sensibly that Scripture cannot beare witnes to it self nor one parte of it to an other that is grounded vpon nature which admits no created thing to be witnes to it self and is acknowledged by our Sauior Sec. 25. n. 6. The Iudge shal be the Scripture and the Primitiue Church Primitiue Church iudge Chillingworth c. 2. n. 11. p. 52. Scripture we say is the rule to iudge controuersies by yet not al simply but al the controuersies of Christians of those that are already agreed vpon this first Not al controuersies by Scripture principle That the Scripture is the word of God n. 27. When Scripture is affirmed to be the rule by which al controuersies of religion are to be decided those are to be excepted out of this generalitie which concern the Scripture it self Ibid. Your Negatiue Conclusion That these questions Not controuersies â—bâ—ut Scripture it self touching Scripture are not decidable by Scripture you needed not haue cited anie reason to proue it it is euident by itself Which he often repeateth as n. 29. 46. 52. 156. And n. 27. The question whether scuh or such a book be Onely by the Church Canonical scripture affirmatiuely cannot be decided but onely by the testimonie of the ancient Churches And n. 35. you demand whether that by the Churches Assured by the Church consent they are assured what scriptures are Canonical I answer yes they are so And wheras you infer from Church iudge of the Scripture hence This is to make the Church Iudge I haue told you already that of this controuersie we make the Church Iudge Feild l. 4 de Eccles c. 7. To him that doubteth of both old andnew Testament we must not alleadg the authoritie of ether of these but some other thing Morton to 2. Apol. l. 5. c. 14. It is that which we wold haue That Scripture is to be accounted Iudge of those who beleue the scripture Which is plainly to confess that it is not Iudge of al. And Ibid. c. 10. We account not scripture the onely but the supreme Interpreter Not onely Scripture And c. 57. Protestants doe not so make the scripture the supreme Iudge of Controuersies as therfore they refuse the iudgment of Councels And l. 3. de Missa c. 3. The Iudgment of sense in Sense a ground of Protest fâ—ith sensible obiects is a notable ground of faith Whitaker Contro 1. q. 5. c. 6. He leeseth his labor who out of scripture disputeth against those that denie the scripture Against such we must dispute out of the testimonie of the Church or vse other arguments l. 1. de Script p. 92. The Creed of the Apostles is the rule of faith Creed is the rule Plessie of the Church c. 3. The question with the Donatists was more for matter of fact then of right as who had first failed in Charitie offended the Schisme not decided by Scripture Communion opened the gate
Chillingworth c. 2. § 3. p. 53. scriptures being the sole Iudge of Controuersies that is the sole Rule for man to Iudge them by For wee mean nothing els § 11. p. 57. To speak properly as Not properly a Iudge men shold speak when they write of Controuersies in religion the scripture is not a Iudge of Controuersies but a Rule onely and the onely Rule for Christians to iudge them by Ibid. § 10. We denie not but a Iudge and a law might wel stand together but we denie that No iudge apointed by God there is anie such Iudge of Gods apointment § 12. Which conclusion that though the Scripture may be a Rule it cannot be a Iudge I haue already granted § 23. There is not anie publikly authorized Iudge to determin Controuersies in religion nor anie necessitie there should be anie The same he hath § 85. And § 104. speaking Scripture cannot be a Iudge truly and properly The scripture is not a Iudge nor cannot be hut onely a sufficient Rule for those to Iudge by who beleue it to be the word of God § 155. This assertion That scripture alone is Iudge of al Controuersies in faith if it be taken properly is nether a fundamental nor an vnfundamental point of faith nor no point of faith at al but a plain falshood It is not a Iudge of Controuersies but a Rule to iudge them by Potter sec 2. p. 32. The Scripture is Iudge or rather Rule of Controuersies Whitaker Contro 1. q. 1. c. 2. The Scripture is the same in the Church which the law is in the common wealth Moulins de Iudice Contro c. 13. If our aduersaries think not that the title of Iudge ought to be giuen to the Scripture at least they shold not deny it title of Rule and this is that which we require namely that our faith be ruled by onely Gods word But nether wold this content them vnles Gods word be expounded as they would haue it which were to make themselues the rule of iudging EIGHTH CHAPTER VVhether Scripture be to beleued to be Gods vvord vvith diuine and infallible assurance FIRST SECTION Protestants sometimes affirme LAude Relat. sec 16. p. 72. suppose it aggreed vpon that there must be a diuine faith cui subesse non potest Scripture must be known with diuine faith falsum vnder which can rest no possible error That the books of scripture are the written word of God Ibid. p. 66. This is agreed on by me that scripture must be known to be scripture by a sufficient infallible diuine pro of See him p. 64. and p. 75. After a man once beleue his faith growes stronger then ether his reason or his knowledg p. 86. Beleif is firmer then anie knowledg can be becaus it rests vpon diuine authoritie which cannot deceaue See ibid. p. 105. and p. 114. 115. Likewise sec 33. p. 227. Moral certaintie is not Moral certaintie not sufficient strong enough in points of faith See him sec 19. p. 125. sec 16. cit p. 74. Reason without grace cannot see the way to heauen nor beleue this book Reason not sufficient in which God hath written the way Potter sec 5. p. 2. Faith is saied to be diuine and supernatural First in regard of the Author or efficient cause of the habit and act of diuine infused faith which is the special grace of God Secondly in regard of the obiect as things beleued which are aboue the reach of mere nature or reason Thirdly in regard of the formal reason or principal ground on which faith chiefly relyeth and into which it is finally resolued which is diuine Reuelation or authoritie of God If it faile in anie of these it is no diuine or supernatural faith P. 7. The assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine which Faith is absolutly diuine requires an obiect and motiue so infallibly true as that it nether hath nor can possibly admit anie mixture of error or falshood p. 10. supernatural faith must be absolutly vndoubted and certain Sec. 6. p. 59. The assent of faith is more certain if it be possible then that of sense or science or demonstration becaus it rests on diuine authoritie which cannot possibly deceaue Sec. 5. cit p. 40. diuine faith must haue a diuine foundation that can not deceaue Caluin 1. Instit c. 7. § 5. Lightned by his vertue we beleue not by our own or other mens iudgment that the scripture is from God but aboue humane iudgment we resolue most assuredly euen as if we saw God there that it came from Gods own mouth by the ministerie of men See him ibid. § 4. and c. 6. § 2. And both he 3. Instit c. 2. § 6. 7. 16. in Cathechismo c. de fide Beza in Confes c. 4. sec 5. Luther in psalm 14. to 3. define faith to be Faith most certain and infallible A most certain assurance and Fulk in Rom. 8. Nota 9. to be an Infallible assurance White in his Way p. 2. Faith must be infallible or certain that is free from error and such as cannot deceau◠vs. P. 10. Our faith must be withful assurance and perswasion SECOND SECTION Sometimes they denie CHillingworth c. 1. § 8. p. 36. Of this hypothesis That al the articles of our faith were reuealed by God we cannot ordinarily haue anie rational and acquired certaintie more then moral But moral certaintie C. 2. § 3. p. 53 The controuersie wherin the scripture it self is the subiect of the question cannot be determined but by natural reason Ibid. § 32. p. 65. Natural reason built on principles common to Reason last resolution of Protest faith al men is the last resolution into which the Churches authoritie is but the first inducement Item § 24. p. 62. I know no other natural and rational means to be assured herof of the incorruption of Scripture then I haue of anie other books incorrupted For though I haue a greater degree of rational and humane Humane assurance assurance of that then this in regard of diuers considerations which make it more credible That the Scripture hath been preserued from anie material alteration yet my assurance of both is of the same Moral assurance kinde and condition both moral assurances and nether physical or mathematical Scripture no materia obiect of faith Ibid. § 32. p. 65. The Scripture is none of the material obiects of our faith but onely the means of conueying them vnto vs. § 35. p. 66. Of this controuersie which books be Canonical wemake the Church the Iudge but not the present Church but the consent and testimonie of the ancient and primitiue Church which though it be but a highly probable inducement and no demonstratiue enforcement yet me thinks you should not denie but it may be a sufficient Probabilitie a sufficient ground of Protest faith ground of faith Ibid. § 152. p. 112. The priuiledg of not being in possibilitie of erring
cause the chief principle or ground of faith and into which diuine faith is resolued Whitaker Contro 1. q. 6. c. 7. I grant that Ireney saieth some had Faith had without Scripture faith and no Scripture some Barbarians for a time had no Scripture For some time doctrin may be kept entire without writing Scripture not simply necessarie Hence he concludeth That scriptures are not simply necessarie Right And the same generally al Protestants confess And Contro 2. q. 5. c. 18. p. 548. Manie may be good Christians who neuer read scripture Ibid. q 3. c. 3. p. 320. It may be that there be manie Christians who know not the Canon of Scripture nor euer saw anie books But if Scripture were the formal cause and ground of faith faith could neuer be in anie men nor in anie time without Scripture and Scripture would be simply necessarie to faith For the formal cause of faith is alwaies necessarie to faith and simply necessarie to it becaus it is the cause or motiue for which we beleue And faith in ordinarie course cannot be but for the external formal cause of it or thus The formal cause of beleuing must be known or be beleued of al men and in al times But Scripture is not so Therfore it is not the formal cause of faith and much less the last and vttermost formal cause of faith Zuinglius in Exegesi to 2. fol. 347. We doe not think that faith can Zuinglius had his faith not out of Scripture be gathered out of words of Scripture but that words which are proposed are vnderstood by faith the Mistress Ibid. How I pray you should we gather faith of word seing we must not come to interpret Scripture but being strengthned with faith And ibid. Respons ad sermonem Lutheri fol. 372. Faith cannot be discussed or learned by words but God is the teacher of it and after we haue known it of him then we may see the same also in words Oecolampadius in Hospin parte 2. historiae Sacram. fol. 70. I my self Nor Oeâ—olaâ—padius come not to Scripture but first armed with faith Behold two principal Patriarcks of the Sacramentarians got not their faith by Scripture but by Enthusiasmes and if they got it not by Scripture surely Scripture was not the formal cause not the principal motiue not the onely sufficient means not the ground or last resolution of their faith What was then the ground or into what did these men resolue their faith but into some special priuat reuelation of which thus Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. p. 91. It is schismatical fanatical furious to boast of or catch reuelations now beside the Scripture See Laude sec 16. p. 71 72. 73. 74 TWELFH CHAPTER VVhether Protestants had the Scriptures from Catholiks or no FIRST SECTION Protestants sometimes affirme LVther in c. 1. Galat. to 5. fol. 293. We had indeed the scripture Protestants had the Scripture from Papists and the sacraments from the Papists In 16. Ioan. to 4. German fol. 227. We are forced to grant that we receaued the holie scipture Baptisme sacraments and office of preaching from them Papists otherwise what should we haue known of al these things Whitaker Contro 2. q. 5. c. 14. Papists haue the scripture Baptisme Catechisme the articles of faith the ten Commandements the Lords praier and these things came from them to vs. Doue of Recusancie p. 13. We hould the Creed of the Apostles of Athanasius of Nice of Ephesus of Constantinople which the Papists also doe hould and the same bible which we receaued from them Scusselburg to 8. Catal. Heret p. 439. We denie not that Luther saieth that in Poperie is al Christian good and from thence came to vs. Spalatensis lib. contra Suarem c. 1. n. 34. Albeit England had the scripture the Creeds and Catholik Councels first from the Church of Rome yet c. See Alsted l. de notis Ecclesiae c. 21. p. 231. Iames Andrewes l. contra Hosium p. 3â—6 We denie not that we receaued the scriptures from you Papists Thus they and others also but by what honest way or means they had the Scripture from vs none of them telleth nor can tel And therfore they cannot clear themselues from plain theft or Sacriledg SECOND SECTION Sometimes denie it CHillingworth c. 2. n. 2. p. 52. Not from Papists Nether is that true which you pretend That we possess the Scripture from you or take it vpon the integritie of your custodie But from whome els then Catholiks they possess the Scripture nether he telleth nor anie Protestant can tel Nay himself c. 6. § 73. saieth we confess with him Luther that in the Papacâ—e are manie good things which haue come from them to vs. Sutlif in his answer to the Catholiks Supplication c. 7 n. 13. we receaued not the scriptures nor our seruice orrites from them Papists Fulk in his Refutation of Rastel p. 802. we know from whome we haue receaued the Gospel not from the Papists THIRTEENTH CHAPTER VVhether Catholiks make great account of Scripture and proue their doctrin out of it or no FIRST SECTION Protestants sometimes affirme HOspinian parte 1. Histor Sacram l. 3. p. 216. Thou hearest Reader that the book of the Gospel is had in great reuerence of Papists How greatly Catholiks honor Scripture and much honored of them Thou hearest the Reading of the Gospel to be rehearsed religiously in their Temples Thou hearest that they incense it with Frankincense and other odors yea euerie word of it euerie letter or tittle to be accounted most holie Thou hearest that the Hearers rise vp and stand at the reading of it Finally thou hearest other ceremonies to be vsed at this reading of the Gospel Luther in Math. 5. apud Morton to 2. Apol. l. 5. c. 16. The Pope and The Pope relieth on Scripture sect masters and we who relie on the scriptures doe in one sorte boast of the Gospel and word of God And apud Scoppium in Ecclesiastico c. 10. The Papists as wel as we do boast of God and his word and both alike cite scriptures and of this we agree and of Iustification they bring al most in numerable places of scripture Caluin in Luc. 22. v. 28. The Papists Papists stick fast to Scripture are foolishly superstitious whiles they stick fast to the words of Scripture 4. Instit c 17. § 20. The good Maisters that they may seem literate forbid to depart anie whit from the letter And he calleth Catholiks Catchers of sillabes froward and stubborn exacters of the letter foolish and ridiculous maisters of the letter Potter sec 5. p. 13. They Papists â—retend Scripture in euerie controuersie pretend scripture in each controuersie against vs. White in his Way p. 32. and 19. citeth these words out of Sanders l. of the Rock of the Church which was Most plain Scripture printed 80 yeares since We haue most plain scripture in al points for
letter or vvord of God cannot sufficiently propose to men anie thing to be beleued vvith diuine and infallible faith 1. THat Scripture taken by it self alone without attestation of the Church that it is the letter or word of God doth not sufficiently propose to vs or to speak more properly that in Scripture or by Scripture alone is not sufficiently proposed to vs anie thing to be beleued with diuine and infallible faith is euident becaus al the Scriptures sufficient proposal a Sup c. 1◠sect 1 dependeth on this that it self is the word of God And b Sup. c. 5. sect 1. it self saieth not anie where that it is the word of God and if it did anie where say it that saying would require an other word of God to say the same of it and so forward without end And this is so clear as Hooker l. 2. § 4. Laude Relat. sec 16. p. 70. and 88. Potter sec 5. and Chillingworth c. 2. doe both grant it and proue it and likewise al other c Sup. c. 6. sect 2. Protestants who grant that the light of the Scripture is not so great that without the Church shew it to vs we can see it And indeed al Protestants should grant the same who confess as we related l. 1. c. 14. that the preaching of the Church is necessarie to engender diuine faith For if that be necessarie as we haue proued l. 1. c. 11. 12. 13. 14. we cannot beleue the Scripture to be the word of God before the Church preach it to vs. 2. But it is against those Protestants who as we related supra c. 6. sec 1. auouch that Scripture in it self hath such and so much diuine light as by it self alone it can be infallibly known to be the word of God But beside that this great light is denied by most of their fellowes as is shewed c. 6. cit sec 2. and feigned without al sufficient ground as shal hereafter appeare it may be clearly refuted For as Laude loco cit p. 7. saieth wel If this inward light were so clear how could there haue been anie varietie among the ancient Beleuers touching the authoritie of S. Iames and S. Iudes epistle and the Apocalyps For certainly the light which is in the Scripture was the same then which is now And I add How could the Lutherans not see this light in S. Iames Epistle as wel as the Caluinists Nether can it be pretended that this is becaus the Holie Ghost doth not sufficiently lighten their eyes becaus this light may be seen euen by natural reason as Whitaker Hooker White and other taught supra c. 8. sec 2. 3. Besids this light great or less is not fit or apt to the end for which it was feigned For it was feigned to defend that beleif That Scripture is the word of God dependeth not on the testimonie of the Church but proceedeth of the Scripture it self And clear light cannot cause beleif Light causeth not faith but sight or vision which is of things not appearing Hebrewes 11. but onely causeth certain knowledg or vision And not light but onely authoritie is the formal obiect of faith For as the Apostle saieth Faith is of hearing not of sight And S. Austin l. devtilitate Credendi c. 11. That we beleue we owe to authoritie So that light wanteth both the material obiect of faith which is Things not appearing Haebrae 11. and also the formal obiect which is Authoritie And therfore Whitaker l. 2. de Script p. 227. 319. 235. l. 1. p. 77. 116. 122. often times granteth that though certain knowledg That the Scripture is the word of God may be had without the testimonie of the Church yet denieth that diuine faith therof can be had without the Churches preaching becaus the Apostle saieth plainly How shal they beleue without à Preacher And Faith is of hearing And Potter sec 5. p. 8. That Scripture is of diuine authoritie the Beleuer sees by that glorious beam of diuine light which shines in Scripture and by manie internal arguments found in the letter it self So this light breedeth sight not faith Beside How doe Beleuers How doe Beleuers se◠see If therfore the Scripture can sufficiently propose nothing to be beleued with diuine faith til it self be beleued with diuine faith to be the word of God as is certain the natural knowledg or vision which one may haue that the Scripture is the word of God without the Churches testimonie serueth not to the end for which it was deuised Besids I hope they wil not say that their diuine faith That al that is in Scripture is true is resolued into natural Sup c. 8 se 1. knowledg That the Scripture is the word of God as Chillingworth seemeth to say c. 2. p. 53. 72. For so the ground and foundation of diuine and infallible faith should be natural humane and fallible knowledg Moreouer this internal light is no word of God but at most a qualitie of the word of God and nothing can be the material obiect of diuine faith and beleued but what is the word of God or saied of God Wherfore ether they must shew where God hath saied that Scripture is the word of God or they can neuer beleue it with diuine faith or they must say that they can beleue that with diuinefaith which God hath neuer saied which is most absurd And into this absurditie al Protestants must fal who say they beleue with diuine faith that the Scripture is the word of God and yet denie that there is anie vnwritten word of God which saieth That the Scripture is the word of God d Sup. c. 5. sect 2. For doubtles there is no such written word as themselues confess 4. Moreouer this light great or less is ether in the letter or words of the Scripture or in the sense therof Some Protestants seem to say that it is in the letter or words For thus Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. p. 25 We beleue the Scriptures for the most diuine character P. 88. That they Scripture known by the words are the Scriptures is known by the stile and phrase P. 104. The Scripture doth shew à certain kinde of diuinitie in the verie words phrase and in al the forme of the speech And p. 113. That it came from God is euident by the inscription the hand the seal the things and al the letter◠And Contro 1. q. 6 c. 9. As if by the verie inscription to the Romans it were not euident that it is Pauls And Laude sec 16 p. 83. He that beleues resolues his last and ful assent That the Scripture is of diuine authoritie into internal arguments found in the letter it self But beside that this internal light in the words of Scripture is merely feigned it is clearly refuted becaus so al men should see it who can read the Scripture And also becaus the words of Scripture are such as men first inuented and haue
no diuine light in them Likewise if the light were onely in the original letters of Scripture as Hebrew and Greek no translated Scripture should haue this light and so none should know the Scripture to be Gods word but who know Hebrew and Greek Moreouer both Fathers teach and Protestants S. Hierom. Galat 1 Vvhâ—tâ—ker l 2 cont Dur. sec 1. confess that Scripture consisteth in the sense not in the letter or words of Scripture As Wotton in Whites Defense c. 28. p. 259. denieth the words to be the Rule of faith And White ibid. affirmeth the matter conteined in the words so to be Nay Whitaker himself l. 3. de Scrip. c. 4. p. 39â— saieth Nether doe I put most certain diuinitie in the written letter And surely writing or letters giue no diuine authoritie to Gods word For Gods word is of the same authoritie written and vnwritten as is euident and Protestants confess How then can writing or letters giue anie true light or brightnes to Gods word Finally I add that e Sup l 1. c. 10. n. 6. faith cannot be resolued into arguments becaus it is not discursiue but onely into authoritie For it is a simple assent to the saying for the authoritie of the saier And onely the word of God or which God hath said can be beleued with diuine faith And no collection or inference of man out of the character or letter of God is Gods word and therfore cannot be the obiect or formal cause of diuine faith Nor is this feigned light in the sense of the Scripture becaus then by it we could not beleue euerie parte of the Scipture to be Gods word For as Protestants before confessed it Sup. c. 2. sect 2. were impudencie and madnes to say that anie know the true sense of euerie parte of Scripture which is beleued to be Gods word S. Austin Epist 119. professed that there is more in Scripture which he knew not then which he knew And Whitaker l. 2. de Script p. 220. 235. saieth The Eunuch though he vnderstood not the Scriptures yet he acknowledged them and certainly knew them to be diuine And l. 1. p. 156. God hath so framed his speech that though pious men doe not alwaies clearly see what he speaketh yet they clearly see by the verie speech that it is God who speaketh What diuine light of honestie haue those words to Osee Take a fornicarian and make sonnes of fornication What diuine light of humanitie haue those words to Abraham sacrifice thy sonne what diuine light of truth haue those words that Balaams ass spake to him And the like of manie more 5. Furthermore the Deuisers of this sufficient internal light of the Scripture are not wel resolued whether not withstanding this light it need be proued infallibly that Scripture is the word of God For Laude sec 16. p. 64 saieth It seemes to mâ— very necessarie that we be able to proue the books of scripture to be the word of God by some authoritie that is absolutly diuine And ibid. p. 66. Scripture must be proued by some word of God This is agreed on by me that scripture must be known to be scripture by a sufficient infallible diuine proof And that such proof can be nothing but the word of God is agreed also by me Thus he confesseth that notwithstanding anie light in the Scripture it must be infalliby proued to be the word of God and that such proof can be none but some word of God Which if he wold constantly hold he must needs grant that there is some vnwritten word of God by which the Scripture must be proued to be his word Neuertheles himself soon after p. 104. saieth It is most But Protestants can not proue it so reasonable that Theologie should be allowed to haue some principle which she proues not but presupposes and the chiefest of these is Tat the scriptures are of diuine authoritie And the same he repeateth p. 110. Potter also sec 5. p. 26. Al Christians in the world confess the authoritie of scripture to be a Principle indemonstrable yet are we by them Papists perpetually vrged to proue that authoritie and that by scripture And Whitaker l 1. de Script 106. What Pastor euer laboreth to proue that it is God who speaketh in scriptures He by his right requireth that this be granted to him So that the chiefest principle of Protestants Theologie and that on which dependeth their beleif of al they beleue cannot be infallibly proued but must be praesupposed and freely granted and consequently they can beleue nothing infallibly as Laude p. 64. cit wel inferred For as generally Protestants teach we Sup. l. 1. c. 18. n. 1. can haue no greater certaintie of the inference then we haue of the Principle out of which we inferr it And herevpon Chillingworth as before we shewed c. 8. sec 2. consequently granted that Protestants haue but humane and moral assurance of what they beleue And as Laude saieth sec 16. p. 59. This question how doe you know scripture to be scripture driueth some of them into infidelitie Such fruits they see come of their denying the Churches infallibilitie in al matters of faith 6. Finally this sufficient internal light of the Scripture great or less hath no sufficient ground For the pretended ground therof is that the Scripture is called a light psal 118. To which I answer First That arguments taken from Metaphors Arguments taken from meâ—aphors are deceitful or similitudes are most subiect to deceipt becaus the true similitude may be easily mistaken Secondly it is not saied that the scripture or Written word and much less Al scripture is a light but simply The word of God which may be wel vnderstood ether of the word preached Gal. 1. Without which there is no faith Rom. 10. or of the ingrafted word which can saue our soules Iacobi 1. or of the word written in the hearts of the faithful Hierem. 31. Thirdly I say that the word of God is called a light not becaus it sheweth Vvhy Gods word called a light it self to be the word of God as light sheweth it self to be light but becaus it sheweth the way to heauen And therfore it is called a light to our feet which can not see but follow And in this sorte Iob. 2. 29. saieth He was an eye to the blinde not that the blinde could see him but follow his directions The like I say to that other place 2. Petri c. 1. Where he likeneth Prophetical speech to a lamp shining in a dark place For nether speaketh he of al scripture but onely of Prophesies nether likeneth he them to a lamp in that this is seen by it self but ether becaus Prophesies gaue but a darksome light of Christ in respect of the Gospel or becaus they directed to Christ as a lamp directeth in a darksome roome In like sorte the Apostles were called the light of the world Math. 5. Not becaus the world
honor and reuerence as the Queen and plainly Goddess of traditions And l. 1. c 36. relateth the foresaid words of Brentius and alloweth them Feild of the Church l 4. c. 20. Though we reiect the vncertain and vain traditions of the Papists yet we receaue the number and names of the Authors of books diuine and Canonical as deliuered by tradition The number authors and integritie of the partes of these books of Scripture we receaue as deliuered by Integritie of Scripture beleued by Tradition tradition Bel in his Downfal art 7. p 134. We receaue this tradition that the Scripture is the word of God p. 135. And so this tradition is not excepted but virtually included in our affirmation Moulins of Traditions c. 3. and 2◠we reiect not al traditions for Scripture itself is a tradition Carleton in Consensu de Scriptura c. 9. I wil say freely what I think I think there are some Apostolical traditions euer conserued and to be conserued iu the Church For Austin said not in vain what the whole Church obserueth c. So he proued Baptisme of Infants to be an Apostolical tradition so also before him Origen From Apostolical traditiou we receaued the true Canon of Scripture and the true sense of the Canon From hence the Church doth celebrate the Lords day Canon and sense of it receaued by Tradition Aretius loco 33. calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostles Creed what books are Canonical which is the true exposition of scripture Item Vniuersal traditions necessarie to be obserued are the Apostles Creed which books be Canonical which is the true exposition of the chiefest places of scripture Laude Relat sec 16. p. 104. when the Fathers say we are to relie vpon scripture onely they are neuer to Note this be vnderstood with exclusion of Tradition in what case soeuer it may be had not but that the Scripture is abundantly sufficient in and to it self for al things but becaus it is deep and may be drawn into different senses and so mistaken if anie man wil presume vpon his own strenght and go single without the Church sec 11. p. 44. Some traditions I denie not true and firme and of great both authoritie and vse in the Church as being Apostolical And why is not the Churches tradition concerning Scripture one of these Ibid. As for that tradition That the books of holie Scripture are diuine I wil handle that hereafter And sec 16. cit p. 81. Against this tradition That the books of Scripture are the word of God the Church of England neuer excepted Sess 15. p. 57. It is not denied that this baptisme of infants is an apostolical tradition and therfore note to be beleued Protestants in Colloq Ratisb sess 11. Our aduersaries bring that tradition of Scripture of which there is no Controuersie at al among vs. And sess 1. We grant that Moyses books are Moyses that this is a tradition by the testimonie of the Church which could witnes that Moyses books were put into the Ark. Chillingworth c. 2. § 45. The Canon of Scripture as we receaue it is built vpon vniuersal tradition The Canon is built vpon vniuersal Tradition Vniuersal Tradition rule of Controuersies § 155. Vniuersal tradition is the Rule to iudge al Controuersies by § 114. It is vpon the authoritie of vniuersal tradition that we wold haue them beleue Scripture And though sometimes he teach that this vniuersal tradition is but humane and fallible and consequently Supra c. 2. sect 2. grant his faith of the Scripture and al that is in it is but humane and fallible as we haue seen before yet c. 3. n. 45. he auoucheth it to be as infallible as the Scripture For thus he writeth you were to proue the Church infallible not in her traditions which wee willingly grant if they be as vniuersal as the tradition of the vndoubted books of Scripture is to Vniuersal tradition as infallible a◠Scripture be as infallible as the Scripture is Ibid. § 46. If you can of anie thing make it appeare that it is tradition we wil seek no farther Hooker also l. 3 § 8. If Infidels or Atheists chance at anie time to cal it Scripture in question this giueth vs occasion to sift what reason there is wherby the testimonie of the Church concerning scripture and our own perswasion which scripture itself hath confirmed may be proued a truth infallible Lo the Churches testimonie is a truth infallible And we may rest our assurance vpon a truth infallible and such is more then an inducement to faith Brentius also in the words afore cited saieth the Churches tradition concerning Scripture is certain firme and vndoubted And Morton saieth Protestants reuerence it as it were the Goddess of traditions 7. Moreouer they grant that it is a point of faith That scripture or the Bible is the word of God and as such it is put in their Confessions of faith Nay Hooker l. 1. § 14. saieth Of Anglica art 6. Gallica art 3. Belgica art 4. things necessarie the verie chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteem holie l. 3. § 8. The main principle whervpon our beleif of al things therin conteined is that the scriptures Protestants main Principle are Oracles of God himself Laude Relat sec 11. § 2. calleth it prime principle of faith sec 16. § 2. Great principle in Diuinitie § 6. Great principle of faith the ground and proof of whatsoeuer is of faith P. 104. Cheifest principle P. 110. Main principle of Diuinitie Chillingworth c. 2. § 11. First principle Whitaker l. 2. de Scriptura p. 218. It is most of al necessarie that the certain Canon of scriptures be vndoubted among Christians Vshers Reioinder p. 63 Of al things this is most sure and ought to be beleued that the scripture is the word of God But this most necessarie most sure this prime this great this main point of faith is no written word of God For thus Laude sec 16. p. 70. There is no place in scripture which tels vs that such books conteining such and such particulars are the Canon and infallible wil and word of God Hooker l 1. § 14. Being perswaded by other means that these Scriptures are the Oracles of God Note themselues doe then teach vs the rest l. 4. § 4. It is not the word of God which doth or possibly can assure vs that we do wel to think it is in his word White in his Way p. 48. The certaintie of the Scripture is not written indeed with letters in anie particular place or book therof And I hope it is not written with Ciphers See more of their like Confessions supra c. 5. sec 2. 8. And yet Hooker l. 5. § 21. saieth We haue no word of God but the Scripture No word of God for their main Principle Whitaker Contro 2. q. 5. c. 18. We acknowledg no other word then written what doctrin soeuer is
authoritie of beleuing And ibid. c. 4. p. 392. Our faith must relie vpon an external a Chilling c. 1. n. 7. Laude sect 33 p. 2. 8 Field l. 4. c. 7. infallible means and which is an external infallible means causeth faith Potter sec 5. p. 7. The assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine which requires an obiect and motiue so infallibly true as that it nether hath nor can possibly admit anie mixture of error or falshood And what external means had men to beleue ordinarily before there was Scripture but the Church For what external infallible cause did they beleue but for the Church or was the beleif of euerie man for those 2400. yeares Prophetical or miraculous without anie external infallible motiue or cause What motiue so infallibly true as that it could not possibly admit anie mixture of error or falshood had the ordinarie Beleuers before there was anie Scripture beside the Church EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER That Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in al places vvhere faith vvas had 1. THis is euident by the testimonie of S. Ireney who l. 3. c. 4. saieth that in his time manie Barbarous Nations beleued in Christ Augustin l. 1. de Doctr. Christ. c. 39. without letters or inck which made Whitaker Contro 1. q. 6. c. 7. to confess that some Barbarous men for a time wanted Scriptures and that for a Scripture not simply necessarie time doctrin may be conserued entire without writing and that hence is rightly concluded that Scripture is not simply necessarie And l. 1. de Script c 14. sec 4. p. 159. Those Barbarians of whome Ireney speaketh who had saluation written in their hearts were indeed true Christians though they knew not Scripture But saieth he they were not simply ignorant of the Scripture becaus they held the doctrin of the Scripture But I replie that Scripture and doctrin of Scripture are different and relatiuely opposit Moreouer the doctrin of Scripture is no Proposer to beleue but the thing proposed to be beleued And we speak of the Proposer of points of faith not of points of faith or doctrin of faith proposed Though therfore these Barbarians beleued the doctrin which is in Scripture yet they beleued not it by means of Scripture We therfore ask by what infallible external means they beleued it if not by the Church For some infallible means they must haue had to beleue in ordinarie course as Whitaker and Potter cited in the former Chapter confess and is euident And howsoeuer the doctrin or sense of the Scripture may be saied to be the Scripture becaus it is the more principal parte of Scripture yet in this question of the Proposer of points of faith it ought not to be meant by the word Scripture becaus the doctrin of Scripture is the points of faith and is that which is to be sufficiently proposed and beleued and so it is not the Proposer but the Proposed Wherfore Whitaker So also Vvhite in his Vvay p. 2â— and in his Defensep 259. loco iam citato and Contro 1. q. 3. c. 10. equiuocateth For when Catholiks argue that the Church is ancienter then Scripture becaus it was before anie Scripture Or that Scripture is not necessarie to faith becaus diuers Nations beleued without Scripture he answereth that the Church is not ancienter then the word of God None beleued without knowledg of that doctrin which is in Scripture For Scripture is Vvhitaker Contr. 2 q. 5. c. 19. Praedicatio verbum â—c iptum ratione differuns not the word of God or doctrin of God simply taken but the word or doctrin of God written Wherfore it is a Sophisme à Coniunctis ad diuisa to speak of Gods word simply when he should speak of Gods word written For Catholiks speak of the word or doctrin of God written not simply taken and confess that the word of God simply taken is ancienter then the Church and that none can beleue without this doctrin becaus it is that which is to be beleued And they ask what is the infallible external cause for which this doctrin or word of God was beleued of those Barbarians seing that could not be the letter of God or the Scripture which they had not Ether therfore they beleued the word of God and doctrin of Scripture for no external infallible cause and so they beleued miraculously and extraordinarily or they beleued it for the infallible authoritie of the Church When therfore Whitaker saieth that Scripture is the L. 1 de Scrip. c. 11. sec 1. Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 9. 14. Caluin 1 Instit c. 6. §. 2. Vide supra c. 5. sec 1. onely sufficient means to beleue ether he meaneth by Scripture the letter of Scripture or the sense if the letter those Barbarians had not nor blinde and ignorant men haue that means to beleue if the sense that is not the means to beleue but the obiect to be beleued and we ask what is the infallible external means for to beleue this sense For as Whitaker saieth l. 1. de Script p. 151. Wee seek some external means for which we beleue the Scripture And Contro 2. q. 4. c. 3. To interpret Scripture without means is Enthusiastical Anabaptistical and extraordinarie For the spirit now teacheth only by means and such as the means are such must needs be the Interpretation 2. Protestants Confessions that al things which are to be beleued are not in Scripture are related supra c. 5 sec 2. to wit That al things absolutly cannot be proued by scripture not al things simply that it is not an absolutly perfect Rule not safe to iudge by Scripture alone that scripture cannot assure vs cannot proue itself to be Gods word That Schisme cannot be decided by scripture NINTEENTH CHAPTER That Scripture doth not clearly enough propose al points of faith 1. THat Scripture doth not clearly enough propose al points of faith is euident First becaus as we haue already proued it teacheth not al points of faith immediatly and much less so clearly as is necessarie to beget diuine faith of them al Secondly becaus Scripture nowhere saieth that it teacheth al points of faith so clearly And therfore Protestants can haue no diuine faith that it teacheth al points so clearly as is necessarie to faith Thirdly becaus the Scripture itself saieth that in it are some hard and difficult things 2. Petri 3. And Acts 8. When S. Phillip had asked the Eunuch whether he vnderstood what he read in Scripture He answered And how can I vnles somes hew me and the place which he read was of the passion of Christ which is a most necessarie point of faith Whervpon Whitaker l. 2. de Scriptura p. 229. saieth The Eunuch without Philip nether beleued nor vnderstood what was sufficient to saluation And yet he was a pious man And Luke 24. Iesus beginning from Moises and al the Prophets interpreted to them in al Scriptures which were of him And what
needed he to interpret the places of Scripture which were of him if they had been of themselues clear enough to beget faith And yet the knowledg of Christ is a point most necessarie Fourthly holie Fathers frequently say that the Scripture is obscure or hard to be vnderstood whose testimonies I omit for breuities sake And to say they meane not of anie point of faith as Protestants say is mere voluntarie Fiftly if the Scripture were plain enough in al points of faith there would need no gift of Interpretation for points faith For to what end need Interpretation where there is claritie enough to breed faith 2. Finally this is so euident as Whitaker Contro 1. q. 4. c. 1. saieth When he Bellarmin maketh this See sup c. 〈◊〉 sect 2. the state of the question whether Scripture of itself be so clear as without Interpretation it sufficeth of itself to end and decide al Controuersies of faith he fighteth without an aduersarie For in this he hath not vs for Aduersaries And ibid. They say but falsly that we think that Scripture without interpretation sufficeth to decide al Controuersies Behould Scripture of itself and without Interpretation sufficeth not to end al Controuersies of faith Caluin also 4. Instit c. 7. § 25. being vrged that the words of the institution of the Eucharist did plainly teach the real and substantial presence of Christ answereth As if you could cast the gift of Interpretation out of the Church which giueth light to the word So that the Scripture doth not clearly enough teach what the Eucharist is without the light Interpretation And yet it is a great point of faith And the same is euident in the dissentions of Protestans about so manie points of faith For they being forsooth holie men would not gainsay clear Scripture At least true learned and holie men could hardly fal into anie errors in faith becaus al points therof were clearly set down in Scripture And yet S. Hierom. l. 2. contra Pelagium and S. Austin l. 2. de Baptis c. 1. 5. l. 3. c. 14. and De dono perseuerantiae c. 21. say it is hard euen for the best learned not to fal into some such errors And we see it in S. Cyprian and his Fellowes and in others 3. Protestants Confessions that al points of faith are not clear enough in Scripture may be seen supra c. 2. sec 2. and c. 4. sec 2. TWENTITH CHAPTER That the Scriptures proposal is not necessarie in ordinarie course to haue diuine faith 1. THat the Scriptures proposal of points of faith is not necessarie in ordinarie course to haue diuine faith is euident First becaus the Scripture no where saieth it Secondly becaus the Scripture is not the external formal cause of faith as we haue shewed that the authoritie of the Church is Thirdly becaus diuine faith was for more then a Caluin 1. Instit c. 6. §. 2. See supra c. 17. 18. 2000. yeares before there was anie Scripture Fourthly becaus euen after Scripture was there was in S. b L. 3. c. 7. Irenes time faith among some barbarous nations where was no Scripture And this is so euident that although Protestants must needs say the contrarie becaus commonly they teach as we saw c. 11. sec 1. that Scripture is the vtmost formal cause of their faith without which cause vndoubtedly there can be no formal faith yet sometimes they confess it Whitaker Contro 1. q 6. c. 7. Hence he concludeth Therfore scriptures are not simply necessarie Rightly And it is clear out of which Protestants grant that there was diuine faith in the world for 2000. yeares before anie Scripture was and since Christ also where there was no Scripture which conuinceth that Scripture nether of its nature nor of Gods institution is an absolutly necessarie means in ordinarie course to haue faith For then the Barbarians of whome L. 3. c. 4. S. Ireney speaketh could not haue had diuine faith And Chillingworth c. 2. n. 159. saieth scripture is not so much of the being of Christian doctrin as requisit to the wel being of it And Vvhy Scripture is not the sufficient Proposer out of al which we haue hitherto saied of Scripture it is euident that it is not the Al sufficient Proposer instituted by God for to beleue with diuine faith For first it is no intellectual person as doubtles a proper Proposer of points of faith is Secondly it proposeth not al points which God wil haue vs to beleue with diuine faith Thirdly it doth not propose clearly enough al the points of faith which it proposeth Fourthly it proposeth not points of faith to al kindes of men who are capable of external proposal Fiftly it hath not been in al times nor in al places when and where diuine faith was Sixtly in ordinarie course it is not necessarie to haue diuine faith Al which agree to the proper Proposer of points of faith instituted by God But now hauing seen what the Scripture is not let vs see what it is For though it be not the proper Proposer of faith instituted by God yet it hath manie excellent properties conducing to that end ONE AND TWENTITH CHAPTER That the Scripture conteineth the summ of Christian faith and al things that are necessarie to be beleued of al kinds of men explicitly 1. THat the Scripture conteineth the summe of Christian faith and al things necessarie to be explicitly beleued of al kinds of men is manifest First becaus it conteineth the misterie of the Trinitie the Incarnation and al the Articles of the Apostles Creed Secondly becaus the Scripture professeth this For Ioan. 20. v. 51. it is said These are written that you may beleue that Iesus is Christ the sonn of God and that beleuing you may haue life in his name And S. Luke c. 1. It seemed good vnto me hauing diligently attained to al things from the beginning to write to thee in order good Teophilus that thou maist know the veritie of those words wherof thou hast been instructed Where it seemes that both S. Ihon and S. Luke profess that they wrote in their Gospel the summe of Christian faith and al that is absolutly necessarie to saluation Rom. 15. v. 4. Whatsoeuer are written are written for our learning that by patience and comfort of scriptures we may haue hope And if we may haue hope why not faith 2. And this Fathers teach as we shal see in the next Chapter And this is al which some Protestants a Laude sect 17. p. 117. Potter sect 4. p. 96. Morton to 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 19 Vvhite Defense c 29. p. 270. Plessie de Eccles c. 4. p. 85. Sum of religion desire though in words they wil seem to say more Whitaker Contro 1. q. 6. c. 6. We affirme that the summe of our Religion is written Q. 4. c. 4. If he confess that the knowledg of Christ is manifest in Scripture surely we desire no more For this is as
expresly in Scripture may read Kemnitius 2. parte Exam. tit de Sacram. ibid. tit de Missa 3. parte tit de Inuocat Sanctor l. de duabus naturis c. 30. apud Hospin in concordia discordi c. 47. Gerlachius to 2. disput 24. Heshusius apud Hospin l. cit c. 46. and l de reali praesentia contra Caluinum Scusselburg to 8. Catalog p. 64. and 520 Heidelbergenses in Colloquio Mulbrunen si act 11. Sadeel praefat Respons ad art abiurat p. 403. Tract de sacrificio c. 3. King Iames in Basilicon Doron part 1. Morton 1. part Apol. l. 2. c. 9. Lobechius disp 23. And what they mean by Express termes Couel art 2. p. 20. declareth thus we cal that expressliteral mention Vvhat Protestants means by Express which is set down in plain termes and not inferred by way of consequence And the same is euident by the words of Hunnius Whitaker Fulk and King Iames which we shal presently citie So that nothing is express in Scripture if it needeth our inference and nothing matter of faith which needeth our inference out of Scripture if ether al points of faith be express in Scripture as the aforesaid Protestants teach or we beleue not anie one article of faith by fallible authoritie of humane deductions as Laude saieth Relat. sec 38. p. 345. or as Whitaker saieth l. 1. de script p. 50. That thou saiest our faith relieth vpon testimonies not arguments I grant And generally al Protestants when they refuse to beleue anie point or vrge vs to proue out of Scripture what they refuse to beleue not require and exact express words of Scripture as is to be seen in their writings about sacrifice Transubstantion Inuocation of Saints and the like In so much as Morton 1. parte Apol. l. 2. c. 9. alleadgeth these words of Bellarmin for to shew the consent of Protestant They al teach that al things necessarie to saluation are expresly conteined inscriptures And Morton addeth What Protestants think and how much they consent thou hast shewed But when themselues are to proue anie thing controuerted out of Scripture they sing an other song as shal by and by appear Besids manie Protestants argue that such a thing is not becaus it is not express in Scripture So Beza in Confess c. 5. sec 5. Heshusius l. de reali praesentiâ Iacobus Andreae contra Hosium p. 169. Kemnitius 2. parte Exam. p. 229. Gerlachius to 2. disput 24. Chilling Praeface n. 10. and others which plainly sheweth That sometimes they require to a point of faith that it be expresly in Scripture SECOND SECTION Sometimes denie it PRotestants in the Conference at Ratisbon sess 3. p. 95. This Rule shal stand against al the Gates of Hel Nothing is to be admitted as a dogme or article of religion but what is expressed in scripture or may be drawn from thence in good Consequence Sess 11. p. 356. Not onely those things are extant in scripture which are there in express words but also those which may be thence deduced by good Consequence Sess 13. p. 386. I finally conclude that Good consequence sufficeth nothing is to be beleued in worship articles and dogmes which is not ether expresly conteined in scripture or may in good consequence be drawn from it Wirtenbergenses Respon 1. ad Patriarcham Constantinop We embrace al those things which may be proued out of scripture in good Consequence Confession of England art 6. The holie scripture conteineth al things necessarie to saluation so that what is not read in it nor can be proued out of it is not to be required of anie to be beleued as an article of faith or as necessarie to saluation Pareusl 1. de Iustificat c 16. That we must vaunt of the express word of God and recal al our dogâ—nes to this one Express word of God not alwaies required head is an express lie King Iames Respon ad Cardinal Peron p. 401. We haue set down that only those things are to be thought necessarie to saluation which ether are expresly conteined in the word of God or haue been drawn from it by necessarie consequence And p. 392. The King calleth those simply necessarie which ether the word of God expresly commandeth to be beleued or done or which the ancient Church hath inferred out of the word of God by necessarie consequence Iuel in his Defense of the Apologie c. 9. p. 54. we say not that al Not al points plainly expressed cases of doubt are by manifest and open words plainly expressedin the Scriptures for so there should need no exposition But we say there is no cause in Religion so dark and doubtful but it may be necessarily proued or reproued by our collection and conference of the Scriptures Cartwrightin Whitgifts Defense p. 82. Manie things are both commanded and forbidden of the which there is no express mention in the word which Manie commanded things not expressed are as necessarie to be followed or auoided as those wherof express mention is made Which saieth Whitgift I take to derogate much from the perfection of the Scripture to be mere Papistical Whitaker Contro 1. q. 6. c. 9. Whatsoeuer is inferred or gathered out of Scripture though hardly al such the ancient Fathers most truly said was written And Controu 4. q. 4. c. 1. It is al one to be expresly in Scripture Alone to be expressed and infâ—rred and to be euidently inferred out of Scripture Fulk in answer to Clarks ouerthrow p. 659. We are willing to acknowledg and admit necessarie Collection to be of as great authoritie as Of as great authoriâ—â—e the express word of the Scripture In Reioinder to Bristow p. 97. Bristow slandereth me to affirme that in al matters onely euident scripture must be brought and heard which I neuer affirmed P. 88. I meane by onely Scripture whatsoeuer is taught by plain As good words or may be gathered by necessarie conclusion which is as good as express words So also 2. Thessal 2. not 19. and de Success p. 74. White in Defense of his way p. 288. No Protestant affirmes al things to be written expresly Laude in his Relation sec 38. p. 332. It is enough to ground beleef vpon necessarie consequence out of Scripture as wel as vpon express text As wel Potter sec 5. p. 3. That this diuine Reuelation for al necessarie points is sufficiently and clearly made in the Scriptures ether in express termes or by manifest deductions is the constant doctrin of Antiquitie euen til the latter times Chillingworth in his Preface n. 28. I beleue al things euidently conteined in them Scriptures al things euidently or euen probably deducible from them Morton to 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 41. Euen probably inferred Those things which are deriued from Scripture by necessarie consequence are to be held for written traditions See ib. l. 5. c. 9. Chamier l. 13. de fide c. 10. n 12. It is not the word of