of the priuiledge of trafficke which the King thereof tenders to our countrimen in this case if the Relators credit bee suspitious it were dangerous to build vpon his report because here he is the principall and only cause vpon whose sole affirmation we can finally rest In like manner if two persons onely bee present at the death of a friend and depose that in this or that manner he bestowed legacies in this case if they be of doubtfull repute it will be hard to determine positiuely what is the truth because that here they are the principall and onely witnesses and there are no other authentike proofes whereby their depositions may be examined But where the Propounder is onely the instrument by whose meanes wee are brought to see proofes of an higher nature and by whose ministerie arguments of greater importance doe display themselues as if the Trauailer shall bring letters of Credence vnder the Hand Seale of the Prince confirming his Relation or if the persons present at the death of their friend shall besides their owne testimonie produce a formall will subscribed by the hands of lawfull witnesses and strengthened by an authentike seale here the possibilitie of erring in the Propounder takes not away the certaintie of the things propounded by him because in this case the same may be supplyed by other more sufficient demonstrations vpon which as the principall causes of our beliefe wee may finally rest Now to apply this to the Church I say that if the Church were the principall or onely Cause for whose authoritie our faith doth finally assent to the mysteries propounded by her then and vpon this supposition it were to be acknowledged that if the Church might erre and that her testimonie were not infallible the assured truth of things so assented vnto could not bee attayned by vs. But wee say that in working an vndoubted assent vnto the mysteries propounded and deliuered vnto vs the Church though it bee one cause to wit an inductiue or preparatiue yet is it not the onely no nor the principall or finall vpon which wee lastly depend The principall and finall causes for whose sake we firmely beleeue those truths which the Church propounds vnto vs touching the Scriptures are two The one the Word of God it selfe with the properties notes and characters aboue mentioned imprinted in the letter thereof which serue as the hand-writing and Deed of the great Maker produced by the Church in confirmation of what shee vtters The other the inward testimonie of Gods Spirit enlightning the eyes of our vnderstanding to discerne the Scriptures by those notes and perswading vs what we discerne stedfastly to beleeue seruing as a seale which confirmes to the consciences of the Elect the Deed to bee lawfull and authentike The former which is the Word it selfe and the notes thereof cannot bee denyed by an ingenious Papist to bee there found for howsoeuer some of them by a iust iudgement of God for being iniurious to the Scriptures in branding them with obscuritie imperfection c. haue beene so blinded by the Prince of darknesse that setting aside the iudgement of the Church no reason to them hath appeared wherefore Aesops Fables should not as well as the Scriptures themselues bee thought Canonicall yet others as Bellarmine Greg. de Valentia Gretser c. doe acknowledge these distinguishing notes to be in their kinde argumentatiue and to shine in them as the excellency of the Doctrine concord efficacie and the like whereby may be verified of the whole Booke of God what the Officers sent by the Pharisies and Priests said of our Sauiour Ioh. 7. Neuer man spake like this man Nor is the later which is the inward testimonie of the Spirit denyed by the learneder sort of Papists to possesse another chief place in the discouerie of the Scriptures For although in popular aire they seeme to vent the contrarie yet when they are called to giue a more sober account in writing they vtter the same in effect which we doe The Church saith Stapleton by reason of her ministerie and mastership receiued of God doth make vs to beleeue but yet the formall reason wherefore we beleeue is not the Church but God speaking within vs. Againe The minde of a faithfull beleeuer saith hee doth rest in the iudgement but not by the iudgement of the Church but by the inward grace of the holy Spirit So Gregorie de Valentia The infallible proposition of the Church saith he is as obscure to vs as any other article of faith whatsoeuer alleadging out of Canus That if a man should aske wherefore he beleeues the Trinitie he should answer incommodiously in saying because the Church doth infallibly propose it And Canus giues the reason Because the last resolution of faith saith he is not into the testimonie of the Church but into a more inward efficient cause that is into God inwardly mouing vs to beleeue If therefore addes Becanus you be asked wherefore you beleeue that God reuealed such a thing and you answere that you beleeue it for the authoritie of the Church it is not the assent of a theologicall faith but of some other faith of an inferiour ranke Many more testimonies might bee added it being a firme position amongst the Schoolemen that principles of faith such as the Scriptures are cannot bee beleeued as they ought to bee but by infused faith But I will conclude where I began with our Countriman Stapleton because he layes downe the very fundamentall reason vpon which this Doctrine is grounded There is the same faith saith hee in the rest of the whole Church which is in the Prophets Apostles and all those who are immediately taught of God They haue one and the same formall reason of their act of beleeuing But the faith of the Apostles and Prophets which was by immediate reuelation was lastly resolued into God alone the Reuealer and did end and rest vpon him onely as the supreme and last cause of beleeuing therefore the faith of the rest of the whole Church hath the same formall obiect These foundations being laid it shall not be hard to shape distinct answeres to the seuerall questions aboue propounded To the first if the testimonie of the Church bee not infallible how shall wee vndoubtedly knowe the Scriptures to bee the Word of God I answere that wee may know them to bee so partly by the light of the Word that is the diuine notes and characters therein imprinted and partly by the enlightning and perswading grace of Gods Spirit enabling vs to see and mouing vs to beleeue what wee see Now on the contrarie I demand of them If one cannot bee assured of the certaintie of the Scriptures propounded by the Church vnlesse the proposition of the Church bee infallible how the lay Papists in this Land doe know any article of faith to be infallibly true considering that few or none of them euer heard the voyce of that Church which they
him to speake but by writing nor that writing to bee ordinarily read and declared without an Herald The principall Iudge wee say is God himselfe from whom proceedes the knowledge of all supernaturall truths whatsoeuer The instruments whereby hee communicates them vnto vs are threefold first his Spirit whereby he speakes inwardly vnto vs both enlightning vs to behold and perswading vs to beleeue the sense and meaning of his mysteries Yet is not this a priuate spirit because it reueales not ought vnto vs besides the publicke writing nor ordinarily without the ministerie of the Church For to speake more clearely a spirit may be termed priuate Either 1. Ratione Principij in regard of the author and efficient from whence it comes 2. Ratione Subiecti in regard of the subiect or person in which it dwells 3. Ratione Medij in regard of the meanes which it vseth Now the spirit wherby we iudge of diuine truths howsoeuer it may bee termed priuate in regard of the Subiect or Person wherin it inhabites hee being haply as most men are of a priuat condition yet we allow it not to bee priuate either in regard of the meanes which it vseth which are the reading of the Scriptures publike ministerie of the Church Councells Fathers c. or in respect of the Author efficient thereof which is the Holy Ghost the common father of light and grace at which kind of spirit Saint Peter specially aymes when hee saith no Scripture is of priuate interpretation 2. Pet. 1. The second instrument whereby God declares his sentence is the Scripture which is the only outward infallible rule whereby Controuersies may be resolued and decided and is not to be accounted imperfect or vnsufficient for this purpose because all men are not able to pry forth with into the meaning thereof throughout or for that it wants vocall organs to expresse which amidst varietie of senses attributed vnto it is his owne For it promiseth not to doe this but to those who are enlightned with the spirit and which make right vse of the publike meanes as the ministerie of the Church reading of Authors comparing of places and the like Logicians telling vs that an instrument is then sayd to be sufficient not when it serues for all vses and in all manners whatsoeuer but when it serues to such an end and in such sort applyed as the principall efficient hath ordainedit as a writing is then sufficiently legeable if those which haue eyes and a will therunto can read it though to the blind and negligent it seeme otherwise The third instrument whereby God publisheth his decrees is the Church and in it the Bishops and Pastors thereof whether assembled in Councels or otherwise considered in their ordinarie ministerie This holds the place of an Herald and howsoeuer it stands not in equipage with the two former yet God hath commanded vs to heare it and promised that it shall neuer erre in fundamentall points either totally or finally So that in summe the totall and plenary indicature of matters of Faith belongs to the Holy Ghost whereby the Iudge of these things properly taken is he alone the gift of his spirit the Scriptures and the Church are but partiall instruments of promulgation seruing onely as seuerall trunkes and pipes whereby his decree arriues at the eares of our vnderstanding yet if any shall compare the outward instruments together the Church and the Scriptures and demand by which of the two it is that the Holy Ghost speakes properly as hee is iudge of Controuersies and on which wee are finally to rest for his infallible sentence I answer not the Church but the Scriptures First in respect of their dignity because the Scriptures are the immediate worke of God dictated by his Spirit Whereas the expositions of the Church proceed not immediately from God but mediating the voice of the Scriptures Secondly in respect of their certainty for the church is subiect to error the Scriptures are not Againe the truth in regard of the Scriptures is fixt and therefore easie to be there found shee being alwayes lodged in the same bookes but in regard of the Church it is Ambulatorie and therefore needes more search to discouer it there as not being entayled either to chaire place or person Thirdly in respect of the order and manner of knowing them for howsoeuer by a confused knowledge the Church may bee notior Scripturis knowen better then the Scriptures and-before them yet according to a distinct knowledge are the Scriptures notiores Ecclesia knowne better and sooner then the Church for the true Scriptures are knowne by their owne light but the true Church is not knowne but by the light of the Scriptures The conceit that the Church must be accompanied with infallibilitie if to no other end yet to make a finall end of Controuersies vpon earth is ridiculous for if they suppose a finall end of Controuersies amongst all men whatsoeuer first they suppose that which shall neuer be whilest the Church is militant vpon earth for the Apostle tells vs that there must be heresies 1. Cor. 11. Secondly they present a meanes vncompetent to compasse that which they designe by naming the Church of Rome to that office both in that she is a partie and hath not as yet cleared her title to that dignitie and in that infallibilitie in the Iudge is not sufficient to compose differences in supernaturall matters without grace in the hearer which is no coyne that comes out of the Popes treasurie nor hear be that growes in his Garden but raines from heauen where and what measure God pleaseth On the other side if more particularlie they require an end of Controuersies amongst those whom God hath elected and that so farre as is necessarie for the saluation of their soules it is needlesse to attribute infallibilitie to the Church for the seruing of this Cure because to them God supplyes the infallible assurance of his truth by meanes more excellent and agreeable to the nature of his spirituall Kingdome to wit by his Wisedome in furnishing them with a rule both able to bee knowne by its notes and characters and also sufficient to decide all necessarie questions that may at any time be incident by his Grace enabling them to see the truth and demonstrating the certaintie thereof to their consciences and by his Prouidence raising vp faithfull Pastors in one place or other to prepare open and display those verities and decisions to the flocke Many like cratchets to these and answered by the same grounds doe issue daily out of the Iesuits warehouse as for example if wee produce one place of Scripture to proue the meaning of another they bid them call vpon vs to alleadge a third place which shall say that this place ought to bee expounded by that as if wee needed a Text to proue God no lyar or that he doth not contradict himselfe If in disputing vpon any subiect we goe about to destroy their Assertion they will them
the holy Ghost communicating it selfe to this and the subsequent and that chiefely for two reasons The one to teach vs that the principall obiect of our faith is God himselfe considered in vnitie of Essence and Trinitie of persons and therefore to each of the persons there is either a Beleeue prefixed or the Particle in set before to shew that on them we are to build the certaintie and assurance of our hope but as for these Articles of the Church the forgiuenesse of sinnes the Resurrection of the body and the like they being creatures are but the secondarie obiects of our Faith not to be trusted vpon immediately in themselues but onely vnder God and through God and therefore haue not a Credo a Beleeue a part to themselues but prefixt to one of the persons I beleeue in the holy Ghost The other to set out and diuide by this meanes vnto euery of the persons an appropriate and speciall worke For as God the father hath Creation in the Articles attributed vnto him and the Sonne Redemptionem merito Redemption by the merit of his Death and Passion vnto him so the holy Ghost by the Beleeue which is prefixt to his Article and is in part of sense to be conuei'd vnto the following hath the application of our redemption Virtute efficacia by his vertue and efficacie appropriated vnto him also to wit The sanctifying of the holy Catholicke Church the vniting of the members in a communion with their head the infusion of iustifying faith which apprehends the remission of sinnes the quickning of the dead in the Resurrection and the conferring of life both vitam gratiae the life of Grace and vitam gloriae the life of glorie in the world to come So then the act of faith I beleeue which belongs to this Article of the Church is to bee fetch'd and deriued from the preceding Article of the holy Ghost And yet because it descends not in the same forme and garbe of sense altogether which it beares there but something altered and transfigured the question will be what act it properly imports in this place towards his obiect the holy Catholicke Church For the better resoluing whereof we must necessarily call to minde that ancient distinction of Saint Austens and the Schoolemen touching Credere to beleeue That there is 1. Credere in aliquem to beleeue and put ones trust confidence in one 2. Credere alicui to beleeue or giue credit to one 3. Credere aliquem to beleeue that one is in being or to beleeue that one is after this or that manner in being The first of these which is Credere in aliquem to beleeue in one doth virtually indeed include the other two for one cannot beleeue in one but he must presuppose that hee is and that hee is to be credited but yet the proper obiect of it is bonum a thing as it is good and the formall act which it exerciseth is chiefly an act of the will whereas the rest haue rather for their obiect verum a thing as it is true and the act which they exercise appertaines onely to the vnderstanding but with this difference that when I say credo alicui I giue credit to ones saying the act of faith hath relation to his obiect as to obiectum formale a kind of principle for whose sake and cause I beleeue but when I say Credo aliquem I beleeue that one is in being the act of faith hath relation here to his obiect as onely to obiectum materiale or quod as the Schoolemen speake a conclusion which it beleeues and not as to the motiue or inducement for which it beleeues Now to bring this home to the marke The Church of Rome and we doe agree that the beleeue which is prefixt to the Article of the holy Ghost doth not communicate it selfe with the restriction caused by the Particle in to this Article of the Church and the rest which follow it for that were to beleeue in them and then no difference should be made betweene the Creator and the Creatures but simply and without addition and the question is what act it now exerciseth whether such an one as whereby our faith hath relation to the Catholicke Church as onely to a materiall obiect or bare conclusion which it beleeues by reason wherof we may say Credo Ecclesiam I beleeue that there is a Catholicke Church or moreouer such as whereby our faith may reflect vpon the Church as a formall obiect cause and principle for whose sake it yeelds credit and assent to all other things so that thereby though not expresly yet tacitly is implied Credo Ecclesiae I yeeld faith beliefe To the Catholicke Church The Iesuites howsoeuer they would palliate the matter and make shew that the Church is onely a condition and not a formall cause of our beliefe yet others of them speake more plainely what the rest ayme at For Scotus and Biel to whom Canus ioynes Durand doe teach that our faith is last resolued into the authoritie of the Church and Stapleton yet more punctually affirmes that this Article of the Church is inserted into the Creede Tanquam medium credendi alia omnia as the onely meanes whereby we beleeue all other things importing thus much Credo illa omnia quae Deus per Ecclesiam me docet I beleeue all those things which God teacheth me by the Church Whereby we may easily collect that the Papists by this Credo Ecclesiam I beleeue that there is a Church doe vnderstand also Credo Ecclesiae I yeeld faith and beliefe to the Church We for our parts doe reuerence the name and testimonie of the Church we acknowledge it to bee of all humane the greatest wee confesse moreouer that the Catholicke Church in the whole neuer hath erred nor euer shall erre in fundamentall points the prouidence of God sustayning it In regard whereof it hath the promise of our Sauiour that the gates of Hell shall not preuaile against it that the spirit shall lead it into all truth and it is called by the Apostle the pillar of truth as who would say that it retayneth a sauing profession of heauenly truth and vpholdeth the same against all the stratagems of Satan and his complices But that it is not either in it selfe or in this place to be taken for the formall cause of our beliefe that is the foundation of our faith vpon whose credit and authoritie wee are wholy to depend I shall by these following reasons drawen out of the Creed it selfe easily make apparant First by the Grammaticall construction of this Credo I beleeue which when it imports to yeeld credit or assent to a thing is not ioyned with an Accusatiue case as here in the Creede but with a Datiue whereas wee say not Credo Ecclesiae but Credo Ecclesiam to shew that the Creede in this place implies veritatem in essendo a beliefe of the Churches being and not veritatem in significando
For he saith not absolutely whatsoeuer thy brother shall say or beleeue but if thy brother shall offend or trespasse against thee which make the most wee can is but quaestio facti non iuris that is a matter of fact not of faith it is onely touching some personall and perticular iniuries in deciding whereof the Papists themselues denie not but the Church may erre See aboue Grad 4. So Matth. 23. 2. Vpon the chaire of Moses haue sitten the Scribes and the Pharisees all things therfore whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you obserue ye and doe ye I answere that these words whatsoeuer they shall say vnto you are either to be taken conditionally that is with this prouise that they speake the truth otherwise not and then aduantageth it nothing the Papists cause or else absolutely and then our Sauiour should contradict himselfe who reproued the errors of the Scribes and Pharises Math. 5. and forewarned his Disciples to take heed of their leauen Matth. 16. 6. Besides all precepts concerne the time present or future now Bellarmine himselfe confesseth that the high-Priests Councels of the Iewes were at this present lyable to errour nay farther that it was prophesied that they should erre and denie Christ Isa 6. Dan. 9. and therefore this could bee no such absolute precept of obedience as the Papists imagine especialy to those which now liued when by their owne acknowledgement such as possest the Chaire of Moses might erre and be deceiued Other places are alleadged by our Aduersaries which because they run rather in the plurall number with vos you arguing a democracie or aristocracie in the Church then with te thee implying a Monarchie which to maintaine the Iesuites bend all their forces and for that they are to bee vnderstood primarily totally and absolutely of the Apostles secondarily partially and conditionally only of other pastors as Iohn 16. The spirit of truth shall leade you into all truth and Luke 10. Hee which heareth you heareth mee therefore the weight and load is laid vpon such particular promises as our Sauiour is thought to haue made vnto Peter in the Gospells Where to omit that of our Sauiour to Peter Luke 22. 32. I haue prayed for thee that thy faith faile not for which the Cardinall cannot produce one ancient father Popes excepted to proue that our Sauiour intended therein any speciall benefit to Peters Successors saue onely to his personall faith as also that which he spake vnto him Iohn 21. 15 Feede my Sheepe which of a precept they would willingly change into a promise contrarie to the rules of Grammer or Logicke as if Saint Peter had made Popes of the inferior pastors of the Church and their Successors when he bad them in like manner Feede the flocke of Christ forasmuch as Christs word is the same in his owne mouth and in the mouthes of his Apostles The maine foundation whereon at length they pitch is that of our Sauiours to Saint Peter Matth. 16. 18. And I say vnto thee that thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it In which words they let not a tittle fall to the ground without admiration Our Sauiour say they speaks not as at other times Simon thou sonne of Ionas this was his vulgar stile he brought with him frō home and it was of his fathers bequeathing nor as otherwhile hee did by the sirname imposed by himselfe pronouncing it barely without an Emphasis onely Peter and no more but making as it were a preface to some new dignitie which he purposed to bestow vpon him I say vnto thee thou art Peter as who would say thou art a rocke and vpon thee that rock I will build my Church To giue more colour to this interpretation they will vs to take notice how our Sauiour spake not in the Greeke but in the Syriack language in which Cephas the name of Peter is the same in termination sound and sense that Peter is implying both of them a rocke This is a faire glosse if they were Masters of Languages and had commission to set forth new Calepines But first how chance that the Apostles which were better seene in the Syriacke Tongue it being their naturall dialect than you can be vnderstood not this elegancie but did afterwards quarrel about precedency not knowing that their Master had before past his promise thereof vnto Saint Peter How comes it that the Fathers pickt not out your sense who liued neerer the times of the Apostles as S. Austen Chrisostom Hilarie Basill Ambrose and others by this rocke vnderstood not Peter but either his confession or Christ whom hee confessed seeing this knowledge of the Church how by Scripture it is built vpon Peter was as behoofull for them as for vs. But secondly what if our Sauiour foreseeing that this Rocke would be lapis offendiculi a stone of offence and that some supposing Peter to bee it would at the sight thereof no lesse then at Gorgons head be stupified and turned into stones hath in the Greeke edition of Saint Matthewes Gospell which themselues deny not to be authenticall distinguished between the one the other by a threefold Gramatical difference then we cannot without contempt offered to Grammarians admit it or at least the sirrop of blind obedience swallow it downe Now our Sauiour saith not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou art Peter and vpon thee Peter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou art a rock and vpon thee that rock I will build my Church but with a triple mutation and alteration in the construction first of the Person thou Peter in the second and that rocke in the third secondly of the gender 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the masculine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the feminine thirdly of the sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by the iudgement of the most iudicious Grecians signifies vsually but a single stone and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which implies a Rocke so that as our Sauiour in another place tels vs that God can of stones raise vp children vnto Abraham in like manner hee doth now by a nominall Metamorphosis conuert a Sonne of Abraham into a stone and a stone of his building too yet he doth not by this Charter so inlarge his shoulders as to serue for a rocke whereon to support his whole building Say farther hee did make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a deriuatiue or denominatiue from that rocke and so as the Fathers sometimes vsed the word by a Metonymie terme him a ministeriall rocke by which he built his Church yet did hee not by this make him the principall rock on which he built it Grant againe that hee was taught that amongst the ministeriall rocks he should be Petra primaria a prime rocke yet was he not made Petra solitaria the only rock In a word he might be admonished by this name to be Petra deuotione a rocke for deuotion and zeale in
adhering and yet not promised to bee petra virtute a rocke for vertue in sustayning So that to conclude there may be as you see in many things a likenesse betweene petrus petra this rocke and that stone yet not so much as that a reasonable lapidarie may not distinguish them SECT VI. The obiection drawne from the question how wee may know the authoritie sense puritie and perfection of the Scriptures handled and resolued THe last forme of argumentation which they vse is drawne from the dependancy which they say the Scriptures haue vpon the Church though not absolutely in themselues yet in respect of vs our discerning of them Whence they thus argue if the testimonie of the Church be not infallible how shall we be resolued in these three interrogatiues The first is touching the Scriptures authoritie whether they be the vndoubted Word of God or no The second touching their interpretation what their sense and meaning is The third concerning their puritie and perfection whether they be perfect and entire or maymed and corrupted To prepare the way for the resoluing of these questions we are to note that as to the right apprehension of an obiect by the sense so to the due comprehension of the Scriptures by the soule three things are ordinarily required Viz. 1. First that the Scriptures bee an obiect capable to be apprehended and discerned 2. Secondly that there bee organs and faculties as those of the bodie so these of the soule fitly disposed and qualified to receiue and discerne that obiect 3. Thirdly that there bee a medium that is a middle instrument or meanes to conuey present and vnite the obiect to the organ 1. For the first wee agree that to the end the Scriptures should bee an obiect capable to bee seene and discerned it is requisite that they should be endowed with such remarkable properties and notes as may distinguish them from other writings For we take not to taske to teach vnreasonable creatures as did Saint Francis neither doe we dreame of fanaticall inspirations imagining that God reueales things vnto vs ouer and besides the Word but wee inuite you to looke vpon the markes and characters of the Word and we say as Philip did to Nathaniel Ioh. 1. Come and see Now these properties notes and Characters by which the Word of God becomes an obiect distinct and capable to be knowne by vs are Either 1. Outwardly accompanying it as antiquitie miracles fulfilling of prophesies testimonies of Martyrs and the like which doe onely procure attention and prepare men to beleeue probably and with lesse difficultie 2. Inwardly imprinted in it as first the diuine and spirituall matters therein contayned surpassing all humane wisedom being things which neither eye hath seene nor eare hath heard neither haue entred into the heart of man Secondly The forme of the stile void of affectation yet transcending in quicknesse maiestie and fulnesse the Master-peeces of the most polite and elaborat Orators Thirdly The sweet harmonie and consent of parts with parts Lastly The efficacy and vertue which it hath to produce the loue of God and our Enemies to procure the peace of our Consciences to alienate a man from the delights of the Flesh and the World to make him reioyce in afflictions to triumph ouer Death all which doe necessarily conclude the diuine authoritie of the Scriptures seeing nature it selfe is thereby vanquisht and a strong man cannot be bound but by a stronger than himselfe 2. For the second wee agree that seeing wee are not able to discerne the Scriptures by any naturall habit or inbred qualitie of our owne For the naturall man as the Apostle speakes receiueth not the things of the Spirit of God because they are foolishnesse vnto him neither can he know them for that they are spiritually discerned 1. Cor. 2. that therefore wee are enabled thereunto by faith and by the inward enlightning and perswasion of Gods Spirit But I neede not insist vpon a point which Bellarmine himselfe labours so to proue in his 6. lib. de Grat. lib. Arbit cap. 1. 2. and is confirmed by the Tridentine Councell in the 6. Sess 3. Can. 3. For the third which is the medium wee are not of Democritus opinion who thought that if the aire which conueyes the beames of the Starres vnto vs were away one should bee able to spie a pismire in heauen but rather with Aristotle we thinke wee should then see nothing according to that axiome in philosophie In vacuo per vacuum nulla fit visio wee conseut therefore that God hath appointed an ordinarie meanes to conuey and present such celestiall obiects as the Word of God to our view and this ordinarie meanes wee say is the Church to which wee willingly attribute these two ordinarie vses in that imployment Viz. 1. First of a witnesse testifying the authoritie and sense of the Scriptures vnto vs wherein for the effect the papist and wee differ but this that wee say it produceth a faith no more than humane they lesse than diuine 2. Secondly of Gods instrument by whose ministerie in preaching expounding the Scriptures the holy Ghost begets a diuine Faith and other spirituall graces within vs. So that the question betweene vs is not whether we are to exclude the ordinarie ministerie of the Church testifying and propounding the Scriptures vnto vs for this wee doe not Nor on the other side Whether the authoritie of the Church be a sufficient argument of it selfe to produce a diuine assent vnto the same for this the learneder sort of them as anon you shal heare will not affirme But this Whether to the end that we may by the assistance of Gods Spirit and those inward notes and properties found in the Scriptures discerne the Word propounded by the Church vnto vs to be the Word of God infallibilitie be a requisite condition in the Propounder As if in playner termes one should say whether to the end that I may by the visage gesture and garments discerne my friend approaching towards me to bee such an one it bee needfull that the aire which conueyes those formes to my eye bee neuer and at no time capable by reason of mists or other accidents to represent false and deceitfull formes Or this whether to the end that a Gold-smith may by his touch-stone discerne a piece of gold deliuered him to bee good and currant it bee required that the parties credit which sells it him should bee vnquestionable This is that which in effect they affirme and this we denie To resolue therefore the difficultie We graunt that where the Propounder is the principall finall and onely cause for whose sake we beleeue a thing there if the Propounder bee liable to error and deceit a firme and vndoubted beliefe of such a thing cannot be had As for example if one onely Trauailer haue beene in the Indies and brings relation by word of mouth touching the commodities of the Countrie and
man faith also by consequence that Socrates is a substance that he is a liuing creature and that hee is reasonable because Man contaynes all these things in his nature So the Scripture saying that Christ hath a body saith by consequence that according to his humane condition he is finite and being finite hath a limited and bounded existencie and therefore cannot bee in many places at the same instant For arte in this is grounded vpon nature and in nature the immediate cause implyes the effect the species the genus the subject the properties the whole the parts one contrarie remooues the other so that these Maximes of Philosophie are but dilated verities being before contractedly contayned in the Letter and adde not any thing to the Scriptures fulnesse but onely are displayed by the vnderstanding facultie as the species and formes of an obiect are by a perspectiue glasse multiplyed and made more visible 3. If we presse them with the force and necessitie of our consequence they bid them demand of vs whether we cannot erre in the deducing of a Consequence if we say we cannot then to tell vs that we oppugne a doctrine of our owne which determineth that the Church may erre and if wee say wee may then they will them to aske vs how wee can build an article of faith vpon a Consequence which by our owne confession is fallible To which wee say first that a posse ad esse non valet argumentum from a possibilitie of erring to an actuall erring an argument will not follow Againe the necessitie of a Consequence depends not vpon the person of him which deduceth it but vpon the intrinsecall vnion and reall affinitie betweene the termes of the Antecedent and Consequent But lastly because they presse vs to shew how we can assure our selues that in this or that particular Consequence we doe not erre considering that there is no subiect wherein we do not acknowledge that we may erre Let me aske them againe how any of them can assure themselues that they know the meaning of the Church in any one article of faith considering that there is none of them in particular the Pope in his chaire excepted which may not by their owne Tenets mistake a word or misse-conceiue the Churches meaning Sure if this reason were of force wee should for the same Cause take away all certaintie of knowledge which comes by the sense which was the error of the Academikes and Pirrhonians For what sense is there which at sometimes by reason of the Medium Organ or Object is not lyable to erre and be deceiued But as Nature which Philosophers say is not defectiue in things necessarie hath for the remedying of these inconueniences endowed man with reason common notions and principles whereby hee is able to iudge of the due site habitude and disposition of things so the God of Nature which is also the God of Grace and knowes the necessitie of his children giues vnto them besides that portion of reason common notions and principles aboue-mentioned the spirit also of discretion for the spirituall man iudgeth all things 1. Cor. 2. So Saint Iohn These things haue I written vnto you concerning them that seduce you but the anointing which you haue receiued of him teacheth you all things 1. Ioh. 2. 26. 4. If the Consequence bee so euident that they cannot for shame denie it then they counsell them to aske vs where the Scripture saith in expresse termes that whatsoeuer followeth by euident and necessarie consequence from her Pages is an article of faith Where they hope to choake vs with an equiuocall acception of the word article For an article of faith is sometimes taken strictly for one of those verities which so neerly touch the foundation of faith that a man cannot be saued vnlesse he expresly know and beleeue it sometimes largely for any Catholike truth whatsoeuer If they take it in the former sense they fight with their owne shadowes for which of our men euer said that whatsoeuer followeth from the Scriptures by euident and necessarie consequence is in such manner and sense an article of faith But if they take it in the latter sense wee need not runne farre for Texts to proue that such consequences are articles of faith and require according to the nature of the subiect and euidence of the deduction a beliefe either explicit or implicit of them because that conclusions as I shewed before lye hid in their principles as a kernell in the shell and that consequences are materially in their premises and being in them are to be esteemed part of them and therefore he which is bound to an absolute beliefe of the one is bound also at least conditionally that is vpon the appearance of the euidence of the consequence to beleeue the other 5. If wee dispute syllogistically they bid them tell vs that not the Scriptures but Aristotle prescribes rules for syllogismes and that Aristotles rules cannot binde the faith As though syllogisticke formes were principall causes of the truth of things and not onely instruments whereby the Truth which was before and might otherwise by naturall Logick and the strength of the common apprehension be perceiued is made somewhat the more easie and apparant For many Conclusions follow necessarily in regard of the matter which are vicious in regard of the forme Galen inuented a fourth figure which others reiect And therefore wee build no more vpon Aristotle in matters of faith then an house is built vpon the Carpenters Hammer Square or Rule which are neither whole nor part of the building though otherwise they conduce thereunto as instruments 6. If wee stop their mouthes either with manifest Texts of Scripture or pregnant consequences then they bid them demand of vs Who shal be iudge Which is a peece of Sophistrie beyond the Deuils who being taken tardie by our Sauiour in misse-quoting places of Scripture forgot to aske the question Who shal be iudge This cauill is squint-eyed and lookes three wayes at once If we say the Holy Ghost then they vpbraid vs with flying to priuate spirits and making our selues Iudges in our owne cause If we say the Scriptures they reply that the Scriptures are not sufficient to execute the place being mute and wanting a voyce to declare which amongst many senses is their owne and if we say the Church then they conceiue the victorie to runne on their side and think we haue granted them their Conclusion But what if we make neither the one nor the other sitting alone to be this Iudge but acknowledge a Concurrency though not equall in all of them and that Concurrency though not to the enacting of the sentence as it is considered in se in it selfe yet to the publication of it quoad nos as it hath reference to vs What then shall become of these sequells And so it is indeed For howsoeuer we make one supreme Iudge in this high Court of Veritie yet wee doe not imagine
sufficient meanes of Calling besides to supply the Pastors negligence and default as first profitable parcells of Gods Word read in the Church and the whole bodie of the Scriptures at hand which though it were in Latine yet many might vnderstand it and this our Sauiour pointed at when hee brings in Abraham in the Parable thus speaking to the rich man touching his brethren habent Mosen Prophetas they haue Moses and the Prophets Secondly The Writings and Commentaries of the Fathers to whose interpretations their Councells binde them to adhere and out of whom diuers of the Papists both ancient and moderne doe confesse as you haue heard that many of the chiefe articles of Poperie were not for a long time brought into the Church nor beleeued Thirdly Schoolemen and others of their owne side which taught publikely in their Vniuersities our very doctrine not I confesse so entirely as they should but some in one point others in another whereby there was both pregnant meanes to know the truth and strong reasons to thinke at least the doctrines so controuerted and diuersly resolued to be in the Popish sense at most no article of faith Lastly there were no Councells generally receaued by all and not excepted at by some which so expresly deliuered the grounds and Tenets of Poperie as now they are vntill the Councell of Trent So then who can denie that they were ours by Calling ours by Ordination by institution and admission ours and why should any doubt but that some were by practice and obedience ours surely God which called Iob amongst the Heathen and the Queene of the South by the bare report of Solomon would not suffer this Calling to be stil in vaine the Ordination to be wholly vnprofitable or that Admission in baptisme to be alwayes frustrate that is to be the sauour of death vnto death and in none the sauour of life vnto life For if sheepe in a pasture where venemous herbes are mixt with wholsome can by the instinct of nature make choise of that which is proper for them and abstaine from the contrarie what maruaile is it if the flocke of Christ who know the voyce of the true Shepheard from the voyce of strangers should by the guidance of Gods assisting Spirit doe the same Who can denie that God hath his Temple where Antichrist hath his Throne seeing Antichrist as the Apostle tells vs is to sit in it or that some of Gods people may bee in Babylon seeing such are warned by the Spirit to come out of her and it were in vaine to command a man to depart a place if he were not there Now if any shall thinke these motiues and considerations of ours especially touching the last sixe hundred yeeres not to be altogether so exact as the Papists require who challenge vs to produce the names of such visible Protestants in all ages as professed the same entire doctrine in all respects that we doe I answere first that it is not our hold that the Church neuer erreth or discordeth from it selfe in minoribus in matters of lesse moment and therefore it is sufficient for vs to shew who professed our faith entirely in majoribus that is such points as of themselues are fundamentall Secondly we say that whereas wee finde a twofold state of the Church in the Apocalypse the one before the loosing of Satan whilest the old Dragon was shut vp in the bottomlesse pit for a thousand yeeres the other after his loosing when the Deuill was to be let free to goe and deceiue the Nations not in one pettie Hamlet but in the foure quarters of the earth that is as Saint Austen expounds it vnder the reigne and tyrannie of Antichrist We are not bound to giue so strict a reckoning and account of our Professors vnder the second state of the Church as vnder the first The reason is because the Church in her first estate was glorious to behold appearing like a Woman clothed with the Sunne But in the latter shee was to be vnder the thraldome of Antichrist and our Aduersaries themselues tell vs that then wee are not to enquire for visible Professors of the true faith or for the publike exercise of Religion so Suarez Bellarmine and others In a word then was the time that the Church was to flee into the wildernesse as was foretold Reuel 12. Now to expect multitudes of people frequent cities pompous splendor affluence of foode and prouision in a wildernesse were extreame madnesse this were to suppose a wildernesse to be no wildernesse In Deserts there may be assemblies of men but they are rare there may be foode but we know it is but little and such happily as is but absolutely necessarie for the life of man and there may be buildings edifices but through the thickets of trees and shades of leaues hardly to bee discerned And so did it fare with the Church vnder the tyrannie of Antichrist There were some alwayes of it but few there were assemblies but not so euident to the eye of the world and there was the foode of the Word and Sacraments but not so plentifull nor euery where so pure as before times But who would thinke that the Iesuites were all this while but in iest and that they are conscious to themselues that the taske which they require to bee performed on our part is not fesable on their owne For let mee but question them from their owne grounds whether the entire articles of faith which the Church of Rome now holds are found mentioned by Writers in all ages The Cardinall and others of the Iesuites ingeniously confesse they were not and namely Indulgences the Churches treasurie the Popes canonizing of Saints c. onely they answer that it followes not that they were not beleeued because they are not mentioned Bee it so but if their articles of faith be not mentioned how will they make it appeare by the testimonies of writers in all ages as they vndertake to doe that such Tenets were from the time of the blessed Apostles held without interruption Bellarmine therefore answeres that the concurrent testimonies of some Writers of greatest note affirming such a Doctrine to haue beene professed beleeued by the Church in all ages none gaine-saying it will serue the turne But here besides that they stand not to their first bargaine which was to produce the testimonies of Writers in all ages I demand of what ages they meane that their writers shall bee to whose concurrent iudgement they will adhere if of the primatiue Church we accept the offer but this will little aduantage them for neither are many points of difference betweene vs and them mentioned by those writers as aboue was specified much lesse affirmed to bee Apostolicall Traditions neither are those which are mentioned allowed of in that sense which they deliuer If the writers of the after Church and namely the Schoolemen let them heare Gregorie de Valentia's owne