A TRIAL OF THE ROMISH CLER­GIES TITLE TO THE CHVRCH: By way of answer to a Popish Pamphlet written by one A. D. and entituled A Treatise of Faith, wherein is briefly and plainly shewed a direct way, by which euery man may resolue and settle his mind in all doubts, questions and controuersies, con­cerning matters of Faith.

By ANTONIE WOTTON.

In the end you haue three Tables: one of the texts of Scripture expounded or alledged in this booke: another of the Testi­monies of ancient and later Writers, with a Chro­nologie of the times in which they liued: a third of the chiefe matters contained in the Treatise and Answer.

A. D. ‘ Esai. 30. Haec est via, ambulate in ea. This is the way, walke in it.’

A. W. ‘ 2. Tim. 3. 15. The holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise to saluation.’

LONDON▪ Printed for Elizabeth Burby Widow, and are to be sold at the signe of the Swan in Pauls Churchyard, 1608.

TO THE CHRI­STIAN READER.

IT standeth not either with my occa­sions or my liking, to make a long pre­face to that discourse, which of it selfe seemeth to me ouerlong. Onely giue me leaue to informe the vnlearned of some few things, which may further him in the vnderstanding of it. The manner of my answer is such, as I haue vsed in my former writings. First I set downe the Papists Treatise word forword: then I draw it into a right forme of reasoning, that the truth may more euidently appeare: Lastly, I frame as direct and plaine an answer to it, as conueniently I can with shortnesse. If thou desire fully to conceiue the whole course of this kind of answering, I must intreate thee to haue recourse to the Preface, which I set before my answer to the 12 Articles; where the matter is deliuered largely and plainly e­nough. For the vnderstanding of this present answer, it may suffice thee to know what is the meaning of certaine words of Art, as we call them, which I am inforced to vse very often. First then, a Syllogisme is a certaine forme of reasoning, which consisteth of three sentences, whereof the second is drawne out of the first, and the third ariseth as a conclusion [Page] from them both. The first of these three, is called the Propo­sition or Maior: the second the Assumption or Minor; both of them ioyntly together are named the Antecedent: the third is termed the Consequent or Conclusion. Therefore if I denie the Antecedent of a Syllogisme, I meane to signifie that both the Proposition and the Assumption are false: so must you conceiue seuerally, that which soeuer of the three sentences I deny, that I take to be false. The consequence is the depen­dance of one vpon another: so that when I say, I deny the Con­sequence, my meaning is, that the latter part doth not follow vpon the former: for example, pag. 47. you haue this Syllo­gisme:

  • Antecedent. Propos. If faith cannot be one vnlesse it be entire, then it must be entire.
  • Antecedent. Assūp. But faith cannot be one, vnlesse it be entire.
  • Consequent. Concl. Therefore it must be entire.

My answer to this Syllogisme is, I deny the consequence of your Proposition, that is, I say, it doth not follow that faith must be entire, if it cannot be one, vnlesse it be en­tire.

There is also another forme of reasoning, called an En­thymeme, which indeed is nothing else but an vnperfect Syl­logisme, consisting of either part of the Antecedent, and of the Consequent. To this I answer, by denying either the An­tecedent or the Consequence. For example, pag. 177.

  • Our Sauiour himselfe citeth some words out of that Chapter, and expoundeth them to be fulfilled in himselfe.
  • Therefore that Chapter is to be vnderstood of our Sauiour Christ and his Church.

To this Enthymeme I answer thus: this Consequent doth not follow vpon that Antecedent, which is all one, as if I should [Page] haue said, I deny the Consequence, that is, I say, that Chap­ter is not therefore to be vnderstood of our Sauiour Christ and his Church, because our Sauiour citeth some words out of it, and expoundeth them to be fulfilled in himselfe. An example where the Antecedent is denied, though the Enthy­meme be not plainly set downe, you haue pag. 327.

  • The Pope is Peters successor:
  • Therefore he cannot erre.

Here I deny the Antecedent, that is, I say it is false, that the Pope is Peters successor. And this may serue for sufficient instruction to the vnlearned, that they may be able to vnder­stand and iudge both of the reasons and the answers to them. It remaineth that I cōmend thee Christian Reader, whosoeuer thou art, that vnfainedly desirest the aduancing of Gods glo­rie by thine owne saluation, to the gracious direction of the holy Spirit, that he may teach thee to vnderstand and beleeue to the praise of his name, and thy present and euerlasting comfort, through Iesus Christ our onely Lord and Sauiour. Amen.

From my house on the Tower hill. Ianuary 20. 1607.
Thine assured in the Lord Iesus, Antony Wotton.

A. D. §. 1.

A TREATISE OF FAITH, WHEREIN IS BRIEFLY AND PLAINLY SHEWED, A DIRECT WAY, by which euery man may resolue, & settle his mind, in all doubts, questions, or controuersies, concerning matters of Faith.

A. W.

THis Title is like the Apothecaries boxes & pots; which promise goodly matters by the inscrip­tions, but within haue either nothing, or some ordinarie drugs. A treatise of faith, shewing a di­rect way, by which euery man may resolue, and settle his mind, in all doubts, questions, or controuersies, concerning mat­ters of faith: makes shew of instructing him, that shall reade it, what faith is, what kinds of faith there are; and (aboue all) what a iustifying faith is; how to be attained vnto; how vsed, to the obtaining of euerlasting life. These principally, and many more like these are required in a Treatise of faith; of neuer a one whereof there is any one Chapter, or peece of a Chapter, in this whole Discourse.

Neither hath he done that litle he hath done, either briefly; as the heaping vp of vnnecessarie testimonies, in matters not doubtfull, in the verie first Chapter, euidently proues; or plain­ly; because, though in his Preface he sets down what he meanes to proue, yet it is verie hard for a man to apply his seuerall Chapters to the generall matter propounded by him, as the handling of them will shew.

A. D. §. 2.

A Table or briefe summary of the whole treatise.

  • Chap. 1. That faith is absolutely necessary to saluation.
  • Chap. 2. That this faith is but one.
  • Chap. 3. That this one faith must be infallible.
  • Chap. 4. That this one infallible faith must be entire.
  • Chap. 5. That Almighty God hath prouided some sufficient meanes [Page 2] whereby all sorts of men, may at all times, learne this one infallible, and entire faith.
  • Chap. 6. What conditions or properties are requisite, in this rule or meanes, prouided by Almighty God.
  • Chap. 7. That Scripture alone, cannot be this rule or meanes.
  • Chap. 8. That no naturall wit of man, or humane learning, either by interpreting Scripture or otherwise, can be this rule of faith.
  • Chap. 9. That priuate spirit cannot be this rule.
  • Chap. 10. That the doctrine or teaching of the true Church of Christ, is the rule or meanes, wherby all men must learne the true faith.
  • Chap. 11. That this true Church of Christ, of which we must learne the true faith, is alwayes to continue, without interruption, vntill the worlds end.
  • Chap. 12. That this same Church must alwayes be visible.
  • Chap. 13. How we should discerne or know, which company of men is this true visible Church, of which we must learne true faith.
  • Chap. 14. That those Notes or markes which heretikes assigne: to wit, true doctrine of faith, and right vse of Sacraments, be not sufficient.
  • Chap. 15. That these foure, Vna, Sancta, Catholica, Apostolica, One, Holy, Catholique, Apostolique, be good markes, whereby men may discerne, which is the true Church.
  • Chap. 16. That these foure markes, agree onely to the Romane Church. That is to say, to that company of men, which a­greeth in profession of faith, with the Church of Rome.
    • §. 1. That the Romane Church onely is One.
    • §. 2. That the Romane Church onely is Holy.
    • §. 3. That the Romane Church is onely Catholique.
    • §. 4. That the Romane Church is onely Apostolique.
  • Chap. 17. The conclusion of the whole discourse: viz. That the Ro­mane Church is the onely true Church of Christ, of which, all men must learne, the one, infallible, entire faith, which is necessary to saluation. And that the Protestants Congre­gations cannot be this true Church.

[Page 3] THE PREFACE.

BEing moued by some friends, to conferre with one of indifferent good iudgement, and of no ill disposition of nature; though verie earnest in thaet religion which he did professe: I was desirous to do my best endeuors, to let him plainely see, that the Catholique Romane faith was the onely right.

A. W.

Being requested by some friends to maintaine the truth of Christian religion professed amongst vs, against the antichri­stian cauils of this popish proctor; I thought it my best course, first to answer in generall to the whole substance of his booke; and then to examine euerie particular Chapter. In the former, I first consider his drift and scope: then how he proues that which he intends. His drift is to shew, That the Catholique Romane faith is the onely right: wherein he craftily begs that which is in question; That the Romane faith is the Catholique faith; & which himselfe propounds, as the second thing to be proued by him: That those onely which professe the Romane faith, are the true Ca­tholique Church. Neither can it be auouched by the authority of anie ancient writer, or by any good reason, that it is lawfull or fit to ioyne the terme Catholique (as Papists take it) to any par­ticular Church whatsoeuer. There was great strife about the Catholike Church vpon earth in Austins time, which the Do­natists August. ad Bo­nif. Epist. 50. ad Honor. Ep. 161. de Agone Christian. c. 29. would haue confined to Affrica: but the true Christians freed it from that bondage, and bounded it with no other limits then the compasse of the whole world. Let the Papists shew, if they can, that in this whole cōtrouersie, the Catholique Church was euer restrained or coupled to anie one Citie, Dioces, Pro­uince, or Nation, as it is now by them to Rome. If they cannot, let them acknowledge, and renounce this their noueltie.

A. D. §. 3.

For which purpose, I did chuse to let passe disputes about parti­cular points, and in generall to shew; First, that it is necessary to admit an infallible authoritie in the true Cathòlique Church: by reason whereof, euery one is to learne of it onely, which is the true faith of Christ. Secondly, that those onely which professe the Románe faith, are the true Catholique Church. The which hauing proued, I did consequently conclude; that the faith and beliefe which the authority of the Romane Church doth cōmend vnto vs, ought, without doubt, [Page 4] to be holden for the true faith.

A. W.

Indeed the best, and onely way to auow the doctrine of the Romish Church, is to leade men hoodwinckt in ignorance of the particular points it holds, many whereof are so palpably false, that he that knowes them, will easily be perswaded to ab­horre them. But let vs see what you shew in generall.

Thus you dispute: The generall syllogisme.

  • The faith, which the authoritie of the true Catholique Church commends vnto vs, ought, without doubt, to be holden for the true faith.
  • But the faith, which the authoritie of the Church of Rome com­mends vnto vs, is the faith which the authoritie of the true Catholique Church commends vnto vs.
  • Therfore the faith, which the authoritie of the Church of Rome commends vnto vs, ought, without doubt, to be holden for the true faith.

The conclusion of this syllogisme is set downe by you in plaine words, there; The which hauing proued, I did consequently cōclude, that the faith, &c. The proposition, or major is not exprest; no more is the assumption or minor; but instead of them you haue deliuered the proofes of them, thus to be concluded. First for the proposition; at those words: That it is necessary to admit an infallible, &c. Proofe of the proposition.

  • If it be necessary to admit an infallible authoritie in the true Ca­tholique Church, by reason whereof euery one is to learne of it onely, which is the true faith of Christ: then the faith, which the authoritie of the true Catholique Church com­mends vnto vs, ought, without doubt, to be holden for the true faith.
  • But it is necessarie to admit such an authoritie in the true Catho­like Church.
  • Therefore the faith, which the authoritie of the true Catholike Church commends vnto vs, ought, without doubt, to be hol­den for the true faith.

Onely the assumption of this syllogisme is propounded, the rest omitted. The proofe of your principall assumption is at those words: That those only which professe the Romane, &c. And (as in [Page 5] the former syllogisme) the assumption onely is exprest, the rest vnderstood. Thus: Proofe of the Assumption.

  • If those onely which professe the Romane faith, are the true Ca­tholike Church, then the faith which the authoritie of the Church of Rome commends vnto vs, is the faith which the authoritie of the true Catholike Church commends vnto vs.
  • But those onely which professe the Romane faith, are the true Catholique Church.
  • Therefore the faith which the authoritie of the Church of Rome commends vnto vs, is the faith, which the authoritie of the true Catholique Church commends vnto vs.

We see now what his drift is; how he proues that he intends: and by what reason he confirmes his proofe. It remaines that we consider in general, to what part of his proofe, or confirmation thereof, euery Chapter in his Discourse appertaineth.

In the 4. first Chapters he layeth certaine grounds concerning faith: in the 13. following he disputeth the matter propounded.

First he shewes the necessitie of faith, Chap. 1. then he deli­uereth three properties required to true faith. That it is one, Ch. 2. That it is infallible, Chap. 3. That it is entire, Chap. 4. In his dispute, the twelue former Chapters, from the beginning of the fifth to the end of the sixteenth, containe the antecedent, or first part of his reason, and the proofes thereof. The seuen­teenth addeth and enforceth the maine conclusion.

The assumption of the second syllogisme: That it is necessary to admit, &c. is handled from the fourth Chapter to the tenth.

The proposition of the first syllogisme: That the faith which the authoritie of the true Catholique Church commendeth to vs, ought, without doubt, to be holden for the true faith: is proued by another reason, from the ninth Chapter to the thirteenth.

The assumption of the third syllogisme: That those onely which professe the Romane faith; are the true Catholique Church: is debated from the twelfth Chapter to the seuenteenth.

This is the generall frame of the whole Treatise, as farre as I am able to conceiue of it. Now let vs examine the truth therof. Wherein that I may proceed the more orderly and plainely, I wil first speake a word or 2. of some matters that seeme fit to be [Page 6] vnderstood, ere I answer particularly to the seueral propositiōs.

What the diuerse significations of this word faith are, and how many sorts of faith there be, I will inquire (as farre as it is needfull for this Treatise) in my answer to the first Chapter: onely we are now to know, that by faith and beliefe, this Papist vnderstands the matter or doctrine which is to be beleeued. This appeares in the rest of this Preface, and namely at these words: Fourthly because these few plaine points, &c, as also euery where in his Treatise; though sometimes (as I will shew in due place) he take it otherwise. The like I say of the word Church: which being diuersly taken in Scripture, is here to be restrained to a certaine cōpany of men vpon earth, as this Author himself shewes in this Preface, at the place aforenamed.

Now then to answer directly to his principall syllogisme; I deny the whole antecedent therof. Because it takes some things To the prin­cipall syllo­gisme. for a knowne truth, which are either false, or, at least, full of doubt. As for example, that the true Catholique Church is a com­pany of men vpon earth: whereas who knowes not, that the saints, that haue bene, are, and shalbe in all ages, are members of the true Catholique Church, which consists of them all ioyntly? That all the seuerall congregations, which hold the true doctrine of the Gospell, are one and the same Church. A doctrine (in his mea­ning) without anie warrant of Scripture, as it shall be shewed hereafter. That there is authoritie in a certaine company of men vpō earth, to require, that whatsoeuer they deliuer, be held for an vn­doubted truth, vnder paine of damnation to all that wil not so beleeue them: whereas God vseth not the authoritie of men, but their ministerie, to the begetting of faith in them that shall be saued.

In particular I denie the proposition; because all the Chur­ches To the pro­position. in the world may erre, either in some one point not fun­damentall; or some in one, some in another. And therefore some things may be propounded by the true Church of Christ, which notwithstanding are not, vpon any authoritie of theirs, to be held for true.

To the proofe of the proposition set downe in the second syllogisme I answer, by denying the assumption: That it is ne­cessary To the proof of the propo­sition. to admit such authoritie in the Church. The reasons of my [Page 7] deniall are: 1: That God hath giuen no such authoritie to anie companie of men, since the Apostles, or besides them; who had it seuerally, euery one in his owne person. 2. That there is no necessitie of anie such authoritie, for the saluation of the elect, or damnation of the reprobate. 3. That the Scriptures are left vnto vs for an absolute rule, whereby all things that are to be beleeued must be tried.

I denie also the assumption of the first principall syllogisme; To the As­sumption, and the proofe thereof. and to the proofe of it, contained in the third syllogisme, I say further, that they which professe the doctrine that the Church of Rome now teacheth in many points, are members of the Church of Antichrist, vnder the Pope the head thereof. But if, as you say, Those that professe the Romane faith, are the true Ca­tholique Church, how ignorantly and absurdly do your Monkes In fidei profess. anno 1585. art. 60. of Bourdeaux write, in their solemne profession of religion; where they say, that the holy, visible, catholique, and Apostolike Church dispersed ouer the whole world, hath communion in faith & manners with the Church of Rome? If the Catholique Church haue communion with the Church of Rome, sure the Catho­lique Church and the Church of Rome are not all one.

A. D. §. 4.

Ʋpon which points, when he had heard my discourse, he desired me, for his better remembrance, to set downe in writing, what I had said. The which I had first thought to haue done briefly, and to haue imparted it onely to him: but by some other friends it was wished, that I should handle the matter more at large; they intending (as it seemed) that it might not only do good to him, but to others also, that should haue need of it, as well as he. Of which sort of men standing in this need, as I could not (considering their miserable case) but take great pitie: so I was easily moued, especially at my friends request, to be willing to do my endeuour, which might be for their reliefe and succour: and to take any course which might turne to their helpe and profite.

A. W.

The title of your booke professeth breuitie; here you say, that you had thought to set downe your discourse briefly, but haue handled the matter more at large. Either your Title or your Pre­face is to blame. Your Title is iustified afterward, where you say, that your course of writing is very briefe and compendious.

[Page 8] Papists talke of pitie, who, without mercie or conscience wold haue murdred so many thousāds by treason, & (as they thought) haue sent them almost quicke to hell, soules and bodies toge­ther? It is not anie pitie of vs, but your slauery to the Pope, and proud conceit of (I know not what) merite, with hope of making your part strong for rebellion or massacre, that drawe from you these goodly treatises.

A. D. §. 5.

Now of all other courses, which haue bene, and might be vnder­taken; that, which in my speech I did chuse as most expedient for him with whom I did conferre, seemed best also for me to prosequute in this my writing, for the benefite of him and others, and this for foure reasons.

A. W.

I know not what he was, with whom (as you say) you did conferre, but I am sure his iudgement was (at the most) but in­different good, if such a course as begs the question, would be any way liked of him. You vndertake to shew, That it is necessary to admit an infallible authority in the true Catholique Church: which you expound to be, A companie of men vpon earth. VVhat Pro­testant is there of any knowledge, but vnderstands, that by Ca­tholique Church we meane ordinarily, not any companie in this world, but the whole societie of the faithful, from time to time? But these gay shewes of Catholike Church, Ʋniuersalitie, anti­quitie, vnitie, succession, and such like, are fit to deceiue the igno­rant; for which purpose your discourses are written, & with whō they preuaile, by the iust iudgement of God, who sends them 2. Thes. 2. 9. 10 strong delusions, that they may beleeue lyes, because they haue not embraced the loue of the truth, that they might be saued.

A. D. §. 6.

First, because it is very briefe, and compendious; and consequently such, as euery one might haue leysure, and should not be much weary to reade it.

A. W.

You deale in your corrupt writings, as leud men do in slan­derous reports: who speake anie thing, at aduenture, though neuer so vntrue, or vnlikely. It is hard but some men will either beleeue, or make doubt of it, at the least. So all men reade your writings, you care not. Though they, that are of knowledge, and iudgement, discerne your falshood: yet it is twentie to one, but some ignorant fellow will light on them, that may be sedu­ced. [Page 9] And this practise you follow the rather, because you are, for the most part, out of feare of being shamed by confutation; for that you are vnknowne, and know well inough, that our an­swers to you, are commonly, and many times must be so large, that one amongst manie can hardly find leisure to reade them. Whereas if the authors of your treatises were knowne amongst vs, and our answers applied shortly, and plainely to the verie point of the argument, that being disrobed of the idle orna­ments you cloath it withall, and laid naked to the view of true reason, we should haue as few of your discourses, as we haue now of your replies, to our refutations of your treatises; which are so few, that, in many yeares, it is rare to haue anie second charge by you; vnlesse it be in such a fight, as requires no more but a brauado, without coming to handie blowes.

A. D. §. 7.

Secondly, because, it, standing onely vpon few, but most certaine conclusions, and grounds; is free from many cauils of the captious, which more ample discourses are subiect vnto.

A. W.

To speake truly, and properly, there is but one conclusion in your whole Treatise, as I haue shewed out of this your Pre­face. Against which we also oppose one as briefe, and more cer­taine then yours. Your conclusion is, That the faith, and beliefe, which the authority of the Romane Church doth commend vnto vs, ought, without doubt, to be holden for the true faith. Ours, That the faith which the Scripture teacheth vs, is the onely true faith. If you speake of the seuerall cōclusions belonging to the proofe of the generall, there are (at the least) as many as there are Chap­ters. But if you meane the three grounds, which you signifie before, and repeate afterwards, they are so farre from being cer­taine, that there is neuer a one of them true, as you vnderstand them.

A. D. §. 8.

Thirdly, because, the matter handled in it, is not very high nor hard, but common, easie, and plaine: and such, as may be vnderstood of any, who, hauing but a reasonable wit, or vnderstanding, wil care­fully read it (as the importance of the matter requireth) with iudge­ment, deliberation, and (which is chiefe) with prayer to God, and a resolute good will to follow that, which he shall find to be right.

A. W.

The matter is as hard, by your handling of it, as sophistrie [Page 10] can well make it; as high, as the deepe foundation of religion. Yet I denie not, but it may be vnderstood by a man of such parts, and paines, as you require: and adde farther, that the like may be auowed of the true grounds of religion, as they are con­tained in the Scripture: to the reading, and meditation where­of the Lord himself hath promised such a blessing, as your trea­tises, Psal. 1. 1. 2. Ioan. 5. 39. if they were neuer so true, could not looke for. Is not the fountaine better then the chanell?

A. D. §. 9.

Fourthly, because, these fewe plaine points, which are here set downe, include all other: and whosoeuer shall, by the helpe of Gods grace, and the force of these, or other reasons, yeeld assent to the points proued in this discourse: must by consequence, without further dis­puting or difficultie, yeeld to all particular points, which the afore­said Church commendeth for points of faith, and will be moued to settle himselfe in the stedfast beliefe of all. For if he once admit, that there is a Church, or company of men, on earth, infallibly taught by the holy Ghost, what is the true faith in all points: and that this Church is, by Gods appointment, to teach all men in all matters of faith, which is the infallible truth: and further, that this Church, which is thus taught, and must teach vs, is no other but that visible company, which professeth the Romane faith: then he shall not need to straine his wits in studying, or to wast words in wrangling, about particular points of controuersies, or to vse any such troublesome and vncertaine meanes to find out the truth: but may easily, and most cer­tainly be instructed in all, by onely enquiring and finding out (which all sorts of men may easily do) what is generally holdē by the Church, for truth, in all particular points, whereof they doubt.

A. W.

If these few points be so conuenient, because in thē all other are included; why should not our doctrine of the Scripture be as conuenient, by the same reason? Let vs compare our assertions together. The first of yours is, That a man must admit, that there is a company of men on earth, infallibly taught by the holy Ghost, what is the true faith, in all points. The first of ours, That a man must beleeue, that there is a written word of God, wherein the holy Ghost hath certainely taught, whatsoeuer is needfull to be knowne to saluation. Your second is: That this company of men is, by Gods appointment to teach all men, in all matters of faith, which is the in­fallible [Page 11] truth. Our second: That this written word of God is ap­pointed by him to teach all men in all matters of faith, what is true, what false. Your third: That this company of men is no other, but the visible company, which professeth the Romane faith. Our third: That this written word is no other, but the bookes of the old and new Testament. The proofe of your positions, and the exceptions, you take against ours, shalbe handled (if it please God) in their due places; in the meane time, if any mā be troubled with those ordinarie doubts, which you haue buzzed into the common peoples eares, concerning the vncertainty and hardnesse of the Scriptures, let me intreat him to stay himselfe a while vpon these considerations. First that the bookes of the old and new Testament acknowledged by vs, are also confessed by you to be the verie word of God; in the penning whereof Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. cap. 12. §. Di­cuntur. the penners were so directed by the holy Ghost, that they could not erre. Therefore whatsoeuer the meanes be, whereby we come to assurance, that these bookes are the word of God, let it suffice all men, that both we, and you agree, they are so. But I pray tell me: Are the determinations of the Church any more certaine? What ground haue I, but the word of some men, that the Church hath so determined? It is not a matter so agreed vpon betwixt vs, as the bookes of Scripture are. Out of question the ods is on our side. It is doubtfull, whe­ther you Romanistes are the Church or no: it is out of doubt, these bookes are the infallible word of God. But you will say, the Scriptures are hard to be vnderstood; as well because they are written in Hebrew, and Greeke, as also for the kind of wri­ting. Are not all the Decrees of your Councels, and determina­tions of your Popes Consistorie, written either in Greeke, or Latin, or in the Italian language; in none of which one man a­mong ten thousand hath any skill? And is there not as great rea­son to thinke, the Scriptures are rightly translated, as your De­crees, Decretals, and Determinations? Especially when as we (commonly) alledge the interpretations of the ancient Fathers, and learned Papists for the auowing of our translations. But the Scriptures are hard to be vnderstood, though a man be skilfull in the tongues. And are the Decrees of your Councels so easie, that euery man may vnderstād them, who knowes the language [Page 12] they are written in? Doth not Bellar. tom. 3 de Sacram. passim: & vbi­que. Bellarmine condemne, and con­fute our writers, Caluin, Chemnitius, and other, for not vnder­standing the Decrees of your Councell of Trent written in La­tine; which language they were as skilfull in, as himselfe? If they be so easie, how chance Dominic. Sotus in Apol. contra Cathar. cap. 2. Bishop Catharin and Frier Soto, that were both present at the Councell, and heard the debating of matters, can not agree about the doctrine of it, concerning as­surance of saluation? which (as Vbi supra. Soto affirmes) was the longest and most troublesome disputation of all in the Councell: and there­fore should haue bene best vnderstood, and plainliest deliuered. Yet is it so propounded by the holy fathers, the authors of it, that Vbi supra. Catharin saith boldly, Ambros. Ca­tharin. tract. 1. Verba decreti aliter pleros (que) accepturos, quā fuerat mens sancte Synodi. he foresaw, that most men would vnderstand the words of the Decree otherwise then the holy Synod meant them. Was there not great contention within these very few yeares, betwixt Christophor. de Cap sont, archiepisc. Cae­sariens [...] de ne­cessat. correct. theologie scho­last. Archbishop Christophor. de Capite fontium and many other Diuines, about the meanes of transsubstantia­ting the bread, though in his iudgement the Councel of Trent makes manifestly for him? I forbeare to say, that some points seeme to haue bene craftily set downe of purpose, like the ora­cles of Apollo, that which way soeuer they be taken, the Church may not seeme to haue erred. Neither will I adde, that Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. c. 12. §. Quar­tum. diuerse matters are deliuered by Councels, not as points of faith, but as pro­bable coniectures: which yet may be, and are taken by some of your owne Clement. V­nic. de summa Trinit. & fide catholica. learned writers, as if they were resolutely determi­ned for certaine truth. These things considered, I see no suffi­cient reason, why it should not be as fit, and safe to learne of the Scripture, Canus loc. com. lib. 5. q. 4. cap. 5. which is the infallible truth, as of any companie of men whatsoeuer.

But you labour to commend to vs this resting on the autho­ritie of the Romish Church by some especiall commodities, that shall ensue thereupon. The first wherof is ease: the 2. certain­tie of knowledge. He shall not need (say you) to straine his wits in studying &c. If ease were not too much delighted in by men of your profession, there would not be such swarms of idle Monks, Fryers, Nuns, nonresident Bishops and Priests amongst you. But true Christians vnderstand, that it was not Gods purpose to prouide so much for their ease, by giuing them leaue to be­leeue [Page 13] at aduenture, hand ouer head, whatsoeuer it should please men to enioyne thē; but that it is his good pleasure, that Psal. 1. 2. [...] 119. per tot. all men should carefully and painfully exercise themselues, night and day, in reading and meditating of the Scriptures. He is too nice and dainty a professor of religion, that is loth to straine his wits to the vttermost, in the study of any thing reuealed by God in Scripture. What shall I say of him, that cals conference and di­sputation about, euen the greatest points of faith and iustificati­on, wasting of words in wrangling: Ouid. Meta­mor. lib. 13. Nec se magnanimo maledicere sentit Achilli? It is strange you should not haue the wit to per­ceiue, that, by this censure, you condemne Lombard, Thomas, and all your schoole men: yea the Pope, and generall councels, Bellar de pontif. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 7. ad obiect. 2. who are bound to vse such meanes, for the finding out of the truth: and (as Sotus. A­pol. contra. Ca­thar. cap. 2. Sotus saith) did vse them in a long and trouble­some disputation, yet forsooth neither the one, nor the other, at Cap. 16. sect 1. post. med. least both together cannot erre. No man then ought to refuse study, or disputation of controuersies in diuinitie, because they are troublesome. Therefore, to mend the matter, you adde that they are also vncertaine: what can be certain, but only reuelation, if the true vse of reason can breed nothing but vncertainty? How idly and vainly did your schoolemen imploy themselues: if all their study and labour must end in vncertainty? What vse is there of Councels for finding out of the truth, since the helpe to be had of them, is debating of matters by reasoning? Do we not find in daily experience, that as flint and steele stric­ken together bring forth fire: so truth is, as it were, beaten out by disputation? It is reported you make great shewes of desiring a disputation. I maruaile to what end: If, when all comes to all, your auditors shall still remaine vncertaine what is true. Shall I go yet farther? You tell vs the Church cannot erre; we beleeue you not: you alledge some places of Scripture to proue it to vs: we say they proue no such matter: what course will you take? It is in vaine to dispute of it: that is, (as you say) to wast words in wrangling about it. See 12. Art. part. 1. art. 5. For that is but an vncertaine meanes to findout the truth. Haue you not brought matters to a good passe, thinke you, when you professe that there is no meanes to discern certainlie whether the Church can erre or no, but onely to take [Page 14] her own word for it? Yea no meanes left to know that she is the Church. For if you will againe fly to the Scriptures; you run into the former difficulties, and end as before in vncertainty. Who would haue to do with such vnreasonable men?

But that you may not seeme to leaue vs in vncertainty; you tel vs, that we may most certainly be instructed in all particular points of controuersies, by onely enquiring and finding out what is holden ge­nerally by the Church for truth, &c. You send vs to the faith of the Church, and namely of the Church of Rome. Which (say we) is onely so farre forth to be yeelded vnto, as it is agreeable to the Scriptures. Neither do we say so onely, but Ambros. in Lucam. lib. 6. cap. 9. Ambrose, long before our time, hath said the like. We are commanded (saith Am­brose) to enquire after the faith of the Church, and that In primis quaerenda. especial­ly: in which Church if Christ be a dweller, Haud dubiè legenda. it is doubtlesse to be made choise of. But if the people be vnfaithful, if an heretical teacher deforme the dwelling; the communion of heretickes is to be auoided, the congregation must be shunned. And a little after: If there be any Church that refuseth the faith, and Possideat. holds not the foundation of the Apostles preaching, it is to be left, lest it taint vs with some spot of Perfidiae. vnbeliefe, or vnfaithfulnesse. Neither will it serue the turne; that you referre vs to that which is generally holden by the Church: for both the generall faith depends vpon the particular beliefe of the Church, or Pope of Rome; and is not to be taken for truth, because it is generally receiued, but because it a­grees with the Romane faith; as we learned before of your Profess fidei art. 60. Monkes of Bourdeaux, who make the Catholique Church to haue communion with the Church of Rome, as the fountaine of truth; and of greater authoritie, in their iudgement, then the Catholicke Church. But let vs admit that you desire, of belee­uing whatsoeuer is generally holden by the Church: I am half a­fraid, this conceit, be it neuer so strong, wil not procure the qui­etnes you promise vs. The causes of my feare are these two. First, I may doubt of such a point, as is not yet determined by the Church; for example, I make question of the Popes authority aboue Councels, or theirs aboue him. How shall I most certain­ly be instructed in the truth of this question? Enquire (say you) and find what is generally holden by the Church. What if the [Page 15] Doctors of your Church cannot agree about this point? That they cannot, it appeares by your owne doubting; Chap. 16. Sect. 1. where you make it questionable, whether the Pope alone or the Pope with a general Councell be free from error. And Bellar. de Concil. autor. lib. 2. c. 13. 14. 15 16. 17. Bellarmine is faine to take a great deale of paines, in answering the arguments of diuers Papists, Nicol. Cusan. Concor. cathol. li 2. cap. 4. 12. Panorm. in c. significasti. ex­tra. de electio. some of them equall to himselfe for learning, iudgement, and authoritie, who make the Pope subiect to ge­nerall Councels. But of this in due place. Say it were generally agreed on: Could I thereby be most certainly instructed what is truth in this point? May not all saue the Pope be deceiued? and perhaps he to; without the aduice and assent of a general Coun­cell: at least, if he haue not in his consistory, vpon good delibe­ration, Abulens. in Math. 18. q. 108 & alij apud Bellar. vbi supra. Christop. de Ca­pite fontium de necessar. correct theol. schol. fol. 53. b. resolued of the matter? What shall it auaile me then to know, that (generally) it is thought the Pope is aboue any Councell? Supposing this point were generally held to be true, though indeed, as I said before, it is denyed both by priuate men & by 2. councels; that of Concil. Basil. sess 2. & Basil, & the other of Concil. Con­stant. sess. 4. Constance which deposed two Popes, Iohn the three and twentieth and Benedict the thirteenth. And Bellar. de Concil. autor. l. 2. ca. 13. §. De­inde. Bellarmine saith, that to this day it remaines in question, euen among the Catholikes. Well, put case all men thought, as Bellarmine, and all such Popish pa­rasites would haue it, what were I the nearer, as long as there can be no certainty of truth, (in your opinion) where nothing is iudicially determined by a Pope, & Coūcell? The second resō of my doubt is, that I know not how to find out, either easily, as you say euery man may, or certainly, though with some paines, what is generally holdē by the Church for truth, in al particular points, wherof I doubt. Shall I looke into the confessions of se­uerall Churches? Where are they to be found? Shall I trauail in­to euery particular country, to learne what they hold of this, or that poynt? What assurance can I get hereby, but from some speciall men? And it is a venture, but they will not all agree in euery point. What remaines? Forsooth that which is all in all; I must beleeue, Watsō, or Clarke, or Blackwel the archpriest, or if al these will not content me, Gerrard, Tesmond, Hall, or, without all doubting, Garnet the superior of the Iesuites, who questi­onlesse is as void of error, as the Pope himselfe. Haue I not, [Page 16] [...] [Page 17] [...] [Page 18] [...] [Page 19] [...] [Page 14] [...] [Page 15] [...] [Page 16] trow you, a sound foundation, to build my faith vpon, when I haue the word of these equiuocating traitours, Priests and Iesu­its? And yet this is the most I can haue in this case, if I be a man vnlearned, especially vnable to reade. Is it possible, any man should be so senslesse as to hazzard his euerlasting saluation, vp­on such an vncertainty, to beleeue he knowes not what, because a Priest, or a Iesuit tels him, that the Church generally doth so beleeue? But what if it fall out, as it may do, that the Priests per­swade him the Church holds one thing; and the Iesuites affirme it maintaines the contrary; how shall a poore soule either settle his iudgement, or quiet his conscience? Quid sequar, aut quem? Were it not a directer, and certainer course, to hold nothing for truth in religion, but that which is proued to vs by plaine testi­monies of Scripture, or certaine consequence of reason, drawne from principles euidently exprest, or apparētly contained in the knowne word of God? The difficulties of translation and inter­pretation shal be handled in their places; See 12. Art. part. 1. Art. 3. & 5. which also, as I shew­ed ere while, accompany al your writings of priuate men, Popes or Councels. Now then if their be many particular points of cō ­trouersies, whereof I may doubt, which are not resolued of by any iudgement of the Church, nor agreed vpon by the learned of your owne side; if I cannot certainly know what is generally held for truth, by the Church, but as I giue credit to the report of a Priest, or Iesuit, whom I know to be partiall in the matter, because he is one of the Popes vassals; subiect to erre, because he is a priuate man; likely enough to lye because he maintaines equiuocation; what madnesse were it for me to forbeare search­ing and studying of the Scriptures, where I am sure the truth of God is to be found, and to lose my time, and labour in seeking what the Church generally holds, and that of those men who perhaps vnderstand not what is held, but as they haue bene in­formed by others, who may themselues haue mistaken the true meaning of the Church in that it holds?

A. D. §. 10.

Of which points also, (If they be desirous) they may haue suffici­ent authority and reason yeelded, by the learned of the same Church; though they should not so desire reason to be yeelded, that without reason be giuen, they would not beleeue at all, or as grounding their [Page 17] faith vpon the reason giuen: sith Christian beliefe ought onely to be grounded, vpon the authoritie of God, speaking by the mouth of the Church, who ought to be beleeued in all matters, without giuing any reason.

A. W.

There is no sufficient authoritie for a man to ground his faith vpon, but the truth of God reuealed. Hieron. ad Math. cap. 23. Whatsoeuer is taught with­out that authoritie, is as easily contēned as alleadged. Therfore Iustin. contra Trypho. p. 207. Iu­stine wils him, that would be setled in the truth, to flie to the Scriptures. And Tertullian de carne Chri­sti. cap. 7. Tertullian reiects that which is brought, if it be not in the Scriptures. Origen in Cantic. hom. 3. Origen saith, Christ is no where to be sought, but in the mountaines of the law and the Prophets. Yea Hieron. in Mich. lib. 1. c. 1. Ie­rome makes the Scriptures the bounds of the church beyond which she may not go. Are you able to shew this authority in all particu­ler points of Controuersie, whereof a man may doubt? Are you not faine in many particulars, to deny the sufficiency of the Scri­ptures, and to run a madding after traditions? What talke you then of shewing sufficient authority? The bestauthority you can alleadge for many matters, is the Popes will, who cannot erre, as you ridiculously imagine. And this authoritie is all the reason you haue in diuers points; except such stuffe as Durandus in Ration. Diui­nor. officior. passim. Durād brings in his Rationale diuinorum officiorum; wherof many of your own men are ashamed.

I had thought your Friers vow of obedience to their superi­ours, or, at least, the Constitut. Iesuit. par. 3. cap. 1. Maffae. lib. 3. cap. 7. Iesuit. Catech. lib. 2, cap. 17. Iesuits special vow of blind fold obedience, head bene the height of all perfection in this life: but I perceiue now, that there is a greater opinion of holinesse in these vowes, then there is cause why. For you tye the obedience of euery Christian in such sort to the authoritie of the Church, and in­deed, of his particular pastor, yea of euery Priest, or Iesuite, that comes licenced by Blackwell, or some new Garnet, that be must beleeue, without enquiring any reasō, whatsoeuer such a fellow shall deliuer to him for truth. This is the obedience, one of your Cardinals speakes of. Obedience without reason (saith Nicol. Cusa­nus. excitat. lib. 6. vbi ec­clesia. Cusan) is full and perfit obedience, namely when a man yeelds obedience, with­out requiring any reason; as Iumentum. a beast (horse or other) obeies his mai­ster. So doth your Popish Clergie vse the people, as men do their Asses; make them beare, and do what they list, yea euen to [Page 18] the attempting of most horrible and incredible treasons against their Soueraigne and countrey. I will not now dispute what a­greement there is betwixt faith and reason; nor whether of them is the former; nor, in what case, a man may require reason; onely that no man may conceiue amisse of our doctrine, concerning our demanding of proofe for that we are enioyned to beleeue; he is to vnderstand, that we aske no farther proofe, but to be perswaded that the point deliuered to vs, is warranted by Scrip­ture. Let it be neuer so much in (seeming) contrary to reason, if it be agreeable to Scripture, we hold our selues bound in con­science to take it for truth, though we be no way able to answer such reasons, as we know are brought against it. Neither yet do we rest satisfied, as soone as some place of Scripture is alledged in a doubtfull matter; but, here indeed we hearken after reason. Yet not to prooue that true, which we find affirmed in Scrip­ture; but to make vs perceiue, that such, and such is the mea­ning of the Scripture. Whatsoeuer the Scripture saith, we ac­knowledge to be absolutely true, so farre as it is deliuered for true by the holy Ghost. But what the sense of the Scripture is, we thinke it must be prooued by the true vse of reason, according to the certain principles of diuinitie, and such helps, as obserua­tion of circūstances, vnderstanding of the tongs, conference of like places, & logical discourse, with such other helps, reasonably affoord vs. But why should you find fault with demanding rea­son, or not be most willing & ready to ioyne it to your authori­ty, since (as Nicol. Cusan. Excitat. lib. 3. Serm. perfectus omnis eris. Cusan saith) faith is not abased by reason, but exalted: euen as water in a vessell supports and lifts vp oyle. As for your proofe, that therfore we may not demand a reason, nor so much as enquire, whether the points that are taught vs, be sutable to the Scripture or no, because Christian beliefe must onely be groun­ded vpon the authority of God speaking by the mouth of the Church: we say that you auouch that which is not true. For Christian faith must be grounded vpon the authoritie of God, speaking by the pens of his Apostles, and Prophets in the Scripture; not vpon the authoritie of any company of men liuing, from time to time, in the world. The Church you dreame of, will, I doubt not, in another part of my answer be shewed to be nothing, but [Page 19] a fancy, and a gay word to deceiue the simple; when as by it you meane no more, but your clergie, or perhaps your Bb. onely assembled in a Councell, or the Pope himselfe alone, who can with no more reason be called the Church, then See 12. Art. part. 1. art. 5. pag. 63. the head may be tearmed the body, or the whole man, if I should grant you, that he is the head, which is both Reynald. confer. with Hart. Clamierus de Oecumen. Pon­tif. lib. 2. arg. 1. false and absurd. The Lord vseth not the authoritie of men, to enioyne what they list for a matter of faith, but their ministery, to beget faith (by decla­ring what he hath reuealed in the Scripture) through euidence of truth, and power of exhortation, testified and made effectuall by the mightie grace of the holy Ghost in the hearts of them that shall be saued.

A. D. §. 11

The which briefe and compendious resolution of faith, whosoeuer will (as euery one may securely, and (as in the discourse following shall be declared) must necessarily embrace: beside the ease, he shall also reape this commoditie, that, cutting off all occasions of needlesse and fruitlesse doubts, questions and disputes, concerning matters of faith: wherin vnsettled minds spend their time and spirit, he shall haue good leisure, and better liking, then ordinarily such vnquiet mindes can haue, to employ his endeuours more fruitfully otherwayes; to wit, in building vpon the firme foundation of stedfast faith, the gold and pre­tious stones, of Gods loue, and other vertues, in practise whereof con­sisteth that good life, which maketh a man become the liuing temple of almightie God: the which temple, Gods spirit will not onely visite, with holy inspirations and blessings oftentimes, in this life, but he wil also inhabite and dwell continually in it, both by grace, here, and by glory, in the other most happy, and euerlasting life.

A. W.

The securitie, that ariseth from resting vpon the authoritie of the Church, is freenesse, not from danger, but frō care. This latter, I confesse, will easily be wrought by this perswasion in the heart of a carelesse worldling, or a man superstitiously ig­norant, if he can be senslesly obstinate inough, in keeping his eyes and eares from seeing and hearing the truth of God, in the Scripture: for to such men 2. Thess. 2. 9. 10. God sends strong delusions to beleeue lyes, that they may be damned which haue not receiued the loue of the truth, that they might be saued. But alas! what shall this ease aduantage them, but onely that they may Prou. 7. 22. go laughing to de­struction, [Page 20] as a foole doth to the stocks and whip? What necessi­tie can there then be, of embracing such a dāgerous resolution?

Besides the ease, you tell vs now of another commodity, that may be reapt by embracing that compendious resolution of faith. Which before I examine, let me here againe put you in minde, that you condemne the greatest part of all your Schoolemens writings, as needlesse and fruitlesse doubts, questions and dis­putes; and call them vnsetled minds, that spend their time, and spi­rits in such matters. And surely such were many of the points they handled, hauing nothing in them but vanitie and vexation of spirit: as may appeare (to name one for all) by their articles and questions vpon In 4. senten. dist. 8. Lombard and In 3. Thom. q. 73. &c. Vide Christop. de cap fontium vbi supra. Thomas, about the Masse. But is anie man to be found so shamelesse, as that he dare call it a needlesse and fruitlesse labour, Ioan. 5. 39. to search the Scripture, for the finding out of the truth, in such matters as are necessarily to be beleeued for the attaining to saluation? Doth the neglect of this dutie bring a man good leisure and liking, to build himselfe vp in the loue of God? What loue of God can there be, where there is no delight in his word? Psal. 1. 2. & 119. 103. 127. Dauid makes it his meditation day and night: and preferres the sweetnesse he finds in it, and the account he makes of it, before honie and the honie combe, fine gold and all maner of riches. But what should I heape vp vnneces­sarie testimonies, in a case not doubtfull? Is it possible they should be Christians, that make so small reckoning of the testa­ment of Iesus Christ? Can he be said truly to loue his father, that neuer cares to see what his fathers loue to him is; but contents himselfe with so much knowledge of it, as men list to impart to him; yea that knowes not whether he had such a father or no, but onely, as other men haue told him? We say not, that euery man is bound vpon hazzard of his saluation, to know euery point of difference betwixt you and vs, or to vnderstand the sense of euery place of Scripture; but that all true Christians must labour for as much knowledge, as, by diligent hearing, reading and meditating of the Scirptures, they can attaine to. Neither shall they, by this study and endeuour, either abate their loue to God, or depriue themselues of the sense of his loue to them. Nay rather both the one and the other shalbe increa­sed [Page 21] when a man shall feele the work of Gods spirit in his heart, kindling in him a desire to vnderstand the mystery of his re­demption by Iesus Christ, to comprehend the infinitenesse of the loue of God the Father, and enlightning him to conceiue that, which, by his owne skill, he neuer were able to discerne. But they that follow your resolution, neuer come rightly to vn­derstant what the loue of God to them is: but if they will con­sider things aduisedly, must needes thinke God hath dealt hardly with them, as with seruants, not with sonnes; whom he shuts out from the knowledge of his will, and view of his wis­dome & maiestie, manifested in the writings of the old and new Testament; affoording them no more of that heauenly Manna, but such chippings and parings, as their idle and prowd pre­lates will vouchsafe to cast them. He, that finds the loue of God toward him, in opening to him the true sense of the Scrip­ture, in matters concerning his euerlasting saluation, doth beare more true loue to God for it, then any Papist can do, that glo­rieth in his blind obedience to men, & maketh the end of his lo­uing God the deseruing of euerlasting life, by his ignorance of the Scriptures. As for true holinesse of life, whence doth it arise, but from the feeling of Gods loue to vs; whereby the spirit of God which dwels in vs, inflames our hearts with the affections of kind children to so louing a father? Can you imagine, that he, who hath at most, but a kind of perswasion, of I know not what holy inspirations & blessings of Gods spirit, vpon some Priests or Iesuits word, can loue God as truely, and feruently, as he, that knowes by the truth of God in the Scripture, Rom. 8. 9. Gal 4. 6. that the spirit of God dwels in all Gods children, Rom. 8. 16. one of whom the same spi­rit assures him he is? Your Papist must liue holily, that he may be­come the temple of God; a true Christian knowes he cannot liue holily, but by the holy Ghosts dwelling in him, and making him the temple of God. And can it be a question, whether of these two loueth God more deatly? But I haue bene too long in your Preface. Now to the Treatise it selfe.

A. D.

A TREATISE OF FAITH, CHAP. I.

That true faith is absolutely necessary to saluation.

A. W.

TRue faith, whether we take it for an assent to the truth of that which God hath reuealed, or for beleeuing in God, is absolutely necessary onely for those which are come to yeares of discretion, not for them that die in their infancie. Which I deliuer, not by way of confutation, but of explication, because I am perswaded you and I agree in this point.

A. D. §. 1.

Whosoeuer hath a true desire to please God, and an earnest care to saue his owne soule, (the which should be the chiefest desire, and care of euery Christian man) must first resolue, and settle himselfe in a sound beliefe of matters of faith: holding it for a most assured ground, That there is a faith, which, whosoeuer wanteth, cannot possibly please God (nor consequently be saued, sith none are saued that do not please God.)

A. W.

Faith being so diuersly taken, both in Scripture and other writings, it had bin fit for him, that professeth plainnesse, either to haue set downe the seuerall significations of the word, or to haue shewed in what sense, he himselfe vseth it, in this treatise. Bellar. de Iustif. lib. 1. cap. 4. §. Iam verò. Bellarmine giues it foure significations. Sander. de Iustif. lib. 2. cap. 2. pag. 174. Sanders, six. Andr. Vega qq. 15. q. 1. Vega nine. Yea this author himselfe (as it shall appeare) taketh it not alwayes in one and the same sense, but diuersly, as it best fitteth his present purpose: especially in one of these two significatiōs, either for the habit, or quality of faith, whereby we are enabled to beleeue; or for the obiect of the same faith, that is, for the things that are to be beleeued. Example we haue of both in this first Chapter. Matters of faith, are such points as we are bound to beleeue. That faith, which, whosoeuer wanteth, cannot please God, is the qualitie of faith in the soule. And these diuers vses of the word, are within the compasse of three lines. To which I may adde a third sense out of this same chapter: where by faith, actuall beleeuing is vnderstood; as in the places of Scripture al­ledged. [Page 23] For i. is not the hauing, but the vsing of faith, that iusti­fieth. So thē where he saith, that Chap. 3. è Ba­silio. cap. 15. p. 85. true faith is absolutely necessary to saluation, his meaning is, that no man can be saued, vnlesse he do assent to the truth of those matters which God hath enioyned all men to beleeue: or, that there are certaine points to be beleeued, without assent to the truth whereof, no man can be saued. But what need was there of this discourse, since both parties that were to con­ferre, agreed about this point without any doubting? Or if there were any doubt, it was on the Papists side, rather then on ours, because Bellar. de Eccles. milit. lib. 3 cap. 10. ad obiect. 1. they require not true faith to make a man a member of the Church, but onely the outward profession of beleefe. Yea Melchior Ca­nus. loc. com. lib. 6. cap. 8. pag. 418. the Pope may be head of the Church, though he beleeue not with his heart. And therfore it may not seeme strange to vs, that a Iesuited Priest in Wisbich castle should affirme, Declar. mot. inter Iesu­it. & sacerdot. pag. 29. That Homo non Christianin. one that was no Christian, might be Pope of Rome. But such a glori­ous title of the necessitie of faith, maketh a goodly shew to the ignorant; yet let no man deceiue himselfe herewithall. For this faith, which the Papists in words so magnifie, is not that beleef in Iesus Christ, whereby a Christian man, resting on him for par­don of his sinne, is iustified: but onely an agreeing to the truth of Scripture. So that a man may be full of this their, faith, and Bellar de Sacr. Bap. lib. 1 cap. 14. §. Quod antem. yet be euerlastingly damned.

A. D. §. 2.

This ground is set downe by S. Paul himselfe, who saith, Sine fi­de impossibile est placere Deo: without faith it is vnpossible to Heb. 11. Ser. 38. de Tempore. please God. The same is confirmed by S. Augustine who saith, Con­stat, neminem ad veram posse peruenire beatitudinem, nisi Deo placeat: & Deo neminem placere posse, nisi per sidem. Fides namue est bonorum omnium fundamentum. Fides est huma­nae salutis initium. Sine hac, nemo ad filiorum Dei consortium peruenire potest; quia sine ipfa, nec in hoc seculo, quis quam iu­stificationis consequitur gratiam, nec in futuro, vitam posside bit aeternam. It is certaine, that none can come to true hap pinesse, vnlesse he please God: and that none can please God, but by faith. For faith is the foundation of all good things. Faith is the beginning of mans saluation. Without this, none can come to the fellowship of the chil­dren of God: because without this, neither doth any, in this world, obtaine the grace of iustification, neither shall [...]e, in the next, pos­sesse [Page 24] eternall life. Thus saith S. Austen.

A. W.

Well might this whole chapter haue bene spared; especially since your proofe is no more direct for your purpose. For Heb. 11. 6. Saint Paule, in that place, speaketh of Defence of Refor. Catho. pag. 202. a true iustifying faith, which presupposeth a beleefe of all things, knowne to be reuealed by God, and requireth, that a man should not onely acknowledge God to be a rewarder of them, that come vnto him, that is, Ioan. 6. 35. beleeue in him, but also, that he should rest vpon him, as vpon such a one: without which, questionlesse no man can please God, though he assent neuer so stedfastly to the truth of those, and such like points. But if you will needs expound the Apostle of assent onely, I must put you in mind, that by this place you can proue necessitie of faith no farther, then for the beleeuing of those two points he specifieth, That God is, and That he is a re­warder of them, that come vnto him. Indeed whosoeuer doubts of these particulars thus declared in Scripture, can neither be saued, nor please God: but it doth not follow hereupon, that therefore there is a necessitie of faith, to the beleeuing of other matters, many whereof haue no dependance vpon either of these.

A. D. §. 3.

And the same might be confirmed out of other Rom. 2. Gal. 3. Eph. 2. Scriptures and Conc. Milev. Can. 4. Concil. Trid. sess. 6. cap. 7. 8. Iren. l. 5. cap. 29. Chrysost. hom. 32. in Ioan. & serm. de Fide & Char. Cyril. Alex. in Ioan. lib. 4. Fathers, but that the matter is cleare enough.

A. W.

The first of these places Rom. 3. 22. Rom. 2. is (I take it) misquoted by the Printer, 2. for 3. In the second there is not one word of faith: the Apostle there labouring to conuince both Gentiles and Iewes of sin against God, by the breach of the law of nature, & Moses. Gal. 2. 16. Ephes. 2. 8. The other two are to be vnderstood of true iustifying faith, which must needs be more then assenting to the truth of that which God speaketh; as the very phrase of beleeuing in Ie­sus Christ proueth: which cannot with any likelihood of reason, be takē for giuing credit to those things which are spoken by, or of our Sauiour Christ. It is one thing to beleeue that God is, Cre­dere Deum, [...]: another thing to beleeue in God, Credere in Deū, [...]: though the latter alwayes [Page 25] imply the former, and the former sometimes the latter. Iren. lib. 5. cap. 29. Irenaeus hath not a syllable of the necessitie of faith, in the place which you quote: and Lib. 4. cap. 10. 14. where he speakes of it, he onely shewes, it was necessary that God should reueale his truth by his Word, which was his Sonne; because, by the light of naturall reason, all things necessary to saluation could not be found out. This knowledge Irenaeus tyeth to the Scriptures. Had it not bene better for you to haue spared these needlesse allegations, in a matter that was out of question?

A. D. §. 4.

Onely this I will adde, that when the Scriptures do require faith, as a thing absolutely necessary to saluation; the common tradition of Councels and Fathers do interprete, not onely that there is a positiue precept of faith, (for if it were but a positiue precept, ignorance might excuse in some case) but that at least some kind of faith is necessa­ria necessitate medij, that is to say, is ordained as a necessary means, without which, no man can attaine saluation in any case: and that in this matter, si quis ignorat, ignorabitur, if any man by ignorance do not know, he shall not be knowne, as S. Paul speaketh. 1. Cor. 14.

A. W.

This interpretation of the Scriptures meaning, in requiring faith as a thing absolutely necessary to saluation, is altogether vnnecessary. For who knowes not, that there can be no saluati­on without that which is absolutely necessary therunto? There­fore it was more then enough to name the common tradition of Councels and Fathers. But such gay termes make a goodly shew in the eies of the simple. But I pray tel me, what haue you got by this learned interpretation? Is there any Christian man so igno­rant, as to deny, that some kind of faith is ordained as a necessary meanes, without which men cannot attaine to saluation in any case? Sure, this can neither hurt vs, who acknowledge faith to be ne­cessary, and (if you speake of iustifying faith) altogether suffi­cient to iustification: nor helpe you, who allow no faith, but that which depends vpon the authoritie of the Church. But the Councels and Fathers say, that kind of faith is necessary. What of that? Do they therefore hold it necessary to saluation for a man to beleeue whatsoeuer the Church shall teach, though without the warrant of Scripture? Can a man in no case attaine to saluation, without this faith? May not the very reading of [Page 26] Scripture, without any ministery of man, be a meanes, by the worke of Gods spirit in his heart, to breed true faith to iustifi­cation and saluation? The necessitie of faith is double. First con­cerning faith, as you take it, for an assent; it is not possible for any man to be saued, that doth not certainly beleeue, that Act. 4, 12. there is no name vnder heauen, by which he may be saued, but the name of Iesus; and that in him there is saluation: yet may a man attaine to saluation, that is not resolued of many points, which are deter­mined by the Church, that is, by any company of men whatso­euer. Secondly, faith is necessary to saluation, because no man can be saued that doth not beleeue in Iesus Christ: that is, that doth not wholy renounce himselfe, and rest vpon Iesus Christ to be iustified by his obedience and sacrifice. But the Lord hath not so tied his owne hands, that he cannot worke both these in the heart of whō he wil, without some man to tell him by word of mouth, that he must thus beleeue. 1. Cor. 14. 38. The proofe you bring out of the Apostle, is vtterly false, both for the tran­slation and application. [...]. The word vsed by the Apostle, is no where to be found either in the passiue or middle voyce, as it must needs be, if it should signifie shall not be knowne; but is meerly a­ctiue, the first present tense of the Imperatiue moode, or (as Ra­mus cals it) the first future infect: and is as much in English, as let him be ignorant: so do the learned of your owne side translate it, Ignoret. Va­tablus. Vatablus, Ignarus esto Pagnin. Pagninus, Ignorabitur: pro ignoret. Caietan. Caietan, Alions. Salm. cōment. in E­uang. proseg: 10 quinquag. 2. can. 17. Salmero; so do they expoūd it: as if he should say (quoth Vatablus. ad 1. Cor. 14. Vatablus) If any man will not know these things, and will be ignorant, let him be ignorant, at his owne peril. I will not striue (saith Cardinal Caietan. ibid. Caietan, with thē that know not these to be the Lords cōmandemēts: but if any man be ignorāt, let him be ignorāt. The same sense giue Chrysost. ad 1. Cor. hom. 37. Chrysostom, Theoph. ibid. Theophylact and Oecumen ibi. Oecumenius. As if the Apostle by a kind of ironicall conces­sion should (as it were) leaue euery man to himself, to think and do in those matters as should please him. And therefore Chry­sostome expounds it by that, 1. Cor. 11. 16 If any man list to be contentious, we haue no such custom, nor the Churches of God. As if he should say, let him that will, refuse to be ruled by me, in these cases: it is e­nough for vs, that the Churches of God and we Apostles haue no such custome. It is further to be obserued, that the Apostle [Page 27] speaks not of such points, as by their being vnknown, might en­danger a mans saluatiō, but of matters of lesse momēt, cōcerning the orderly and decent cariage of things in the publick congre­gation. This Chrys. vbi sup. Chrysostome notes, saying that the Apostle doth not vse thus kind of reproofe euery where, but Quoties nō magna peccata sunt. when the faults are not great. But it is an exceeding great fault for a man not to acknow­ledge the truth of those points, without beleefe whereof he can­not be saued. Therefore in Chrysostome his iudgement, the A­postle speaks not in that place of the want of such a faith, as is so necessary a means to saluation, as that without it, a man cannot attaine thereunto.

A. D.

CHAP. II. That this faith necessary to saluation, is but one.

A. W.

If the plainnesse, pretended in the title of this booke, had bene truly intended, and performed, we should not haue had the contents of this chapter so obscurely deliuered. This faith necessarie to saluation is but one. VVhat should a man make of these words? An ordinarie Reader would thinke, you meant, that there is but one kinde of faith necessarie to saluation; how easie had it bene for you to haue said so plainely, to the capa­citie of the simplest? But it is a humor in men (commonly) to wonder at the depth of that, they vnderstand not; and these great schollers may not abase themselues, to speake like vs of the meaner sort: and yet Aristot. Eth. lib. 1. cap. 2. a wise Philosopher said, That a man should thinke as the wise doe, but speake as the people doe. But we must remember, that in poperie there is most deuotion, where there is least vnderstanding. Well, let vs take the words as they are; once his meaning is, as himselfe afterwards expresseth it, that Bellar. de Roman. Pont. lib. 1. ca. 9. §. 8. the beleefe of one man differeth not from the beleefe of ano­ther: and that Bellar. de Iustif. lib. 1. ca. 5. §. Sed ista. euerie faithfull man beleeueth euerie point, for one and the same reason.

A. D. §. 1.

This faith (which I haue shewed to be absolutely necessarie to sal­uation) is but One onely. This is plainly prooued out of Saint Paul, who saith, Vnus Dominus, vna fides, vnum baptisma, signifying, that, like as there is but one Lord and one Baptisme: so there is but One faith.

A. W.

Faith (as I shewed before) is taken sometimes for the habit, [Page 28] vertue, gift, grace, qualitie, (call it what you will) whereby we haue power to beleeue: sometimes for the points that are to be beleeued. Here the question is of the former, as any man would gather, both by the title, and by some of the proofes. The first whereof is a place of Scripture, Ephes. 4. 5. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptisme: of which I say first, as of the whole Chapter, that it might well haue bene spared, considering that we acknowledge the truth of the matter in the same sense, in which himselfe pro­poūds it: Secondly, I think it had bin a point of good iudgement to haue forborne the allegation of a text so insufficient for the purpose: for the Apostle hath no meaning to shew by those words one faith, that one mans beliefe (taking faith for the in­ward quality) differeth not from another mans; but that all the beleeuing Ephesians, and so all true Christians, professe one and the same religion, as they worship the same Lord, and receiue the same baptisme: and therefore ought to agree in peace one with another, and not Hieron. ad Eph. 4. to make the gifts of God diuersly be­stowed vpon diuers men, an occasion of schisme and diuision. This might you haue learned of Salmer. in Euang. prole­gom. 14. for­mul. 8. Alphonsus Salmero a Iesuite, who brings this place to proue, that nownes, that signifie quali­ties or habits, are taken also for the obiects to which they appertaine: as faith signifieth (saith he) the articles which are beleeued by faith, according to that of Paul: There is one faith. The like hath Bellar. de Iu­stis lib. 1. ca. 4. §. Iam vero. Bellar­mine. By the name of faith (saith he, speaking of this place) the obiect of faith seemes to be noted out. So that the sense is, we all beleeue the same thing, as we haue bene all baptized after the same manner. One faith (saith Catharin. ad Eph. 4. 5. Catharin) because we beleeue one thing. And this interpretation is acknowledged for good, by Lombard, Thomas, Caiet. ad Eph. 4. Lombard, Thomas, and Caietane; though they allow of the o­ther also: which notwithstanding I am the bolder to refuse, be­cause the places you bring out of the fathers, agree better to the former exposition.

A. D. §. 2.

The same is confirmed, with the authoritie of the ancient Fa­thers. Ser. 4. in natiu. Dom. Nisi vna est (saith S. Leo) Fides non est, dicente Apostolo, Vnus Dominus, vna fides, vnum baptisma. Ʋnlesse it be one, it is not faith, sith the Apostle saith, one Lord one faith, one Bap­tisme.

A. W.

Eides integra magnit praesi­dium. Faith that is sound (saith Leo 1. ser. 4. in N [...]ti [...]. ca. 5. In qua nec quicquam au­geri potest. Leo) faith that is true, is a strong bulwarke; to which faith nothing may be added by any man, from which nothing may be taken; because vnlesse it be one, it is not faith: sith the Apostle saith, one Lord, one faith, one baptisme. Is it not eui­dent, that he speakes of the points of faith that are to be belee­ued? For to them may a man adde, (I speake of power, not of lawfulnesse) from them may he take; wheras the qualitie of faith seated in the soule, is free from all such danger. The learned fa­ther had found by experience, that hereticks from time to time tooke vpon them to diminish and augment the faith of the Church: that is, the articles of religion; and therefore denieth them to haue any faith, that hold not firmly and onely the truth of doctrine, according to the faith of the Church, agreeable to Scripture.

A. D. §. 3.

Omni studio (saith S. Hierome) Laborandum est, primùm In cap 4 ad Eph. ocurrere in fidei vnitatem. We must labour with all diligence, first to meete, in the vnitie of faith.

A. W.

Hieron. ad Eph. 4. 13. Ieroms testimonie (wherein either the printer, or you reade vnitatem for vnitate, which is also the word in the text) is to the same purpose, that Leos was. There are (saith Ierome) ma­ny winds of doctrine, and by their blast, when the waues are raised, men are caried hither and thither in an vncertaine course, and with Vario errore. diuers errors; then follow the words you alledge. Therefore we must labour with all diligence, first to meete In vnitate. in the vnitie of faith then in the same vnitie to haue the knowledge of the sonne of God. Which last point is added; because Vide Hieron. ibi ad v. 5. 11. of Sabellius, who denied the distinction of the persons, and against whom Ierome spea­keth professedly in that chapter, as also against Arius, Mace­donius, and Eunomius about the holy Ghost, and our Sauiour Christ.

A. D. §. 4.

Hanc fidem (saith Irenaeus) ecclesia in vniuersum mundum disseminata diligenter custodit, quasi vnam domum inhabitans: & similiter credit ijs, quasi vnam animam habens & vnum cor: & consonanter haec praedicat, & docet, & cradit, quasi vnum possidens os. Nam quamuis in mundo dissimiles sint loquelae, tamen virtus traditionis vna & eadem est. This faith, the Church spread ouer the whole world, doth diligently keepe, as dwelling in one [Page 30] house: and doth belieue in one like manner those things, (to wit, which are proposed for points of faith) as hauing one soule and one heart: and doth preach, and teach, and deliuer by tradition those things, after one vniforme manner, as possessing one mouth. For al­though there be diuers and different languages in the world, yet the vertue of tradition is One and the same. Thus saith this Father. By whose words we may vnderstand, not onely, that there is but one faith, but also, how it is said to be one; which might seeme not to be one, considering there are so many points or articles, which we be­leeue by our faith; and so many seuerall men, who haue in them this faith; yet One (saith this Father) it is, because the whole Church doth beleeue those points in one like manner. That is to say, be­cause the beliefe of one man, is in all points like, and nothing different from the beliefe of another: or, because euery faithfull man belee­ueth euery point or article, for one and the like cause, or for mall rea­son: to wit, because God hath reuealed it; and deliuered it to vs, by his Catholicke Church, to be beleeued, For which reason euery one should beleeue, whatsoeuer he beleeueth as a point of Christian faith.

A. W.

Iren. li. 1. 6. 3. Irenaeus (as the two former) speaketh of the articles of re­ligion, many wherof he had recited in Cap. 2. the next chapter before: whereupon he infers the words, you set downe. The Church (saith he) hauing receiued this doctrine, or preaching of this faith, Et quidem in vniuersum mundum. though it be spread ouer the whole world, keepes it diligently, &c. And this your selfe acknowledge in these words, To wit, which are proposed for points of faith; whereby you expound that which Irenaeus said, The Church beleeues those things; which is all one with his former words in sense. This faith the Church holds. So doth Fevard. ad Iren. lib. 1. cap. 3. annot. 1. Feuardentius one of your learnedst Fryers vnderstand Irenaeus, telling vs, that he sets the consent of all Churches, as a brasen wall that cannot be ouerthrowne, against hereticks. Of the same things (saith Feuardentius) they thinke, beleeue, write and teach the same.

By this place it is manifest that you take faith as it is a quali­tie: because you distinguish the points we beleeue, from our faith, by which we beleeue: and so speaking of faith in that sense, neuer a one of your proofes is either plaine or certaine. But let vs see [Page 31] how you interprete Irenaeus. He saith, The whole Church doth beleeue Similiter. alike: meaning that all beleeue the same things; not that the habit by which they beleeue, is of like force & like strength in euery particular Church or man: which neither belongs to his purpose, nor is true. Intentio cu­mulatior. The intention or inward strength euen of the Catholick faith may be greater in one mā (saith Sotus Apol. contra Cathar. cap. 2. Domingo à Soto) then in another: and according to that increase, our faith. Therefore your former reason which you giue, why faith is said to be one, namely because the beleefe of one man is in all points like the beleefe of another, must be vnderstood of likenesse, in regard of the ar­ticles they beleeue, not of any equalitie in the habit or qualitie it selfe: and in that sense onely doth Irenaeus say that faith is one. Which (saith he) no man by his eloquence maketh greater, no man by his weaknes in speaking of it, lesse. We see (saith Feuardent. vbi supra. an­not. 11. Feuardentius) that Irenaeus vehemently vrgeth the vnitie of doctrine and consent of faith, which we affirmed to be one of the notes of the true Church. Therefore whereas you said of Irenaeus, that he affirmes faith to be one, because the whole Church doth beleeue those things (points of faith) in one like manner: you mistake his meaning, and auow that which is vntrue. It is great pitie, but that such as you are, coming in the name, and by the authority of the Church, should haue absolute credit giuen to that you teach, without doubting or examining it at all.

Your second reason, why faith is said to be one, neither agrees with Irenaeus meaning, as appeares by that which hath bene alreadie said, and in the latter part is false too: for both it is a fansie of yours, that God hath deliuered it to vs by the Catholicke Church, since the Prophets, Apostles and Ministers are not the Catholicke Church, but members of it: the last, all of them seue­rally and ioyntly subiect to many errors though not fundamentall. And Bellar. de Iu­stif. lib. 1. cap. 5. §. Denique quod. the reason of beleeuing, is simply and onely the authoritie and will of God made knowne to vs by the ministerie of men, the holy Ghost enlightening our vnderstanding, and enclining our hearts to beleeue. But of this matter we must speake more at large hereafter.

A. D.

CHAP. III. That this one faith necessarie to saluation, is infallible.

A. W.

If you had bene desirous, that euery man should vnderstand you, instead of infallible, you would rather haue said certaine, or without doubting: especially since your selfe diuers times vsed the word in the passiue signification, for that which may not be doubted of, as being most certainly true. In this sense you say afterward, in this Chapter, that the word of Christ is absolutely infallible: and againe in the end of the Chapter, that we must ac­count the word of faith absolutely infallible.

A. D. §. 1.

This one faith, without which we cannot be saued, must be infal­lible, and most certaine. This is cleare, because faith is that credit or inward assents of minde, which we giue to that which God (who is the prime or first veritie, which neither can deceiue, nor be decei­ued) hath reuealed vnto vs by meanes of the preaching or teaching of the true Church: as we may gather out of S. Paul, when he saith: Quomodo credent ei, quem non audierunt? quomodo audient, sine praedicante? quomodo praedicabunt nisi mittantur? &c. Rom. 10 ergo fides ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum Christi. The sense of which words is that, sith we cannot beleeue vnlesse we heare: nor beare, vnlesse some lawfully sent do preach vnto vs: faith is bred in vs by hearing, and yeelding assent or credit to the word of Christ made knowne vnto vs by the preaching of the true Church, which onely is lawfully sent of God: wherefore like as the word of Christ, being God, is absolutely infallible, so also the credit giuen to this word (which is our faith) must needs be also most certaine and infal­lible.

A. W.

The title and beginning of the Chapter speake of faith, as it is a grace or qualitie; but the conclusion of the Chapter is con­cerning the infallibilitie or certaintie of the word of faith, as you call it, that is, the thing to be beleeued: so do you run from one thing to another. But I may say of this Chapter, as I haue done in part of the former, that we acknowledge the truth of both these points, and thinke your labour in prouing them, altoge­ther vnnecessary: only in the former there may be some doubt. For though it be out of question, that we are to endeuor for the perfection, as of all other graces of God, so of that faith, wherby we assent to the truth of that which God hath reuealed: yet it comes to passe, sometimes by our infirmitie, that our faith is [Page 33] accompanied with doubting. And this (as we heard before) Sotus Apol. contra. Cathar. cap. 2. Sotus grants to be true of a Catholicke faith: and prooues it by the prayer of the Apostles, Luc. 17. 5. Lord increase our faith: to which I may adde the like request of him, that crying with teares said, Mark. 9. 24. Lord I beleeue, helpe my vnbeleefe. But if any man desire to see a liuely patterne of this doubting, let him looke vpon Dauid, as he describes himselfe in the Psalme; Psal. 73. 13. Certainly I haue clean­sed my heart in vaine, and washed my hands in innocency &c. Then thought I to know this, but it was too painfull for me. And after­ward; Vers. 16. so foolish was I and ignorant, I was a beast before thee. And yet the point he speaks of, is a rulde case in Diuinitie, propoun­ded Vers. 22. by him in the beginning of the Psalme: namely that the prouidence of God watcheth ouer the righteous for their good, and that he will be auenged of the wicked.

That faith which some Diuines call historicall, is indeed such an assent, & goeth alwaies before iustifying faith; at the least, for the beleeuing of so much, as is necessarie to iustification. Which I note by the way, that no man may be deceiued with an opi­nion, that iustifying faith is an assent to the truth of Gods word: whereas it is quite of another nature, and hath place in the will, rather then in the vnderstanding. If you had said, that God hath reuealed his truth to vs by the preaching of them that were in the true Church, you had spokē more plainely and truely. But how the true Church, or any Church at all, should be said to preach, I professe, I vnderstand not. Neither can any such thing be ga­thered out of Rom. 10. 14. Saint Paule, who speakes not a word of the Church, true or false. And to say the truth, what a strange kind of speech is it to say, The Church is sent to preach, when as onely the Ministers preach, and not the Church: vnlesse perhaps Iohn Baptist only for a time, was the Church: whē he preached alone, before our Sauiour was baptised. But this same Church is a goodly faire word, and couers a great many foule errours, with the very name of it: The Apostles who were they that God employed at the first beginning of the Gospell, both in preaching and writing, were vndoubtedly of the true Church, both in respect of their election to euerlasting life, and of the truth of the doctrine they held. It is also true that God ordinarily [Page 34] begetteth faith in the hearts of men, by the ministers of the true Church. But it is not true that such an assent as you speake of, cannot be wrought in a man by the ministery of Schismaticks or Hereticks, though they be perhaps, in neither respect, a­ny members of the true Church. Did not Arius, Macedonius, Eutyches, Nestorius, and many other wretched hereticks assent in generall, to the truth of God in Scriptures, because they held it to be the very true word of God? And might not men by their preaching be brought to the same faith? For our parts, we make no doubt, but that, in the middest of ignorance and superstition, many came to this faith by the preaching of your Antichristian Priests, and so do at this day; yea we adde further, that we doubt not, many haue (wee are sure they might and may) attaine to the same faith (what if I say to iustifying faith too) without any preaching, by the reading of the Scriptures. For since it is partly the matter, that must argue the Scripture to be the word of God, partly the maiesty which any man may dis­cerne in the manner of writing: vnlesse it can be poooued out of the Scripture, that the holy Ghost will not worke by these vpō the heart of him that readeth, but only of him, that heareth a man expound this word vnto him, I see no sufficient reason, why faith may not be had by reading, where Gods ordinance of preaching is onely wanting, and not wilfully neglected.

But you will say, the Apostle tyeth faith to hearing. First, this is little aduantage for you Papists, amongst whom (til shame & emulation draue you to it, within these last fiftie or threescore yeares) no man could ordinarily heare the word of God in any tongue, that he vnderstood; and so all your hearing was to no purpose. Secondly, if hearing be sufficient, where there is no­thing but reading, without any exposition of that, which is read; giue me some reason, why reading should not be more sufficiēt; since he that readeth, may easier vnderstand, and better weigh that, he readeth, then he that doth onely heare an other reade. But of this point I shall haue occasion to say more Chap. 9. here­after.

Now for the second point, that we cannot heare, vnlesse some lawfully sent, that is (as you vnderstand it) vnlesse some sent by [Page 35] the authority of the Church, do preach vnto vs; first how shal this warrant the Apostles preaching, of which S. Paul here speaketh? For who knowes not, that Matt.. 28. 19 they were sent immediatly by our Sauiour, & not by any ordinary course in the Church? Secondly it seemes you fortet, what is written in Ruffin. histor. eccles. lib. 1. cap. 10. the Ecclesiasticall histo­ries of a captiue maid, that conuerted the queene of Iberia, she the king, & he his countrey. Theodorct. lib. 1. histor. eccles. cap. 22. What is recorded of Aedesius & Frumentius, by whom the Indians were brought to the know­ledge of the Gospell. How Eusebius hist. eccle. lib. 6 cap. 19. Alexander Bishop of Ierusalem, and Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea defend Origens preaching publickly, when as yet he was not allowed by the Church for a minister. Which fact of his they maintaine by the like ex­amples of Euelpis, Paulinus, and Theodorus, who had prea­ched without any ordinarie sending: And it is verie likely (say they) that the same hath beene done in other places, though we know it not.

How little care you had of writing plainely, any man may guesse by this one sentence; wherein this needlesse word infal­lible is vsed in two diuers senses: for certainty of truth, where you speake of that we are to beleeue; for assurance of beleefe, without doubting, where you meane faith it selfe.

A. D. §. 2.

Fides (saith S. Basile) est, eorum quae dicta sunt, assentiens ap­probatio, sine vlla haesitatione, cum animi persuasione de eo­rum Note: Ser de Fidei confessione. veritate, quae Dermunere praedicata sunt. Faith is a con­senting approbation of those things, which are said; & an vndoubted perswasion of minde, of the truth of those things, which are preached by the gift of God. Fides, (saith Saint Chrysostome) dici non po­test, nisi circa ea quae non videntur, ampliùs quàm circa ea Hom. 12. in e­pist. ad Hebrae­os. quae videntur, certitudinem quis habeat. It cannot be called faith, vnlesse one be more certaine of those things which are not seene, then of those things which are seene. The reason whereof, the same Saint Hom. 83. in Matth. Chrysostom declareth in an other place, saying: Superet sensum & rationem nostram sermo ipsius (Dei:) nam verbis eius fraudari non possumus: sensus verò noster deceptu facillimus est. Let Gods word (saith he) surmount our sense and reason: for we can not be deceiued by his words, but our sense is most easily deceiued.

A. W.

These testimonies are more for ostentation to shew your lear­ning, then for necessitie to confirme a matter not doubted of. Yet I must put you in minde, that these descriptions and com­mendations of faith are not brought by the authors to con­demne all as cast-awaies, that sometimes doubt, but to declare what faith is in it owne nature.

A. D. § 3.

Sith, therefore, our faith is grounded on the word of God, reuea­led to vs by Iesus Christ our Lord, speaking by the mouth of the Church, as he saith himselfe, Luc. 10. Qui vos audit, me audit: he that heareth you, heareth me: we ought to receiue the word of faith prea­ched by the true Church, 1. Thes 2. not as the word of man, but, as it is truely, the word of God; and consequently, we must account it a thing most certaine, and absolutely infallible.

A. W.

Our Sauiour Christ doth no farther speake by the mouth of the Church, then the Church speakes according to the Scrip­ture, whom so speaking, whosoeuer heareth, without doubt he heareth God; both because it is the word of God that is spoken, and because God hath commaunded vs to heare them that so speake. But here againe for a shew, the name Church is brought in, whereas Luc. 10. 16. the testimonie belongs onely to the A­postles (if you take it for them, that must absolutely be heard, without all doubting of that, they deliuer) and to Bellor. de Roman. pontif lib. 4 cap 16. § Quae verba. euery one of them seuerally, who doubtlesse is not the Church; or else to all Ministers of the gospell from time to time, but not without that restraint, I mentioned before, of speaking agrea­bly to the word. If you will stretch the place to other beside the Apostles, in that point of being absolutely heard, shew some reason why euery Pastor and licensed Preacher may not claime the same priuiledge of being heard and beleeued, whatsoeuer he teach. But that this is absord, it may appeare. because Mat. 24. 24. our Sauiour Christ foretold, that there should come false prophets, who alwaies are to be discerned by their Mat. 7. 16. doctrine. And who is ignorant, that the greatest hereticks, had (many of them) lawfull calling in the Churches, and yet ranne into monstrous heresies? Doth not Mat. 23. 3. our Sauiour also will the Iewes to heare the Scribes and Pharisies? what? absolutely? If they will teach their owne deuises (saith August. ad 100. tract. 46. Austin) heare them not, do not as they say. [Page 37] But what name I Austen? Doth not Christ himselfe giue the same charge? Mat. 16. 6. Vers. 12. Take heed and beware of the leuen of the Scribes and Pharises. And what is their leuen but their doctrine, by the holy Ghosts owne exposition? Iansenius in concor. E [...] [...]ang. cap. 80. Iansenius Bishop of Gant ex­pounds the place of the Apostles; and though he gather from thence the power of the Ecclesiasticall gouernours, yet he re­straineth it to their inioyning of that which is right. Wee are to note (saith he) how great the authoritie of Ecclesiasticall gouer­nours is; since we must obey them, no otherwise then we must Christ, Recta praeci. pientions. when they commaund those things, that are right. Doe you not see your owne Bishops limitation vpon this verie place, you al­leage? The Cyrillus apud Thomam in Ca­tena. Irenaeus lib. 3. in prae­f [...]. ancient writers expound the place of the Apostles. Your Lyra ad Luc. 10. 16. glosse requires deuotion and reuerence to the hearing of Christs Disciples, for the reuerence of God, whose doctrine princi­pally it is, which they deliuer: So that they, which preach not Christs doctrine, cannot looke for so much as reuerence. There fore true doctrine is alwaies to be receiued, whosoeuer deliuer it, whether he be lawfully sent or no, and false doctrine neuer, though it be preached by a Pope; who being no Apostle, can shew no charter for his being kept from error, though his priue, and your flatterie, exalt him aboue all saue Peter.

A. D.

CHAP. IIII. That this one infallible faith necessary to saluation, must also be entire.

A. W.

Whereas you say obscurely in your title, Faith must be entire, your meaning is, that a Christian must beleeue all things ap­pointed by God, & propoūded by the Church to be beleeued. Wold you not haue said so, if you had loued plainnesse? What if I should ask you a reason, why the title of this Chapter is not set downe in the same forme the rest are? Faith is necessary, Chap. 1. is one, Chap. 2. is infallible, Chap. 3. But in this 4. Chap. must be entire. Can you giue me a sufficient reason of this difference?

A. D. §. 1.

This one infallible faith, without which we cannot please God, must also be entire, whole and sound in all points: and it is not suffi­cient to beleeue stedfastly some points, misbeleeuing or not beleeuing obstinately other some, or any one.

A. W.

There are two things to be considered in your propounding of this questiō, concerning the entirenesse of faith: in what sense all points must be beleeued, and what it is to misbeleeue, or obstinately not to beleeue. Whatsoeuer is deliuered in Scriptures, is a matter of faith, because it is the word of God, who can neither deceiue, nor be deceiued, and hath propounded it to men for a truth to be beleeued. But yet there is a great difference betwixt things set downe in Scripture: and that difference is in 2. respects. For nei­ther are all points therein true, in the like sense, Thom. opus. 3. in compend. Theol. cap. 1. Holcot. in 1. q. 1. ad 6. argum. princip. et in 3. q. 1. art. 6. prim. neither is there like necessitie of beleeuing euery particular. Concerning the former, the generall reason why all things in the Scriptures are true, is this, because all things therein are recorded, & deliuered by God for true; therfore questionles they are true: yet (as once before I noted) onely so farre forth true, as they are intended to be held for true by the holy Ghost, the author of the Scripture. Whatsoeuer is registred therein by vvay of report, as a story, is to be taken as true, onely in respect of story, that we may not doubt whether such or such things were done and said, or no. There is no doubt to be made, but that the fiue bookes of Mo­ses, the bookes of Iosua, Iudges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chroni­cles, &c. containe a true and certaine story of those things whereof they intreate. But in these bookes we haue some wor­thy and holy speeches of godly men: some leud and blasphe­mous words of profane wretches. The former are to be ac­knowledged for the truth of God euery way. As for example, it is true that Gen. 49. 1. 2. &c. Iacob vttered those prophesies of the twelue Patriarks his sonnes; and it is also true, that those prophesies of his, were the very truth of God. It is as true, that 2. Reg. 18. 30 & 19. 4. 6. Rabsha­keth deliuered those blasphemous threanings against the Lord and his people; but it is not true, that those words came from God, as Iacobs did: so Iacobs were to be taken as euery way true; Rabshakeths onely as truly reported from his mouth.

Now that all points are not alike necessary to saluation, no man can make any question, if he remember that a man may be saued, though he haue neuer heard of many things that are re­corded in the Scripture: which is the case generally of the grea­test part both of Protestants and Papists, and hath alwayes bene [Page 39] the case of Christians in all ages. As for misbeleeuing, or not be­leeuing obstinately, one of these differs a great deale from the o­ther, and the latter of the two was needlesse, if the former can be proued. For if mistaking some point of doctrine be damnable, it is out of doubt that obstinate refusing to beleeue the same point, must needs make a man much more liable to damnation.

But indeed misbeleeuing is not in all points so dangerous, though of it selfe as a sinne, it is subiect to be punished Rom. 6. 23. with the eternall wrath of God in hell fire. To make plaine that I say, A man may misunderstand diuers places of Scripture, and there­upon hold that to be true which is false, and yet be saued for all this error. For example, that I may giue instāce in a matter of no small importance. How many Christians, yea how many great Diuines haue bin deceiued, in the vnderstanding of Mat. 1. 1. 2. &c. Luk. 3. 23. our Sauior Christs genealogie, and by their misconceiuing of the Euange­lists, haue fallen into no smal error, that Salomon was the father of the Messiah? By which opinion (to omit many other things that I may not be too long) the truth of a prophesie vttered by Ier. 17. 29. 30 Ieremy, which makes Ieconiah childlesse, hath bin ouerthrown; from whom our Sauiour must needs haue descended, if he had bene the sonne of Salomon, as some erroneously gather out of Saint Mathew; and not of Luk. 3. 31. Nathan, as it is manifest by S. Luke, he was. Shall I exemplifie this matter in another point? The Apostles themselues for a long time, euen Act. 1. 6. til after the ascension of our Sauiour into heauen, and & 2. 2. 3. till the comming of the holy Ghost vpō them, looked for the establishing of an earthly king­dome in this world by their Lord and maister. Did they not slip into this error by misbeleeuing the Psal. 72. 17. Dan. 2. 44. prophesies of the old testament, concerning the Messiahs kingdome? yet were they out of danger of damnation, and in the state of grace all that time, because Ioan. 1. 29. & 6. 68. 69. they rested on our Sauiour Christ, as the spiritu­all Sauiour of their soules, that should tak away their sinnes, and bring them to euerlasting life in heauen, though they erro­neously hoped for a temporall kingdome also. The other branch of this distribution, which concernes obstinately not be­leeuing, though it be a farre greater sinne, then the former: yet it is not such, that it doth absolutely cut a man off from saluation. [Page 40] This obstinate refusall to beleeue, is either of ignorance, or of wilfulnesse: if a Christian stand stifly in some false opinion, which he certainly holdeth to be true, in his error; the fault of his iudgement may continue, without the damnation of his soule. If wilfully he refuse to beleeue that truth of God, which he discerneth, no man can promise him any hope of saluation, without true repentance. This I speake vpon a supposition, that it is possible for a man not to beleeue that, which he perceiueth to be true, though indeed there is a contradiction implied herein. For to beleeue is to assent to the truth; which a man can­not chuse but do, that sees it: that is, no man can think the same thing, in the same respects, true and false. But this not beleeuing in such a case, is a frowardnesse of the heart, not yeelding to ac­knowledge that he knowes, rather then a false opinion in the braine, by which a man is misled. We are further to obserue, that there is a second difference in this point, in regard of the matter, which is not beleeued. If a man in his ignorance deny to beleeue, that there is but one God, that there are three persons, that Iesus is the Messiah, that we are redeemed by him, that we are iu­stified by faith without workes, or any other fundamentall point of religion; he doth thereby shut himselfe out from all possibi­litie of saluation, as long as he continues in these errors, or any of them. But other points there are, and those many more in Thomas opusc. comp. Theol. c. 1 number, which a man, by reason of his ignorance, may obsti­nately refuse to beleeue, and yet not be excluded out of hea­uen for such his error. Let the former examples serue for breui­ties sake: I haue bene longer then I would or meant to be; but I was desirous to speake plaine, in a matter of such weight. The conclusion is, that howsoeuer it is indeed a sinne, and so (in it selfe) damnable, to misbeleeue, or not beleeue all and euery thing which God hath reuealed; yet a man may be in the state of grace and saluation, though he misbeleeue, or (through ignorance) obstinately not beleeue something so reuealed. In a word, Not right beleeuing is neuer able to depriue a man of saluation, but when that we beleeue amisse, is a maine point of saluation: ob­stinately not beleeuing onely then shuts vp heauen against vs, when either the points we will not beleeue, are fundamentall, [Page 41] or our refusing to beleeue, is against our owne iudgement and conscience. If you had no further reach in this Chapter, we were of the same mind with you: but in propounding the rea­son of your assertion, you bewray a further matter, then at the first a man would imagine.

A. D. §. 2.

The reason of this is, because euery point of doctrine, yea euery word that almightie God hath reuealed, and by his Church pro­pounded vnto vs to be beleeued, must, vnder paine of damnation be beleeued: as we may gather out of Saint Marke; where when Mark. 16. our Sauiour had giuen charge to his Disciples, to preach the Gospell to euery creature (the which charge he also gaue in Saint Mathew, saying: Docete omnes gentes, &c. docentes eos seruare omnia Math. 28. quaecunque mandaui vobis: Teach all nations, &c. teaching them to obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commaunded you,) he pro­nounceth indefinitely, Qui non crediderit, condemnabitur: He that shall not beleeue, shall be condemned: not excepting, or distin­guishing any one point of doctrine, as needlesse to be beleeued, or which a man might at his pleasure misbeleeue, or doubt of without danger.

A. W.

Your first reason lieth thus:

  • If euery point and word reuealed by God, and propounded by his Church to be beleeued, must, vnder paine of damnation, be beleeued, then faith must be entire.
  • But euery word so reuealed and propounded, must, vnder paine of damnation be beleeued.
  • Therefore faith must be entire.

The conclusion of this Syllogisme is acknowledged by vs for a certaine truth, Faith must be entire: but the premisses seeme liable to iust exception. For first, the antecedent and the conse­quent To the Pro­position. of the proposition are all one; and so the proofe, and that which is proued, differ not. What is it to say, euery word reuea­led by God, must be beleeued, but to affirme, that faith must be en­tire? Indeed if the questiō were of faith as it is a quality, then the consequent might be inferred vpon the antecedent: but since we speake of the things to be beleeued, both are one. If euery such word must be beleeued, then we must beleeue euery such word. It is the same faith, by which all, and by which some is belee­ued: [Page 42] but as the obiect or things beleeued make a difference, which reacheth not to the faith it selfe within the soule.

Secondly the Assumption, though it be true, yet doth it con­taine something that had need to be warily considered. First To the As­sumption. you so couple the reuealing by God, and the propounding of a thing to be beleeued by the church, as if the latter were no lesse necessary then the former, to make a matter of faith: wheras al things that God hath reuealed, ought to be beleeued, whether the Church propoūd them for such or no. For the reason why they are to be beleeued, is, that they proceed from God, who must needs be credited in whatsoeuer he shal say; in respect both of his truth in speaking, and his authoritie in commaunding obedience. But Stapl. contra Whitak. de au­torit. script. cap. 1. sect. 1. 2. you Papists make the authoritie of the Church, the very foun­dation of our beleefe. The Scripture (you say) is in it selfe the word of God, and so worthy of all credit; but to vs it is not so, but by the authoritie of the Church; vpon the credit whereof we take it for the word of God. Yea farther, you limit faith in particular points, by the determination of the Church, so that no man shall be bound to beleeue, as a point of faith, any doctrine neuer so cer­tainly proued out of Scripture, vnlesse the Church haue resol­ued of it, that it is true: and whatsoeuer is by the Church con­cluded for true, must be acknowledged for such by faith, though it be beside or against the Scripture, which (as Cusan. ad Bohem. epist. 2. Cardinall Cu­san is not ashamed, nor afraid to say) is fitted for the time, and di­uersly vnderstood. So that it may at one time be expounded one way, according to the generall current order of the Church, and the same order being changed, the Scripture also is changed. And why should it not, if (as Syl [...]est. Prie­rias cont. Luth. another Papist saith) the holy Scripture take strength and authoritie from the doctrine of the Church and Bishop of Rome? The Apostles (saith Pigh. Hier. lib. 1. cap. 2. Pighius) haue written certaine things, not that their writings should be aboue our faith, but that they should be vnder it. But what should I stand to recite your blasphemies in this kind, which are many and monstrous? That which is not to day a point of faith, shall be one to morrow, if it please the Pope to propound it to be beleeued.

It is farther to be considered in your Assumption, that al­though whatsoeuer God reuealeth is to be beleeued, vpō paine [Page 43] of damnation: yet a man may be saued without beleeuing euery thing so reuealed; alwayes prouided that he do not against his conscience obstinately refuse to acknowledge any truth.

  • If our Sauiour haue said, that he which beleeueth not all that his Apostles teach shall be condemned; then euery word so reuealed and propounded, must be beleeued, vnder paine of damnation.
  • But our Sauiour hath said so:
  • Therefore euery word so propounded must be beleeued, vnder paine of damnation.

This is a proofe of your Assumption; wherein for the con­sequence To the Pro­position. of your proposition, I would haue all men vnder­stand, that although you craftily imply therein a comparison of equalitie, betwixt the charge of beleeuing the Apostles, and all other Ministers allowed by you, whom you call by the name of the Church, to deceiue simple people with so glorious a title: yet the truth of that proposition depends not thereupon, but onely vpon the necessitie of beleeuing that which God hath reuealed. It is a certaine truth, that God is to be beleeued in all things he hath reuealed, by whom soeuer he propound it: & in this respect the consequence of your proposition is true: That if it were damnable not to beleeue the Apostles deliue­ring that which God had reuealed, it is also damnable not to giue credit to Ministers now, when they propound that to be beleeued, which God hath reuealed; because the reason of be­leeuing is, that God hath reuealed the things that are deliue­red. But yet here are two differences to be obserued: first, that it is lesse sinne to doubt of that, which any man, besides the A­postles, deliuers, though it be the word of God, then to make question of the same matter vttered by the Apostles: because they spake immediatly by the direction of the spirit, and there­fore could not possibly erre in any point; whereas all other men are subiect to error, and their doctrine to examination, ere it need be credited. Secondly, we must remember, it doth not fol­low, that if our Sauiour said, whosoeuer beleeued not the Apo­stles, should be damned; then he that beleeues not the Ministers now, in all they propound to be beleeued, should be therefore [Page 44] liable to condemnatiō. I haue stood the more vpon this propo­sition, because the consequence being true, may breed an er­ror in the conceit of many, if the reason of it be not truly vn­derstood.

Your Assumption or minor is thus to be limited, according To the As­sumption. to that which I before deliuered, He that beleeues the A­postles spake immediatly by the inspiration of the spirit of God, and yet doubts of the truth of some things they prea­ched, cannot without reforming this error be saued; because he holds that the holy Ghost may inspire an vntruth. No more can he that doth not beleeue they spake by such inspiration. For of them our Sauiour hath absolutely said, Luk. 10. 16. He that despiseth you, despiseth me. The second limitation is about the things themselues. The ignorance of some points deliuered by the A­postles, vtterly excludes a man out of heauen: some other again may be vnknowne, and a man, notwithstanding that his igno­rance, be saued. Therefore though our Sauiour except no point, nor distinguish betwixt matters of doctrine, yet the not beleeuing of some, is no farther damnable, then a man doth wilfully refuse to beleeue that, which he confesseth to be truth in his heart; or at the least, in which he thinkes the Apostles were deceiued, or which he despiseth as needlesse, and so con­demnes the wisedome of God, in propounding it to be be­leeued.

A. D. §. 3.

And this not without reason: for not to beleeue any one point whatsoeuer, which God by reuealing it, doth testifie to bee true, and which, by his Church, he hath commaunded vs to beleeue, must needs be damnable, as being a notable iniurie to Gods veritie, and a great disobedience to his will. But all points of faith are thus testi­fied by God, and commaunded to be beleeued; otherwise they be not points of faith, but of opinion, or some other kinde of knowledge. Therefore all points of faith must vnder paine of damnation, be be­leeued; beleeued (I say) eyther expresly and actually, as learned men may doe: or implicite and virtually as vnlearned Catholicks commonly doe: who beleeuing expresly those articles, which euerie one is bound particularly to know, doe not in the rest, obstinately doubt, or hold some errour against the Church, but haue a minde [Page 45] prepared to submit themselues in all things, to the authoritie of the Church, (which they are sure is taught and directed by the spirit of God) and doe in generall hold for vndoubted truth, whatsoeuer the Catholicke or vniuersall Church doth beleeue.

A. W.

Now followeth the second proofe of your assumption, in this manner:

  • Euerie notable iniurie to Gods veritie, and disobedience to his will, is damnable.
  • But misbeleeuing, or absolutely not beleeuing any one point re­uealed by God, and propounded by his Church to be beleeued, is a notable iniurie to Gods veritie, and a great disobedience to his will.
  • Therefore misbeleeuing or obstinately not beleeuing any one point reuealed by God, and propounded by his Church to be beleeued, is damnable.

To let passe this craftie conueyance, whereby you still shuffle in the Church, whereas without it, the matter is as true, and To the as­sumption. the proposition as perfect: I answer to your assumption; that all misbeleeuing, or obstinately not beleeuing is not a notable in­iurie to Gods truth, nor a great disobedience to his will: where it proceeds simply of ignorance, and not of wilfulnesse; ex­cept in such cases as I shewed in the end of the last section: which I speake, not to excuse any man, as if he did not sinne, in misbeleeuing, or as if there were some sinne not deadly, ac­cording to your erroneous conceit: but onely to distinguish notable iniuries, and great disobedience from some kinde of misbeleeuing.

The conclusion is thus to be conceiued: That misbeleeuing is in it selfe damnable, not, that no man can be saued, which mis­beleeueth. Of the con­clusion.

This distinction of beleeuing expresly, and implicitly, as you terme it, confirmes part of that, which I haue hitherto said: for by your confession, there are some points, to the beleefe where­of a general faith will not serue the turne, but a man must know the particulars, and assent actually to the truth of them. For example, it is not enough for a man to beleeue in grosse, that he must be saued by such meanes onely, as God hath reuealed; and [Page 46] the Church hath propounded to be beleeued; but it is absolutely necessarie to saluation, that he know what the Church holdeth in this case, concerning redemption by our Sauiour Christ; and in his heart acknowledge the truth thereof. Againe, there are many other points, which, so a man neglect not the meanes to know them, may be vnknowne, and beleeued onely in generall, without danger of damnation, by reason of such ignorance. Now this generall beleefe, is not (as you falsely say) to be folded vp in the faith of the Church; but to be tied to the Scripture; all things wherein I acknowledge to be most true, and beleeue all points whatsoeuer, as they are eyther ex­pressed, or contained in Scripture: howsoeuer I be ignorant what is true, touching, (perhaps) very many particulars.

To the authoritie of the Church, I willingly submit my selfe thus farre, as that I hold it a sinfull presumption for me, or any man, eyther to compare my priuate opinion, with the generall iudgement of other Christians, especially Ministers, or to con­demne, or suspect that of falshood, which they deliuer, vnlesse I haue apparent proofe for the one, and great likelihood for the other. In which cases I set not my owne conceit, against the doctrine of the Church, but preferre the truth of God before the opinions of men. As for any infallible authoritie in the Church, vpon supposall of such a certaine direction by the spi­rit of God, I hold it neither for true, nor probable, as shall ap­peare hereafter. In the meane while, I desire the Reader to consider these few testimonies cōcerning the authority of men. Other writers (saith August. ad Hieron. Epist. 19. Austin) I reade with this prouiso, that, be their learning or holinesse neuer so great, I will not thinke a matter true, because they haue thought so; but because they haue bene able to perswade me, eyther by other Canonicall writers, or by some likely reason. In Aug. de vnit. Eccles. cap. 10. an other place, We may not consent to Bishops, though they be Catholicke, if at any time they be deceiued, so that they iudge contrarie to the Canonicall Scripture of God. Of ne­cessitie (saith Origen. in Ier. Hom. 1. Origen) must we call for the testimonie of the Scriptures; for our senses and declarations, without them, as witnes­ses, haue no credit. And this charge Basil. in mo­ral. Reg. 72. Basil layeth vpon vs, that, when we heare, we examine the points that are deliuered by our tea­chers, [Page 47] and receiue those that are agreeable to the Scriptures, and reiect those that are diuers from them. Hieron. ad Ierem. cap. 7. Other things that men in­uent of their owne head (saith Ierome) as it were by Apostolicall tradition, without the authoritie and witnesse of the Scriptures, the word of God smiteth.

A. D. §. 4.

Secondly, that man which beleeuing some points, should denie others: cannot while he doth thus, haue one and the same faith, which other Christians haue. Sith he doth not (as Irenaeus requireth to the vnitie of faith) beleeeue the points of faith in a like; but in a dif­ferent manner from other Christians. That is to say. Neither doth he beleeue all the points which they doe: neither doth he beleeue those points wherein he doth agree with them, for the same reason that they doe; that is to say: He doth not beleeue those points which he seemeth to beleeue precisely, for that God hath reuealed them, and by his Church propounded them: for if he did, sith this reason is common to all points of faith, he should assoone beleeue all, as any one. He hath not, therefore (I say) one and the same faith, which other Christians haue, (who notwithstanding haue the true faith.) And sith as S. Leo said, Nisi vna est, fides non est: If it be not one faith, it is no faith at all: It followeth that he, that belee­ueth not entirely all points of faith, hath no faith at all: and conse­quently, sith one that hath no faith, can no way be saued: it is eui­dent that he that beleeuing some articles, doth obstinately denie o­thers cannot be saued.

A. W.

Your second reason, to prooue that faith must be entire, is thus to be framed.

  • If faith cannot be one, vnlesse it be entire, then it must be en­tire.
  • But faith cannot be one, vnlesse it be entire.
  • Therefore faith must be entire.

I denie the consequence of your proposition. For it is not To the pro­position. absolutely necessarie to saluation, that faith should be one, in such sort as you imagine. There is indeed an absolute neces­sitie, that all men should agree in the beleefe of certaine points, without the beleefe whereof, there can possibly be no saluation. But that there should be such an agreement in all points, though it be necessarie positiuely, to speake as you doe, because [Page 48] Gods truth is in euery particular to be beleeued; yet it is not re­quired as a meanes, without which a man cannot be saued, as I haue already shewed.

I grant the assumption in that sense you vnderstand being one; otherwise I denie it. Faith may be one in all points necessary to To the as­sumption. saluation, and yet not entire in beleeuing all things that God hath re­uealed.

To your allegation out of Irē. li. 1. ca. 3 Irenaeus, I answered Chap. 1. sect. 5. before: the exposition you make of it, as I then signified, in regard of the latter part thereof, cannot be drawne out of Irenaeus, who speakes not a word of the reason whereupon men beleeue, but onely of the principall articles of faith euery where beleeued; in regard whereof there was, as he saith, an vnitie of beleefe.

Neither is your proofe sufficient, if we grant your exposition. For a man may beleeue that which he doth beleeue, because God hath reuealed it, and in that respect haue one faith with o­ther Christians, and yet doubt of, or denie some other points which are commonly held; because he cannot perswade him­selfe that they are reuealed by God: though it be generally so beleeued. I may say the like of matters propounded also by the Church, because the decrees thereof are not so plaine, but that they may admit diuers senses. But I respect not that clause, as being a point foisted in by you, without any warrant of Scripture or reason.

Though it be no great matter what you build vpon so slippe­rie a foundation: because it cannot long stand: yet perhaps it is not amisse to push it downe presently, that it may not con­tinue to make a shew. Thus you build.

  • He, that hath no faith at all, cannot be saued.
  • But he, that beleeues not entirely all points of faith, hath no faith at all.
  • Therefore he that beleeuing some articles, doth obstinately denie any others, cannot be saued.

I denie your assumption. A man may doubt of, and denie To the as­sumption. many points as I haue shewed, and yet both haue faith, and be saued. Your proofe to the contrarie out of Leo was an­swered Chap. 2. sect. 3. before.

[Page 49] Your conclusion is not so large as it should be. For you re­straine Of the con­clusion. it to obstinately not beleeuing: which cannot barre a man from saluation, but in those points alone, which are necessarie as meanes, to bring him to euerlasting life.

A. D. §. 5.

Thirdly, to beleeue some points of faith, and to denie others, or any one, is heresie: as to denie all, is absolute Infidelitie. But it is sure, euen out of Scripture, that Heretickes shall not be saued, no more then Infidels. For as it is said Q [...]i non credit, iam indica­tus est, he that beleeueth not, is alreadie iudged: so the Aposile Saint Ioan. 3. In the Greeke text, Haireseis Gal. 5. Paule reckoneth heresies among the works of the flesh; of all which he doth pronounce. Qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non consequen­tur. Those which doe such like things, shall not attaine the king­dome of God.

A. W.

  • Hereticall faith is liable to damnation.
  • That faith which is not entire, is hereticall.
  • Therefore, that faith which is not entire, is liable to damnation.

I must intreate the Reader to call to minde, what I answered To the pro­position. Sect. 1. before in generall concerning this point, about liablenesse to damnation. There is no heresie nor error in matter of Reli­gion, but it is a sinne: and being so, makes the partie that doth erre, liable to damnation. But yet many errors and heresies are of so small moment in comparison of other, that hee which hol­deth them, may, notwithstanding such his error or heresie, be saued. I gaue examples before, and will not stand to repeate them. So then the proposition is thus farre true, and no far­ther: Hereticall faith in matters necessarie to saluation, is simply damnable: so that he which continueth in such an estate, cannot possibly be saued.

Againe, Hereticall faith in any point of Gods truth whatsoeuer, of it selfe deserueth damnation: yet he that doth erre in some points, may be saued: else I thinke there are fewe men liuing, or euer haue bene, that could haue come, or shall come to heauen. As for the authoritie of the Church, it is not of force to make that simply damnable, which in it selfe is not so: though it much increase the sinne, whensoeuer it determineth truly of a­ny point in question. You will say Gal. 5. 20, 21 Saint Paule reckoneth he­resie amongst the works of the flesh. So doth he contentions &c. [Page 50] yet may a man in ignorance be contentious, thinking he doth well, and Iud. vers. 3. contends for the true faith, as he ought to do; and for all this contention, not depriue himselfe of the interest he hath to the kingdome of heauen in Iesus Christ. I deny your assump­tion. To the as­sumption. Chap. 1. sect. 5. A man may be excused, in your iudgement, by ignorance, concerning any positiue commaundement of God: but out of doubt, there are many points of truth reuealed by God, onely as positiue, not as such meanes to saluation, that without the beleefe of them a man cannot be saued. Adde hereunto, that a Christian may be ignorant of many points held by the Church, and that by negatiue ignorance, because he could neuer come where he might heare, that the Church beleeued such and such things. It is therefore an vnreasonable thing, to condemne all ignorance for heresie: and a most vncharitable conceit to cast all into hell fire that beleeue not in euery point, as the Church generally doth, yea though they know what the Church main­teines, & be of a contrarie mind. Your proofe, which is a com­parison of likenesse or equality betwixt infidelitie in denying all Christian religion, and heresie in not beleeuing some points of it, is a great deale too weake. Similitudes argue indeed, but rather by way of illustration then proofe. And there is no e­qualitie betwixt denying all, and doubting of some. The former absolutely ouerthrowes true religion: the latter onely miscon­ceiues some points, leauing the grounds of truth vntouched and beleeuing them as most certaine.

A. D. § 6.

Fourthly, I may confirme the same, with the testimonie of the an­cient Fathers. First of S. Athanasius in his creed, which is com­monly Athanas. in Symb. knowne and approoued of all. Quicunque (saith he) vult saluus esse, ante omnia opus est, vt teneat Catholicam fidem: quam nisi quisque integram, inuiolatamque seruauerit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. Whosoeuer will be saued, before all things it is needfull that he hold the Catholicke faith: which vn­lesse euerie one doe keepe entire and vnviolate, without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly.

A. W.

If the ancient writers should affirme a thing so vnreasonable, there were good reason for a man to looke for some proofe of it, out of the Scriptures. But (no doubt) we shall finde your [Page 51] citations of their writings as much to the purpose, as we haue done your former arguments. The first you alleadge is Atha­nasius in his Creed; to which I answer, that See my an­swer to 12. Art part. 1. art. 4. Athanasius speaks not of all points reuealed by God, but of those substantiall matters, which are there set downe by him, and namely, of the Trinitie of persons, and Godhead of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. This appeares by the last verse of the same Creed, where he thus concludeth: This is the Catholicke faith, which except a man beleeue faithfully, he cannot be saued. But Athan [...]siu [...] hath not comprehended all points of religion in that Creed, (for he lea­ueth out the buriall of our Sauiour Christ, vnlesse you will say he put his going downe into hell for it,) neither doth he require, in that place any other point, as necessary to be beleeued to salua­tion, but those onely, that he there reciteth, which must be kept entire and vnuiolate of euery man that will be saued.

A. D. §. 7.

Qui sunt in sacris literis eruditi, (saith Saint Basil) ne v­nam Teste Theodore­to lib. 4. Eccles. histor. cap. 17. quidem sillabam diuinorum dogmatum prodi sinunt: sed pro istius defensione, si opus est, nullum non mortis genus libenter amplectuntur. Those that are well instructed in holy Writ, doe not suffer one sillable of diuine doctrine to be betraied or yeelded vp: but for the defence thereof, if need be, doe willingly em­brace any kinde of death.

A. W.

That of Basil apud Theodoret. hist. lib. 4. cap. 17. Basil is lesse to the purpose. For first, he saith no­thing of any doctrine propounded by the Church, or of your vnwritten traditiōs, but only of the Scriptures. And how makes this for the beleeuing whatsoeuer the Church wil deliuer, with­out which, in your iudgement, faith cannot be one, or entire? Secondly, he speakes not of all ignorant men, whose faith, vp­on paine of damnation, you will haue entire, concerning euery point; but of those onely that are learned in the holy Scriptures, or at the most, so farre as they are learned in them. I astly, what saith he of these, but that which we alwaies require, that a chri­stian should not suffer any sillable of true doctrine to be be­traied? This makes against you, who rest wholly vpon Popes and Councils, and by that meanes oftentimes betray the truth of God manifested in the Scripture; yea so farre are you from mainteining euery sillable of it, with hazard of your liues, that [Page 52] you doe what you can for shame, to destroy it all. Azorius Mo­ral. instit. lib. 8 cap 26. § Quaeres. You Pa­pists depriue the people of them altogether, at least for their priuate reading; howsoeuer your Pope Pius 4. makes a shew of permitting it. You haue thrust out the Concil. Trid. sess 4. de edit. & vsu sac. liter. Authenticall co­pies of Hebrew and Greeke, and, in steed of them authorised a corrupt Latine translation, which no man may refuse, vpon any pretence; though it haue 8000 places (as Isidorus Cla­rius praef. in Biblia. Isidorus Clarius a great learned man of your owne affirmeth) in which, the sense of the holy Ghost is changed: yea Cardinal Hosius contr. Brent. prolegom Hosius blusheth not to write: That it were better for the Church, if there were no written Gospell extant. I omit your blasphemies against the Scriptures, whereof I haue spoken otherwhere.

A. D. §. 8.

Nihil periculosius (saith Nazianzen) his haereticis esse potest, qui cum integrè per omnia decurrant; vno tamen verbo, quasi Greg. Nazian. tract. de Fid. veneni gutta, veram illam ac simplicem fidem dominicam in­ficiunt. Nothing can be more perilous then these heretickes, who, when they runne vprightly through all the rest, yet with one word, as with a drop of poyson, doe infect that true and sincere faith of our Lord.

A. W.

What if Nazianzen. de Fide. Gregorie Nazianzen complaine, that heretickes which held most points soundly, according to truth, as Arius, Euty­ches, Macedonius, Nestorius, and diuers other did, were very pernitious to the Church, because they did more easily and se­cretly poyson the truth of doctrine by their heresies? Will it follow hereupon, that therefore a man cannot be saued, vnlesse he be­leeue euerie point of truth reuealed by God? or that a man hath no faith, because his beleefe agrees not in euery small matter with other Christians? Remember I pray you, we denie not that faith should be entire, but that it cannot be auaileable to saluation, if in any one point it misbeleeue. Thus haue I examined the first part of this your Treatise of Faith, which I know not how I should apply to your maine syllogisme, im­plied in your preface: when you shew the vse of it in any part thereof, I will giue you answer accordingly.

A. D.

CHAP. V. That there must be some means prouided by almighty God, by which all sorts of men may learne this faith, which is so necessary to saluatiō.

A. W.

The title of this Chapter is so propounded, that your mea­ning may easily be mistaken. There must be (say you) some meanes prouided: May not a man gather by these words, that as yet there are no such meanes prouided? where as you would haue vs beleeue, that God hath already made prouision of fit meanes to that purpose.

A. D. §. 1.

As this one, infallible and entire faith is necessary to saluation, to all sorts of men, as well vnlearned, as learned: so we must say, that almightie 1. Tim. 2. God, Qui vult omnes homines saluos fieri, & ad agni­tionem veritatis venire, who would haue all men to be saued, and to come to the knowledge of truth, hath (for proofe that this, of his part, is a true will) prouided some rule or means, whereby euery man learned and vnlearned, may sufficiently in all points, questions or doubts of faith, be infallibly instructed, what is to be holden for the true faith: and that the onely cause, why any man misseth of the true faith, is either because he doth not seeke out and find this rule and meanes; or hauing found it, he will not vse it, and in all points (sub­mitting his owne sense, selfe opinion, and proper iudgement) obedi­ently yeeld assent vnto it; as the nature of diuine faith, and the dutie of euery Christian bindeth him to do. This is proued, because if Al­mightie 1. Tim. 2. 1. Tim. 4. 2. Pet. 3. Aug. lib. de Sp. & lit. c. 33. Prosper. lib. 2. de vocat. gent. cap. 23. 25. 28. D. Ambros. ser. 8. in Psal. 118. Jren. l. 4. ca. 71. God hath a true will, of his part, to leade all men to this happie end of eternall saluation, (as it may be plainly proued that he hath, out of Scripture and Fathers) he must needs prouide them sufficient meanes, by which it may at least be possible for them to at­taine that end. For we neuer say, that God hath a will to do any thing, vnlesse he do either absolutely worke the thing, or at least prouide meanes sufficient, by which it is possible to be done. But vn­lesse there be such a rule or meanes prouided, by which euery one learned and vnlearned, may attaine to this one, infallible and entire faith, of which I haue spoken before, there are not sufficient meanes prouided, by which it is possible for all men to come to saluation; sith (as I proued) without that faith it is vnpossible for any one to come to saluation. Therefore we must needs say, that Almightie God hath prouided this rule or meanes, by which euery man, euen the most vn­learned, may sufficiently be instructed in matters of faith.

A. W.

Whether your comparison, by which you propound this point, be of likenesse or equalitie, I see not what agreement the [Page 52] [...] [Page 53] [...] [Page 54] one part can haue with the other. But to let that passe, because it is of no great moment; I am now earnestly to request all men, Protestants and Papists, who will vouchsafe to reade my an­swer, that they would giue me leaue to examine this treatise by the light of true reason, and themselues take a little paines, more then ordinary in the vnderstanding of it. We are then first of all to remember, that the summe of this treatise was propounded by the author himselfe in his preface, to this effect: That the faith which the authoritie of the true Catholick Church commendeth to vs, is, without doubt, to be holden for the true faith: and that the faith which the authoritie of the Church of Rome commendeth to vs, is that faith. Now then these two points being proued, that which was intended, is dispatched; and either of these failing, the mat­ter is still in question. For proofe of the former proposition or sentence, he disputeth on this maner: That we must needs admit an infallible authoritie in the Catholicke Church, by reason whereof euery one must learne of it onely what is the true faith. Now he ad­dresseth himselfe to the proofe of this last proposition, which, as I shewed in my answer to the Preface, is the assumption of his second Syllogisme: and thus he reasoneth:

  • If God haue not prouided some rule or means, whereby euery man learned and vnlearned, may sufficiently in all points, questi­ons or doubts of faith, be infallibly instructed, what is to be holden for the true faith, vnlesse we admit such an authority, then we must needs admit it.
  • But God hath not prouided any rule or meanes, vnlesse we admit such an authoritie.
  • Therefore we must needs admit such an authoritie in the Ca­tholicke Church.

The ground of the proposition, or maior, is this, that God will The Pro­position. haue all, as well vnlearned as learned to be saued. Which being vn­derstood, I answer concerning the consequence of the propo­sition, that it is false. I will be as plaine as I can, that euery one may vnderstand me. If his meaning be, that we must admit such an authoritie in the Catholicke Church, because without it there are no sufficient meanes of saluation for euery particular learned and vnlearned man. I deny the consequence of his pro­position. [Page 55] For neither is it necessary to saluation, that a man should be infallibly instructed in all points, questions, & doubts of faith, and God neuer had any purpose, that euery particular man should be affoorded that meanes of saluation. I will not spend time nor labor in this point: it may be proued sufficiently by this his argument. For these means, he imagineth of a visible Church alwayes continuing, are not such, but that before the comming of our Sauiour, and since also, many thousands haue liued and died, which could neuer haue any suspition or thought of such a Church. Till it pleased our Sauiour Mat. 28. 19. to send his Apo­stles with a generall commission, the knowledge of him was shut vp within Mat. 10. 5. & 15. 24. the land of Iewry, or at the most, was heard of but in the countries neare adioyning. After the commission gi­uen, it asked some time for the Apostles to disperse themselues ouer the world; and in that time many thousands must needs die, without the knowledge of our Sauiour Christ. But what speake I of the beginnings of the Gospell? How many countries are there, in which no steps of the Gospell haue bene, to which no little sound of it hath come for many hundred yeares? August. de v­nit. Eccles. cap. 14. Austin sayth, that in his time there were many nations, to whom the Gospell had not then bene preached: yea it August. Ser. Dom. in mon­te. lib. 2. Origē. ad Mat. homil. 28. was commonly held amongst the auncient writers, that the day of iudgement should speedily ensue, after the Gospell had bene preached in all the world.

If you vrge that 1. Tim. 2. 3. place of Timothie, that God wil haue all men to be saued: you shall be answered by one of your owne side; that Luc Brugen. ad Mat. 22. (all) signifies all kind of men, not euery man of euery kind: of euery kind many. They are called all (saith Fulgent. de incar. cap. 31. Fulgentius) because God saueth them out of euery nation, condition, age: out of euery prouince, of euery language. So doth August. En. chir. ad Lauren. cap. 103. De correp. & grat. cap. 14. Austin expound that text in diuers places, though hee bring also some other inter­pretations, but all against the conceits of men, that would haue all taken for euery one. The like exposition he giueth of that in the Gospell, August. in Joan. tract. 52. Holk. in 2. q. 1. ad 4. princip. art. 1. I wil draw all to me: All kinds of men, in all languages, in all ages, in all degrees of honor, in all diuersities of dis­positions and wits, in all professions of arts lawful and profitable, &c. Holkot not the meanest of your school-men, maketh this sense of those words, God will haue all men to be saued: that is saith he, [Page 56] God hath made all men capable of saluation, and giuen commande­ments, which if all men should obserue, they should be saued. But what need I be long in this matter, when as your selfe (as it should seeme) so vnderstood it? In the title you say, All sorts of men, in the Chapter you repeate those same words, and adde two sorts, learned and vnlearned; which also you do afterward. It may therefore seeme strange (perhaps) to some man, that I trouble my self and the reader with this exception against your proposition. But I do it not without iust cause. For although both title and chapter make profession as it were, of that mea­ning: yet within halfe a dozē lines after, you giue me occasiō to suspect the other sense: where you say, God hath prouided meanes whereby euery man learned and vnlearned may sufficiently be in­structed. And indeed, whereto else tendeth that discourse of the visibilitie of the Church, so much magnified and vrged by you? In that sense then I denie the consequence of the proposition. But if you vnderstand it according to the plaine words, not of euery man, but of all sorts of men. I still denie the consequence. For though it be out of doubt, that God hath appointed as wel vnlearned as learned to euerlasting life; yet it is false, that there needeth any such rule or meanes, as of necessitie to sal­uation.

I denie your assumption. For God hath prouided a rule, To the As­sumption. whereby a man may be instructed in all points and questions of faith. Let them that would attaine to saluation (saith Chrysost. ad 1. Cor. hom. 6. Chryso­stom) bestow their time in the Scriptures. And againe, Ad Joan. homil. 52. If we search the Scriptures diligently, we shall attaine to saluation. We are not commaunded (saith Iustin. in dia­log. cū Tryphon. Iustin the martyr) by Christ to giue credit to the doctrines of men, but to those which the holy Prophets haue pub­lished, and Christ hath taught. Therefore doth Tertul. con­tra Hermog. cap. 22. Tertullian call Hermogenes to the Scripture, and adore the sufficiency thereof. By which onely (as Opus imperf. in Mat. homil. 49. one saith) after heresie once hath possest the Chur­ches, the true Church of Christ is to be found. A little after, He that would know which is the true Church of Christ, how shall he know it, but only by the Scriptures? From, and in which only, Firmitatem. assurance of faith is to be had, as he saith presently after.

God hath a true will (which also certainly taketh effect) that [Page 57] some mē of al sorts shold be saued, but not that euery particular man should: as I proued before by your reason, because he hath not vouchsafed euery one the means. Cōcerning 1. Tim. 2. 3. the first place alledged by you, the Apostles owne interpretation seemeth to allow that which I brought before out of Austin, of the diuers conditions and sorts of men. For so himselfe speaketh. I will ver. 1. 2. that prayers, supplications and intercessions be made for all men: for Kings, and for all that are in authoritie. He sheweth in these last words what he meaneth by all men, All sorts of men. The reason why he nameth Kings and magistrates, is, because they were at that time, not onely heathen, but also enemies and persecutors: so that no such doctrine can be certainly and necessarily con­cluded out of this text, that God would haue euery particular man to be saued. For the auowing of the former exposition, we must vnderstand, that the word all is often vsed in Scripture for euery kind. Mat. 4. 23. [...]. Iesus healed euery sicknesse and euery disease: not euery par­ticular, but all kind of diseases. Mat. 12. 31. [...]. Euery sinne and blasphemy shal be forgiuen: not euery particular sinne, but euery kind of sin, saue onely that against the holy Ghost. We heard before that of Iohn, Ioan. 11. 32. I wil draw all to me: and August. tract. 52. Saint Austins iudgement there­upon. And if it were true, that God had (as you speak) a true wil, that all men should be saued, how can that be true, which not we onely, but the learnedst of your Papists hold, according to the Scriptures, that he appointed some to damnation, as wel as o­ther some to saluation; and that there can be no reason giuē why this man in particular is vouchsafed faith and saluation, that man is not, but onely the wil of God. As it is euidently proued by Thomas ad Rom. 9. in. qq. disp. de praedest. q. 6. art. 2. 1. q. 23. art. 5. in 1. dist. 41. q. 1. ar. 3. Lombard. 1. dist. 41. & ibi Petr. de Aliac. Joan. Capreo. & alij. Thomas of Aquin, Rom. 9. and long before him, by S. Austin in many places. Ad Simplician. lib. 1. q. 2. de praedest. & grat. cap. 46. Enchir. ad Laurent, cap. 32. 99. Epist. 105, ad Sixtū: you therfore do Austin wrong, who alledge him in your margin, as if he thought that God wold haue euery particular mā to be saued; against which his doctrine August. de spir. et. lit. c. 33. De correp. & grat. cap. 14. in so many places is direct, and which (as I shew­ed before) he purposely refuteth. Prosp. epist. ad August. & in resp. ad excerpt. Genue. Prosper also is of the same o­pinion, as hauing defended that doctrine of Austin, against his aduersaries: which also is the title & matter of a whole chapter Prosp. de voc. gent. lib. 1. c. 12. Lib. 2. ca. 2. 25. 28. cap. 19. in one of his bookes: That the saying of the Apostle, God wil haue [Page 58] all men to be saued, is meant of all kind of men. Therfore the place you bring must be vnderstood according to the course of Pros­pers writings in the same treatise, that God hath not barred any nation, nor kept back any man from hearing & beleeuing the Gospel. And farther, hath by his general prouidence and benesiles affoorded meanes to stir vp all to seeke God: as himself speakes in two of the places you bring, and in some other. In Prosper. de lib. arbitr. ad Russia. one place when he had said, that many infants are dead, who certainly haue no part in the citie of God; he addeth: And where is that, which by some that vn­derstand it not, is obiected to vs, as contrary hereunto, that God wil haue all men to be saued, and come to the knowledge of his truth? Are not they to be reckoned among those All men, who heretofore from time to time haue perished without the knowledge of God? This might serue for answer to you in this point, concerning Gods will to haue all men saued. But for your better satisfactiō, or if that will not be, for the closer stopping of your mouth, I will adde that solution, which your great Cardinall Bellarmine giues to these three places of Scripture that you alledge, though in another question. These places (saith Bellar. de grat. et lib. arb. lib. 2. ca. 3. §. 8. Bellarmine) only signifie that God hindereth no man from saluation, yea that he hath appoin­ted remedies and helps in common, and that he would haue the prea­ching of the word and the sacraments to be common to all. In the same sense is God said to be 1. Tim. 4. 10. the Sauiour of all, because by his ge­nerall prouidence he hath care of all, and hath left no man vn­toucht, but either by the Gospell, or by the law, or by nature it selfe hath moued him to seeke after God; as Prosper. de voc. gent. lib. 2. cap. 25. & ad cap. Gallor. cap. 8. De voc. gent. lib. 2. c. 10 Prosper saith: yea hath affoorded meanes whereby euery man may be saued. This place (as Bellar. de grat. & lib. arb. lib. 2. cap. 5. §. Illud item. Bellarmine saith) can hardly haue any other exposition, then that latter. Glossinterli. ad 1. Tim. 2. 3. Your Glosse expoundeth it of Gods goodnes to all men in respect of outward blessings, who makes his Sun to shine (saith it) vpon good and bad.

The other place of 2. Pet. 3. 9. Peter (as we heard Bellar. de gr. & lib. arb. lib. 2. cap. 3. Bellarmine say) sig­nifieth no more, but that God keepes no man from being saued, but hath vouchsafed the word and sacraments in common to all. Your Gloss. interl. ad 2. Pet. 3. Glosse restraines that Any to them that are to be conuerted, that is to the elect. That other which are to be conuerted, may be conuertea. Thomas ad 2. Pet. 3. Holk. in 2. q. 1. ad 4. princip. [...]t. 1. Thomas and Holkot interprete it de voluntate signi: [Page 59] of that wil of God, which we may gather by the signes he shew­eth: as for example, God calleth all men from danger of dam­nation, by precepts, counsels, threatnings, rewards. These are signes to vs, that God would haue all men to be saued: but there is another will called volunt as beneplaciti, the good pleasure of God, which is indeed truly that which God intendeth. Thomas addeth also a second exposition out of Damascen, but it can proue nothing, because it cannot be necessarily enforced out of the text, rather then the other, which is also more warrantable for the truth of it, as I will shew another time, vpon more iust occasion, if it please God. Caietan. ad 2. Pet. 3. Caietan alledgeth three seuerall in­terpretations, that of Damascens, a second of All kind of men, whereof before, and a third of the elect, which also he doth ex­emplifie in the person of Peter. Thus I haue shewed, that the maine foundation you build vpon, is but weak, wanting ground of warrant from the word of God. But admit it were neuer so true, that God would haue euery man to be saued; which in some sense, as I haue said, indeed is most true; yet were not the consequence of your proposition proued. For there might be sufficient meanes for euery mans saluation, though there were no meanes to bring him to that same one, infallible, entire faith, which you conceit; but onely to so much faith and knowledge as is necessary to saluation, by which he might be sufficiently in­structed in matters of faith: which is all that you craftily seeme to require in the conclusion of this section; whereas before, in your proposition, no lesse would serue the turne, then infallible instruction in all points, questions, and doubts of faith.

A. D. §. 2.

To this purpose saith S. Austin: Si Dei prouidentia praesidet Lib. de vtil. credendi. rebus humanis, non est desperandum, ab eodem ipso Deo auc­toritatem aliquam constitutam esse, qua, velut certo gradu, ni­tentes attollamur in Deum. If Gods prouidence (saith he) rule and gouerne humane matters, (as he proueth that it doth) we may not despaire, but that there is a certain authoritie appointed by the same God, vpon which staying our selues as vpon a sure step, we may be lif­ted vp to God. Saint Austin therefore doth acknowledge some au­thoritie to be needfull, as a meanes whereby we may be lifted vp to [Page 60] God. The which lifting vp to God, is first begun by true faith. And because this authoritie is so needfull a meanes, he would not haue vs doubt, but that God, whose prouidence stretcheth it selfe to all humane matters, hath not failed to prouide this meanes for vs, it being a principal matter, and so principall, as vpon which (according to the ordinary course) dependeth the summe of our saluation. We are not therefore (I say) to doubt, but that Almghtie God hath pro­uided a meanes whereby Animalis homo qui non percipit ea que sunt spiritus Dei, a sensuall man who hath no vnderstanding of 1. Cor. 2. the diuine mysteries of faith, may come to know them by a firme and infallible beleefe.

A. W.

To what purpose doth August de vtil credon. cap. 16. Saint Austine bring this? To proue that God hath appointed a rule, by which all men may come to your infallible faith? Nothing lesse: but to shew that where truth is not euident, as to men ordinarily it is not, there God hath proui­ded meanes to stirre them vp to a diligent enquiry after it; or ra­ther (as he plainly affirmeth) to a ridding of themselues of the cares and pleasures of this life, which he cals purging of the soule, that so they may be fit to embrace the truth. Authoritie (saith August. ibid. Austin) is at hand for a man that is not able to discerne the truth, that he may be fitted to it, and suffer himselfe to be purged. What is this authoritie? what is the vse of it? Miracles & multitude make vp this authoritie: whereby men not able to see truth, in it self, are moued to a reuerend respect of the Church, & so to an exa­mination of the doctrine, which vpon triall is found true. Thus doth the wisedome of God prouide for mens ignorance, that authoritie of miracles and multitude may draw them to a consi­deration of the truth: which, whensoeuer it shewes it selfe so plainly that it cannot be doubted of, is to be preferred before all other meanes of perswading a man to beleeue, or holding him in beleefe whatsoeuer; as the same August. cont. epist. Fundam. cap. 4. Austin saith: we denie not these to be good helpes and strong meanes to the searching and finding of the truth, but to be sufficient and infallible grounds of re­ligion, that a man should relie vpon them, without trying the doctrine by the truth of God reuealed in the Scriptures.

It is indeed out of doubt among Christians, that God hath prouided some meanes, by which a naturall man (whom you [Page 61] absurdly call sensuall) whereas Rom. 8. 6. Ephes. 4. 18. the Apostle meaneth a man in his best natural estate since his fal) who cānot discerne of Gods truth, nor admit of it, may come to the knowledge thereof. Be­cause it was impossible (saith Iren. lib. 4. cap. 77. Irenaeus) to learne God without God, he teacheth men by his word (his sonne) to know God. It is he, that hath vouchsafed vs this knowledge by the ministery of men, & worke of the spirit in their hearts, that beleeue according to the word of God in the Scriptures. Let vs not heare (saith August. de vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. Austin) This I say, This thou sayest, but let vs heare, This saith the Lord; there are the Lords bookes extant, to the authoritie whereof both of vs consent, both of vs giue credit, both of vs obey: there let vs seeke the Church, there let vs discusse our question. Other meanes of triall, then by the Scripture August. cont. Donat. lib. 2. cap. 6. he accounteth, and calleth deceitfull. The Scriptures are Hieron. ad Mich. li. 1. ca. 1 the bounds of the Church, beyond which she may not wander. Ad Psal. 86. Whatsoeuer any man since the Apostles hath seene without warrant of Scripture, let him be neuer so holy, neuer so eloquent, it is of no authoritie: but onely to mooue vs to a consideration of that he saith.

A. D. §. 3.

Onely the question is, what manner of thing this meanes must be; and where euerie man must seeke and finde it, that hauing found it he may (as S. Austen speaketh) stay himselfe vpon it, as vpon a sure step, thereby to be lifted vp to a true faith, and by faith to God. The which question being of so great consequence, that it being well determined, a man need neuer make more question in matters of faith; I wil (God willing) in the chapters following, endeuor to resolue it as clearely as I can. And this I purpose to do, first by setting downe what cōditions or properties this rule of faith must haue: afterwards by proouing particularly, that neither Scripture alone: not any natu­ral wit or humane lerning: nor priuat spirit, can be this rule of faith. And finally that this rule which all mē may safely, & must necessarily follow, can be no other, but the teaching of the Catholicke Church.

A. W.

It is onely thus farre agreed betwixt vs, that there must needs be meanes appointed by Almightie God, whereby all sorts of men may come to such a measure of knowledge, and faith, as is necessarie to saluation, not wherby euery man may be infalli­blie instructed in all points of religion, that he need neuer make more question in any matter of faith: though we grant that [Page 62] there is such a meanes prouided by God, howsoeuer we in our weaknesse cannot make such vse of it.

But that we may vnderstand matters aright, as we go for­ward; I must intreate the Reader to remember, that if all things to come in this your Treatise be sufficiently prooued; yet you faile much of your maine purpose. For this last Syllogisme is the foundation of all yet behinde, concerning one of the prin­cipall points which you propoūded in the beginning, viz. That it was necessarie to admit such an infallible authoritie in the Catho­licke Church. Now the proposition of this Syllogisme I haue denied, and refuted. Therefore if the assumption therof were most certainly true, as it is vndoubtedly false, yet could your conclusion be nothing sure: because the syllogisme failes in the proposition: but let vs see how you prooue the assum­tion:

  • If neither the Scripture alone, nor naturall wit or learning, nor a priuate spirit, can be such a rule, then God hath prouided no such rule, vnlesse we admit an infallible authority in the Catholicke Church.
  • But neither the Scripture alone, nor naturall wit or learning, nor a priuate spirit can be such a rule.
  • Therefore God hath prouided no such rule, vnlesse we admit an infallible authority in the Catholicke Church.

This proposition is not set downe by you in plaine termes, but necessarily and certainly gathered out of the course you hold in the fiue next chapters: wherein the assumption and conclusion are manifestly contained; that in the foure former; this in the tenth.

The consequence of your proposition is verie weake: For, To the Pro­position. what if none of these (seuerally) be such a rule? may not all these together be? Sure there is nothing brought by you to the contrary. But if all these faile, what can you say to the contrarie, why a generall Councell without the Popes authority, should not be such a rule? Or, to goe farther, doe you not thinke that the Pope alone may serue the turne? And yet, in your opinion: neither the Councell nor the Pope (seuerally conside­red) are the Church. Therefore it seemes there may be such a [Page 63] rule, though there be no companie of men, that hath any such authoritie as you speake of.

Secondly, your consequence is but feeble in an other respect. For it presumeth, that if there be such an authoritie, there is such a rule. Whereas many thousands in the world may be vtterly without meanes of knowing that there is such an authoritie, and so the meanes, as in regard of them, insufficient. Adde hereun­to, that although it were possible, and easie for euery man to know and see the Church: yet the meanes might be insuffici­ent: because there is no certaine reason to perswade them, that they must beleeue this Church in all things: so that still, accor­ding to your doctrine, the Lord must needs haue failed much in his prouidence, though he haue giuen this authority to the Church: because he hath prouided no meanes whereby euery man may certainly be perswaded, that the Church hath such authoritie. Will you say, He hath appointed that all men should be­leeue the Church? What can that helpe, when he hath not pro­uided meanes, for all men to know, that they must beleeue her? Must we not come now to a priuate spirit, that is, to the tea­ching of Gods spirit in the hearts of particular men? And if this must needs be in this one case, how prooue you, it may not be so in other? To answer, we must beleeue the Church, is to beg the question, against all reason.

A. D.

CHAP. VI. VVhat conditions or properties must be found in the rule of Faith.

THis rule, which Almightie God hath prouided, as a sufficient meanes to direct men to the knowledge of true faith, necessarie to saluation; must haue three conditions or properties.

First it must be certaine and infallible; for otherwise it cannot be a sufficient foundation, whereupon to build faith, which (as is pro­ued before) is absolutely infallible.

Secondly it must be such, as may be certainly, and plainly knowne of all sorts of men. For if to any sort, it could not be knowen, or not certainly knowen, it could not be to them a rule or meanes, where­by [Page 64] they might direct themselues, to the certaine knowledge of the true faith.

Thirdly it must be vniuersall, that it may not onely make vs know certainly, what is the true faith in some one or two, or moe points, but absolutely in all points of faith. For otherwise it were not a suffi­cient meanes, whereby we may attaine to an entire faith: which in­tegritie of faith is necessarie to saluation, in such wise, as hath bene declared and prooued before.

A. W.

Your assumption had three points, and, as it were parts, ma­king three seueral sentences or propositions, which for the more To the as­sumption. plainnesse I will handle seuerally, as you haue done. First of the Scripture.

  • The rule of faith must be certaine, and infallible, certainly and plainly knowen, and vniuersall.
  • The Scripture alone is not so.
  • Therefore the Scripture alone is not the rule of faith.

Ere I come to answer your Syllogisme, giue me leaue to shew how obscurely and doubtfully these properties are deliuered by you. First infallible is taken in two diuers senses. Faith must be infallible. The rule must be infallible. In the former we must needs expound infallible, not being deceiued by holding any errour, or nor doubting of that which it beleeueth. In the lat­ter, what can infallible signifie, but either that, which is certain­ly true, or that, which may not be doubted of? Is it plaine dea­ling to speake so doubtfully? Or is it a good kinde of reaso­ning to runne the ring, and to dispute in a circle, as they speake in the Schooles? Chap. 3. Sect. 3. Before, you would prooue the infallibility of faith, by the infallibility of the word of God, which it must be­leeue: now you conclude the infallibility of the rule, from the infallibility of faith. Is not this to trifle, rather then to rea­son? Would you not laugh at vs, if we should dispute thus? The elect cannot fall away, because the holy Ghost, that vpholds them, is true God. The holy Ghost is true God, because the e­lect, whom he vpholds, cannot fall away. View your selfe in this glasse.

Secondly, what would a reasonable man conceiue by these words, The rule must be certainly and plainly knowen: but that [Page 65] euerie man must be able to perceiue that this, or that is the rule? What is your meaning? That Chap. 7. Sect. 2. the rule must not be hard to be vnderstood.

Thirdly, your terme of vniuersalitie is not so plaine, as it might haue bene; because it is commonly, I thinke euery where in this Treatise, saue in this one chapter, taken for that which belongs to all persons, times and places: no where for all points of doctrine, no not there, Chap. 4. where you speake of the entirenesse of faith. And I pray you tell me, why, as you apply infallibilitie to faith and the rule, you do not in like sort deale with entire­nesse, and say that the rule must be entire, because faith must be entire.

I come now to your proposition, which I denie: because it To the pro­position. is not necessarie, that the rule of faith should be such, as may be certainly and plainly knowen, that is vnderstood in euery point. It is sufficient, if it may be vnderstood in those points, that are necessarie to saluatiō. Who would say, that he, which is to mea­sure out timber in length, had not a perfect rule to that purpose, hauing an ordinarie Carpenters rule, because there are vpon the rule some figures, circles, triangles, squares and such like, the vse wherof he vnderstandeth not? If you runne backe to the entirenesse of faith, I will follow you for a refutation of my an­swer thereunto, and a founder proofe of that your conceit.

A. D.

CHAP. VII. That Scripture alone cannot be this rule of Faith.

A. W.

The title of this chapter, as it shall appeare by and by, agreeth not with the discourse in the chapter; and besides, propoun­deth very craftily a matter, which is no way in question betwixt vs and the Papists. For there is no Protestant diuine, that thinks the Scripture alone, that is, without the ministerie of man, a suf­ficient meanes for the saluation or instruction of all men, to which the fond example of this Author tendeth, where he tal­keth of locking vp an vnlearned man that cannot read, alone, without any helpe but a Bible.

A. D. §. 1.

Out of these former grounds foure conclusions.

The first conclusion is, that Scripture alone, especially as it is by Protestants translated into the English tongue; cannot be this rule of faith.

This I prooue.

First, for that these translations faile in the first condition; that is to say, they are not infallible (as the rule of faith must be); for neither were the Scriptures written in this language, immediately by the holy Ghost: neither were the translators assisted by the same holy Ghost infallibly. Infallibly (I say) that is, in such sort, as it were vnpossible that they should erre in any point. Sith, therefore, the translators, as being but men, may erre. (To say nothing of that which by Gregory Martin is prooued: and by the often changes of new and variable translations is shewed that some haue erred) how can a man, (and especially an vnlearned man, who hath not suffici­ent meanes, learning, nor leisure to compare the translations with the prime authenticall originall) how can (I say) such a man be infal­libly sure, that this particular translation, which he hath, doth not erre? And if in some places it erre; how can he be infallibly sure, that in those places, which do seeme to fauour that sect, which he followeth, it doth not erre? vnlesse he wil admit an vnfallible autho­ritie in the Church, to assure vs, that such, or such a translation doth not erre, in any point; of which authoritie, I shall speake more hereafter.

A. W.

The Scripture is, in it selfe, such a rule or meanes, and (no doubt) so made effectuall to some by reading, without any o­ther outward helpe of man: but this is not the ordinarie course, that God hath appointed, for the instruction of the people, in the knowledge of his truth. Therefore, if at any time we say, that the Scripture alone, is the rule of faith, by Alone, we seuer it from the traditions and authoritie of men, not from their mini­sterie: and ascribe vnto it sufficiencie in respect of the matter to be beleeued, not simply of the meanes to bring men to beleefe.

The assumption, which you should prooue (as also the title of your chapter professeth) is this, That the scripture alone, can­not be the rule of faith. By what reason do you prooue it? Truly [Page 67] by none at all: but leauing the question, you dispute against the English translation. Wherefore I take it for granted, that, in your conscience, you acknowledge the sufficiency of the Scripture, to direct vs in all matters and questions of faith. And thereupon I inferre, that the infallible authoritie, which you would tie to the Church, is needlesse; because, without it, there is a sufficient rule of faith prouided by Almightie God, whereby euerie man, learned and vnlearned, may be instructed in all points of faith, what is to be holden for true. Hence it followeth, that the first of your maine points, set downe in the preface is false, and so your whole Treatise void & vntrue. You tell vs indeed afterward, that some of your reasons against the En­glish translation haue also force to prooue, that the Scripture alone, in what language soeuer, is no sufficient meanes: but you neither shew vs, which those reasons are, nor are there any of sufficient weight to that purpose. Let them iudge, that will read my answer. But first I will propound certaine testimonies of the Fathers concerning the infallibility & sufficiency of the Scrip­tures. VVhen heresie (saith Opus im­perf. in Mat. 24. hom. 49. one) hath once gotten footing in the Church, there can be no refuge for Christians, which desire to know the true faith, but onely to the Scriptures. And afterward, Christ commaunds, that they, that desire to haue certaintie of faith, flie to no other thing but to the Scriptures. In the same place, three se­uerall times in one halfe page, he assureth all men, that in the most dangerous daies of Antichrist, there will be no way to know the true Church of Christ, Nisi tantū ­modo per scripturas. but onely by the Scriptures. If certaintie of faith, & knowledge of the true Church may be had from the Scriptures, & in time of heresie, cannot else where be had: out of doubt the Scripture is certaine and infallible, and so conse­quently the rule of faith. Irenaeus li. 3. cap 1. Irenaeus tels vs, that the Gospell is left to vs in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Tertul. cont. Hermog. cap. 22. Tertullian cals to Hermogenes for proofe of that he said, out of the Scriptures, and warneth him and his complices to beware of the woe, that is threatned against them, which adde to, or take from the Scriptures, If they bring any doctrine, that is not written therein. Origen. ad Ierem. hom. 1. ad Rom. lib. 3. ad cap. 3. Origen is ours euery where in this question, allowing not any expositions or senses, but those that are warranted [Page 68] by the Scriptures: requiring of vs, to bring not our owne, but the sayings of the holy Ghost, when we teach. This was the rule, which Theodoret. hist. eccle. lib. 1. ca 7 Constantine the Emperour enioyned the Fathers of that first famous Councell of Nice to follow, and which they accor­dingly followed. The bookes of the Euangelists and Apostles, and the Oracles of the old prophets, plainly instruct vs (quoth that wor­thie Emperour) what we are to iudge of matters [...]. de diuina vo­luntate vel le­ge, ut Cassio­dorus. Triport. concerning God. Therefore laying aside all enemie-like discord, let vs de­bate ad determine the points in question, by the testimonies of the Scriptures inspired by God. These, as we heard before, Hieron. ad Mich. li. 1. ca: 1. Ierome makes the bounds of the Church, within which she must keepe her selfe; and Proclus. de Fide ad Armen. Anno. 430. Proclus Archbishop of Constantinople confi­neth faith to the same place. Faith (saith he) must abide within the Euangelicall, and Apostolicall bounds. Paschasius cō ­tra Macedon. lib. 1. cap. 1. Anno. 500. Paschasius a Cardinall of your Church (as you say) many yeares since, tied Macedonius the hereticke to the Scriptures equiring him, ei­ther to shew by euident testimonies of the word of God, that we must beleeue in the Church, or else to vrge the point no fur­ther. For (as Chrysost. ad 2. Tim. homil. 9. Chrysostome truly affirmeth) If there be any thing needfull to be knowen, we shall learne it in the Scriptures. I mightfil whole sides with testimonies out of the Fathers, to this purpose, but I let them passe as needlesse: especially since your selfe before confessed, that the word of God is infallible, and therefore, in that respect, sufficient to be the rule of faith. Now to your conclusion.

The first part of this first conclusion is false, in regard of the infallibilitie of Scripture: which it should seeme you saw well enough, and therefore balkt that matter, and deui­sed an other point, concerning our translation, to play with­all. For what is it but trifling, when a man leaues the thing in question, and busies him selfe about the refuting of that, which besides himselfe, no man euer dreamed of? What English protestant euer affirmed, that our translation was infallible, that is, such as had no error in it, or might not be doubted of? Or who euer tooke it for the rule of faith? You make babies, which you beate as you list. Against the Scriptures being the rule of faith, which we affirme, you say nothing. Against [Page 69] the infallibilitie of our translation, which we grant not to be the rule of faith, you discourse at large; wherein I intreate the Reader to consider these few things with me. That which he speakes in disgrace of our translation, makes no more against it, then against all other whatsoeuer. For neither is any transla­tion the language in which the Scripture was written; and no translators euer had any such infallible assistance by the holy Ghost. Remem­ber the 8000. places Chap. 4. sect. 10. Sure the author of the vulgar Latin translation had not such help as the Hebrew and Greek originals, which the tran­slations of all the learned Papists themselues declare; Pegnm, Va­tablus, Isidorus, Clarius. Pagnin, Vatablus, Isidorus, Clarius, &c.

As for Martin was set out 1582. Fulks answer 1583. Gregory Martins cauils, they were answered long since by D. Fulke: and I maruell that you can name them with­out blushing, seeing neuer a one of you durst vndertake the de­fence of them, for the space of these 23. yeares. Nay, which is worse, you were not ashamed, in Printed at Antwerp. 1600. the second edition of your Rhemish Testament, to bleare your blind followers eyes, with a table of hereticall corruptions in translating the Scriptures, as if you had propounded some new matter, whereas they were all taken out of that booke of Martins, and had long before bene iustified by D. Fulke, without any reply on your parts.

You demaund, how any vnlearned man can be infallibly sure, that in those places which do seeme to fauour our sect, our translation doth not erre. I answer, that there are better meanes of assurance for vnlearned Protestants, concerning the truth of our translati­on, then any Papist can haue by your imagined authoritie, for your vulgar Latin. First, it is no slender perswasion to any reaso­nable man, that those places you speake of, if not wholy, yet for the most part are translated with the same sense in other toungs which they haue in ours; as in Spanish, French, Italian, Flemish, Dutch. Secondly, it is a great confirmation of the truth, that many of those texts which seeme most to fauor vs, are the same in your vulgar and Rhemish editions, that they are in ours. Thirdly, the truth of ours is yet more cleare, because euery man may see, that in bookes of controuersie betwixt vs, our translati­ons are seldome denied by the learned of your side, though you condemne our expositions. Fourthly, who may not easily [Page 70] discerne how much more faithfull our translation of those pla­ces, & all others is, then yours; seeing we are readie to make tri­all of it by the originals, the learned on your sides being iudges: you are afraid of nothing more, then to haue yours examined by the Hebrew and Greeke? Fiftly, in the places you speake of, our translations deserue the more credit, because we labour to make them plaine for euery mans vnderstanding, and shew how they agree with the rest of the booke and chapter: wheras your Rhemish Testament is so handled, that an English man of good vnderstanding can hardly tell what to make of it, for the very words themselues in many places, as if you auoided nothing more then plainnesse. Sixtly, we perswade all men, as much as we can, to labour for the knowledge of the originall tongues, that so they may be able to iudge of our translation: you do all you can to keepe men in the mist of ignorance, be­cause you are afraid to haue your corruptions discouered. Se­uenthly, though we allow not our ministers such an infinite au­thoritie as you giue your Cleargie: yet we teach, that it becoms Christian charitie and modestie, neither to suspect a translation where the analogie of faith is kept, and the plaine meaning of the holy Ghost not manifestly altered; nor to rest vpon priuate conceit, against the generall iudgement of the learned, without very euident proofe of error. These, amongst other, are reasona­ble grounds for a Christian to build vpon, that he may haue some good assurance of the truth of our translation. Now let vs examine yours.

We must (say you) admit an infallible authoritie in the Church, to assure vs that such or such a translation doth not erre in any point. First, this is more then neeeds. For if that authoritie can assure vs, that the translation erreth not in any point needfull to salua­tion in regard of the sense, it may be a sufficient ground for vs to build our faith vpon, though it should mistake some words in many points, and the sense too, in matters of lesse importance. Secondly, though we do admit such an au­thoritie in the Church, yet may we be farre enough from any such assurance. For how shall I be sure, that the Church hath so affirmed of this, or that translation? How shal I know, what the [Page 71] Church is? A company (you say) of men vpon earth, infallibly taught by the holy Ghost, what is the true faith in al points. Is this teaching cōmon to euery one of this company seuerally, or only annexed to them all ioyntly when they are together? What if all, what if the greater part assemble not? Is this companie of Clergie men onely, or of Lay men also? If of them, then belike these are none of the Church. But let vs grant that, which (as it shal appeare in due place) is neither true nor probable, that the Clergie onely is the church, howsoeuer they may be so representatiuely. What assurance can any man haue, who liueth not in the time of this assembly (I might say, in the place too, where it is) that there was any such assembly? that the greatest part agreed to the ap­proouing of such a translation? that this is the translation they agreed to? Especially seeing two Bellū Papate Popes, since the last Conuen­ticle of Trent, haue set out your authentical translation diuersly. Whether of these two was agreed on? How shall I be infallibly assured, that these Popes altered nothing in the translation al­lowed by the Councel? Shall I say more? What if this Councell vsed not the meanes of examining this translation by the origi­nals? What if most of them (as it is most certaine) had no skil in the originals? and so did but leape after some few, like sheepe, not vnderstanding what they did? yet the shoot Anchor holds: the Pope allowed of their iudgement. What if his skil were but in­different? He could not erre, you will say. What was the reason, why he allowed that translation? because the Councel examined and approued it. But without him, al they might erre, especially if they did not vse all good meanes to find out the truth. VVho assured him they did? Shall we haue the holy Ghost like Maho­mets doue, to come and certifie the Pope of this doubt? This is a matter of fact; and in things of such nature the Pope may erre, euen iudicially. Well, I will deale bountifully with you. Put case all this be true. How shal I attaine to infallible assurance hereof? Forsooth some Priest or Frier, Iesuite or other, telleth me, that things so passed, and therefore I am bound to beleeue it. Then my faith resteth not vpon the authority of the Church, but vpō the credit of him that saith, he is sent by the Church to make such report. Thus it cometh to passe, that the beleefe of vnlear­ned [Page 72] Papists is nothing else but a perswasion they haue, that such a priest knoweth what is true, and will not deceiue them with any false informations. Tell me not of other Priests and Iesuits consenting with him, that was thy spirituall father: for all these together, if there were ten times as many of them, are not the Church, in which onely this infallible authoritie is to be found. And so there can be no such assurance in any vnlearned Papist of the truth of your vulgar, or any other translation. I confesse it is against both Charitie and Ciuilitie to suspect a man of vn­truth, without iust cause of suspition: but such fruites grow vpon such rootes of Poperie, that a man must needs be either vnciuill in giuing credit to nothing, though vpon neuer so good reason; or else ridiculously credulous in beleeuing euery thing that shal be told him, though neuer so much against reason. But the spirit of God teacheth and perswadeth men to beleeue the Church. Are you they that mocke at priuate spirits, and yet are glad to flie to that helpe? Is it not as likely the spirit should teach men which is the Scripture, as which is the Church? And assure them of a translation, as of this or that mans ordination and priesthood? If such proofes, as I haue spoken of before, will serue, wee are nothing inferiour to you, but as well for weight as number, su­periour. If you say, the Scriptures enioyne vs to beleeue the church: How shall I be assured that they are not in those places that seeme to enioyne such a beleefe falsly translated? Because the Church saith, they are true in all points. What if the Church be deceiued? It cannot be. Who saith so? The Scripture. Who tels you the Scripture saith so? The Church. What is to be ridicu­lous, if this be not? It might seeme exceeding strange, that euer any reasonable man should be ledde away with such fopperies: if the holy Ghost had not foretold vs of it, that 2. Thess. 2. 11, 12. God would send men strong delusions, that they should beleeue lies, that all they might be damned vvhich beleeued not the truth, but had pleasure in vn­righteousnesse. These delusions poore ignorant Papists trust to, and to none more then to those which are the maynest of all, the authoritie of the Church, and impossibilitie of the Popes erring: to which whosoeuer firmely cleaueth, can neuer be good Chri­stian or faithfull subiect in any Church or state whatsoeuer.

A. D. §. 2.

Secondly, they faile in the second condition or propertie, which the rule of faith should haue. For the Scriptures them­selues alone, in what language soeuer, be obscure, and hard to be vnderstood, at least to vnlearned men, who cannot reade them; and therefore the Scriptures alone cannot be vnto vn­learned men, a sufficient rule to instruct them in all points of faith; as is plaine. For locke vp an vnlettered man, and an English Bible, for a time in a studie, and hee will come forth (I warrant you) as ignorant in matters of faith as he went in, if wee adde no other meanes to instruct him but the bare writ­ten word, which hee cannot reade. And yet vnlearned men may be saued; and saued they cannot be, without an entire and vnfallible faith: and this they cannot haue, vnlesse there be some certaine rule and vnfallible meanes prouided by Almightie God, meet for their capacitie, to teach them this faith: and Scrip­ture alone (as is now proued) is not a rule meete for the ca­pacitie of vnlearned men, or apt to instruct them sufficiently in all points of faith. But what speake I onely of vnlearned men? sith also learned men cannot by onely reading the Scrip­tures, be vnfallibly sure, that they doe rightly vnderstand them. For while they vnderstand one way, perhaps they ought to vnderstand another way: that which they vnderstand plain­ly and literally, ought perhaps to be vnderstood figuratiuely and mystically; and contrarie, that which they vnderstand figura­tiuely, ought perhaps to be vnderstood properly. And seeing that it is most certaine, that all doe not expound right, sith the exposition of one, is contrarie to the exposition of another; (as right is neuer contrarie to right) how should one be vn­fallibly sure, that hee onely expoundeth right; hauing nothing to assure him, but the seeming of his owne sense and reason, which is as vncertaine and fallible, as the iudgements and per­swasions of other men, who seeme to themselues to haue attained as wel as he, the right interpretation or sense. Moreouer there be ma­ny things required to the perfect vnderstanding of Scripture, which are found but in very few: and those also in whom those gifts are, are not vnfallibly sure, that they are so guided by those gifts, but that both they and others may prudently doubt, lest some­times [Page 74] in their priuate expositions, as men, they erre. And con­sequently, their priuate expositions cannot be that rule of faith, which we seeke for; which must on the one side be determinately and plainly vnderstood: and on the other side it must be vnfallible, cer­taine, and such as cannot erre.

A. W.

That second condition of easinesse to be vnderstood, is no propertie necessarily belonging to the rule of faith: vnlesse per­haps you imagine that God failes in his prouidence, if a man may not come to the knowledge of the truth, and euerlasting life, without any paines. Is it not enough that the rule is such, as may be vnderstood of euery one, vnlesse a man may know it by dreaming of it? Is not the knowledge of the meanes of saluatiō worthy of some care and labour?

Are the Scriptures obscure and hard, that they cannot be vnderstood? How then saith the holy Ghost, that Psal. 19. 8. they giue wise­dome vnto the simple, and light to the eyes: that & 119. 105. ver. 13. they are a lanterne to our feet, and a light to our paths: that the entrance into them she­weth light, and giueth vnderstanding to the simple? Why doth the Apostle call them 2. Pet. 1. 19. a light shining in a darke place? And yet all this is spoken of the Scriptures of the old Testament, which, in comparison of the new, are indeed obscure. Your Glosse ex­pounds that place, Glossa ad Psal. 119. Thy word is a lanterne, of all the holy Scrip­tures. Your Cardinall Joan. de Tur­recrem. ad Psa. 18. & ad Psal. 118. vers. 130. Turrecremata seeing the plainnesse and clearnesse of the word of God, so directly and expresly com­mended, applieth those places to the new Testament, which (as he said) is bright and cleere, which enlightens our darknesse, and giues vnderstanding to the humble. And who can doubt that the Scriptures are such, as may be vnderstood by all men, seeing the Lord writ them for the instruction of all men: and our Sauiour Christ in the Gospell commendeth the Iewes for searching the Scriptures, affirming that Ioan. 5. 39. in them there is proofe of his nature and office? But to what purpose were this search, if nothing could be found by it? So cleare is this truth, that the auncient writers auow it without any doubting.

Clem. Alexā. orat. ad gentes. Hearken ye that be farre off, hearken ye that be neare: The word of God is hid from no man, it shineth to all men; there is no great darknesse in the word. The Scriptures (saith Jren. lib. 1. cap. 31. Irenaeus) are plaine, [Page 75] and without doubtfulnesse: and may be heard alike of all men. Giue heed (saith Iustin. contra Tryph. Iustin the martyr) to those things that I wil rehearse out of the Scriptures, which are such as need hearing onely, and not any expounding. This, as the Greek sheweth, is to be vnderstood not onely of those places which he was then to deliuer, but gene­rally of the Scriptures: [...]. Cyrill. Alex. contra Iulian, lib. 7. That the Scriptures might be knowne to all men great and litle, they are profitably commended to vs in a familiar speech, so that they are not aboue any mans capacitie. Yea there is nothing in them hard (saith Lib. 9. the same author) to them that are conuersant in them, as they ought to be, though euery sentence be obscure to Iulian and his complices. The like hath Epiph. haeres. 79. Epiphanius: All things are cleare in the Scriptures to them who will bring to the vnderstanding of the word of God, a religious kind of discourse. Where that same [...], which Epiphanius requireth, seemeth to be nothing els but a reuerend examining of the Scripture, according to the holy Ghosts manner of speaking and reasoning in the Scrip­ture. Haeres. 69. In another place he saith, that Al things are cleare & plaine in the holy Scriptures. So also saith Chrysost. ad 2. Thess. hom. 3. Chrysostom. And a litle af­ter, he teacheth vs how to restraine those All things. All things (saith he) that are necessary, are open and manifest. Chrysost. hom. 3. de Lazaro. In another place comparing the Apostles with the Philosophers, he saith, that the Philosophers indeed writ obscurely, that they might be had in admiration for their eloquence and learning; but the Apostles and Prophets take a contrary course, deliuering all things plainly and cleerly to all men, as being the common teachers of al the world; that euery one by himselfe might be able to learne those things that were taught, euen by the onely reading of them. He saith yet further, that In Mat. hom. 1. the Scriptures are easie to be vnderstood, of seruants, of countrey people, of widowes, of children, yea and of him that is very vnskilful. I could be large in this matter: a few more testimonies shall suffice. God (saith August. ad Psal. 8. Austin) hath applied the Scriptures to the vnder­standing of infants and sucklings. Therefore Contra Iuli­an. lib. 1. cap. 5. August. de pec­cat. mer. & re­miss. lib. 2. cap. 36. he iustly reproueth Iulian, who (as you Papists do now) layd out with many words the hardnesse of the Scripture: yet is it not to be denied, that the Scriptures are hard: but as hard as they are, enough may be lear­ned out of them, euen by the simplest, for his saluation. There is [Page 76] meate for strong men (saith Fulgent. in serm. de Con­fessor. Fulgentius) and milke for babes. There hath God altogether prouided for the saluation of all, whō he vouch­safeth to saue. Euery man (saith August. de vtil. eredendi. cap. 6. Austin) may draw from thence as much as is sufficient for him. But is this knowledge to be had with idlenesse and carelesnesse? Nothing lesse. If you wil perswade your selues (saith Chrysost. in Prologad Ro­man. Chrysostome) to bestow paines and diligence in rea­ding, surely nothing shal be wanting for your vnderstanding of the Scriptures. There are indeed (as August. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 6. 9. Austin saith) hard places in the Scripture: yet no other, then are other where in plaine termes ex­pounded. There is great obscuritie (saith Ambros. ad Psal. 118. ser. 8. Ambrose) in the wri­tings of the Prophets: but if thou knocke at the gate of the Scriptures with a certain hand of thy mind, and diligently examine those things which are hidden, by little and little thou shalt begin to gather the sense of that which is spoker, and it shal be opened to thee by no other but by the word of God. For it is the order of the Scriptures (saith Hieron. ad E­sai. cap. 9. Ierome) to hard things, to ioyne other that are plaine. The circum­stance of the Scripture (saith August. qq. 83 q. 69. Austin) doth giue light to the sense of it. The fewer (saith Tertull. cont. Praxeam. Tertullian) must be vnderstood by the more. That rule of August. de v­til. cred. cap. 6. Austins must alwayes be remembred, that we come with deuout and religious affection to the reading of the Scriptures, as true religion requireth. And (as Chrysost. in. Prolog. ad Ro­man. Chrysostome saith) we must seeke, namely by prayer, if we wil find the sense of the Scripture. For (as Origen. in Exod. hom. 9. Origen saith vpon the like occasion) it is hidden from them that are negligent, but opened to them that knock, and found of them that seeke. The reason why God hath so tempered all things in scripture, writing some where plainly, some where obscurely, is giuen by August. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 6. Austin: That it is done by Gods prouident care, that by la­bour he might beate downe our pride, and draw away our minds from lothing: things easily attained to seem of litle worth. Gloriously there­fore (as Cap. 9. he saith) and wholsomly hath the holy Ghost so tempered the Scriptures, that by plaine and easie places he might prouide for the satisfying of our hunger, and by hard and darke, take away lo­thing. But (as Cap. 9. he addeth) in those places which are plaine in the Scriptures, all those matters are found which containe faith and good manners: that is, hope and charitie. This is that which Marsil. Pa­tauin. de fens. pacis. part. 1. cap. 9. Marsi­lius of Padua, aboue 800 years since, disputed against the Pope, That the Gospel was very sufficient, perfect & cleare of it self, that [Page 77] by it we may be directed immediatly, concerning, and in all things, which belong to a mans obteyning of euerlasting life, and auoiding miserie.

As in the former propertie, hauing propounded your matter against the Scripture, you reason only against the English trans­lation; so in this, that one may be some what sutable to the o­ther, being to speake of the obscuritie of the Scripture, you shew that it is hard to one kinde onely, viz vnlearned men: though you helpe the matter a little, afterward, by auouching the hardnesse of it, euen to the learned also. The Scriptures (say you) are not the rule of faith. Why so? Because they are hard to be vnderstood of those vnlearned mē, that cannot reade them. Is not the teaching of the Church, whereto you ascribe so much, vn­possible to be vnderstood by them, that cannot heare? Is it therefore no sufficient rule? But the Scripture is not so hard, as you imagine: no not to them that cannot reade, as long as they may heare it read, and haue care to vnderstand, and remember what they heare. Yea there are many in England, that know neuer a letter on the booke, who notwithstanding are able to giue a better sense of many places of Scripture, then some of your Masse-priests, that can read their whole Portuise & Seruice booke. Idle therefore and ridiculous is your example of a man lockt vp with a Bible: since by hearing it read, though himselfe cannot read, he may attaine to more knowledge, then many of your blinde guides haue: who for all their skill in reading, vn­derstand neuer a word of their Epistles & Gospels, which they daily say at Masse, like prating parrots.

Now for your conclusions inferred hereupon; the first, as I haue shewed, is false, that any such entire and infallible faith is ne­cessarie, so that without it a man cannot be saued: the second, of the meanes without which, such a faith cannot be had, is ordinari­ly true; the third, which denies the Scripture alone to be such a meanes, is either false, and not prooued by you, or nothing to the purpose. Can any man truely say, that God hath not prouided sufficient meanes for euerie mans saluation, because some men are vnable to reade the Scriptures, which are those meanes? Hath not God done his part, in making all men ca­pable [Page 78] to reade, though many neglect to learne? Therefore if the Scripture be sufficient for all mens instruction, as I haue prooued it to be, for all your supposed obscurity: God cannot be charged with want of care, because men are carelesse to vse the meanes of their owne saluation. But if by Scripture alone, you meane Scripture without any helpe of man; all you say is besides the matter. For no man euer was so foolish, as to make Scripture alone, in that sense, either the rule of faith, or a meanes of any good whatsoeuer: vnlesse perhaps you Papists, according to the rest of your superstition in Agnus Deis, hal­lowed Granes, and such like, may haue a conceit, as those priests (of whom Opus imperf. in Math. hom. 43. an ancient writer speaketh) had, that a part of the Gospell hung about ones necke, may be a preseruatiue against I know not what bodily or ghostly danger.

You haue vndertaken to prooue, that the scriptures are not the rule of faith, because they are hard to be vnderstood. Their hard­nesse, in respect of the ignorant, was auowed by you onely a­gainst those, that cannot reade. Now for the learned you tel vs, that they cannot, by onely reading the Scriptures, be infallibly sure, that they rightly vnderstand them. What then? Therefore can they not at all be sure? Because reading onely will not assure them: therefore is there no meanes, whereby they may be as­sured? Call to minde what I alledged before, out of Ambrose, Origen, Chrysostome, and Austin: who doubt not to assure men, that they may come to the vnderstanding of the Scripture, if they will vse the meanes of praier and diligence. Whom shall we be­leeue? These worthies of the Church, speaking also vpon ma­nifold experience; or you, whom we know not so much as by sight or name? If you can so farre bewitch any of your owne poore ignorant soules, yet sure ther is no man of any indifferent good iudgment, that will be carried away with this your simple authoritie, against the ioynt consent of those famous Di­uines.

But you will adde reason to your authoritie: let vs heare it. It may be (say you) they ought to be vnderstood otherwise. There­fore they cannot be sure, they rightly vnderstand. Tell me, I pray you, for my better instruction, whether you make this doubt of [Page 79] all places of scripture, or of some onely. It will not sinke into my head, that you doe so much condemne the scripture of ob­scuritie, that you thinke no one place of it, can be certainely vnderstood. Nay it is vnpossible you should so despise the iudg­ment of those, I named er while, or condemne your owne ca­pacitie, as to denie, that Canus loc. Thcol. lib. 3. c. 2 many texts of scripture are so euident, that a childe cannot mistake the meaning of them. Then, that antecedent, It may be they ought to vnderstand otherwise, in some places of scripture can haue no place. Let vs limit it, that the truth may appeare. Some places of scripture are so hard, that a man may vnderstand them otherwise, then, in truth, they are to be vnderstood. This proposition is out of all question: what wil you conclude hereupon? That men cannot be sure they rightly vnderstand these places. I grant this too. Therefore these doubt­full places are not to be made the foundation of our faith: but (as August. ad Marcel. de Bap­tis. paruulo. Austin saith) We must rest vpon those places of scripture, which are verie manifest, that by them the harder may be expoun­ded. But admit there were diuers texts of scripture, which can by no meanes be certainly vnderstood (which yet for my part, sauing other mens better iudgement, I do not thinke to be true, because God hath appointed euerie syllable of the scrip­ture for our instruction in this life) but admit (I say) there were such places; yet would it not follow hereupon, that because those texts cannot be vnderstood, therefore the scripture is so obscure, that it cannot be the rule of faith. For there may be suf­ficient means of saluation plainly discouered in the scriptures, though these places be not vnderstood: yea it may be, and it is verie likely, that the verie same things which in these places are signified, are otherwhere in scripture apparently set downe. You will say, this prooueth that the scripture is obscure in some places. VVho euer denied it? But this doth not prooue, that it is hard to be vnderstood in those points; that are necessary to sal­uation. Remember, I denied that second property of your rule, when I answered to your proposition. A man may be saued, though he vnderstand not the true sense of euery verse in the Bible; so he do not acknowledge it to be the word of God, and withall denie it to be true. But if it be so hard to vnderstand [Page 80] the Scripture aright, is it good dealing in you to vrge the expo­sitions of men, with such perē ptorinesse, as if it were an hainous sinne not to giue credit to euery interpretation of the Fathers? We See my an­swer to 12. art. part 1. art. 5. acknowledge their learning and pietie: but we remem­ber they are men, and therefore may be deceiued. Where they bring reason for their expositions, we consider of it with reue­rence to them: where they bring none, we trie whether we can bring any proofe of their interpretation. If we finde none, we labour to expound the text so, as true reason (so farre as we can iudge) shewes that we ought to doe. Where our weake­nesse affoords no proofe for our interpretation, nor against theirs, we are willing and readie to giue more credit to them, then to our selues. But it is no disgrace to them, that processe of time, by Gods blessing vpon mens endeauours, should bring somewhat to light now, which in former ages hath not bene vnderstood. It cannot be hidden from any man (saith your Ioan. Roffens. cont. Luth. art. 18. Bishop of Rochester) that many things are now more cleerely beaten out and vnderstood, as well in other things, as in the Gospell, then here­tofore; because the ancient writers had not the Ice broken before them, neither did their time suffice to sound the deepth of Scripture in all places. VVe may adde hereunto another reason, obser­ued by Stella in Luc. 10. confi­teor tibi pater. Stella, that, though of our selues we were but Pigmees or dwarfes, yet being carried vpon the shoulders of them, as it were vpon Giants, we may see farther then they could. VVhich is the reason, why Salmero ad Rom. 5. disp. 51 an other of your writers doubts not to af­firme, that the latter doctrines or expositions are the quicker sighted.

But diuers men (you say) expound diuersly: and thereupon you demaund, how any man can be sure he expounds truly, ha­uing nothing to assure him, but the seeming of his owne sense and reason. VVhen I read this obiection, me thought I saw one of Cicero in Acad. the old Academicks or Scepticks, sweating to prooue, that there is no truth in any thing to be knowen, but that we must be content to rest vpon likelihood. I pray you answer me, in good earnest: Are you perswaded of your selfe (I speake to a Scholler) that you vnderstand not the true meaning of any one place in Aristotles Physicks, with the commentaries vpon [Page 81] him expounding diuersly? Surely if your ignorance had bene so great, I presume neither Rome, Rhemes, Doway, nor any o­ther Vniuersitie or Colledge would haue vouchsafed you the degree of a Batcheler in Arts. And yet Arist. in E­pist. ad Alexan. Aristotle himselfe professeth of that booke, that he set it out, as if he had not set it out; because no bodie (for sooth) could vnderstand it, but he, that had, or should heare him teach by word of mouth; as you speake of the preaching of the Church. If then it be possible to vn­derstand Aristotles meaning, and that certainly, for all the di­uers interpretations of his expositors, and his owne intended obscuritie: giue vs leaue to thinke, that the Lord God purpo­sing to reueale his will by the scriptures, hath written in such sort, that man his creature, to whom (as Gregor. 1. E­pistola. 84. Gregorie saith) he writ them, may without any iust cause of doubting, vnderstand so much at the least, as is necessarie for his saluation; Ioan. 20. 31: which was Gods end in writing. But euerie interpreter thinks that himselfe hath attained to the right sense. What of that? There­fore, is there no meanes to discerne, which interpretation is true, which false? Doth not this doubt accompanie the writings of the Philosophers, as well as the scriptures? Neuer go about to perswade vs to such an iniurious and vnthankfull conceit to­wards God, as to imagine, that he hath vouchsafed vs the vse of reason, and the treasure of his word, to so little purpose. If it be vnpossible to know, whē we haue the true sense of the scripture it had bene farre better, that no scripture had bene written, but all left to the direction of your Pope, frō time to time. Such blas­phemies, as I haue shewed, some of your side vtter: but a true Christiā is so throughly perswaded of Gods wisdom, that by his giuing the scripture, he seeth al these your cauils & shifts refuted.

Now in the last place you tell vs, that there be many things re­quired to the perfect vnderstanding of scripture, which are found in very few; If by perfect vnderstanding you meane an exact know­ledge of all places: that you say is true, but not much to the pur­pose. For there is no such knowledge necessary, but that the scripture may be the rule of faith, though euery text in it cannot be certainly vnderstood. But consider a little, that if there be means of attaining to a perfect vnderstāding of scripture, thogh [Page 82] they be many, yet by your confession they may be had: else are they in vaine, if neither any man, nor all men can attaine vnto them: some to one, some to more, as it pleaseth God to bestow his gifts seuerally. If you meane, that many things are required to a perfect vnderstanding of points necessarie to saluation: see how much you differ from the iudgement of the ancient Fa­thers. The truth is not hid (saith Chrysost. in Math. hom. 24. Chrysostom) but from thē, that will not seeke it. And in In Gen. hom. 3 an other place; The Scripture expoun­deth it selfe, & suffereth no man to erre. Let him that hath an heart (saith August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 6. Austin) read those things, that go before, and those that fol­low, and he shall finde the sense. For (as Hieron. in Psal. 86: Ierome truly saith) the Lord hath spoken by his Gospell, not that a few should vnder­stand him, but that all should. August. de doctr. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 6. Austin gaue vs the reason before, why he speakes plaine in some places and not in all; To feed our hunger, and to keepe our queasie stomacks from loathing our meate.

But you require I know not what infallible assurance, that they which haue these gifts, may be sure, they neuer erre, in any of their priuate expositions. What assurance looke you for? No re­uelation I hope. They may be sure not to erre, if they deli­uer no expositions, but such, as they can euidently prooue to be true. For other places, where the sense is hard, let them vse all the diligence they can, and if it prooue not verie plaine and certaine, let thē leaue it y vncertain, til it please God some other man may finde the true meaning of it, and so make it knowen to men for the rule of faith, in that point it concerneth, as it is alwaies in it selfe. Are youe afraid, lest it should come to passe hereby, that many matters of faith should be vnknowen? The ignorance of these things, cannot hinder a mans saluation, and this inconuenience followeth the preaching of your Church, as well as the reading of the scripture: For how many points of doctrine are there, not yet decreed of by your Church? How many thousand places of scripture, not yet expounded by it? If then it be no hindrance to saluation, for a man to be igno­rant of the truth, in many points and places of scripture, may not the written word of God be the rule of faith, though diuers things in it be not certainly vnderstood?

A. D. §. 3.

Thirdly, they faile in the third condition. For the Scriptures are [Page 83] not so vniuersall, as the rule of faith had need to be. For this rule ought to be so vniuersall, that it may be able, absolutely to resolue and determine all doubts and questions of faith, which eyther haue bene, or may hereafter be in controuersie; for otherwise there were not sufficient meanes prouided, by which, schisme and heresies might be auoided: vnitie of faith, (so necessarie to saluation) might be conserued among Christian men.

A. W.

The last imperfection, you note in the Scripture, whereby you would make it insufficient to be the rule of faith, is the scantnesse of it, that it conteineth not all things necessarie to be belee­ued: which you go about to prooue thus.

  • The rule of faith must be able absolutely to resolue all doubts of faith, that haue bene, or may be.
  • The Scripture is not able absolutely to resolue all such doubts.
  • Therefore the Scripture is not the rule of faith.

I should haue let your proposition passe, without any que­stion, To the pro­position. but that I am so vsed to your craft in speaking doubtful­ly. For feare whereof I would faine vnderstand, what the rea­son is, why you put in absolutely. If your intent be to signifie, that the resolution must be certainly true, you might haue spo­ken plainly, as you meant. But it may be you vnderstand by resoluing absolutely, such a kinde of resolution, as shall take away all outward contention, which sometimes is indeed brought to passe by the Decrees of your Popes, no man daring, for feare of his life, once to open his mouth against them: Such a re­solution the scripture cannot giue, neither is it to be looked for, that the rule of faith should be of that nature. It is enough that it shew plainly and certainly, what is true in all matters of faith. Secondly, the controuersies of faith, you speake of, must be indeed matters, that require beleefe, otherwise the rule of faith is not to meddle with them. To speake more plaine; It is not to be held as a duetie of the rule of faith, that it should be able to determine of euerie idle question, that curious and contentious heads can deuise. For example, if any man will make question of the Virgin Marie, whether she were (as Ladie Hun­gerfords me­ditations vpō the Beades, you teach) fifteene yeare old, or, perhaps eighteene or nineteen when our Sauiour Christ her Sonne was borne; whether she [Page 84] were threescore & three whē she died, or more or lesse. In these, & a thousād such matters, deliuered as points of faith by your Priests and Iesuits, it is not to be expected that the rule of faith should affoord any resolution. We grant that infinite questions of your schoolemen, & positiōs of your Diuines, cannot be determined by the rule of faith: but only thus, that they may be cōuinced to be no matters of beleefe, that a Christian must needs think thus or thus of thē; because they cannot be prooued, either one way, or other by scripture: your proposition therefore is true onely of those things, that are needfull to be beleeued, all which may be certainly resolued by it. What cannot, is not of necessitie to be held by faith.

Your proposition you prooue, as you thinke, by this reason.

  • If there be no sufficient meanes prouided, by which schismes and
    Proofe of the proposition.
    heresies may be auoided, and vnitie among Christians con­serued, vnlesse the rule of faith be able to resolue all such doubts, then it must be able to resolue them.
  • But there is no sufficient meanes prouided, whereby schismes and heresies may be auoided, and vnitic conserued, vnlesse the rule be able to resolue all such doubts.
  • Therefore the rule of faith must be able to resolue them.

If the proposition be taken in that sense, which the former may seeme to haue, as I shewed, then I denie the consequence To the pro­position. therof; that is, I say it doth not follow, that if there be no sufficiēt means prouided, whereby schismes and heresies shall de facto, and in euēt be auoided, vnlesse the rule of faith be able to shew what is true, what false in all questions, that any man will mooue, then the rule must be able so to doe. The reason of my deniall is, that, as be­fore I answered, it is sufficient for the rule to shew what is true, in matters of faith; and let vs know, that those are not needfull to be beleeued, of the truth whereof it saith nothing anie way.

The assumption also is false, though you speak not of actuall To the as­sumption. auoiding of heresie and schisme. For there is sufficient meanes prouided for the auoiding of schisme; because nothing must be held for certain truth, which cannot be prooued to be ac­cording to the rule, which is the onely measure of true vnitie among Christians.

A. D. §. 4.

But the Scriptures be not thus vniuersall. For there be diuers questions or doubts moued now a dayes, and those also touching very substantiall matters, which are not expresly set downe, nor determi­ned by onely Scripture. For where haue we any expresse Scripture, to proue, that all those, and onely those bookes which Catholickes or Protestants hold for Scripture, are indeed Gods word, and true Scripure? This we shall not find expresly set downe in a part of Scripture. This point therefore, whereupon dependeth the certaintie of euery point, proued out of Scripture, cannot be made certaine to our knowledge or beliefe, vnlesse we admit some other infallible rule or authoritie, wherupon we may ground an vnfallible beleefe: which infallible rule if we admit, to assure vs, that there is at all any Scrip­ture; and that those bookes and no other be Canonicall Scripture; why should we not admit the same to assure vs vnfallibly, which is the true sense and meaning of the same Scripture? Hereupon S. Austin Lib. de vtilit. credend. cap. 4. saith very well, Cur non apud eos diligentissimè requiram, quid Christus praeceperit, quorum auctoritate commotus, Christum aliquid praecepisse iam credidi? Tune mihi meliùs expositurus es, quid ille dixerit? &c. Why shold I not most diligently ask or learne of those (he meaneth of the Catholicke Church) what Christ hath commanded, by whose authoritie I was moued to beleeue, that Christ commanded any thing at all? What, wilt thou expound vnto me bet­ter, what he hath said? that is to say, the meaning of his words: Quae Ibidem. (saith he) ista tanta dementia est, illis crede Christo esse creden­dum, & à nobis disce quid ille dixerit? multo facilius mihi per­suaderem, Christo non esse credendum: quàm de illo quidquam, nisi ab ijs, per quos ei credidissem, discendum. What a madnesse is this in thee, to say, beleeue them (to wit the Catholickes) that we must beleeue Christ (and the Scriptures to be his word), yet learne of vs what Christ said? that is to say, what is the meaning of his word. I should (saith S. Austin) much more easily perswade my self that I ought not to beleeue Christ at all, then that I must learne any thing concerning him of any, except of those of whom I haue already learned to beleeue in him.

A. W.

I denie your principall Assumption, wherein you denie the sufficiencie of the Scripture for the determining of all matters of To the principal assumptiō. faith. For if the Scripture were not sufficient to this purpose, it [Page 86] might be lawfull for men to adde to the word of God, that which is wanting: but Deut. 4. 2. that God hath precisely forbiddē all mē; Ye shall put nothing to the word which I command you, neither shall you take any thing from it: out of which, Cardinall Caietan. ad Deut. 4. Caietane saith, we may gather that the law of God is perfect. But of this place I haue said more Defence of the Reform. Cath. pa. 405. &c. other where; and our Diuines are large and plentifull in this argument. Act. 26. 12. The Apostle Paul affirmeth of him selfe, that he preached nothing but that which had bin spoken by Moses and the Prophets: yea our Sauiour euery where auoucheth his doctrine by the writings of the old Testament. Indeed of whom should we know the will of God, but of God himselfe? who doubtlesse hath not deliuered it so sparingly, in so many seuerall bookes, but that it containeth whatsoeuer is needfull to saluation. All things indeed that our Lord did, are not written, but those (saith Cyril. Alexā. in Joan. lib. 12 cap. 68. Cyril) that the writers thought to be sufficient for man­ners and doctrine. I could ouerwhelme you with testimonies of the Fathers in this matter. A few shall serue. The Canonicall Scripture (saith August. de peccat. mer. lib. 3. cap. 7. Austin) is the rule of all. The letters of Bb. are reprehended by some other of grauer authoritie. Plenaria. Generall Councels correct prouinciall, and the former are amended by the latter. Let the Scripture be iudge (saith Basil. epist. 8. another) and let those doctrines be held for true that agree with it. For the law of God or Scripture (as Chrysost. ad 2 Cor. hom. 13. Chrysostom saith) is a most exact ballance, square, and rule. Therefore let vs passe by that which he or he thinkes, and let vs en­quire all things of the Scriptures. Athanas. con. gentes, vel ido­la. The holy Scriptures inspired by God, are sufficient to shew the truth. And therfore (as Hilar. de Trin. lib. 3. Hilary saith wisely and religiously) It were well we would content our selues with those things that are written. If we will not, this is Basil. de vera ac pia fide. Basils censure of vs, that we are without faith, and proud. It is a manifest argument of infidelitie (saith Basil) and a certaine signe of pride, if any man reiect ought that is written, or attempt to bring in any thing that is not written. Therefore Ioan. Damas. orth. fid. lib. 1. cap. 1. Damascen saith, that the Church receiueth, acknowledgeth and reuerenceth all things that are deliue­red by the law, the Prophets, the Apostles and Euangelists, and fur­ther seeketh not for any thing. I pray you shew me some reason, if you can, why the Lord that doth not omit necessary matters, & repeateth those that are lesse needful to be known, should fil so [Page 87] many bookes of Scripture with the same histories and points of doctrine oftentimes rehearsed, and quite leaue out many things of farre greater importance, then some of those are which he hath caused to be written. Without the knowledge of many things recorded in the Scriptures, a man may be saued; but you denie saluation to all men that beleeue not whatsoeuer you teach them (and there is no end of your deuices) though it haue no warrant in any part of Scripture. Is it not better then to rest only vpon that which both you and we acknowledge to be the word of God, then to giue an infinite libertie to men of deui­sing what they wil; & to lay a grieuous burthē vpon our selues, to beleeue vnder pain of damnation, whatsoeuer they wil father vpō, I know not what impossibilitie of erring? Let him that hath eyes see, though the blind delight in blindnesse.

The weaknesse of your principall Assumption, concerning the insufficiencie of the Scriptures, you striue to fortifie with this slender reason.

  • If there be diuers questions moued now a dayes, touching sub­stantiall
    Proofe of the principall as­sumption.
    matters, which are not expresly set downe, nor deter­mined by onely expresse Scripture, then the Scripture is not able to resolue all such doubts.
  • But there are diuers such questions.
  • Therefore the Scripture is not able to resolue all such doubts.

Ere I answer directly to your syllogisme, I must note two To the Pro­position. things in the propounding of it. First, by whom the questions you speake of, are moued. If by Papists, it is the shame and sinne of your Church, to suffer idle and needlesse questions to be mo­ued, of which there can be no determination but by a Councel, to be held, no man knoweth how many yeares hence, euer or neuer. If you say, these questions are set on foote by vs; all the world may discerne your vntruth. For we are certainly perswa­ded, that it is not lawfull to accept any doctrine, as a point of faith, which cannot be proued by the Scriptures. But you will say, We thinke they are determinable by Scripture, though indeed they be not. At the least then, answer the proofes we bring out of Scripture, and on our part the controuersie is ended. You wil reply, that we will not be answered, but interprete Scripture as we [Page 88] list. Who sees not that this is a meere slander, since we stand not vpon any priuate reuelations, but on those rules of interpreta­tion, which the fathers, according to the light of true reason, haue left vs, as it were by legacy? But this reply is also otherwise insufficient. For whereas you yeeld, as appeares by this reason, that some things may be determined by Scripture; this ob­iection denies that any point of doctrine whatsoeuer can be re­solued of by it; because if that you say, be true, we wil in all cases interprete Scripture as we please. Secondly, I obserue another point, in respect of the time. If the questions you meane be such, as were neuer moued till now, and the Scripture neuer failed in any former doubts, which seems to be implied in that speech Now a dayes: me thinkes there is no shew of reason to imagine, that so many and so capitall heresies, for the space of 1500 years should be refuted and ouerthrowne by Scriptures; and now at the last, matters of lesse importance, and yet as you say, very substantiall, should haue no meanes of satisfaction by the like course. Doubtlesse if the Scripture hath hitherto bene sufficient, it is no small wrong to suspect and accuse it now of insufficien­cie, especially in very substantiall matters, necessary to be be­leeued.

Now concerning your syllogisme, I denie the consequence To the pro­position. of your propositiō. What? is the Scripture so poore and weake, that it can determine nothing which is not expresly set downe therein? What art, what writing of any man is so bare? Are the Scriptures onely, that come immediatly from the author of true reason, to be barred of that priuiledge, which all other writings iustly challenge? Is not a necessary consequence, according to the rules of logicke and reason, to be allowed of in Diuinitie as well as in the Mathematicks, where consectaries are as cer­tainly true, as the theoremes, out of which they are drawne? Is it not as certaine by Scripture, that there are three persons di­stinct each from other, and all three but one God, as if these ve­rie words had bin expresly set downe? But we must beare with you in this matter, who learned this shift of your great Cardi­nal Bellarmine. We say (quoth Bellarm. de verb Dei non script. lib. 4. c. 3 in princip. Bellarmine, where he deliuereth the opinion of your Church) that the whole doctrine of faith and [Page 89] manners, is not expresly contained in the Scriptures. Expresly con­tained? To be expressed, and to be contained, are (at the least) diuers, if not contrary. But I pray you, who saith otherwise? Not the Protestants doubtlesse: whose opinion he propoundeth pre­sently, after this sort. They preach (saith Vbisuprae. Bellarmine, speaking of vs) that all things necessary to faith and manners, are contained in the Scriptures. What is become now of expresly? For pure shame he was glad to leaue out that word, though he had craftily sto­len it in before. Well, this may serue to make good my deniall of your proposition. A thing may be determinable by Scripture, though the determination be not expresly set downe therein. Take not aduantage of my words, because I say determinable, and you determined. For the question is not what is determined, that is, set downe in plaine words; but it is sufficient if the Scripture affoord vs the determination of matters by certain consequēce, vpon truth therein deliuered. Therefore whereas you adde, by onely expresse Scripture: onely and expresse are but meere shifts, nothing at all against that we affirme: who require besides onely expresse words of Scripture, the ministery and industry of man, to gather and conclude points of doctrine out of that which is written in the Scripture.

Your assumption is true, that there are diuers questions not de­terminable To the proof of the assum­ption. by expresse Scripture, and yet (as I haue shewed) the Scripture is sufficient for the determining of all points of faith necessary to saluation. Concerning the particular question, you bring for the proofe of your assumption. First you seeme to grant (and that grant is as much as we require) that it may be gathered out of the Scripture by consequence, that those books which we and you acknowledge to be the word of God, are so indeed: otherwise, why say you, that we shall not find it expresly set downe in a part of Scripture? Secondly, I demaund, as before, who moueth this question? Not the Protestants, who account it a kind of blasphemie to denie it, and of infidelitie to doubt of it. Your holy Church of Rome is she that hath buzzed this matter into Christian mens eares, so that religion is thereby be­come a scorne to Atheists, while you make no conscience of discrediting the word of God, so you may by any meanes in­crease [Page 90] the reputation of your Apostaticall sea. The truth is, that this opinion is not a matter now a dayes first set abroach: for A­theists (such as August. cont. Faust. lib. 32. cap. 21. Iulian) haue from time to time obiected it; therefore might you haue spared to mention it, as a question now a dayes moued. But it is new and strange, yea almost incre­dible, that Christians, and those Diuines, yea such as thinke re­ligion resteth on their shoulders, as the Poets faine heauen doth vpon Atlas, should make a question whether the Scriptures be the word of God or no, and so giue men occasion to doubt thereof.

Thirdly, if this matter cannot be resolued of by the Scrip­ture, we shall be little the nearer for the infallible authoritie you haue deuised. Christians need it not, who are already perswa­ded, that the bookes of the old and new Testament are the vn­doubted word of God: and with Christians onely, to speake truly and properly, hath the Church to do, ordinarily. But it fal­leth out sometimes, that amongst those which make profession of Christianitie, there are some found who are in doubt of this point. If this doubt arise in the heart of a man that maketh con­science of religion, he is to be taught, that it is but a tentation of Satan, and therefore not to be hearkened to. Further, we must demaund the reasons of his doubting, August. con­fess. lib. 6. ca. 5. De morib. Ec­cles. Cathol. cap 29. shewing him how ab­surd and vnreasonable a matter it is, to make question of that, which generally both Protestants and Papists hold, and which hath bene held by the space of 1500. yeares, vnlesse he be able to giue very sufficient cause why he may doubt. His argu­ments, if he bring any, must be answered, and the Scriptures a­uowed by the matter and manner of writing; which is such, as will certainly, if not conuert, yet Agrippa de vanit. scient, cap. 100. conuince any man in the world, that man is not the deuiser of those bookes. If he be an Atheist, that derideth religion, and withall so vnreasonable, that the former and many other important proofes will not per­swade him, what remaines, but that the magistrate whom God hath appointed to see true religion established, cut off so cor­rupt a member by lawfull authoritie? Where this course is not taken, what meanes haue you to helpe the matter? Will you tell him of an infallible authoritie in the Church? He will laugh [Page 91] at your folly, who instead of prouing beg the question. I doe not beleeue (saith he) there is any such Church or authoritie. If I doubt of the Scripture, you proue it by the Church: if I beleeue there is not any such Church, or authoritie in the Church, you will perswade me by Scripture. To say the truth, who can be so pati­ent, or foolish rather, as to suffer himselfe to be led vp & downe in a ring, as it were a doore turning vpon hinges, still in the same place? The authoritie of the Church is an argument of such waight, as that he is not to be counted either a Christiā, or a man of reason, that is not much moued therewithall: yea so much, as that he will not dissent from the continuall iudgement of it, vnlesse he be driuen to it by certaine reason: but yet this autho­ritie is not infallible. Christ euermore iudgeth truly (saith August. cont. Cresc. lib. 2. cap. 21. Au­stin) but the Ecclesiasticall iudges, as being men, are very often de­ceiued. And therefore he saith De nat. & grat. cap. 61. in another place, that he is not bound to giue his consent, without libertie to refuse, to any thing but the Canonicall Scriptures. And in Epist. 19. ad Hier. & ad Paulin. epist. 112. cap. 1. an Epistle to Ierome, I haue learned (saith he) to giue this reuerence and honour onely to those bookes that are called Canonicall, that I constantly beleeue that no writer of any of them hath erred.

But to make an end of this needlesse question, where both sides are agreed, let vs heare Saint Austin speake to the Mani­chees: If you aske vs (saith August. cont. Faust. lib. 32. cap. 21. he) how we know that these be the A­postles writings, we make you this short answer, Thence we know these to be the Apostles, whence you know that Manicheus was the author of yours. And Confess. lib. 6 cap. 5. in his Confessions he setteth out the matter more at large, that when he considered how many things we are faine to beleeue, for which we haue no certaine proofe, it pleased God, at the last to perswade him, that they were worthy of iust reproofe, which would not giue credit to those bookes of God, which he had established almost in all countries with such autho­ritie: and that they were (at no hand) to be hearkened vnto, who would aske him how he knew that those bookes were vouchsafed to mankind by the spirit of the onely true God. This (as Greg. de Va­lent. Analys. fid. lib. 1. c. 15. Valentia saith) may be knowne by the admirable effect these bookes worke in the hearts of men, in stirring them vp to vertue, without any such eloquence and perswasions, as other writers stuffe their books withall, [Page 92] and yet neuer moue vs as these do. The like hath Staple. de au­torit. script. lib. 2. cap. 5. Stapleton, where he speakes of the meanes which the Church vseth to dis­cerne of the Scriptures. It is not our meaning to shut out the holy Ghost, who is the teacher of the children of God, as in other points, so also in this, but to stop the mouthes of Atheists and importunate men, who obiect so vnreasonably against the iudgement of the whole Christian world, without authori­tie or reason. But of the spirit, and teaching thereof, here­after.

Whatsoeuer you gather vpon the former point, it must needs be of smal strength, because that hath need of better proof. But let vs grant that it is true: doth it therefore seeme necessary or reasonable to you, that we should admit the interpretatiō of the Church, as you speake, without any triall; because by the autho­ritie thereof we beleeue that the Scriptures are the word of God? What if God gaue the Church no further authoritie, but onely to assure vs of the Scripture? It doth not follow that we must giue credit to whatsoeuer a man will say, because in some one point he must be beleeued. We may not in reason doubt, but that the records which we find in an office, are true, be­cause they are auouched so to be by the clearke and maister of the office. But what of that? may we therefore take them for competent iudges, so that we must of necessitie hold that to be the meaning of the record, which they deliuer to vs as such? I am perswaded no man of any vnderstanding will say so.

Yet do we acknowledge that August. ad Honor. de vtil. creden. contra Manich. Austin speaketh with verie great reason. For where should an ignorant man enquire of the sense of the Scripture, rather then there, where be learned it was scripture? He shall not deale either kindly or reasonably, if he refuse their iudgement, other things being alike, for any mans else whatsoeuer; and therefore I pray you be not offended, if we, that liued not in the times of Popish ignorance, doe giue credit to our owne Church, by which we haue bene perswa­ded, that these are the scriptures of God, rather then to your Priests and Cleargie, from whom we haue not receiued this perswasion. But the case, in Saint Austins time, was farre o­therwise. The Manichees against whom he wrote that Trea­tise, [Page 93] would not suffer a man to beleeue any thing, though it were writtē in scripture, vnlesse it were proued true by reason: and yet themselues, as Cap. 14. Austin sheweth in the chapter you alledge, were driuen to allow faith without reason: and to lay this for a ground, that a man must beleeue Christ, that is, he must be­leeue that there was such a man, though he haue no proofe for it, but report generally continued a long time: which Austin confesseth to haue bene the authoritie, that first moued him to beleeue. Now the Manichees acknowledging thus much of Christ, and that onely vpon beleefe, without reason, brought in monstrous opinions of their owne: which could in no sort agree with the scriptures. Therefore being pressed hard by the Diuines of that age, with scripture, they denied all authori­tie thereunto; farther then they in their ignorance and heresie, could make it serue for their vnreasonable conceits. Yea August. con­tra epist. funda­ment. Manich. they made small or no reckoning of the scriptures, in comparison of their fundamentall Epistle, and such other blasphemies written by Manes their founder, and some of his followers. Had not Austin great reason then, to answer as he doth? not concer­ning the sense of scripture, to which you falsely apply his words, but touching those bookes of theirs, August. de haer. cap. 46. wherein they had writ­ten horrible and senselesse absurdities against religion and rea­son. Surely (saith August. con­tra epist. fund. Austin) since by their authoritie I haue bene brought to beleeue, that there was such an one as Christ, because it was so generally held, time out of minde; I will neuer runne to a few of yours, who learned of them, that Christ was, to know what I must beleeue of him. Why should I not rather beleeue them, that the scriptures teach, what is to be held of Christ, then you, that, in your writings onely is the truth: since in this matter you can bring no rea­son, why I should beleeue you rather then them? For since by them (saith Austin) I haue beleeued, being mooued, by the authoritie of their generall consent: if they should faile, and could teach nothing (which words you craftily leaue out) I should easlier perswade my selfe, not to beleeue Christ, then to beleeue any thing of him, by any mans report but by theirs, who first made me beleeue in him. Your glosse, of beleeuing the scriptures to be his word, and what is the meaning of his word, agree not eyther with the place [Page 94] you alleadge (as may appeare euidently to him that will reade it) or August. de hae­res. cap. 46. Epiphan. lib. 2. hares. 66. with their heresie; but of both I haue spoken suf­ficiently.

A. D. §. 5.

Thus I haue prooued, that those English translations, whereupon Protestants commonly build their faith, cannot be a sufficient rule of true Christian faith. First because they are not infallibly free from error. Secondly, for that all men cannot reade them; neither can any by onely reading, be sure to attaine the right sense, without which to haue the words of Scripture, is to haue them, as Austin saith, ad speciem, non ad salutem, for a shew, but not to saluation. Lastly, for that all points of doctrine, which appertaine to true Chri­stian faith, are not expresly set downe in scripture, as, beside my proofe Saint Austin, Saint Basil, and Epiphanius do affirme. Some of Aug. l. 5. de bap. con. donat. c. 23 Basil. lib. de Sp. cap. 29. Epiph. haer. 61. which reasons haue also force to prooue, that scripture alone, in what language soeuer, is not a fit meanes, to instruct sufficiently, all sorts of men in all matters of faith. Wherefore I may absolutely con­clude, that Scripture alone cannot be that rule of faith, which we seeke for.

A. W.

Thus in steed of disputing against the scriptures being the rule of faith, which was the matter you propounded, you haue made a discourse against our translations, hauing fancied to your selfe a conceit, which besides your selfe, I thinke no man euer drea­med of; viz. that we commonly build our faith vpon our En­glish translation. So that the Scripture may well be the rule of faith, for ought that you haue said against it, concerning the first propertie of certaine truth, which it were blasphemie to de­nie of the scripture. For the second, that the rule must be easie to vnderstand: I haue shewed, that there is no necessitie of that condition, and that the scripture is easie in matters necessary to saluation. In the last point, of the scriptures defect, touching ma­ny things, that must needs be beleeued, you do both wrong God, in making his word writtē so vnperfect, and by a foolish craft, insteed of proouing, that the scripture containeth not all mat­ters of faith needfull to saluation, vndertake to shew (that which no man denieth) that all points of beleefe are not expresly set down and determined by scripture. And lest we should forget your shuffling, in this point, you offer new proofe of a needlesse mat­ter, [Page 95] from the authoritie of Austin, Basil, and Epiphanius: whose testimonies I alledged before, to prooue the sufficiencie of the scripture, in all matters necessarie to saluation. The places by you alledged are not of such matters, neither speake of things not expresly contained, but onely shew, that for matters of fact & ceremonie, the Apostles haue not determined al particulars. The Apostles (saith Aug. de bap­tis. contra Do­nat. lib. 5. ca. 23 Austin) haue commaunded nothing, touching not rebaptising them, which haue bene baptised by hereticks, but the custome which was pleaded against Cyprian, is to be beleeued to haue had beginning from their tradition: as there are many things, which the Church euery where holdeth, that we wel beleeue therefore to haue beene enioyned by the Apostles, though they are not found written. What is this to prooue, that there are mat­ters necessarie to be beleeued to saluation, which are not ex­prest in the scriptures? Basil. de spir­sancto. Basil was not the the author of that Treatise, at the least of the latter part of it, from about the 17. chapter, and so forward. That appeareth first, by obseruing the difference of style, being neither like Basils writing, nor in one place like an other, as Erasm. in praef ad illum librū Erasmus hath truly obserued, who tran­slated it. Secondly, by the fond discourse he maketh, propoun­ding one thing, handling an other, and concluding a third, which not onely Basil would neuer haue done, but no man of any discretion. Last of all, he Cap. 27. 29. bewraieth himselfe to be a coun­terfeit, by speaking of Meletius, as one dead long before, who liued in his time, & ouerliued him, as it is manifest by Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 26. & lib. 5. cap. 8. the Ec­clesiasticall historie. But admit the booke were Basils: what is there in it to proue, that all points of doctrine, which appertaine to true Christian faith, are not expresly set downe in Scripture? This Author saith, that we must beleeue oraditions. VVhat? In mat­ters of doctrine? There is no such word in him. He speaketh of outward carriage in ceremonies and phrases of speech. The question, Cap. 25. 27. 29. in that part of his Treatise, is of the preposition with, that is (to speake that euery man may vnderstand) whether it be lawfull to say in the Church seruice, and otherwise, Glorie be to the Father, and to the Sonne, with the holy Ghost; or whether we must needs say, and to the holy Ghost, not with. For this speech that author pleades tradition. Do we denie any such matter? [Page 96] Or do we not acknowledge the libertie and authoritie of the Churches, in such matters? Who sees not, that our custome now is to say, Glory be to the Father, to the Sonne, and to the holy Ghost? Not that thereby we condemne the other kind of speech, but because in matters left to our libertie, we take that which see­meth fittest. Epiphan. li. 2 cap. 61. Epiphanius speaking of praier for the dead, which hath no warrant of Scripture, is glad to helpe himselfe with the authoritie of tradition: telling vs, that some things must be held by tradition, and not all taken out of the scriptures. But Epipha­nius doth not say, that this is a doctrine, or action necessarie to saluation.

A. D. §. 6.

Some obiect against this conclusion, that place of S. Paul. Om­nis Scriptura diuinitùs inspirata, vtilis est ad docendum &c. vt perfectus sit homo, &c. But this place prooueth nothing against that which I haue said. For it saith not, that scripture alone is suf­ficient to instruct a man to perfection, but that it is profitable for this purpose, as it is indeed; and the rather, because, it commendeth vnto vs the authoritie of the Church, which (as I shall afterwards proue) is sufficient. Now it is certaine, that to be profitable, and to be of it selfe alone sufficient, be farre different things. Stones and Timber be profitable to the building of an house: yet they alone, without a worke-man to square them, and set them in order, be not sufficient for this purpose.

A. W.

2. Tim. 3. 16 17. Of this place I haue spoken sufficiently Defence of the reformed Catholicke. page. 416. otherwhere, and shewed that the Scriptures are able to make vs wise to saluation, and therefore sufficient to that purpose, Now the Apostle ha­uing giuen that commendation to the scripture, vers. 15. pro­ceedeth in the next to exemplifie that in particular, which he had before said in generall, It is able to make thee wise to saluati­on, it is able to fit thee to teaching, reproouing, correcting, instructing. Can any reasonable man thinke, that the Apostle, deliuering (by way of amplification) his former commendation of the scripture, that he might the rather stirre vp Timothie to the stu­die of it, would say lesse, then he had done before? But it is a great deale lesse, to say no more, but the scripture is profitable to such purposes, then to commend it, as able to make a man wise to saluation. Therefore, though the word indeed doe not expresly [Page 97] signifie sufficiencie: yet it cannot be doubted, but the profit Hugo Cardina­lis ad 2. Tim. 3 mentioned implieth such a sufficiencie; especially since he ad­deth perfection, which must arise from this word of God. And so (as Defence of the reformed Cathol. pag. 416. I haue shewed elsewhere) do Chrysost. & Theophyl. ad 2. Tim. 3. 16. Chrysostome and The­ophylact vnderstand it, who make the Apostle speake to Timo­thie to this effect, that he being now to be offred vp, leaueth the scriptures in his steed of which he may in all things take aduise, and counsell, as if the Apostle himselfe were present with him.

But you forsooth would make vs beleeue, that the scripture is indeed profitable to this end, but not sufficient. Is not the knowledge of arts & tongues, philosophy and history, of verie good vse also to this purpose? Slender then, & too slender is the commendation our Apostle giueth the scriptures, if it be of no greater excellēcy then these humane furtherances, but only in a certain degree of profit. To helpe the matter you propound one particular, for which the scripture is profitable: namely to com­mend vnto vs the authority of the Church. But neither doth it cōmend to vs any such authority, as you imagin, &, if that be the rule of the scripture, one sentēce had bin as good & better then the whole volume of the Bible: which to say, were no lesse thē blasphemy. But I am afraid the scriptures, that Paul there speaks of, which were the books of the old Testamēt, are rather vnpro­fitable, thē profitable to that purpose. For they often amplify & magnify the word of God written, in so plaine termes, that eue­uery man may vnderstand them: as for the authority, you fancy to your selfe, they speake either nothing, or little, and that very obscurely thereof. But we shall see, in the rest of your Treatise, what proofe you can finde of this authoritie in Moses and the Prophets, and the writers of the olde Testament.

Now at the last, you remember your selfe againe, and returne to your old shift of Scripture alone. Which you deuised of your owne head, that you might haue somewhat to confute. It is not all one (say you) to be profitable, and to be of it selfe alone suffici­ent. And you tel vs, This is certaine. Who euer denied it? Or who but he, that wanted matter to replie against, would cast such doubts? Especially who would haue wasted time and paper to prooue or declare a thing so certaine and cleare, by a needlesse [Page 98] comparison? The scripture without any doctrines of men (call them what you will, & imagine what assistance of the spirit you list) is sufficient to teach all men the true & certaine way to sal­uation. This is that we affirme, not as you ridiculously slander vs, that there needs no ministerie of man, for the instructing of any one in the vnderstanding of any place of scripture, or know­ledge of any point of religion. These are your owne fancies, or mōsters rather, with which like bugbeares, you scare your poore seduced followers, and bleare the eies of the ignorant, that they may not enquire, what we teach indeed, but hate our doctrine, before they any way vnderstand it. But they that haue any care of their owne saluation, will not suffer themselues to be led by you hoodwinkt to destruction: if any man will needs be wil­fully ignorant, the Lord shall require his blood at his owne hands: we haue done our duetie in teaching and proouing the truth.

A. D.

CHAP. VIII. That no naturall wit or learning can be the rule of faith.

A. W.

If you had bestowed that paines and time in confirming your proposition, which you waste needlesly in proouing that, which no man denieth: you might perhaps haue spoken some­what more to the purpose, but it is lost labour to go about the refutatiō of that, which besides your selfe, no body euer thought on. That naturall wit or learning should be the rule of faith, is a conceit, amongst Christians neuer heard of, yet this haue you propounded for to exercise your strength vpon.

A. D. §. 1.

The second conclusion is, that no one mans naturall wit and lear­ning; neither any company of men neuer so learned (onely as they are learned men, not infallibly assisted by the holy Spirit of God) can, either by interpreting Scripture, or otherwise, be this rule of faith.

A. W.

Here you set out the former proposition more at large, in respect of the Antecedent, or first part of it. Neither any one mans naturall wit, nor many mens ioyned together, whatsoeuer their learning be, or what course soeuer they take, as naturall men, can be the rule of faith: either for any doctrine, they shal deliuer, or for any [Page 99] interpretation, they shall make of Scripture. But what needeth all this adoe? you do but fight with your owne shadow, yet let vs se how you haue bestirred your selfe.

A. D. §. 2.

This I prooue. Because all this wit and learning, be it neuer so exquisite or rare, is humane, naturall, and fallible: and therefore it cannot be a sufficient foundation, whereupon to build a diuine, su­pernaturall, and infallible faith.

This reason I confirme. Because whatsoeuer a man, neuer so wit­tie and learned propoundeth to others, to be beleeued, vpon the one­ly credit of his word, wit, or humane studie and learning: it can haue no more certaintie, then is this his word, wit, and learning. But these being all naturall and humane, are subiect to errour, and de­ceit. For Omnis homo mendax, there is no man, but he may, Rom. 3. 4. both deceiue, and be deceiued: and may (if he haue no other helpe, but of nature, and industrie) both be deceiued, in thinking that to be Gods word, which is not: or that to be the true meaning, and sense of Gods word, which is not: and may also deceiue others, whi­lest being too confident of his wit and learning, he presumeth to teach others, these his erroneous opinions. Therefore the beleefe which shall be built vpon such a mans word, and teaching, is, or may be a false beleefe: and alwaies is vncertaine and fallible: and therefore can neuer be a true Diuine and Christian faith, which alwaies is most certaine and infallible. And this which I haue said of the wit and learning of one particular man: may also be applied, to prooue against the wit and learning of any companie of men, ha­uing no assistance, but their owne naturall gifts, and industrie of stu­die or reading.

A. W.

  • No humane, naturall, and fallible thing can be the rule of faith.
  • Naturall wit and learning, though neuer so exquisite, are hu­mane, naturall, and fallible.
  • Therefore no humane wit nor learning can be the rule of faith.

I grant this reason and conclusion to be sound and true: onely in the confirmation of it, I finde some occasion to note one thing for the better vnderstanding of the matter, we haue in hand. If any man would speake for naturall wit, and [Page 100] learning in this question, he would not say, as the matter is here propounded, that any mans wit or learning were the rule of faith, but that the wit and learning of man might finde out somewhat at least in the Scripture, whereupon faith might safely be grounded. For example (as I said once be­fore) though it be not written any where in the Scripture, that there are three persons distinct each from other, and all these three but one God: yet may a man by naturall wit and lear­ning gather this out of the Scripture, and confirme it thence so plainely, and certainly, that any Christian may holde those points as Articles of faith. Not that they are to be taken for such, vpon the onely credit of his word, (which is a second thing, wherein you mistake the matter) but because, though euerie man be a lier; yet a man may see and shew a truth, which cannot, nor may be suspected of falshood or errour. And a be­leefe, builded vpon Doctrine so taught, shall be free from possibilitie of erring, and as you speake, infallible. This I thought good to obserue by occasion of your confirmation, where you suppose, that a man deliuereth matters to be be­leeued, vpon the bare credit of his word, by reason of his wit and learning. In this sense it is out of all question, that no naturall wit or learning of any, many, or all the men in the world, can be the rule of faith, but that, which a man dedu­ceth by necessarie and certaine consequence, through his wit and learning, out of the Scriptures, is as strong and sure a foun­dation of faith, as that, which is expressed there in plaine termes. VVe may see by this, it was not for nothing, that Bellar. de verb. Dei non script. lib. 4. cap. 3. Bellarmine, and you by his example, foyst in expressely in­to the question, which is betwixt vs, concerning the suffi­ciencie of the Scriptures to be the rule of faith. But of this enough.

A. D. §. 3.

This same reason I confirme yet againe more strongly. For the rule of faith must be able to propose to vs vnfallibly, not onely the let­ters and seeming sense, but the true sense of Gods word, and the sense intended by the holy Spirit of God, the author of this word; other­wise it cannot be a sufficient meanes to breed in vs an infallible Chri­stian faith and beleefe, which is onely grounded vpon the true sense [Page 101] intended by Almightie God, the prime or first veritie, the speaker of this word. But no man, nor no companie of men can by their natural wit and learning tel vnfallibly what (especially in all points of faith) is the true intended sense of Gods word. For as S. Paul saith, Quis cognouit sensum Domini? Who hath knowne (to wit, by nature, art or learning) the sense of our Lord? Quae Dei sunt (saith the same S. Paul) nemo cognouit nisi spiritus Dei: those things which are of God, no man hath knowne, but the spirit of God. And therefore that knowledge which himselfe had of diuine matters, came not from any naturall wit of man, but (as he plainly affirmeth) from the spirit of God: Nobis reuelauit Deus per Spiritum suum: God hath re­uealed vnto vs (saith he) by his Spirit. Therefore we may well con­clude, That no one man, nor no companie of men (without the assistance of Gods spirit) can either by interpreting Scripture, or otherwise be the rule of faith.

A. W.

It seemeth the former reason did not fully satisfie your selfe, because you make profession of a more strong confirmation thereof: which lieth thus:

  • The rule of faith must be able to propose infallibly to vs the true sence of the word of God, intended by the holy Ghost.
  • But no naturall wit or learning is able to propose infallibly that sence.
  • Therefore no naturall wit or learning can be the rule of faith.

I haue made bold to alter your proposition or maior a little, To the Pro­position. as I perswade my selfe not without reason. You make a kind of difference betwixt the true sense of Gods word, and the sense intended by the holy Ghost. These two in my poore opinion are all one: for there is no sense of any peece of Scripture to be accoūted true, but that vvhich deliuereth the holy Ghosts mea­ning in that place. The reason is, for that the vse of interpretatiō is nothing else but to make vs vnderstand what the Lord meant to teach vs, or to say to vs by those words. I deny not, that a man may deliuer true and sound diuinitie, though he misconceiue & misinterprete a text of Scriptures but this is that I say, that how­soeuer he teach true doctrine by his exposition, yet he doth not giue vs the true sense of that word of God, if he propound nor the sense which was there intended by the holy Ghost; euerie [Page 102] truth of God, is not the true sense of euery place of Scripture.

I will not except against your Syllogisme, though you put somewhat more into the Assumption, then you propounded in To the As­sumption. the maior: yet let me put you in mind, that both naturall wit and learning can shew the true sense of Gods word in very many places; and also that by your confession this may be done. Whence it will follow, that in all likelihood of reason, many points of faith are so deliuered in Scripture, that there needeth no infallible authoritie of the Church to teach vs what is true in those points, what false. To answer more directly to the As­sumption; I see no sufficient reason, why a man by wit and lear­ning may not be able to vnderstand, and that infallibly, what is true according to the letter of the Scripture, in matters neces­sary to saluation. I think I may truly say, that many a man attai­neth to this knowledge, without any infallible assistance of the holy Ghost, whose principall office it is, so to sanctifie, direct, and preserue the children of God, that they neuer fall away by any such opinion as shal make them lose their interest they haue to the kingdome of heauen.

Your proofe, if it be sufficient, sheweth your exception, especi­ally in all points, to haue bin altogether needlesse. For if the 1. Cor. 2. 16. Apo­stle in the place alledged, speake of vnderstanding the true sense of the Scripture, no one place can be vnderstood by any natural wit or learning. Who hath knowne the sense of our Lord? Is not this speech generall, as well of one place as of another? But it is eui­dent, that the Apostle speaketh not of vnderstanding any or all places of Scripture. For the spirituall man he speaketh of, attai­neth not to that height of knowledge, no not in your owne iudgement, vnlesse perhaps no man be spirituall but your Pope. And yet a man may well doubt, whether he be able to vnder­stand the meaning of the holy Ghost in euery place or no, though it be granted he cannot erre iudicially. But Saint Paul thinketh not in that place of interpreting scripture. Of what then? Surely of acknowledging or assenting to the truth of the Gospell, concerning saluation by Iesus Christ. 1. Cor. 2. 9. Hugo Cardin. ad 1. Cor. 2. The things that God hath prepared for them that loue him (viz. the meanes of sal­uation and glory by Christ) are such as eye hath not seen, nor eare [Page 103] heard, yea such as neuer entred into any mans heart. For who was able to haue deuised by any experience and obseruation (to which the eye and eare are especiall helpes) or by any discourse of reason (wherein the heart is exercised) that the Sonne of God should take our nature, and procure forgiuenesse of sinnes, and inheri­tance vers. 16. of heauen for all them that would beleeue in him? This was onely Gods will and counsell, which no man was priuie to, no man could instruct him in, or perswade him to. These things God only knew, these he reuealed by his spirit to the Patriarks, vers. 10. Prophets and Apostles, who without such reuelation, could neuer haue suspected any such matter. Now the question is not in the Apostles course of writing, whether a man without reue­lation can vnderstand the meaning of the Scripture; but whe­ther he could of himselfe know, that there must be such a means of saluation, or acknowledge the doctrine thereof to be true, without the teaching of the holy Ghost. The naturall man [...] receiueth not these things for true, or if you will, perceiueth not that there are such meanes of his saluation. As for vnderstan­ding of Scripture, since it is more then manifest, that a meere natural man may find the true sense intēded by the holy Ghost, at the least in many places, it cannot be the Apostles meaning, that no man knoweth the sense of our Lord in the Scripture. But the more you mistake the sense of the holy Ghost in Scripture, the better you proue your opinion, that no naturall wit or learning can bring a man to the vnderstanding thereof: onely you must take heed of ouerweening your owne wit and learning, and so of erring, by drawing a generall conclusion against all men from your owne defect: which also perhaps is not so much for want of wit or learning, as for lacke of paines taking, and because of a preiudicate conceit against the truth.

A. D. §. 4.

Hence I inferre that those, who, for matters of faith, relie who­ly, either vpon their owne priuate opinion or iudgement, of the sense and meaning of Scripture, or vpon the learning and iudgement of others, who are but men, not infallibly assisted by the holy Ghost, nor by him vnfallibly preserued from errour: (as many, or rather all Protestants do) those (I say) cannot haue diuine and Christian faith, but onely fallible opinion and humane faith.

As before I granted your conclusion, that naturall wit and learning cannot be the rule of faith: so I now acknowledge the truth of your illation, which you bring in thereupon, that he which relieth wholly vpon his owne priuate opinion, or any other mans iudgement, can haue no true faith. Yet must I again remem­ber, that to rely vpon such opinion or iudgement, is to take that for truth, which is taught barely vpon the credit of the teacher. For otherwise, a man may haue a true faith, that is a certain and infallible assent to the truth, though he beleeue vpon euident reason those points & interpretations, which are proued to him by men, without any infallible authoritie of the Church. But whereas you charge many, or rather all Protestants to rely so vpon the iudgement of men, I hope you do it without the au­thoritie of your Church that cannot erre; for I am sure you do it without any shew of truth. No Protestant of any discretion (not onely not all) beleeueth the doctrine of the Gospell in ge­nerall, or any one particular interpretation as a matter of faith, vpon any mans credit whatsoeuer. This reuerence indeed we giue to our teachers, that we rather trust their iudgement then our owne, and dare not dissent from them, but where we haue great likelihood of reason, at least to the contrary. Howsoeuer, we ground no point of faith vpon any interpretation, which is not plaine and euident to any man that will take paines to exa­mine it according to true reason.

A. D.

CHAP. IX. That a priuate spirit cannot be the rule of faith.

A. W.

A man may easily perceiue that you chuse to say any thing, rather then nothing: and therefore you make your selfe worke, Chapter after Chapter. I shall not need to repeate that which I haue noted before; this Chapter giueth sufficient euidence of that I say. What a strange kind of speech is this, that a priuate spirit is the rule of faith? No spirit, neither priuate nor publick, is ordinarily the rule of faith, no not the most holy spirit of God, but onely as he speaketh in the Scripture, who alwayes teacheth one and the same truth publickly and priuately.

A. D. §. 1.

The third conclusion is, that no priuate man, who perswadeth himselfe to be singularly instructed by the spirit, can be this rule of faith; especially so farre forth as he beleeueth or teacheth, contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church.

A. W.

This is the interpretation of the title of your Chapter: No priuate spirit, that is, no priuate man, who perswadeth himselfe to be singularly instructed by the spirit, &c. I cannot tel whether I shold thinke you haue forgotten to speake English, or purposely af­fect, as strange doctrine, so strange speech also. To be singularly instructed, with vs plaine Englishmen, is to be taught in rare and excellent sort; not to be apart, or seuerally alone instructed, which is your meaning. I grant mens priuat opinions are called singu­lar, and the men themselues, that haue such conceits, are also so termed; but he that professeth plainnesse to teach all kind of men, should labour to speake so, that all might vnderstand him. But to the matter. Whose opinion is it, that any such man as you conceit, or any man at all, can be the rule of faith? Sure not ours; who (as it hath often bene said) giue this honour only to the word of God. If any man hold that opinion (vnlesse per­haps the senslesse Anabaptists, with whom we haue nothing to do) you are they, who as it seemeth by the exception you adde, grant that with limitation, a man may be the rule of faith. For you say, he cannot be the rule of faith, especially so farre forth as he beleeueth or teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Ca­tholicke Church. Do you not imply in this speech, that so farre forth as he agreeth with the doctrine of the Catholick Church, he may be the rule of faith? But I obserue one rare thing in your course of disputing; that you ordinarily propound your matter in such sort, that you are faine presently after to make one exception or other. Chap. 7. Scripture alone (say you) cannot be the rule of faith: is this all you meane? No: a limitation followeth: Especially as it is translated by Protestants into English. Chap. 8. No natu­rall wit or learning can be the rule of faith. What? by no meanes? except they be infallibly assisted by the holy spirit of God. In this Chapter we haue the like course held by you. But leaue we this, and be take our selues to consider your proofe.

A. D. §. 2.

This I proue: first because Saint Paul saith, Si quis vobis euan­gelizauerit Gal. 1. 8. [Page 106] praeter id quod accepistis, Anathemasit: pronoun­cing generally, that whosoeuer teacheth or preacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, should be held Anathe­matized or accursed.

A. W.

Your reason is thus to be framed.

  • He that must be accursed for his teaching, cannot be the rule of faith.
  • But a priuate spirit, that teacheth contrary to the receiued do­ctrine of the Catholicke Church, must be accursed for his teaching.
  • Therefore a priuate spirit that teacheth contrary to the recei­ued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, cannot be the rule of faith.

First, I desire all men to obserue, that this argument of yours doth not proue that a priuate spirit cannot be the rule of faith, but onely so farre forth as he doth disagree from the doctrine of the Church; otherwise, for all this reason, he may be. Wherein you speake absurdly and falsly. Absurdly, in propounding such a question to refute, as neither we whom you professe to refute, nor any reasonable man would euer once imagne, viz. that a priuate spirit teaching an vntruth, might be the rule of faith. For, how can that be but an vntruth, which is contrary to that the Apostle deliuered by his preaching and writing? Further, it is false, that a priuate spirit agreeing with the Catholicke Church in doctrine, can be in that point of agreement, the rule of faith. For although the doctrine he teacheth be true, yet is it not the rule of faith (much lesse is he himselfe) because of his autho­ritie; but either as you say, by reason of the authoritie of the Church, or indeed, as we truly affirme, for that it is agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture, called canonical, because it is [...]. A rule. To the As­sumption. the rule of faith and manners.

Now for answer to your Syllogisme; I say your Assumption is not simply true, but onely so farre forth as the receiued do­ctrine of the Catholicke Church (I speake as you do) agreeth with the truth in the Scripture reuealed. Neither doth Gal. 1. 8. Saint Paul speake of whatsoeuer doctrine receiued by your imagined Catholicke Church of Rome; but of that which he himselfe [Page 107] or some other of the Apostles had taught the Galatians, to whom he writeth that Epistle. This it should seeme you saw well enough, and therefore in your crastie discretion, for bare to translate the Apostles words, which for the most part you set downe alwayes as well in English as in Latine. The reason lieth thus:

  • He that teacheth contrary to the doctrine which the Galatians had receiued of the Apostles, is to be accursed for his prea­ching so.
  • But a priuate spirit that teacheth contrary to the receiued do­ctrine of the Catholicke Church, teacheth contrary to the doctrine which the Galatians had receiued by the A­postles.
  • Therefore a priuate spirit teaching contrary to the receiued do­ctrine of the Catholicke Church, is to be accursed for his preaching so.

Who seeth not, that the truth of this Assumption depen­deth vpon this point, that the Catholicke Church hath receiued no other doctrine then that which the Apostles taught the Galati­ans? But this hath as much need of sound proofe, as that, for the proofe whereof it is brought: and therefore to dispute thus a­gainst any man that would hold a priuate spirit to be the rule of faith, were to giue him occasion to laugh at you, for begging the question in stead of prouing it. But to make all men see, how small force there is in this your reason, for the keeping of a priuate spirit from being the rule of faith, I will frame two o­ther syllogismes against a publick spirit or Councel, and against the Pope.

1.
  • He that must be accursed for his teaching, cannot be the rule of faith.
  • But a publicke spirit or Councell, that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholick Church, must be accursed for his teaching.
  • Therefore a publicke spirit or Councell, that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, cannot be the rule of faith.
2.
  • He that must be accursed for his teaching, cannot be the rule [Page 108] of faith.
  • But the Pope that teacheth contrarie to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church, must be accursed for his tea­ching.
  • Therefore the Pope that teacheth contrarie to the receiued do­ctrine of the Catholicke Church, cannot be the rule of faith.

Haue you not spun a faire threed (thinke you) to choake the Popes and the Councels authoritie withall? Call your wits a­bout you, and deuise some cleanly shift for the matter, or I can tel you, all wil be naught. For your Religion is no more able to hold vp head, if the Popes authoritie be cast downe, then a man that hath neuer a leg, is able to stand vpright. It will go the har­der with you in this matter, because if I grant that the Pope can­not erre, you are neuer a whit the nearer, for the answering of my syllogisme: as you may perceiue, if you will but assay to ap­ply that point for answer to either part thereof. There is no o­ther way, but to giue ouer this your first reason against a pri­uate spirit, and to make amends for it in the second, if you can.

A. D. §. 3.

Secondly, the rule of faith must be infallible, plainly knowne to all sorts of men, and vniuersall; that is to say, such as may suf­ficiently instruct all men in all points of faith, without danger of er­rour: (as hath bene proued before.) But this priuate spirit is not such. For first, that man himselfe cannot be vnfallibly sure, that he in particular is taught by the holy spirit. For neither is there any promise in Scripture, to assure him infallibly that he in particular is thus taught: neither is there any other sufficient reason to perswade the same. For suppose he haue such extraordinarie motions, fee­lings or illustrations, which he thinketh cannot come of himselfe, but from some spirit; yet he cannot in reason straightwayes conclude, that he is thus moued and taught by the spirit of God. For sure it is, that euery spirit is not the Spirit of God. As there is the spi­rit of truth: so there is a spirit of errour. As there is an Angell of light: so there is a Prince of darknesse. Yea sometimes Ipse Sa­thanas transfigurat se in Angelum lucis: Sathan himselfe doth 2. Cor. 11. transfigure himselfe into an Angell of light. Wherefore he had need [Page 109] very carefully to put in practise, the aduise of Saint Iohn, who saith. Nolite credere omni spiritui, sed probate spiritus, si ex Deo sint, 1. Iohn. 4. Doe not beleeue euerie spirit, but prooue and trie them, whether they be of God or no. Neither doth it seeme sufficient, that a priuate man trie them, onely by his owne iudgement; or by those motions, fee­lings or illuminations, which in his priuate conceit, are conformable to Scripture; because all this triall is verie vncertaine, and subiect to errour; by reason that our owne iudgement (especially in our own matters) is verie easily deceiued: and that Sathan can so cunningly couer himselfe vnder the shape of a good Angell; and so colour his wicked designements with pretense of good; and so gild his darke and grosse errours, with the glistering light of the words, and see­ming sense of scripture, that hardly, or not at all, he shall be percei­ued. VVherefore the safest way were to trie these spirits, by the touchstone, of the true Pastours of the Catholicke Church, who may say with S. Paul. Nō ignoramus cogitationes Satanae, we are not ignorant of the cogitations of Sathan: and who may also say with 2. Co. 2. 11. S. Iohn. Nos ex Deo sumus, qui nouit Deum, audit nos: qui non 1. Iohn. 4. 6. est ex Deo, non audit nos. In hoc cognoscimus spiritum veri­tatis, & spiritum erroris. VVe are of God, he that knoweth God, heareth vs: he that is not of God, doth not heare vs. In this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of errour. Now, if any will not admit this manner of trying, & discerning the spirit of truth, from the spirit of errour, but will trust their owne iudgement alone, in this matter: feare they may iustly, nay rather they may be sure (as Cassian saith) Collat. 61. c. 11 that they shall worship in their thoughts, the Angell of darknesse for the Angel of light, to their exceeding great harme. And, at least, how soeuer their priuate affection & selfe-loue encline them to think well of themselues, and of that spirit, which they permit to teach them those singuler points of new & strange doctrine: yet sure it is, that this their perswasion of the goodnesse of their spirit, is not infallible, as the rule of faith must be: sith diuers now adaies, perswade them­selues in the same manner to be taught by the holy spirit: and yet (one of them teaching against another) it is not possible, that all, that thus perswade themselues, should be taught by this spirit; sith this spirit doth neuer teach contrarie to it selfe. And therefore some in this their perswasion, must needs be deceiued. And therefore [Page 108] [...] [Page 109] [...] [Page 110] who, hauing no testimonie of euident miracle, or some other vndoub­ted proofe, dare arrogantly affirme, that he onely is not deceiued, es­pecially in such sort, as to condemne all other, and to propose him­selfe to himselfe and others, as the onely sufficient rule of faith, consi­dering that others, who presume, & perswade themselues altoge­ther in like manner, are in this their perswasion, deceiued.

A. W.

I must againe put the Reader in minde, that no Protestant maintaines, that a priuate spirit is the rule of faith; neither will I vndertake the defence of any such matter: but onely examine his reasons against it, as I haue done in the former chapters, in the like case. His reason is thus to be concluded.

  • The rule of faith must be infallible, plaine, knowne to all sorts of men, and vniuersall.
  • A priuate spirit is not such.
  • Therefore a priuate spirit is not the rule of faith.

Of the proposition, I spake at the sixth chapter, and shewed b Chap. 6. the fault of it, in respect of the second propertie, which is ea­sinesse c Chap. 7. to be vnderstood of all men, as it is expounded by your selfe. All the doubt now is in the assumption, of the three points, wherin you go about to prooue but only the first, of infallibility. It should seeme your stomacke is greater against the scripture, then against either natural wit & learning or priuate spirit. For you disprooue the abilitie of these two, but in respect of one property, namely the first, as if for the other two, they or ei­ther of them were sufficient enough. But you allow the Scrip­ture neuer a one of the three, you condemne it of obscuritie, you accuse it of defect for wanting diuers points necessa­rie to saluation. And although you do not simply denie the in­fallibilitie of it, yet you make all knowledge, that can be had out of our English translation, verie vncertaine; so that none of our people can haue any benefite by the scripture, as by the rule of faith, or word of God, but onely some few, that vnder­stand Hebrew or Greeke. But I perceiue you were more a­fraid that the scripture would be taken for the rule of faith, then you were, that either of the other would. Let vs see how you proue your assumption, since you wil needs put your selfe to more paines then was looked for.

  • [Page 111] He (say you) that cannot assure himselfe, and other men, that he is taught by the holy Ghost, cannot be the rule of faith.
  • But a priuate spirit cannot assure himselfe, and other men, that he is so taught.
  • Therefore a priuate spirit, cannot be the rule of faith.

There is some cause to doubt of your maior. For it is not ne­cessarie, To the pro­position. that the rule of faith should know it selfe to be the rule. The Pope, you thinke, is the rule of faith: Put case that some Pope should doubt, whether himselfe were infalli­bly directed in all his determinations by the holy Ghost or no: should he, by reason of this doubting, cease to be the rule of faith? I dare say, you thinke not so. Neuer vrge me with the impossibilitie of this matter. For both it is possible, if Declarat. mot. VVisbic. pag. 29. he, that is no Christian may be Pope of Rome, If Iohn the 22 doubted of the immortalitie of the soule, if Leo 10. counted the history of our Sauiour Christ a fable: and it is all one to my answer whe­ther it may be or no; it is enough for me, if the Pope may be the rule, though he should so doubt.

You should haue done well, if you had kept your former To the as­sumption. warie course of adding some exception to your assumption. It had not bene altogether without need. For out of question, a priuate spirit may be so assured by reuelation, as the Prophets and Apostles were. And by such meanes a man may come to as­surance, for all the subtiltie of Sathan; the Lord being able to make the motions of his spirit knowen to whom he please, what shift soeuer Sathan vse to the contrarie. The Minor there­fore Holkot. in 2. q. 4. ad 7. arg. princip. without this exception be either expressed or vnderstood, is vntrue, otherwise it is true.

As for the triall you propound, by the touchstone of the true pastors of the Catholicke Church, it is vtterly insufficient in this case. It may be, and is indeed a meanes of great autho­ritie, and vse to direct a man in finding out, and holding the truth: but it is no certaine proofe, that a man hath found, or doth hold the truth in all points, because Bellar. de. Concil. lib. 2. cap. 11. those pastors (as in due place shall appeare) may all be deceiued, without the Popes especiall direction. But admit their iudgement or au­thoritie were, in the matter, infallible: yet could no man there­by [Page 112] be assured, that himselfe is taught particularly by the holy Ghost. For many men hold the truth of God, as the true Church doth, and yet haue no such teaching by the spirit: since it is certaine, a man may deliuer truth, and he himselfe not be­leeue. Of your testimonies out of scripture, touching the Pa­stors of the Church, I will say onely thus much by the way; that the Pastors can speake neither of those sentences truely of themselues, but in a measure. 2. Cor. 2. 11. They know the deuises of Sathan, but in part, not wholy. 1. Iohn. 4. 6. He that knoweth God, heareth them, not simply in all points; for he that knoweth God, may doubt of some point deliuered by the true Pastors of the Church, who also are no farther to be heard, then they can shew that, they speake, to be from God. The Apostles, euerie one of them seuerally, knew all things, which the Lord thought fit to make knowen to men, and were to be heard, without any doubting of that, they deliuered: with them that priuiledge died, and all men now are tied to the triall of their doctrine by the scriptures.

The conclusion of this discourse concerneth either no man in the world, or if any, the Pope of Rome, Extra. Ioa. 22 de verb. signif. cap. quum in­ter. your Lord God. For the Anabaptists themselues, are not so absurd and shame­lesse, as to make any one of their sect the onely sufficient rule of all mens faith: but euerie man claimeth (though falsly and lewdly) a priuiledge of not erring, for himselfe. Onely your in­solent Pope will haue all men to depend vpon his iudgement, and in comparison of himselfe, disdaineth all writers, and all Councils whatsoeuer. What promises he hath, whereupon he beareth himselfe so high and stout, I make no doubt but we shal heare of you in this Treatise; till when I forbeare to say a­nie more.

A. D. §. 4.

But suppose one could assure himselfe, that he were taught by Gods Spirit immediately, what is the true faith in all points, in such sort, that he could erre in none, (as it is not the manner of Almightie God, to teach men immediately by himselfe alone, or by an Angell; but rather as the Scripture telleth vs, Fides ex auditu. Faith is bred in vs by hearing: and is to be required ex ore Sacer­dotis Rom. 10. 17. out of the mouth of the Priest: and is to be learned of Pastors Mal. 2. 7. [Page 113] and Doctors, whom God hath appointed in his Church, of purpose, to instruct vs, and continue vs in the ancient faith. But suppose (I say) that one could assuredly perswade himselfe, to be immediatly taught of God, what is the truth in all points: how should he, without te­stimonie of miracle, giue assurance to others, that he is thus taught? Especially when he teacheth quite contrarie to the Catholicke Church, which, by plaine promises and testimonies of Scripture, we know to be taught of God.

A. W:

Hitherto you haue prooued, that a man cannot assure him­selfe, that he is infallibly instructed by the holy Ghost. Now you are to shew, that howsoeuer the point might be cleere to him, yet he hath no meanes to perswade other men thereof, but that still there will be cause of doubting, whether he be so taught or no. But by the way, you tell vs, that it is not Gods manner to teach vs immediatly by himselfe alone, or by an Angel, but rather, as the scrip­ture telleth vs, faith is bred in vs by hearing. For the generall, that God teacheth not immediately, we are wholy of your opi­nion, and that the ordinarie meanes of faith is preaching: but we see no sufficient reason to disable the word of God in the scripture, as if it were not of force to bring forth the same ef­fect, where Gods ordinance of preaching cannot be had, or is not neglected. For since the matter deliuered in true preaching, and reading the scripture, is all one, vnlesse it be verie apparent that the holy Ghost wil not giue a blessing to him that readeth, hauing not opportunitie to heare; out of question faith may come by reading. Faith (saith Bellar de sacr. Bapt li. 1. cap. 11. §. Tertio. Bellarmine) cannot arise in the heart, but by diuine reuelation, which is either immediately from God alone, or by the instrument of the word preached, or read. And whereas the Apostle speaketh Rom. 10. 14. in that place of preaching and hearing, it is not his purpose to disable the word read, but to shew partly, (as 1. Cor. 2. 9. 10. otherwhere) that the meanes of saluation, were not, nor could be deuised by man, but proceed wholy from God: partly, that no man may excuse himselfe by igno­rance, because God hath sent his seruants Mat. 28. 19. into all parts of the world, to giue notice of the way of saluation, without which commaundement of his, no man might haue vndertaken the office of preaching the Gospell, either by word of mouth or [Page 114] 1. Pet. 1. 25. writing; and without the Gospell had bene published, no man could haue beleeued. For as it is in the same chapter, a little be­fore. Rom. 10. 14. vers. 18. How shall they beleeue in him, of whom they haue not heard? and how shall they heare, without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? Faith then is by hearing, that is, VVhitaker. de Script. q. 5. cap. 8. arg. 2. as one rightly expoundeth it, by the sense of the scripture truly vnder­stood. I do not equall reading to preaching, nor promise any blessing, but rather threaten a curse, where men refuse to heare the Pastors and Ministers of the seuerall congregations, where­in they liue; or any other, that by lawfull authoritie preach tru­ly and faithfully: but I would haue no man, by any con­ceit, weaken the power of God, speaking in his word, to all that can, and will reade and heare. Now to your argu­ment.

  • He that hath not testimonie of miracles, cannot giue assurance to others, that he is infallibly taught by the Spirit of God.
  • But a priuate spirit hath not testimonie of miracles.
  • Therefore he cannot giue assurance to others, that he is infallibly so taught.

First, I note two things in the propounding of this reason: the one that you adde an exception, according to your cu­stome, the other that you seeme to giue ouer great force to mi­racles. Your exception is, that he can giue no assurance, if he teach contrarie to the Catholicke Church: why so? Because we know that she is taught of God. Suppose that to be true, yet may he giue assurance to them, that know no such thing of the Church, and so be to them the rule of faith.

But it is worth the marking, that you preferre miracles be­fore the authoritie of the Church. For by them, a man (in your o­pinion) may haue assurance to others, that he is taught by the holy Ghost, though he teach quite contrarie to the Catholicke Church. But Gal. 1. 8. the Apostle hath accursed them, that receiue any other doc­trine, then he taught, though it be preached by an Angell from hea­uen. What will become of the faith of such men, when 2. Thes. 2. 9. Anti­christ comes with signes and lying wonders? But why should I aske that question? Your selfe and the rest of your popish brood haue answered it alreadie. For you are Apoc. 17 2. made drunke with the [Page 115] cup of fornication of the whore of Babylon, and bewitched with the miracles of that great Antichrist the Pope of Rome, to 2. Thess. 2. 11 beleeue lies, against the manifest truth of God in scripture. But 2. Pet. 1. 19. we haue a most sure word of the Prophets, confirmed, & ex­pounded by the Apostles, contrarie to which, or without war­rant of which, we will beleeue nothing, as necessarie to salua­tion, for all the miracles that your Antichrist, or the Diuel him­selfe can worke. For mine owne part (vnder correction I speake it) I am not perswaded, that euer any true miracle was, or shall be wrought, for confirmation of false doctrine, how soeuer the Diuel may serue his turne, by a shew of such matters. But it is all one to the moouing of a man, whether the thing done, be in truth a miracle, or onely such in his opinion. Be it neuer so true, it may bring no credit to any point of doctrine contrarie to the word of God, in the scripture. Yet since false shewes will worke the same effect in their hearts, whom God hath giuen ouer to the beleeuing of lies, that true miracles will, me thinkes I see no sufficient cause to imagine, that God will employ his infinite power to the countenācing of any vntruth, where no such thing is needfull.

I say then, for your proposition, that no assurance can be Of the pro­position. giuen either without, or with neuer so many miracles, if a mans doctrine be contrarie to the teaching of the Church, when the Church teacheth according to the Scripture. But in those points, wherein the Church shall faile of her dutie, the exposition of the word may giue assurance of truth spoken by him, that deliuereth the contrarie. But this I speake by way of explication, not of refutation. For I grant your proposition: So reuelation be excepted, as before. To the as­sumption.

If you meane, that euerie priuate spirit, hath not miracles to testifie of him, or that none hath true miracles to avow false do­ctrine by, I grant your Minor. But if you wold haue vs beleeue, that no man hath power by the diuels assistance, to make shew of such matters, as cannot by man be discerned from true miracles, I denie your assumption: and refute it by that for­mer instance of Antichrist, VVhose 2. Thes. 2. 9. comming is by the effe­ctuall [Page 116] working of Sathan, with all power and signes, and lying wonders.

A. D. §. 5.

Perhaps he will alledge that generall promise of scripture, Om­nis Math. 7. qui petit, accipit, assuring them thereby, that euerie one that praieth for any thing, receiueth it: and that he hath ear­nestly praied for the spirit, therefore he must needes haue it. But to this argument, we may easily answer; that this promise of our Sauiour, is not so vniuersally to be vnderstood, as though euerie one that praieth for a thing, shall infallibly obtaine it, without any condition (at least in the manner of praying) re­quired of our part. For we reade, euen in Scripture, Petitis, & non accipitis, eo quòd malè petatis. You aske or pray, and receiue not (the thing requested) because you aske amisse. By Iacob. 4. which place we learne, that to obtaine any thing by praier, re­quireth a condition of praying well, or in such sort, as is fit, the which condition, doth (as learned men obserue) include many cir­cumstances, for fault of the due obseruance whereof, it may and doth often happen, that our praier is not well made, nor in such sort as is fit: and is consequently frustrate of the efficacie, which otherwise by the promise of our Sauiour it should haue had. Now these circumstances being many, and diuers of them verie inward, it is not verie easie for any man, to be absolutely sure, that he hath obserued them, in such sort, as is fit: and therefore he cannot be absolutely sure, that his praier hath taken effect; and therefore it is not sufficient proofe, whereby one may perswade others, that he hath the Spirit of God, to say, he hath praied for it; especially considering, that we may finde very many most contrarie, in religion, one to another, who notwithstanding will say, that they daily pray for the holy Spirit: and I doubt not, but many of them in some sort, yea earnestly, after their manner, doe pray for it: yet sure it is, that all these (being thus contrarie) haue it not. How shall we then be assured, that this or that man, who, presuming vpon the assistance of this Spi­rit, (which he thinketh he hath obtained by praier) set­teth abroach a singular and new inuented doctrine, how shall we be sure (I say) that such a man hath the Spirit of God indeed?

A. W.

This obiection you make, is so void of all likelihood, that I perswade my selfe, no man would euer be so foolish as to al­ledge it in this question. For who can chuse but see at the very first reading of it, that if it may be had by praier, one may haue it as well as another? and therefore there is little reason, why all should rely vpon any one in such a matter. Besides, what a ridi­culous thing is it for me to imagine that euery body wil beleeue me on my word, when I tell them that I haue prayed earnestly for the spirit, and therefore must needs haue it? Wherefore your obiection and answer are not worth the considering or rea­ding.

Onely of the place you alledge, in a word, thus much may be said, that our Sauiour by it Mat. 7. 7. encourageth and perswadeth vs to pray, assuring vs of gracious acceptance by God his Father in all our petitions, so farre forth as the obtaining of them shall make for his glory, the good of his Church, and our owne spi­rituall and bodily comfort. And though it be most true, that we can neuer pray as we ought, yet may we be assured to haue our requests granted (the former conditions remembred) whenso­euer we pray for any thing belonging to the generall estate of Chri­stians, or our particular callings, with a true acknowledgement of Gods power, feeling of our owne wants, and resting vpon his promise to vs in Iesus Christ. Particularly, concerning the vnderstanding of Scripture: for any thing belonging to the generall estate of Christians, or our particular callings, which belongeth to the question we haue in hand, thus speaketh Chrysost. in praef. ad Rom. Chrysostome of this place. If you will perswade your selues (saith he) to reade the Scrip­tures diligently and carefully, there is nothing farther to be required of you for the vnderstanding of thē. His reasō followeth: For Christ hath truly said, Seeke and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you.

A. D. §. 6.

Some will perchance say, that we may safely beleeue them, because they preach nothing but pure Scripture, while as for euery point of their doctrine, they cite still sentences of Scripture. But this answer will not serue. First, because for and in the name of Scripture they bring forth their false and corrupt translations, which do differ in some places, euen in words, from true Scripture. Secondly, supposing [Page 118] that they did alwayes cite the true words of Scripture, yet they may easily apply them to a wrong sense or meaning; to wit to that which they falsly imagine (being seduced by their owne appetite, or by their owne former error) to be the true sense. For as Saint Austin saith, Ad imagines phantasmatum suorum carnalls anima conuertit Lib. 3. de bapt. cont. Donatist. cap. 19. omnia sacramenta & verba librorum, sanctorum: a carnall and sensuall mind (such as hereticks are not without, sith heresie it selfe is accounted by Saint Paul a work of the flesh) doth conuert or turne all the mysteries and words of holy books vnto his owne imaginations and fantasies. Whereupon it commeth to passe, that as the same Saint Austin saith: Omnes haeretici, qui in authoritate Scripturas reci­piunt, Ep. 222. & tract. 18. in Ioan. ipsas sibi videntur sectari, cum suos sectentur errores. All heretickes that receiue and admit the authoritie of the Scriptures, seeme to themselues to follow the onely Scriptures, when they follow their owne errors. And as they may seeme to themselues to follow onely the Scriptures, when they follow their owne errors: so they may seeme, especially to the simple people; or to those, who being seduced by them, wholy build their beleefe vpon them, to preach nothing but pure Scripture, when indeed they preach their owne erroneous opi­nions, coloured and painted with words of Scripture; as it is the man­ner of euery sect maister to confirme his errour with words of Scrip­ture: yea the diuell himselfe doth sometime for his purpose alledge words of Scripture.

A. W.

It appeareth by this second obiection, that this discourse was intended against vs, who call you for the triall of all que­stions of Religion, to the Scripture of God. But how iniuriously you deale with vs herein, a blind man may see. For we neither claime any such priuiledge of being free from errour in citing and vnderstanding Scripture, nor desire to be any farther be­leeued for translation or interpretation, then we can approue them by euident reason. And this you knew well enough, and are ready with the rest of your complices, to accuse vs of refer­ring all to euery mans priuate spirit. But malice is as wel without sight, as without shame.

That of Saint Austin we acknowledge to be most true, and find it verified by your Rhemish translation, and the applicatiō of Scripture in your Canon law, and Schoole-mens writings: [Page 119] out of which it is easie to bring a cloud of witnesses to this pur­pose.

For the other place of Austin, you quote two treatises, his 18. tract vpon Iohn, and his 222. epistle to Consentius. In the for­mer whereof, there is no such word to be found, nor any such epistle either in the Basil, or 1523. the old Paris print. But in your 1586. late edition of Austin at Paris, both the epistle and the words are, wherein Austin maketh the misunderstanding of the Scrip­tures the occasion of heresie. Who denieth it? This may serue vs to proue, that [...]. the ignorance of the Scriptures is exceeding dange­rous; euen as Chrysost. ad Coloss bom. 19. Chrysostome saith, [...]. the cause of all euils. In ano­ther place the August. de Gen. ad lit. lib. 7. cap. 9. same Austin telleth vs, that men are for nothing else hereticks, but because not rightly vnderstanding the Scriptures, they obstinately maintaine their owne opinions against the truth of them. And Tertul. de re­sur. carnis. cap. 63. Tertullian goeth somewhat further, shewing that heresies durst not peepe vp without some occasion taken by the Scrip­tures. But he addes, that those very heresies may be conuinced by the Scriptures. If we misinterprete the Scriptures, why do not you great Clearkes, that haue the spirit tied to your Church, refute our false interpretations by the Scriptures? Do we refuse this triall? Is it not that we stil vrge, to haue all things examined by the Scriptures? or is there any thing you more feare, then to be confined to the Scriptures? What though the diuell and he­reticks alledge them? Did not our Sauiour himselfe say so too? Opus imperf. in Math. hom. 48. What plea can you make, wherein some heretickes haue not gone before you? Will you brag of the Church? He­reticks also both thinke and say they are of the Church: yea they are in all things so like true professors, that in Antichrists time (as Opus imperf. in Math. hom. 49. an ancient author speaketh) there is no meanes of triall left but the Scripture. If you vrge tradition, so do heretickes too, running vp and downe (right like you Papists) Jren. lib. 3. cap. 1. 2. from tradition to Scripture, and from Scripture to tradition. They pleade Councels as well as you. The August. cont. Maxim. lib. 1. Arians obiect diuers against Au­stin and other writers. As for the Fathers: was not De bapt. con. Donat. lib. 3. cap. 2. Austin prest by the Donatists with Agrippin and Cyprian? Did not the he­retick Dioscorus cry out Concil. Chai­ced. Actio 1. in the Councel of Chalcedon, I haue the testimonies of the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Gregorie, Cyrill. [Page 120] I vary not from them in any point, I am cast out with the Fathers, I defend the fathers doctrine, I haue their iudgement extant in their bookes.

Neither may we rest vpon miracles. To let passe what before I said of that point, remember what August. in Ioan. tract. 13. Austin saith, Pontius (say the Manichees) did a miracle, Donat prayed, and God answered him from heauen. The Scripture onely is the true touchstone in these cases, if it be hard, Let him that hath an heart (saith August. de doct. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 6. Au­stin) reade those things that go before, and those that follow, and he shall find the sense.

A. D. §: 7.

Wherefore there is no reason, whereby we may be assured, that such men haue the spirit of God: but we may find many reasons to conuince that they haue not this spirit. And to omit, for breuitic sake, the seeking out of any other, euen the singularitie or priuatnesse of their spirit, is sufficient not onely to moue vs to suspect it, but also to condemne it, and to assure vs, that it cannot be the spirit of truth: as it is very well signified by Saint Austin, who saith, Veritas tua, Lib. 12. Confes. cap. 25. Domine, nec mea est, nec illius, sed omnium quos ad eius com­munionem publicè vocas; terribiliter admonens nos, ne eam habere velimus priuatam, ne priuemur ea. Nam quisquis id quod tu ad fruendū omnibus proponis, sibi propriè vendicat, & suum esse vult, quod omniū est, à communi propellitur ad sua, id est, à veritate ad mendaciū. Thy truth (O Lord) is neither proper to me, nor him, but common to all, whom thou doest publikly call to the common partaking of it; warning vs terribly to take heed, that we will not haue it priuate to our selfe, least we be depriued of it. For whosoeuer doth challenge that to himselfe priuatly, which thou doest propose publickly to be enioyed of all, and will haue that his owne, which is common to all, he is driuen from the common to his owne, that is to say, from the truth to a lie.

A. W.

To refute this conceit of a priuate spirit (which was not worth this ado) you argue from the singularitie or priuatenesse of it; as if it could not be true, because it is not agreeable to the common opinion. And surely he that shall be so arrogant and shamelesse, as to denie all the points of Religion commonly held, vpon a presumption that himselfe onely hath the spirit of God, is fitter to be cut off by the Magistrates sword, then con­futed [Page 121] by the word of Scripture. But it is very possible, that in some points and places, some one man, without any reuelation, by diligent searching and prayer, may finde out that, which no other man yet knoweth, at least for interpretation of Scripture, as it falleth out euery day amongst both Protestants and Papists. Therefore your Caietan. praef. in lib. Mosis. Cardinall Caietan doubteth not to say, that God hath not tied the exposition of the Scriptures to the senses of the Fathers: and therefore asketh no more then reason, when he willeth the Reader not to be offended or mislike it, if sometimes him­selfe hit vpon a new sense agreeable to the text, though it go against the streame of the fathers. For which, though Canus loc. Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. Canus reproue him without cause, Andrad. de­fens. fid. Trid. lib 2. Andradius iustly defendeth him. And why should he not? since, as Domingo a Soto witnesseth, one mans authoritie and learning draweth numbers after him to his opi­nion. By reason of a saying of Saint Austins, (saith Sotus de nat. & grat. l. 3. c. 4. Soto) all the fa­thers after his time, and all the Diuines, with one consent haue wor­thily affirmed, that the glorious Ʋirgin neuer committed any actual sinne, for all Chrysostome, auncienter then he, thought the contrary. Yet was Austins iudgement in this case, but priuate, and for truth, inferiour to Chrysostomes. If publicknesse or generall consent should cary the matter, how chance Sozom. lib. 1. cap. 23. Paphnutius with­stood all the rest of the famous Councel of Nice, and preuailed? We ought (saith Picus in quaes. An Papa sit su­pra Concilium. Picus Earle of Mirandula) to beleeue a simple husbandman, a child, or an old woman, rather then the Pope, and a thousand Bb. if these speake against the Gospell, and the other with it. Then belike a priuate man may see some truth, which is not generally discerned.

The place of August. conf. lib. 12. cap. 25. Austin you bring, doth not condemne all in­terpretations or opinions, which some one man findeth out, and holdeth, but onely reproueth them, who in expounding the places of Scripture, which wil beare a diuers sense, vrge one onely, not because it is truth, but because they like it best. His ex­ample is out of Genesis concerning the sense of those words: Gen. 1. 1. In the beginning God created heauen and earth. They know not which of those diuers senses that may be, Moses did intend (saith August. vbi supra. cap. 11. 12 Austin) but they loue their owne opinion, not because it is true, but because it is their owne. What doth this concerne vs? who, as we [Page 122] giue euery man of iudgement leaue to propound his interpre­tation to be examined: so permit no man to thrust any exposition vpon the Church, which he cannot make euident proofe of, by sound reason. Neither is it then taken as his priuate conceit, but acknowledged as the truth of God, manifested by his industrie. In doubtfull places we follow the likeliest sense, without any re­solute determining what is true, what false: & therefore See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 1. art. 5. cannot with any shew of reason be charged to appropriate the know­ledge of Gods truth to our selues, where it hath pleased his Ma­iestie so to propound it, that of diuers senses a man cannot cer­tainly affirme, that this or that is true.

A. D.

CHAP. X. That the doctrine and teaching of the true Church, is the rule of faith.

A. W.

If you had mentioned nothing but the doctrine of the true Church, we might haue vnderstood you, without any cause of doubting: but now you ad teaching to doctrine, we are enforced to enquire farther into your meaning. For we are vncertaine, whether by those words you meane one and the same thing, or no. The doctrine of the Church, is that which the Church propoundeth to be beleeued, whether by word of mouth, or in writing. Teaching, if we make it differ from doctrine, is that onely which is deliuered by voice to the eare. If we vnderstand you in the former sense for teaching by writing, as well as by word of mouth, the latter word was needlesse; if in the latter of writing onely, then the same doctrine written, is not the rule of faith, which vttered by a teacher will become such a rule; not because it is true, but because it is taught by authoritie.

A. D. §. 1.

The fourth conclusion is, that this infallible rule, which euery one ought to follow in all points of faith, is the doctrine and tea­ching of the true Church, or companie of the true faithfull of Christ.

A. W.

That we may the better vnderstand what you say, and how you proue your saying, there are a few things to be conside­red in this fourth condition. First, by the faithfull of Christ, you [Page 123] must meane those that professe Christian Religion, whether they beleeue as they professe, or no; as I haue shewed out of Bellar. de Ec­cles. mil. lib. 3. cap. 10. Bellarmine, who doubtlesse knoweth what the Church is, as well as you. If you be of any other opinion, by Chap. [...]. your owne rule we may reiect it, for the priuatnesse thereof.

Secondly, where you say the true faithfull, it is not your pur­pose to speake as we, for whom you writ this, commonly doe, of them that haue a true iustifying faith; but of them that pro­fesse the doctrine of the Gospell, according to the true sense and meaning of it, whether they haue any iustifying faith or no.

Thirdly, by this companie or Church, whom vnderstand you? If the whole number of the beleeuers, as well Laitie as Clear­gie, I oppose the iudgement of your owne Doctours against you, who speaking of the Churches doctrine and teaching, restraine the word onely to the Pope and Bishops. The spirit (saith Bellar. de verb. Dei. lib. 3. cap. 3. §. Tota igitur. Bellarmine) is certainly found in the Church, that is, in a Councell of Bishops, confirmed by the chiefe Pastor of the whole Church, or in the chiefe Pastor with a Councell of the other Pa­stors. If you follow Bellarmine, I demaund whether your Laity be none of the true faithfull of Christ, nor parts of the Church. But to leaue this doubt, wee are thus to conceiue your mea­ning, that the doctrine which the Pope and other Pastors of the Church, namely Bb. deliuer in a Councell, is the rule of faith.

Now let vs propound your reason, and examine it; but first I confesse, that I dare not resolutely determine whether it be brought in by you, for a proofe of any thing that hitherto hath bene spoken, or intended onely, as a discourse concerning the authoritie of the Church. If we apply it to any matter alreadie past, as farre as I am able to conceiue, it must be a second proofe of the proposition or maior of your maine Syllogisme in this manner.

  • If the doctrine and teaching of the true Church be the infallible rule which all men ought to follow, then the faith which the authority of the true Church commends to vs, is to be holden for the true faith.
  • [Page 124] But the doctrine and teaching of the true church, is the infallible rule, that all men ought to follow.
  • Therfore the faith which the authoritie of the true Church com­mendeth to vs, is to be holden for the true faith.

This reasonable coherence we may make betwixt this Chap­ter and your former course, without changing or weakning any part or point of your proofe, which is applied to the confirming of this last minor, the argument of this Chapter.

A. D. §. 2.

This I proue by this reason. If our Sauiour Christ hath promised to any company of men, the presence of himselfe, and the assistance of his holy spirit, of purpose to instruct and teach them all truth: giuing withall peculiar charge and commission to them, to teach all nations, and to preach to euery creature: giuing also warrant to all, that they may safely heare them: giuing also commandement, whereby he bin­deth all, to do in all things according to their saying: and threatning greatly those who will not heare and beleeue them: then certainly the doctrine and teaching of these men, is in all points most true and infallible; and such, as (if the other conditions required in the rule of faith be not, as they are not, wanting) may well be proposed to all sorts as an assured ground, whereupon they may safely build an infallible Christian faith. For looke what our Sauiour Christ hath promised, must needs be performed; and whatsoeuer he warranteth or comman­deth, may safely and without danger of error be done, nay must of necessitie be done, especially when he threatneth those that will not do it: and consequently if he haue promised to send his holy Spirit to teach any companie of men all truth; it is not to be doubted, but that he sendeth this his holy Spirit, and by it teacheth them all truth: and fith the teaching of his Spirit is vnfallible, we are not to doubt but that this companie is in all points infallibly taught the truth. If also the same our Sauiour gaue warrant and commandement, that they should teach vs, and that we should heare them, and do in all things according to their saying: we may not likewise doubt, but that they shall be able to teach all sorts of men, in all points, the infallible truth; and that all sorts of men may, if they will, learne of that companie, what in all points is the infallible truth. For otherwise by this gene­rall commaundement of hearing them, and doing according to their saying, we should be bound somtime to heare and beleeue an vntruth, [Page 125] and to doe that, which were not vpright and good: which with­out blasphemie to Christ his veritie and goodnesse can no way be thought.

A. W.

  • 1 If our Sauiour Christ (say you) hath promised to any companie his presence and assistance of his spirit, of pur­pose to instruct and teach them all truth.
  • 2 If he haue giuen them charge and commission to preach to euerie creature.
  • 3 If he haue giuen warrant to all, that they may safely heare them.
  • 4 If he haue giuen commaundement to all, to doe in all things, according to their saying.
  • 5 If he haue threatned them, who will not heare and be­leeue them.
  • 6 If the other conditions required in the rule of faith be not wanting, then the doctrine and teaching of the true Church is the rule, that all men ought to follow.

But our Sauiour Christ hath so 1. promised, 2. charged, 3. warranted, 4. commaunded, 5. threatned, and 6. the other conditions required, are not wanting.

Therefore the doctrine and teaching of the true Church is the rule that all men ought to follow.

I haue propounded this Syllogisme, as your selfe haue set it Of the pro­position. downe, saue onely that I haue endeuored to make it some­what shorter, keeping your sense whole and full. Now for the proposition, I grant the consequence, vpon all those conditi­ons ioyntly considered, to be sound and good: Howsoe­uer some of them might well haue bene omitted: for ex­ample.

1 If our Sauiour haue promised his presence and assistance of his spirit, of purpose to teach a certaine companie of men all truth, then the doctrine of the Church is the rule of faith.

This consequence is but weake: for Christ may affoord such presence and assistance to such a purpose, and yet the ef­fect not ensue, by reason that those men faile in some duties re­quired on their part. Do not you affirme Chap. 5. in this Treatise, that God hath appointed meanes of saluation for all men, with a [Page 126] true will to haue them saued; and yet verie many, yea the grea­test part are not saued?

2 If he haue giuen them charge and commission to preach to euerie creature, then their preaching is the rule of faith.

Their commission is not simply to teach, but to teach Math. 28. 20. those things, that our Sauiour himselfe commaunded, and therefore their doctrine can be no farther the rule of faith, then they preach according to their commission. If I, or an Angell from heauen (saith Gal. 1. 8. the Apostle) preach vnto you, otherwise, then that you haue receiued, let him be accursed.

The same may be obiected against the third, and the fifth points: It doth not follow that their doctrine is the rule of faith, because all men haue warrant to heare them safely: or be­cause, they are threatned, who will not heare and beleeue them. For first, they may be free from danger of erring, and yet not know all points of faith, Chap. 6. which is made by you one condition of the rule. Secondly, vnlesse you enlarge the warrant, as farre as the commaundement, in the fourth point, (which is in a man­ner to confound them) so that they may safely heare them in all things, your consequence will still be naught. Thirdly, they may heare them safely, though the other may erre, if they haue means affoorded to examine that they deliuer, & skill and care to vse those meanes. Fourthly, the threatning, for not belee­uing, is to be restrained to their teaching, as they ought. Are not they threatned Luc. 10. 16. by our Sauiour, who beleeue not any Minister lawfully authorised, and preaching the truth? Yet doth it not follow hereupon, that they cannot erre, or that their preaching is simply the rule of faith.

But these feeble consequences might all haue bene omit­ted by you, and your matter as fully prooued, if you had set downe none, but the fourth and sixth points thus.

If God haue commaunded all men to doe, in all things, as the Church teacheth, and the other conditions required in the rule be not wanting, then their preaching is the rule, that all men ought to follow.

This consequence is true, and sufficient for your purpose; [Page 127] the other serue for number to make a shew, rather then for substance of weight. But of your Maior this may be suffici­ent, especially since I acknowledge the truth thereof.

A. D. §. 3.

But so it is, that Christ our Sauiour hath in holy Scripture pro­mised, giuen commission, warranted, commaunded, and threat­ned in manner aforesaid.

Therefore we cannot doubt, but that there is a certaine company (the which is called the true Church of Christ) which both is, in all points of faith, infallibly taught, by the holy Spirit; and is like­wise to teach all sorts of men, in all points of faith, what is the in­fallible truth: and therefore the teaching of this companie, may well be assigned, and proposed to all men, as an vndoubted, sufficient rule of faith.

A. W.

I denie your Minor, first in generall; because our Sauiour did To the as­sumption. not so promise, charge, warrant, commaund, threaten, in regard of any companie of men, as if there had bene some ioynt tea­ching appointed by him: but in respect of his Apostles, and Ministers seuerally, who, in their proportion, haue as much authoritie, for necessitie of being beleeued, seuerally one by one, as iointly all together; though such a ioynt consent is the more to be reuerenced, and respected. Secondly, I denie it also, in the fourth point, which is the strength of it. There ne­uer was since the Apostles, any man, or any companie of men, according to whose saying we were commaunded to doe in all things. Lastly, I say the conditions required in the rule of faith, are wanting in the teaching you vnderstand.

This conclusion of yours giueth me occasion to speake some­what Of the con­clusion. at large of the Church, with the name whereof applied Heruaeus de potest Papae. cap. 23. to your Pope alone, or Pope and Cleargie, you daily seduce many vnsetled and ignorant people. The word Church in our English tongue seemeth first of all to haue bene applied to the Temple, or place of Gods seruice, as if it were called Kyrke, of the Greeke [...] [...], as you would say the Lords house. But the Hebrew & Greek words, which must be the Iudges in this mat­ter, signifie a Companie, Congregation, or Assemblie. The Hebrew [...] words are two, the Greeke as many; the Latin, besides the two Greeke made Latin, are diuers, Populi, people: Coetus, com­panie, [Page 128] congregatio, congregation: multitudo, multitude: turba, troope: concio, assembly: exercitus, armie. But the two Greeke words are best knowne, [...]. Ecclesia and Synagôga: the former whereof commeth of the Hebrew, retaining almost the signi­fication, and sound thereof. In this, they all agree, that they note vnto vs a companie or assembly. But because the Greeke [...] is the word, that most of all concerneth this question, let vs enquire of that the more diligently. The word, for the na­ture of it, signifieth any companie called together; generally any assembly lawfully or vnlawfully, orderly or disorderly as­sembled. Of lawful assemblies there is no question, of vnlawfull we haue an example Act. 19. 25. 29. 40. 41. in the Scripture, where the people of E­phesus, tumultuously ranne together against Paul and Apollos. So doth the Hebrew word signifie in the Psalmes, where [...] & ecclesiam. the Greeke and Latine translate by the same word: Psal. 25. 5. I haue hated the assembly of the wicked. But in the new testament, except that one place of the Acts, it is alwaies applied to them, that make profession of religion. In which sense it is sometimes vsed inde­finitely, 1. Cor. 12. 28. God hath ordained some in the Church, first Apostles &c. So the Apostle Paul saith, that & 15. 9. Phil. 3. 6. he had persecuted the Church of God. Thus may we also vnderstād that, 1. Tim. 3. 15. The house of God, which is the Church of the liuing God: If we conceiue that the Apostle speaketh to Timothie, as to an Euangelist, and not as to the Pa­stor or Bishop of Ephesus. Hitherto may those places be re­ferred, Act. 2. 47. The Lord added to the Church from day to day: And & 5. 11. great feare came on all the Church. Herode stretched forth his hand to vexe certaine of the Church: and such like, though they may also be vnderstood of the beleeuers, at those times ordi­narily abiding in Ierusalem, and assembling themselues toge­ther in one, or (which is the likelier) in diuers congregations, for exercise of religion. More particularly, and vsually, the Church is taken for anie one congregation assembled about matters of religion: Act. 15. 22. It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church. Not as if the Apostles and Elders had bene no members of that Church, but the principall being first named, the generall terme is added, which comprehended all: as if they should haue said: The Apostles and Elders, and all the [Page 129] rest of the Church at Ierusalem: whereof, as it was a particu­lar congregation, the Apostles, at that time were not members. And in this meaning may a Councell of diuers parishes, prouin­ces, or nations be called by the name of a Church; and in the like sort may we call the assemblies & congregations in Rome, Coriath, Ephesus, the Churches of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus: be­cause of some common synod, or because by the terme Church, the beleeuers are signified. Most vsually, the seuerall congre­gations in any countrie or Citie are called Churches, because of their ordinarie assembling. Act. 9. 31. Then had the Churches rest, through all Iudea. & 14. 23. When they had ordained them Elders by electi­on in euery Church. 1. Cor. 11. 16 VVe haue no such custome, nor the Churches of God. When the title is applied to particular families, it hath no other meaning, as I take it, then to note them for Christians or beleeuers. Rom. 16. 5. Philem. ver. 2. Greet the Church (that is the beleeuers) which are in their house. And thus much of the Church, as it signifi­eth generally Beleeuers.

The word Church, is vsed in the scriptures, and that verie of­ten, not for all, but onely for some beleeuers, namely, for such as are indeed true beleeuers, in respect of true faith in Iesus Christ: and these are alwaies of the elect: who are then called the Church, when they are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to Iustifying faith: Therefore when we say that the Church signifieth the elect, or predestinate, we meane onely such of the elect, as by faith are members of our Sauiours bodie, he being the head. For howsoeuer, in the secret Counsell of God, many not yet borne, be predestinate to euerlasting life; yet they are not to be accounted of this Church, before it hath pleased God to call them to beleeue in Christ.

Examples of the Church thus taken, amongst many are these. Mat. 16. 18. Vpon this rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. Eph. 1. 22. & 5. 23. God hath giuen Christ aboue all, the head of the Church. So Col. 1. 24. the Church is called Christs bodie. This may serue, concerning the meaning of the wotd: out of which I obserue this point, that since the terme Church is so di­uersly taken in the scripture, no argument from any place of Scripture can be of force to prooue any question, till the [Page 130] signification of the word, in that place, be euident and certaine. And therefore it is not enough, for proofe of a matter in con­trouersie betwixt vs, to alledge a text of Scripture, where such a thing is spoken of the Church, but it stands vs vpon to prooue, that in the place we alledge, by Church, the companie we in­tend, is signified. This being vnderstood and remembred, I come now to the seuerall points in your Minor.

A. D. §. 4.

The promise of our Sauiour Christ we haue first in the Gospell of Mat. cap. 28. Saint Matthew: Ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus, vsque ad consummationem seculi: I am with you all the daies, vntill the end of the world: in which words is promised the continuall presence of Christ himselfe, (who is veritas the truth it selfe) with his Church; not for a while then, or for a while now; but, all the daies vntill the end of the world. Secondly, we haue an other promise in the Gospell of Saint Iohn: Ego rogabo Patrem, & alium para­cletum Joan. 14. dabit vobis, vt maneat vobiscum in aeternum, Spiritum veritatis. I will aske my Father, and he will giue you an other pa­raclite, the spirit of truth, that he may remaine with you (not onely for 600. yeares) but for euer. And againe (in the same Saint Iohn) to shew vs, for what purpose he would haue his holy Spirit remaine among vs for euer; he saith, Paracletus quem mittet Pater in no­mine Ioan. 14. meo, ille vos docebit omnia, & suggeret vobis omnia, quaecunque dixero vobis. The paraclite, whom my Father will send in my name, shall teach you all things, and shall put you in minde of all things whatsoeuer I shall say vnto you. And againe, Cum venerit ille Spiritus veritatis, docebit vos omnem verita­tem. Ioan. 16. When that spirit of truth shall come, he shall teach you all truth.

A. W.

The first point of your Minor is, that Christ promiseth his presence, and the assistance of his spirit, to teach them all truth. First I demaund, whether our Sauiours presence be for the tea­ching of all truth, or no: or whether that be onely the office of the spirit? If the former, to what purpose is the spirit promi­sed, whom our Sauiour hath appointed his vicegerent, as it were, in that matter; as the other places you alledge prooue? If it belong to the spirit, how is the presence of Christ applied therunto? But to answer directly to the place, thus you dispute.

  • [Page 131] If Christ haue promised to be with a companie of men, till the end of the world: then he hath promised it, that he might teach the Church all truth.
  • But he hath promised to be with a companie of men, till the end of the world.
  • Therefore he hath promised it, that he might teach them all truth.

Admit all this were granted: yet would it not follow here­upon, To the whole Syllogisme. that the Church therefore could not erre: because, as I answered before, perhaps they would not haue care to learne and remember all, though our Sauiour were readie to teach them all.

I denie the consequence of your proposition. First, because To the pro­position. they, to whom our Sauiour maketh this promise, are not the Church, as you vnderstand the Church, that is, the Cleargie, of whose teaching you wholy speake, but the faithfull ioyntly, and seuerally, as well hearers as teachers, as well euery one, as all together. This appeareth by the text, Mat. 28. 19. 20. Go teach all nations &c. and behold I am with you, till the end of the world. With whom? With you that teach only? Nay rather with al beleeuers, Ioan. 17. 20. for all which he praied, as well as for the teachers. So haue the an­cient writers expounded and vnderstood this place. He doth not say, he will be with them onely (saith Chrysost. in Math. hom. 91. Chrysostome) but also with all, that shall beleeue after them. For the Apostles were not to continue to the end of the world, but he speaketh to the faithfull, as to one bodie. Christ sheweth (saith Hieron. ad Matth. 28. Jerome) that he will ne­uer depart from them that beleeue. So doth Cyprian. epi­stola. 81. §. 1. ad Serg. Ro­gat. & cae­teros. Cyprian make it common to all beleeuers, that confesse the truth of God in time of triall. So doth Leo. ser. de resurrec. 2. Leo, to all, that are adopted. He that is gone vp into Heauen (saith Leo) doth not forsake them, that are adopted. So Beda apud Thoan Cate. ad Mat. 28. Beda, he remaineth with his elect in this world protecting thē. To which purpose August. in Ioan. tract. 50. S. Austin saith, that this promise is fulfilled by our Sauiour, in that he is present, according to his maiestie, ac­cording to his prouidence, according to his vnspeakable, and inuisible grace. With all that beleeue, (saith Gaudent. ad Neophyt. de promis. Paracl. Gaudentius) I will be with you that is (saith Dionys. Car­thus. ad Mat. 28 Denys the Charterhouse monke) with you, and your successors, and with all the faithfull, or militant Church. And [Page 132] thereupon he gathereth, that the faith shall neuer wholy faile, but Christian religion shall continue in some till the end of the world. The like collection Raban. Maur. ad Math. 28. Rabanus maketh, Hereby (saith he) it is vnderstood, that there shall neuer be some wanting, till the ende of the world, who shall be worthie, or fit for God to dwell in. The Councell of Vienna (as Gregor. de Val. de prae­sent. Christ. in Eucbar. cap. 11 Gregorie de Valentia saith) expoun­ded the place of Christ being present in the Sacrament: which is common to all beleeuers, lib. 3. Clement de reli (que) & vener. sanc­torum c. si Dominum.

Secondly, the consequence is naught, because the ende of Christs presence is not to teach the Church all truth, but to protect and defend them by his power, in the profession of the truth. So it is applied, as we heard before, by Cyprian. epi­stola 81. §. 1. Cyprian to the comfort of the Christians then imprisoned for religion. So doth August. in Ioan. tract 50. Austin take it, that he is present by his prouidence and di­uine Maiestie. The same is Haymo. in homil. fer. 6. post pasch. Haymo his iudgement and expo­sition. But Martial. ad Tolos. cap. 25. Martialis is most plaine, who by this promise ex­horteth thē of Tholouse in France to perseuere in the profes­sion of religion, because our Sauiour Christ will neuer leaue thē, but alwaies be present with them. He confirmeth and encourageth them (saith Theoph. ad Mat. 28. & Chrysost. ibid. Theophylact) because he sent them to the Gentiles, into dangers and hazards of their liues: And Chrysost. ad. Mat. 28. Chrysostome thinketh (wherein also Theophyl. secondeth him) that our Sa­uiour mentioneth the end of the world, because he would haue them with more patience and constancy, endure what soeuer hard measure for a time vpon earth, in regard of the ioyes whereof they should be made partakers in the world to come. If then this promise of our Sauiour, belong to all & euery true beleeuer, if it be vttered for the comfort of all such, that they may rest vpon his mighty pro­tection, who seeth not that an impossibilitie of your Cleargies erring cannot be concluded from it?

1 The places of Iohn are thus to be concluded.

  • If our Sauiour haue promised the spirit of truth to a certain com­pany of men, to abide with thē for euer, & teach thē all truth, then the teaching of these men is an assured ground of faith.
  • But Christ hath promised the spirit so to a certain cōpany of men.
  • Therfore the teaching of these men is an assured ground of faith.

[Page 133] First I answer, that your conclusion proueth not the point in question; because this companie, to which the promise is made, is not the Church from time to time, but that promise belongeth to the Apostles, either onely, or at the least principally, in such a measure of being taught. The former may thus appeare, be­cause our Sauiour speaketh of another comforter, in respect of his owne bodily departure from them, which cannot belong to the Church now, with which Christ was neuer present in that sort. Secondly, this spirit promised, was to bring all things that Christ had taught, to their remembrance, whom he should teach. But this cannot belong to the present Church, nor to any Church since the Apostles. Thirdly, this sending of the spirit was performed Act. 2. 3. 4. when the holy Ghost came vpon the Apostles; which doth not befall the Church now a dayes. Fourthly, the same spirit was to shew them the things to come, either concerning themselues in particular, or by giuing them the gift of prophesie, which now the Church hath not. Thus do Tertul. de praescrip. cap. 8. Tertullian and August. in Io­an. tract. 75. Austin vnder­stand these places, applying them to the Apostles: so doth Iansen harm. cap. 134. Ian­senius bishop of Gaunt; so Chrysost. in Ioan. hom. 74. Chrysostome and Theophyl. in Ioan 14. Theophylact; so your ordinary Glosses and Lyra. And whereas this interpre­tation may seeme to be refuted by the place it selfe, because the spirit must abide with them, to whom he is promised, for euer: that is expounded by Neque post mortem abit. Chrys. vbi supr. Chrysostome, to signifie his continuance with them, euen after death also. Which Hugo Cardin. ad Ioan. 14. Theoph. vbi supra. Theophylact sets out more at large. His companie with you (saith our Sauiour) shall not be for a time, as mine; but shall continue for euer: neither shall it faile when you are dead, but shall remaine with you, and shall make you more glorious. He promiseth (saith Gloss. ordin. ad Joan. 16. your Glosse) that the spirit shall do all; not that all is fulfilled in this life. This Comforter (saith Lyra ad Joa. 14. Lyra) shall not be taken from you, as my humane nature is drawne away by death: but shall be with you eternally, here by grace, but in the world to come by glorie. We may (perhaps) conceiue our Sa­uiours meaning to be no more, but that the spirit which hee would send, should not leaue them as he was to do, but should abide with them to the very end of their liues, for their instru­ction and comfort: neither of which are needfull any longer then while we are in this world.

[Page 134] They that apply these promises to all the elect also (for to any visible companie of men, I thinke besides you Papists, no man doth) neither make for your opinion; because they tie them not to any companie, but giue euery true Christian his like part in the priuiledge of this spirit, and (as we heard ere while out of your Gloss. ordin. vti supra. ordinary Glosse) leaue some truth to be reuealed in the life to come. I do not thinke (saith August. ad Ioan. tract. 96. Austin) that in this life the pro­mise of being taught all truth, can be fulfilled in any mans mind. For who liuing in this bodie which is corrupted, and presseth downe the soule, can know all truth; when the Apostle saith, We know in part. By which it is also apparent, that according to Austins iudge­ment, for euer, may be vnderstood of continuing after this life.

Secondly, if these places proue, that the Church is a sure foundation or rule of faith; it must follow, that euery particular Of the As­sumption. teacher is so. For eueryone of them, to whom our Sauior made these promises, was seuerally according thereunto taught all truth, and not all ioyntly; as if they might haue erred being se­uered, which you confesse of your Church: and therefore this teaching appertaineth not to it.

Of the seuerall places I say further, that Ioan. 14. 17. in the first of them there is no mention of teaching all truth, but onely of sending the spirit of truth. That is (saith Theophyl. ad Ioan. 14. Hugo Cardin. ibi. Theophylact) the spirit, not of the old Testament (for that was a figure and a shadow) but of the new, which is the truth. The spirit of truth (saith Lyra. ibi. Lyra) because he is essentially the truth, and teacheth the truth. He calleth him the spirit of truth (saith Iansen. harm. cap. 134. Iansenius) because he is the author of all truth, and the only giuer of pure and sound truth. For he onely teacheth the truth, with­out mixture of any falshood or error: Also he only teacheth the truth, wherein the saluation of man consisteth.

Joan. 14. 26. In the second place you haue followed the vulgar Latine against the truth of the Greeke and sense of the text. The Greek is, [...] All that I haue told you: not as you translare it, All that I shall say vnto you. It is the praeter tense (saith your B. Iansen. vti supra. Iansenius) not the future, in the Greeke. So do Pagnin, Vatablus, and Montanus translate it. The holy Ghost (saith Theophyl. ad Joan. 14. Theophylact) shall make you vnderstand those things that are obscure and hard. For those things that seeme hard vnto you, I told you when I remained with you. [Page 135] Your interlined Glosse referreth teaching to the vnderstanding, and putting in mind to the will. He shall teach you (saith the Gloss. interl. ibi. Glosse) that you may know; and Suggerit, vt velitis. suggest, that you may will. Tell me then, why I may not gather from hence, that the Church shal not erre in manners; or at least shall haue true faith in heart, not onely in profession? But it is certain, that it is possible, the greater part of a Councell, yea and the Pope himselfe may be without true faith: and it is enough to make a man a member of your church, Bellar. de Ec­cles. mil. lib. 3. cap. 10. that he professe outwardly.

By all truth Ioan. 16. 13. our Sauiour meaneth all truth necessary to saluation, saith Iansen harm. cap. 134. Iansenius. Gloss. ordin. ibi. So your Glosse. Theophyl. ad Joan. 16. Hugo Cardin. ad Ioan. 16. Theophylact referreth it to the truth of those things which were shadowed out in the law: and by the discouerie of the truth to be abolished. Hugo restraineth it to all truth, concerning Christ himselfe. But let vs take all truth as largely as you can reasonably conceiue it. Wil it follow therupō trow you, that therefore the teaching of the Church is the rule of faith? May not the Church be taught all truth by the holy Ghost, and yet teach some deuice of her owne which she neuer learned of him? It is one thing to teach a man all truth, and ano­ther to keepe him so, that he shal deliuer nothing but that truth. Your Minor therefore is false, because this first part of it is so.

A. D. §. 5.

The charge and commission is plaine in S. Mathew: Euntes do­cete omnes gentes: Going teach all nations. And in S. Marke: Eun­tes Math. 28. Mark 16. in mundum vniuersum, praedicate Euangelium omni creatu­rae: Going into the whole world, preach the Gospell to euery crea­ture.

A. W.

The charge which Math. 28. 19 our Sauior gaue for preaching the Gos­pell to all nations, was no commaundement to his Church, that is, to the companie of the beleeuers, or to the Cleargie, as you speake, in all ages; but a commission to the Apostles and first Disciples, for the performance of that dutie. The reason, why it is deliuered so at large, may be gathered out of Mat. 10. 5. Mathew 10. ch. where at their first sending they were limited to the lost sheepe of the house of Israel, and barred from going to the Gentiles. Go not (saith our Sauiour) into the way of the Gentiles, and into the cities of the Samaritans enter not: but go rather to the lost sheepe of the [Page 136] house of Israel. And that this charge belongeth not to men now a dayes, it is euident, because neither doth our Sauiour bestow the gift of tongues to that purpose, as Act 2. 5. he did on those whom he sent to that worke; neither can we haue any calling to such a purpose, hauing no gifts for it: yet do not we denie but that it is lawfull for Princes, who haue by conquest or otherwise the go­uernment of strange nations, to see that they be instructed in the faith; yea we thinke this lieth vpon them, as a necessary du­tie. Neither do we barre any man of taking whatsoeuer opor­tunitie God shall giue, to preach the Gospell to any people. Russin. hist. lib. 1. cap. 10. A captiue maide was by the blessing of God made the meanes of conuerting the Iberians from heathenisme to Christianitie: the King of that people (as the historie saith) becoming the Apostle of his nation. Sozom. lib. 2 cap. 23. Frumentius and Aedesius being caried into India when they were yong, were afterward employed by God for the instructing of the Indians in true religion. But your minor is not proued by that commission. Christ commanded his Apostles and Disciples in the beginning of the Church, to preach to all nati­ons: therefore the Church hath commission to do the like now. Be­sides, this charge was layd vpon euery one of the Apostles and all the disciples so furnished with the gift of tongues, accor­ding as the Apostles thought it meete to employ them. Doth this commandement bind your church, that is, either your Pope who wil not preach at home, much lesse will he go abroade to all quarters of the world; or your Councels, who seuerall are not the church? And this charge lay vpon them, to whom it was giuen, seuerally, and was not a matter to be performed by all together in one place. Therefore your minor is false also in the second part of it, concerning the charge, which (you say) is gi­uen to the Church, to preach to all nations. For your Church is (as I haue said) your Bb. assembled in Councel, not your Cler­gie men seuerally one by one. And it is not our Sauiors meaning to haue such a kind of teaching.

A. D. §. 6.

The warrant we haue in S. Luke: Qui vos audit, me audit: He Luk. 10. that heareth you, heareth me. By which words appeareth plainly, that our Sauior Christ would haue vs to heare and giue credit to his church, no lesse then to himselfe.

A. W:

Our Sauiour Luk. 10. 16. by this place hath warranted all men to heare them that teach those things which hee commaunded to be taught; besides which, if any man teach his owne fancies for matters of faith, that of the Apostle belongeth to him, Gal. 1. 8. Let him be accursed. The Apostles were absolutely to be heard, without exceptiō, as Christ himself: all other teachers, only so far as they speake according to the word of God. He teacheth by this (saith Cyril. Alexā. a pud Thom. in catena. Cyril) that whatsoeuer the holy Apostles deliuer, is to be receiued: because he that heareth them, heareth Christ. Our Sauiour addeth this in the end (saith Lyra ad Luc. 10. 16. Lyra) to shew that the doctrine of his disciples is deuoutly and reuerently to be heard, at the least for reuerence of God, whose principally that doctrine is. But what doth this con­cerne the church? Surely, if it may be enforced to make vs heare any besides the Apostles, without limiting of our hearing, we are bound so to heare at the least euery B. These words (saith Bellar. de Pontif. Rom. lib. 4. cap. 16. §. Quae verba. Bellarmine) belong properly to the Apostles and to their succes­sors: neither may it be said that this was spoken to all of them ioynt­ly, and not to euery one seuerally. Now if it be absurd, and worse, to hold that we haue warrant to heare euery B. whatsoeuer he teach, doubtlesse this place proueth nothing for hearing the Church. For by vertue of this speech, the Apostles were to be heard, without any exception. If then it belong to their suc­cessors, which are (as you say) Bb. as fully as to them, euery B. must be heard and beleeued, teach he what he wil. I wil yet say more: our Sauior speaketh this of the 72. disciples, and Luc. 10. of euery two of them at the least. Now your opinion is, that your ordi­nary Priests succeed them, as Bishops do the Apostles. Hence it will follow, that whatsoeuer any two Priests preach, that must be holden for as certaine a truth, as if Christ himselfe had spo­ken it. Do you not see then, that this must needs be restrained either to the Apostles, or to the doctrine taught? He that hea­reth you, preaching that which I haue charged you to preach, heareth me. So doth Gloss. interl. ad Luc. 10. your Glosse limit the latter part of the sen­tence, He that despiseth you, that is, He that will not beleeue in Christ. Indeed he that refuseth to beleeue in Christ, by the mi­nisterie of men, refuseth Christ himselfe, whose doctrine it is, that we should beleeue in him. Therfore your minor is false also [Page 138] in regard of the third part thereof: We haue no warrant to heare any man, the Apostles being dead, but so farre onely as he agreeth with the Scriptures.

A. D. §. 7.

The commandement is expressed in S. Mathew: Super Cathe­dram Mat. 23. Moysi sederunt Scribae & Pharisaei. Omnia ergo quae­cunque dixerint vobis, seruate & facite. The Scribes and Pharisies haue sitten vpon the chaire of Moses, All things therefore whatso­euer they shall say vnto you, obserue and do. Out of which words we may gather, that we are bound in all points to do according to the doctrine of the Prelates of the Catholicke Church, yea, although it should happen that their liues were not laudable but bad. For al­though our Sauiour in this place doth onely in expresse words make mention of the chaire of Moses, in which the Priests of the old Law did sit: yet he is to be vnderstood to speake also of the chaire of S. Pe­ter, his owne Vicegerent, in which the Priests of the new law do suc­ceed. And this à fortiori, because we haue greater reason to thinke that our Sauiour intended in his doctrine to giue rules to the Priests and people of his new law, which was presently to begin, and to con­tinue till the worlds end, then onely to giue documents to those of the old Law, considering he knew that it should so shortly cease. Where­fore the auncient fathers do vnderstand that place to be meant of the Priests of the new Law, and namely S. Augustine, who saith thus: In illum ordinem Episcoporum, qui ducitur ab ipso Petro ad Epist. 165. Anastasium, qui nunc in eadem Cathedra sedet, etiamsi quis­quam traditor per illa tempora subrepsisset, nihil praeiudicaret Ecclesiae, & innocentibus Christianis; quibus prouidens, Do­minus ait, de praepositis malis: quae dicunt, facite; quae faciunt, facere nolite. Into that order of Bishops, which is deriued from S. Peter himselfe vnto Anastasius, who now sitteth vpon the same chaire, although some traitor had crept in, in those times, he should nothing hurt the Church and the innocent Christians, for whom our Lord prouiding, saith of euill Prelates: What they say, do; what they do, do not.

A. W.

This is the only point, which is able to make good the con­sequence of your proposition: and therefore if you faile in the proofe of this, all is naught. But out of doubt, you faile here ex­ceedingly, and so your reason comes to nothing.

  • [Page 139] He that commaunds the Iewes to do whatsoeuer the Scribes and Pharisies who sit vpon Moses chaire say, bindeth all to do in all things according to the saying of the Church.
  • But
    Mat. 23. 2.
    our Sauiour so commandeth the Iewes.
  • Therefore he bindeth all to do in all things according to the saying of the Church.

First I say of this syllogisme as of the two last points, that if it giue any authoritie to your Church, it giueth the same to euery particular teacher. For the Scribes and Pharises did expound the law of Moses, not in Councels onely, but euery one seue­rally in the synagogues where they were appointed to teach. Therefore if it be absurd to conclude vpon this text, that euery Scribe and Pharisey was then, and euery Preacher lawfully called is now to be heard, whatsoeuer he teach, sure no such matter can be wrung out of this place for the Church.

Secondly, this reason maketh the Scribes and Pharises the Church, shutting out the high Priest himselfe, and all other priests that were not either Scribes or Pharises: yea it presumeth (which is vtterly false) that the Scribes and Pharises were suc­cessors to Moses in an ordinarie course of authoritie, as you say your Church, that is your Pope and Bb. succeed Peter and the rest of the Apostles. Can such an argument proue a matter of such importance and doubt?

Your proposition implieth, that our Sauiour intended to giue rules concerning Saint Peters authoritie, whom you call Of the pro­position. his Vicegerent. Who wold trifle so, in a questiō of such weight? First proue his office, and your Popes right to it; and then frame such arguments: otherwise any man of neuer so little iudgment may find more cause to pity or disdaine your proofe or presum­ption, then to stagger at the force of your reason. All things in the Scripture were indeed writtē for our learning, and therfore belong to vs so far as the general doctrine reacheth, & the par­ticular circumstances are alike. Wherefore I grant your propo­sition, not because of any succession, which could not be in those Scribes and Pharises, being of diuers tribes, and (as your Genebrard. chron. lib. 2. Genebrard saith) hauing thrust themselues into the chaire of Moses being empty: but because they expoūded the law of Moses [Page 140] among the Iewes, as the Ministers of Christ do the Gospell, at this day to the Christians.

Ere I answer to your Assumption, I must speake a word of To the As­sumption. your translation, [...]. haue sitten. The Greeke indeed is so, but (as Vatablus ibi. Vatablus noteth) the praeter tense is put for the present tense. Therefore Pagnin. ibi. Pagnine doubteth not so to translate it, sedent, sit. Which must needs be our Sauiours meaning. For how were it agreeable to reason, that he should charge vs to heare the Scribes and the Pharises, because they did sometimes sit vpon Moses chaire, if now they sit beside it? It is our Sauiours pur­pose to signifie, that the expositions of the former Pharisies, and of those that taught in his time, were not to be reiected: or ra­ther, it is al one, as if he had said, Alfons. Salm. prolegom. 15. Reg. 3. sederūt. i. e. sedent. do sit. But let vs reade the place which way we list, it is all one to your minor; which I denie. To the proofe of it out of the text, I answer: First, the sitting vpon Moses chaire, signifieth not succession, but teaching the law of Moses. For Exod. 3. 10. & 19. 20. & 21. 1. Moses calling was altogether extraordinarie from God, both for gouerning and teaching. In the former, Io­sua and the Iudges succeeded him, 1. Sam. 8. 7. till the people were wearie of Gods ruling of them. The other part of his office was to be discharged ordinarily by the Priests and Leuits. Leuit. 10. 11. Deut. 31. 9. 19: That ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath commaunded them by the hand of Moses. Mal. 2. 7. The Priests lips should preserue knowledge, and they should seeke the Law at his mouth. Neh. 8. 8. 9. Ieshua and Bani, &c. and the Leuites caused the people to vnder­stand the law. And they read in the booke of the Law of God di­stinctly, and gaue the sense, and caused them to vnderstand the rea­ding. It was one thing to succeed Aaron, another to sit on Mo­ses chaire. The chaire of Moses (saith Cyril. Hieros. catech. 12. Cyril) signifieth power of doctrine. They sit in Moses chaire (saith Orige. in Mat. hom. 24. Origen) which interprete Moses sayings well, and according to reason. And a little after: The Scribes and Pharises sit naughtily vpon Moses chaire: they sat wel, that well vnderstood the law. What is the meaning of that (saith Ambr. enar. in Psal. 43. Ambrose) The Scribes sat; but because letters are written? where­upon the Scribes in Greeke are called [...] in Greeke is a letter. [...], following the in­terpretation of the letter, not the sense of the spirit. And afterward: Therefore they teaching those things that Moses wrote, &c. [Page 141] So doth Theophyl. ad Mat. 23. Theophylact expound it. They that sit in Moses chaire: that is, that teach the things, that are in the law. And immediately before. They that exhort to euill life, do not then teach out of Mo­ses chaire, nor out of the Law. Therefore to sit vpon Moses chaire, is nothing else, but to haue authoritie to expound Moses Law, as he himselfe did expound it. So the Ministers of the Gospell may be said to sit vpon the Apostles chaire, because they haue au­thority to interpret the Gospel, which the Apostles themselues preached.

Secondly, I denie that our Sauiour commanded the Iewes, or doth now charge vs, to beleeue whatsoeuer, they that haue au­thority to teach vs, deliuer, or to do whatsoeuer they enioyne. This is apparent, because himselfe refuteth & condemneth their interpretations and doctrines many times: as Mat. 5. In many points of which, that one is most cleare, Mat. 5. 43 44 Ye haue heard, that it hath bene said, thou shalt loue thy neighbour, & hate thine enemie: but I say vnto you, loue your enemies &c. Mat. 15. 11. In vaine do they worship me, teaching for doctrines mens traditions. And in the same place, he calleth them blinde leaders of the blind: and addeth further, that if the blinde lead the blinde, both fall into the ditch. Now vers. 14. can any man be so impious, I might say blasphemous, as to say, that our Sauiour commaunded the Iewes to take such a course, as should certainely bring them to destruction? Nay rather he warneth them to take heed of their doctrine. Mat. 16. 6 Take heed and beware, (he doubleth his admonition to make them more carefull) of the leauen of the Pharises: And what was this lea­uen? vers. 12. The doctrine of the Pharises, saith the Euangelist. But what need we go out of this chapter for the point in question? Doth he not afterwards call them Mat. 23. 16. blinde guides, vers. 16. 24. fooles & blind, vers. 17. 19? Doth he not in the same places, con­demne and confute their absurd and lewde doctrine of swea­ring? A man would wonder, that euer any man professing him­selfe a scholler or teacher, should bring such miserable proofes in matters of so great weight. But alasse we must beare with you, you bring such as you haue; if you knew any better, we should be sure to haue them. But these serue to deceiue your deuoted followers; who wilfully shut their eies against the [Page 142] truth. The iudgements of God are past searching out, and his mercie in opening our eies to see your grossnesse, greater then we are able to conceiue.

Well, yet perhaps you haue some colour from antiquitie to countenance your exposition withall. You quote Austin: what? None but Austin in a matter of so great doubt? But let vs see why you quote him. If to prooue that the Pharisies were to be heard and obeyed in all things, there is no such word in his sentence alledged by you. For he saith no more, then we grant, that August. epi­stola. 165. Our Sauiour prouided before hand, that we should not refuse good doctrine, because it was deliuered by wicked men. In­deed that was the verie purpose of our Sauiour, and to that doth August. in Ioan. tract. 46. Austin apply it otherwhere, according to the true sense of it. What saith he else, but heare the voice of the sheepheard, though by hirelings? such as Austin in that place saith the Pha­rifies and Scribes were: and such as Mat. 23. 5. 6. 13. 14. 23. our Sauiour proueth them to be by their hypocrisie, ambition, & couetousnesse. The Apostle sheweth (saith August. de bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 11. Austin in an other place) that men without charitie may teach somewhat, that is wholsome: of such our Lord speaketh, They sit vpon Moses chaire &c. Whereupon also the Apostle speaking of enuious and malitious men, yet such as preached saluation by Christ, saith; Phil. 1. 18. Whether by occasion, or in truth Christ be preached, Ireioice. And August. de dect. Christ. lib. 4. cap. 27. in a third place, He that speaketh wisely and eloquently, but liueth wickedly, teacheth many that are desirous to learne, but is vnprofitable to his own soule, as it is written. The Scribes and Pharisies sit in Moses chaire, do that they say, but do not that they do. For they say & do not, to which he addeth that to the Philippians, as in the other place. But yet Austin was so farre from tying either the Iewes, because of our Sauiours speech, or any men, vpon any pretence, to beleeue whatsoeuer should be taught them, though by men lawfully authorised, that he forbids all to heare, when men preach their owne deuises. By sitting on Moses chaire (saith August. in Ioan tract. 46. he) they teach the Law of God, therefore God teacheth by them. But if they will teach their owne sayings (obserue that Austin thinks it is possible they should) heare them not, do not. An euill man (saith August cont. liter. Petilia. lib. 2. cap. 6. the same author) out of the euill treasure of his heart, bringeth forth euill [Page 143] things. But when he preacheth the word of God, when he mini­streth the Sacraments, he preacheth not, nor ministreth not of his owne, if he be a wicked man, but is to be counted among them, of whom it is said, do that they say, but do not that they do. For as we heard before out of Theophyl. ad Mat. 23. Theophylact, he that exhorteth to euill life, speaketh neither from Moses chaire, nor from the Law. There­fore (as it followeth in him) they that teach the Law of God, are to be heard, though they do it not. So doth Chrysost. ad Hebr. hom. 34. Chrysostome vn­derstand and apply this text, What then will some men say? shall we obey our Prelates, when they are euill? How meane you euill? If it be in a point of faith, slie and auoid him, not onely if he be a man, but if an Angel come downe from heauen. But if you meane, that he is euill in his behauiour, be not curious. Neither speake I this of my selfe, but of the Scripture. For Mat. 23. 2. Christ saith, the Scribes and Pha­risies sit on Moses Chaire. And when first he had recited many euil things of them, then he faith: They sit vpon Moses chaire, All things, that they say vnto you, do; but do not, as they do: They are to be reuerenced (saith he) though they be of a wicked life: but heed you not their liuing, but their preaching. For concerning their man­ners, no man can be hurt by thē. How so? Because that they do, is ma­nifest to all, and though they should come to the height of iniquitie, they could not teach other men that their euill. But when a point of faith is in question, neither doth euerie bodie perceiue manifestly that which is spoken, neither will a lewde fellow be afraid to teach contrarie to truth. For whereas as it is faid, Mat. 7. 1. Iudge not, that ye be not iudged, that is spoken of life, not of faith. This is Chrysostomes iudgement, and that where he expoundeth Heb. 13. 17. one of the princi­pall places, which you bring to support your vnreasonable authoritie. The Scribes and Pharises (saith O pus imperf. in Mat. homil. 43. another) sit on Moses chaire: that is, there are many Priests, and few priests; ma­ny in name, few in deed. Take heed therefore how you sit vpon that seate: for the seate maketh not the priest, but the priest the seate: the place sanctifieth not the man, but the man the place. Your owne writers are of the same opiniō, cōcerning this place. Two things (saith Ianse. harm. cap. 120. Iansenius) are here signified: first that obedience is due to thē which teach and command by authoritie, not in respect of their life, but of their authority, which they haue, and because of God, whose [Page 144] Embassadors they are. Secondly that we must not obey them, if they commaund or teach any thing wickedly. For if they are to be obeied, because they sit in Moses chaire, thē are they not to be obeied, when they teach or commaund any thing against that chaire. The Lord saith absolutely, All, and whatsoeuer, that he might shew, that they must be perfectly obeied; but yet with such an obediēce, as layeth this for a ground, that we must obey God, rather thē man: as Col. 3. 20. the Apostle Paul saith. Children obey your parēts in all things. Christ (saith Montanus elucid. in Mat. 23. A­rias Montanus) taught his Disciples to obserue, and doe whatso­euer the Scribes and Pharisies commaunded, by the prescript of the Law, that is out of Moses chaire. Christ did not meane (saith Ioan. Ferus in Math. lib. 3. Ferus) that they should obserue all the decrees of the Pharisies, but so farre forth as they agreed with the Law. As farre as they teach those things, which Moses taught in the chaire, they are to be beard, otherwise to be taken heed of, as saith Stella. ad Luc. cap. 12 Stella. The Lord (saith Maldonat. ad Math. 23. one of your famous Iesuits) by the chaire of Moses, doth not vnderstand the doctrine of the Pharisies, but the doctrine of Moses Law: For it is all one, as if he had said, All that the Law and Moses say to you. Christ (saith Cassander consult. art. 7. See Dionys. Carthusian. ad Mat. 23. Cassander) commaundeth vs to heare the Pharisies, yet so, that we must take heede of the leauen of the Pharisies, that is corruptions of their life and do­ctrine.

But you will say August. epist. 165. ad Gene­rosum. Austin telleth vs, that it should nothing haue hurt the Church, and innocent Christians, if some traitor had crept into that sea. What else haue we shewed all this while, but that the wickednesse of euill Prelates must not make their doctrine, as long as it is true, lesse regarded? Austin, in that Epistle, an­swers a certaine Donatists letter, who bragged of succession from Donatus the author of that sect: against whose brag he setteth that Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, amongst whom there was neuer a Donatist; but if there had bene, yet should not that haue preiudiced the Church, or the innocent Christi­ans: as if the doctrine, they held, were not true, because some lewd or hereticall reacher, had sometime bene Bishop of that Citie. August. epist. 265. 160. & contra lit Pe­tilian. lib. 2. cap. 14. 23. We know it was vsuall with the Donatists, to crie out against the true Catholicke Bishops, for their conuersation, which they also slaundered: therefore had Austin good reason [Page 145] to speake, as he did, that no man might be caried away from the truth of then doctrine, by the supposed wickednes of their liues. I haue bene somewhat the longer in this point, because (as I signified) it is the onely proofe of this controuersie. Now I leaue the consideration of it to all reasonable men, that they bethinke themselues, whether it be not meere simplicitie, or rather wilfull ignorance, to be drawne away from the truth of the Gospell vpon a pretence of hearing the Church, when there is not a syllable, nor a letter, in the scripture, to tie a man to such blind obedience, whereupon nothing can ensue, but destruction.

A. D. §. 8.

The threats we may gather first out of Saint Luke, when our Sa­uiour Luc. 10. saith, Qui vos spernit, me spernit. He that despiseth you, des­piseth me. Signifying, that looke what sinne it were, not to heare, but to despise our Sauiour Christ himselfe, that we should account it the same, to despise, and not to giue eare, and credit, to the Catho­licke Church. Insinuating thereby, that the like punishment is to he expected, for the said contempt. Secondly, in Saint Mathew, the same our Sauiour expresly saith; Si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi Matth. 18. sicut Ethnicus & publicanus, If he will not heare the Church, let him be to thee like an Ethnicke and a Publican. Finally, in Saint Marke, after he had giuen charge and commission to preach the Gospell to euerie creature, he pronounceth this threat to those that will not beleeue, saying: Qui non crediderit Mark. 16. condemnabitur, He that will not beleeue, shall be condem­ned.

A. W.

This is the last point in your Assumption, and thus it is to be concluded.

  • He, that despiseth our Sauiour, that is to be accounted as an hea­then or Publican, that shall be condemned, is greatly threat­ned in Scripture.
  • But he that will not heare the Church, and doe in all things according to the saying thereof, despiseth our Saui­our, &c.
  • Therefore he that will not heare the Church, and doe in all things according to the saying thereof, is greatly threatned in Scripture.

[Page 146] I denie your Minor: and will answer to the seuerall proofes To the as­assumption. of it. To Luc. 10. 16. the first whereof I shall need to say little, because I spake sufficiently of the former part of that text, at the third point. The summe is, that this threatning (as the warrant) is not vttered, in respect of any Church, or companie, but of seuerall teachers, and preachers; and therefore, if we may not conclude from hence, that he, which heareth not euery minister, and doth in all things according to his saying, is guiltie of these crimes; no more is he, that performeth not the like dutie to a cōpany of Pastors or bishops assembled together. Secondly, if it were spo­kē of the Church, yet were not any man to be held faulty in such a measure, but he onely, that refuseth the ministerie of the Gos­pell, and embraceth not the doctrine thereof, as the onely way of saluation. Therefore said our Sauiour in the same chapter and matter: Luc. 10. 10. 11 Into whatsoeuer Citie ye shall enter, if they will not receiue you, go your waies out into the streets of the same, and say, euen the verie dust, which cleaueth on vs of your Citie, we wipe off against you. So did Act. 13. 51. the Apostles against the Iewes of Antioch in Pisidia, for their contempt of the Gospell. They shooke off the dust of their feet against them. Thus (as I signified before,) Gloss. interl. ad Luc. 10. your glosse vnderstandeth it: He that despiseth you, so that he will not beleeue in Christ. Is it all one to despise a man, and not to as­sent to the truth of whatsoeuer he speaketh? This may pro­ceed, and doth ordinarily, from an error of iudgement; that commeth alwaies from a resolute determination of the will. Thirdly, as hearing, so despising must be vnderstood, not simply but when the parties to be heard or despised, preach the truth of Iesus Christ, according to his word. For there is no com­maundement, as I shewed in handling of the last point, that bindeth vs any farther to obedience, or makes vs liable to pu­nishment, then the things deliuered are agreeable to the word of God: vnlesse we do against our conscience. There­fore your speech of your Catholicke Church, is but idle, there being no speech, nor thought of it in this place, but onely a charge to heare the Apostles simply, because they could not erre: other teachers iointly, or seuerally, though the latter be pro­perly intended, so farre forth, as they speake agreeably to the [Page 147] Scriptures, and so do not erre.

First, I say Mat. 1 [...]. 17. this place is not to purpose, because it speaketh of a man alreadie in the Church, a beleeuer by profession: where­as your question is of him, that is no Christian, but to be made a beleeuer by giuing credit to that, which shall be preached to him. That it is to be vnderstood of beleeuers onely, the text it selfe speaketh. If thy brother: 1. Cor. 5. 11. If anie man that is called a bro­ther. Thy brother: that is a Christian (saith Theophyl. ad Mat. 18. Theophylact) For our Lord hath appointed no such course to be taken (saith Chrysost. in Mat. hom. 62. Chry­sostome) with them, that are out of the Church. But this is meant of him, that vnder the name of a beleeuer (saith Hieron. ad Mat. 18. Ierome) plai­eth the Infidell. A brother (saith Iansen. harm. cap. 72. Iansenius) is here vnderstood not to be euerie neighbour, or euerie man, but he, that is a Christian of the same religion with vs. His reasons are, first, because our Sa­uiour saith, Tell the Church; but the Church hath nothing to doe, in such cases, with those that are not members of it: What haue I to do (saith 1. Cor. 5. 12. Paul) to iudge them, that are without? Secondly, be­cause an Heathen and Publican are alreadie out of the Church, and so the censure here appointed cannot concerne them.

Secondly, by not hearing the Church, our Sauiour doth not meane, not beleeuing all points of doctrine, the Church deli­uereth, (of which there was no occasion for him to speake, at that time) but refusing to be ordered by the Church, and despi­sing the admonition thereof. So is hearing and not hearing there to be vnderstood. If he heare thee: what is that? If he be­leeue the doctrine thou teachest? No such matter. But if he take thy admonition in good part, and accordingly reforme himselfe. So afterwards: If he refuse to heare the witnesses. This refusall hath a kinde of contempt ioyned with it. If he con­temne the Church, saith Cyprian. epist. 76. ad Mag­num. §. 1. Cyprian. Despising the commaundement of his prelate: saith Lyra. ad Math. 18. Lyra.

Thirdly, by Church, no man in this place can reasonably vn­derstand a generall Councell, either without, or with the Pope. For questionlesse our Sauiour would neuer speak so obscurely to the Iewes, for whom it was impossible to vnderstand his meaning, and whom that matter did not concerne. But he spea­keth either of the gouernours of seuerall Churches, or of [Page 148] the congregatiōs & gouernors, which are properly the Church Rhem. test. in the marginall notes Mat. 18. in those places where they liue. In the former sense do Chrysost. in Mat. hom. 62. Chry­sostome and Theophylact. ad Mat. 18. Theophylact take it, and your Rhemists by Chry­sostomes authority: Tell the Prelates and gouernours. Tell them (saith Bellar de Pontif. Rom. lib. 1. cap. 6. Bellarmine) that are publicke persons in the Church. And in an other place: De verbo Dei. lib. 3. cap. 5. Euerie mans Prelate, or a companie of Pre­lates is meant. The latter opinion your Ianse. harm. cap. 72. Bishop Iansenius maintaines: He saith, tell the Church, not tell the Bishops and go­uernours of the Church, though they especially are to be told, & the Church is not to be told, but in their presence: as a company of be­leeuers, is not to be called a Church, if the gouernours thereof be not present. He saith, tell the Church, that he may reuerence the agree­ment of the multitude. Glossa. interl. ibi. That the reproofe by many may correct him. To this purpose Hieron. ad Mat cap. 18. Ierome saith, It must be told to many. And therefore if any man thinke, that by telling the Church, it is meant we should tell the Pope: besides the absurdity of the in­terpretation, the Pope being but one, and the Church (by your owne definition) a Company, both our Sauiour Christs course is peruerted, Tell him alone, thē with one or two witnesses; & lastly, tel one againe: & Iansenins, & Ierom are professedly against him.

Fourthly, it may be, that by the Church our Sauiour vnder­standeth, according to the custome of the Iewes in those daies, not any assemblie of the Cleargie, about Church causes, but ge­nerally the Councell of the Elders, which had power to end di­uers matters betwixt parties of their owne nation. After which example 1. Cor. 6. 4. 5. the Apostle willeth the Corinthians to appoint Iud­ges amongst themselues, that they might not dishonor God, & the professiō of christianity, by going to law one with another vnder infidels. If this course take not effect, then, saith our Sauiour, deale with him as thou wouldest & mightst deale with an hea­then, or Publican, by following the Law against him in what Court thou thinkest best for thy aduantage. And this exposition (as farre as I can yet see) seemeth agreeable to the text it selfe, & the purpose of our Sauiour, who seemeth to speake onely or especially of priuat abuses and quarrels: as might be shewed by diuers reasons, and in part hath bene by Bilson. perpet. gouern. cap. 4. pag. 29. &c. a learned writer, to whom I referre the Reader in this point.

[Page 149] Fiftly, it is more then manifest, that our Sauiour speaketh not of hearing or not hearing the word, but of some quarell, or sin­full action at the most: which also is to be determined or cor­rected in each seuerall congregatiō: as the testimonies of Vbi supra. Chry­sostome, Theophylact, Iansenius and Bellarmine declare. Tell the Church, not the vniuersall Church spread ouer the face of the earth; but that particular Church, in which euery man liueth, and to which he is subiect, saith Luc. Brugens. ad Math. 18. Lucas of Bruges. There is De 12. abus. saecul. cap. 10. a treatise that goes vnder Cyprians name, wherein the author out of this place concludeth, that euery man must seeke to his owne Bishop. All these things considered, let euery one iudge, whether this peece of scripture be fitly applied by you to proue that we must beleeue without doubting, whatsoeuer the Church deliuereth. But I wil propound the reason, that all men may vnderstand, and con­sider it.

  • If he that being proceeded withall first by admonition of one man alone, then by the like with one or two witnesses, lastly by the gouerners of the Church, concerning some quarrell or matter of fact, will not obey the voyce of the Church, must be to vs as an heathen or a Publican: then whosoeuer wil not beleeue whatsoeuer the Church teacheth, is greatly threat­ned in the Scripture.
  • But he that being so proceeded against, in such a matter, will not obey, is so to be accounted of.
  • Therefore he that will not beleeue whatsoeuer the Church tea­cheth, is greatly threatned in the Scripture.

I haue framed this Syllogisme, as euery man may see, with the greatest aduantage that can reasonably be taken by this place to your purpose; whereas I needed not haue allowed the inter­pretation, on which the reason is grounded Al which notwith­standing, who discerneth not the weaknesse of the consequence in the proposition? What if such a man be so to be accounted of? doth it follow therupon, that euery one who beleeueth not the Church in all points, is threatned? First, vnlesse the same course of proceeding be held, why should the partie be threat­ned, because where such a course is taken, there a man is to be so reckoned of? Secondly, how doth it follow, that if in iudge­ment [Page 150] concerning a matter of fact, the Church must be heark­ned to for reformation, then in all matters whatsoeuer, it is ab­solutely to be heard by all men? Such are your proofes in points of greatest importance.

I refer the Reader to that which I answered before, concer­ning Mark. 16. 16. Chap 4. sect. 2 this place; to which I adde vpon the present occasion, that Mat. 28. 19. our Sauiour sending forth his Ministers to preach the Gos­pell, chargeth them to square their doctrine according to those things which they had receiued in commission from him: Luc. Brugen. ad Marc. 16. ther­fore are they no farther to be obeyed, then their preaching is warrantable for the particulars out of our Sauiours instructions giuen them; which the Apostles directed by Gods spirit, truly and faithfully deliuered, first by word of mouth, and after by wri­ting, to be the pillar (as Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Irenaeus saith) and foundation of our faith. And if this place conuey any such authoritie to the Church, it giueth the same to euery seuerall teacher, as it did to euery one of the Apostles seuerally; and so euery priest secular or regular, must be heard and beleeued whatsoeuer he teach.

A. D. §. 9.

Thus you see our Sauiour Christ hath promised to his Church the continuall presence of himselfe and of his holy Spirit, to teach that companie all truth. Whereof followeth, that it is infallibly taught all truth. Moreouer, he hath giuen charge and commission to that Church to teach vs, and hath warranted and commaunded vs, in all points to heare and do according to the saying of this Church: which proueth, that it appertaineth to this church to instruct vs in all points of faith, and that we ought to learne of it, in all matters of religion, what is the infallible truth: and consequently, that the doctrine of this Church is the rule of faith.

A. W.

Neither we nor you can see any such thing, if we looke no farther then the holy Ghost directeth vs: who assureth vs of no more but that the Apostles should be so instructed and guided, that they should not erre in their teaching, either by word of mouth or by writing, by reason of ignorance, or any other per­uerse affection; and that all the childrē of God shall be so taught and protected, that they shall neuer fall away from saluation by Christ. As for your Church or certaine companie, that is your Cleargie and Pope assembled in a generall Councell, neither [Page 151] those places of Scripture you haue brought, nor any other you can bring, once make mention of any such promise to them. Therefore haue we no warrant to heare and doe in all points according to the saying of any Church, (not onely not of yours) but so far as that Church teacheth according to the doctrine of our Sauiour Christ in the Scripture, which is the rule of faith.

A. D. §. 10.

Worthily therefore doth S. Paul call this Church columnam & 1. Tim. 3. Lib. 1. cot. Cres­con. cap. 33. firmamentū veritatis, the pillar and ground of truth. Worthily also saith S. Austin: Scripturarum à nobis tenetur veritas, cum id fa­cimus, quod vniuersae placet Ecclesiae, quam earundem Scrip­turarum commendat authoritas: vt quoniam Scriptura sancta fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit huius obscuritate quae­stionis, Ecclesiam de illa consulat, quam sine vlla ambiguitate, Scriptura sancta demonstrat. The truth of the Scriptures is hol­den of vs, when we do that which pleaseth the vniuersall or whole Church, the which is commended by the authoritie of the Scriptures themselues; that because the holy Scripture cannot deceiue, whoso­euer feareth to be deceiued with the obscuritie of this question, let him require the iudgement of the Church, which without any am­biguitie, the holy Scripture doth demonstrate: by which words he sheweth plainly, that the sentence of the Church is of infallible and vndoubted truth, and that the way not to be deceiued in an obscure question, is to aske and follow the iudgement of the Church. Where­fore worthily also do we all say, Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam: I beleeue the Catholicke Church: and worthily also may I conclude, that neither Scripture alone, nor naturall wit and learning, nor pri­uate spirit, nor any other thing, but onely the teaching of the true Church of Christ, is that ordinarie meanes which Almightie God hath prouided, whereby all men may learne that one, infallible, entire faith, which I proued to be necessarie to saluation.

A. W.

1. Tim. 3. 15. Saint Paul doth worthily call the Church, the pillar and ground of truth: but not (as you would haue vs beleeue) because it is the rule of faith. Oecumen. ad 1. Tim. 3. 15. è Chrysost. The Greeke Scholiast taketh that speech of the Apostle to be vttered by way of comparison, betwixt the Church of Christ and the Iewish Temple. Not as the Iewish Temple (saith Oecumenius) but the pillar and ground of truth: [Page 152] for the Temple was the ground of the shadowes of the truth. Out of which we may gather, that as the Iewish synagogue was the pillar and ground of those shadowes of the truth: so is the Church of Christ the pillar and ground of the truth it selfe. But that synagogue was not the rule of faith in that point, because whatsoeuer it taught, was to be held for infallible truth; but for that Rom. 3. 2. to it were committed the oracles of God, and the know­ledge and vse of those ceremonies: so hath the Church of Christ the truth of doctrine in the scripture, and the exercises of Gods worship and religion. Therfore is it called the pillar and ground of it, because it constantly maintaineth that truth, preaching and professing it, in despight of all the practises and power of Satan, and tyrants of the world. As the thighs (saith Philo episc. Carpath, in Cantic cap. 4. circa ann. 410. an ancient writer) sustaine and beare vp the weight of the whole bodie: so also the Apostles like pilars, valiantly carry the vniuersall Church of Christians ouer the whole world; being for the value of their inuin­cible courage and stedfastnesse of their holy purpose, called marble pillars. And a litle after: They preached the Gospell with such wise­dome and constancie, that as if they had bene of marble or adamant, they were afraid of no violence nor aduersitie, but always continuing firme and inuincible against all the forces of men and diuels, shining as it were in the darke, by that light of their wisedome, by preaching, admonishing, teaching and glistering with miracles, at the last they most happily became conquerors. To this effect speake Lyra ad 1. Tim. cap. 3. your Glosses: The ground of the truth of the Gospell, which the Church constantly maintained euen in the greatest persecutions. Well vphol­ding the truth in it self (saith Gloss. ordin. ibi. another Glosse.) Ne corruat. That it may not fall to the ground, though it be afflicted, saith Lombar. ibi. Lombard. But let vs bring your reason into due frame.

  • The pillar and ground of truth is the rule of faith.
  • The Church is the pillar and ground of truth.
  • Therefore the Church is the rule of faith.

Your proposition or maior is false, vnlesse you restraine it, as To the pro­position. I haue often said, to the truth; and then it is so far the rule of faith, as it is the pillar and ground of truth. Whatsoeuer it hol­deth truly, according to the scripture, is the rule of faith for those points: not because of the Churches authoritie, but for the truth [Page 153] of the doctrine. Yet may it easily come to passe, that a Church maintaining the generall truth of the Gospell, and all particu­lars necessary to soluation, may faile in many other points of great importance, and for all that, continue both a true Church, and the pillar and ground of truth, though not the rule of faith.

Your minor also (as you vnderstand it) is vntrue. First be­cause To the As­sumption. the Apostle speaketh not of any such companie as you imagine, Pope, Bishop, Councell; but either of the Church of Ephesus, in which Timothie, to whom he writeth, then abode; or indefinitely of any and euery Church whatsoeuer, where the true Religion of our Sauiour is or shall be professed, according to the Gospell. If Timothie were (as you will not denie) Bishop of Ephesus, then it is apparent, that the Apostle calleth the Church of Ephesus, wherein Timothy liued, taught and go­uerned, the pillar and ground of truth: yet was it not the rule of faith; for then had the rule of faith perished long since with that Church of Ephesus. If he speake to him as to an Euangelist, who was to follow him from place to place, and to establish the Churches which the Apostle had planted, then must euery one of those Churches, wherein Timothy was to behaue him­selfe, as he had done in Ephesus, be vnderstood to be the pillar and ground of truth: and yet neither any, nor all of them were the rule of faith, which else must haue bene lost with them. What remaines then? Shall we expound it of all beleeuers in generall? I grant it reacheth to all the faithfull: but as to them considered in their seuerall Churches, because among them so disposed of, was Timothy to performe that dutie which the Apostle there enioyneth him. But let vs so conceiue of the Church. What shall it auaile you, or endamage vs? All beleeuers are not the companie you pleade for, but onely the Pope and your Bishops, whom you would haue taken for the rule of faith.

Secondly, I denie your minor, in respect of the sense you giue of those words, the pillar and ground of truth. For you so vnderstand them, as if the truth of God depended vpon the ver­dict of the Church, so that nothing may be held for truth, but what the Church deliuereth for such; and whatsoeuer she so [Page 154] propoundeth, must so be receiued vpon paine of certaine dam­nation. How contrary are you in this interpretation and do­ctrine to the auncient fathers? The Apostles (saith Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. Irenaeus) left vs the Scriptures to be the pillar and ground of our faith. Nay (say you) they left vs the Church to be the pillar and ground of the Scriptures. The Gospell and spirit of life (saith Cap. 11. the same fa­ther in the same booke) is the pillar and ground of the Church. Nay, by your leaue (reply you) the Church is the pillar and ground of the Gospell. But Chrysost. ad 1. Tim. hom. 11. Chrysostome handling this place of the Apostle, is not afraid to affirme, that the truth is the pillar and ground of the Church: not as if he would denie that which the Apostle saith: for the Church indeed is the vpholder of the truth; but to shew, that although the Church maintaine and a­uow the truth, yet it is built and founded vpon the truth, which (as Hicron. ibi. Ierome saith) vpholds the building. Therfore to make short, whē the Apostle saith, that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth: his meaning is, that amongst Christians, and among no other sort of men, the truth is to be found; and amongst, and by them it is constantly and worthily maintained. The Philoso­phers indeed (as Thom. ad 1. Tim. cap. 3. lect. 3. Thomas saith) had a kind of notion of some points thereof, but they had no certaintie: as well because they were cor­rupted with errors, as for that very few of them are found to haue agreed in the same truth. But in the Church is certaine knowledge and truth. Which (as Caiet. ad 1. Tim. 3. Caietan saith) is vpheld aloft in it, because it is auowed, reuerenced and honored aboue all things: and it is so founded in the Church, that out of it, it is not to be found. This is the reason (as they truly say) why the Church is called a pillar. Thomas vbi supra. Thomas addeth that it is termed the ground in respect of others, because men cannot be confirmed in the truth, but by the sacraments of the Church.

August. cont. Crescon. Lib. 1. cap. 33. This testimonie of Austine is alledged by you otherwise, then it was written by him. For whereas he spake of that which had then alreadie bene resolued of by the whole Church: you make him speake indefinitely of any thing that pleaseth the Church, turning iam placuit into placet. But we must vn­derstand, that he writing in that place concerning the rebap­tizing of heretickes, which question had bene agreed vpon [Page 155] (as he saith Cap. 32. in the former chapter) before the hatching of Do­natus heresie, saith, that the iudgement of the Church in that case is to be held as agreeable to the Scripture. This might the Reader haue seene in his words, if you had not changed the tense in pla­cet, and left out etiam in hac re, in the beginning of the sentence: The truth of the Scriptures (saith Austin) is held by vs euen in this thing. If you reply farther, that the reason which Austin vseth, is generall for all questions whatsoeuer, namely the authoritie of the Church, commended by the Scriptures, which cannot erre: I an­swer you, first that we haue seene Austins iudgement directly to the contrary, viz. that whatsoeuer is of necessitie to saluation, is plainly deliuered in the Scriptures, and that the authoritie of men without Scripture, is insufficient to propound any doctrine as a mat­ter of faith: and therefore if he should write otherwise in this place, we might with good reason make question of his autho­ritie. Secondly, I answer, that Austine speaketh here of those points onely which are not determinable by Scripture, such as he taketh the question of rebaptizing heretickes to be, as it ap­peareth in the words immediatly before those you alledge, be­ing also a peece of the sentence by you omitted. Although (saith Austin) there be no example to be brought out of the Scrip­tures concerning this matter, yet the truth of the same Scriptures is (euen in this matter) also held by vs, when we do that which hath now alreadie pleased the whole Church, &c. Now in such cases as cannot by Scripture be decided, who would or may be so pre­sumptuous, as to withstand or mislike the practise of the church in all places? Surely 1. Cor. 11. 16. the authoritie of the church is so far com­mended in the Scriptures, that it ought in all things of such na­ture to ouerweigh our iudgement, and incline our affection to the liking of that which is agreed on by so generall a consent of so many churches in all nations. Therefore that which you gather out of Austins words, of following the iudgement of the church in an obscure question, is to be restrained to such questi­ons as cannot be determined by the Scriptures (and those are few or none of any importance, of necessitie to saluation none at all) or else your consequence will be nothing worth. Au­stin saith, that in questions not determinable by Scripture, [Page 156] we must follow the iudgement of the church. Therefore we must follow it in all obscure questions whatsoeuer. Austins foundation will not beare your building. Is it a good reason to say, In cases not prouided for by law, custome must beare sway: ther­fore it must be followed in all cases? So, and so weakly do you dis­pute.

It is not enough for you to teach vs new diuinitie, but you will driue vs to learne new Latin too: Caesar could make men free of Rome, but not words. Credere Ecclesiam Catholicam, to beleeue the Catholicke Church, in ordinary Latin, is to beleeue that there is a Catholicke Church. Credo (esse) I beleeue there is: but you would make the ignorant beleeue, that credo Ecclesiam and credo Ecclesiae is all one. For how else can this sentence rea­sonably depend vpon the former: We must follow the iudgement of the Church: Therfore worthily also do we all say, Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam? What can you meane by this, but I beleeue, that is, I giue credit to the Catholick Church: that is, I beleeue that to be true which the Catholicke Church teacheth? But the article of the Creed hath no such sense, as it may appeare by the other that follow, all being alike in respect of our beleefe. I beleeue the communion of Saints, the forgiuenesse of sinnes, the resurrection of the bodie, and life euerlasting: To which of these foure dowe giue any such credit? But we beleeue that there is a Church of Christ, to which all these priuiledges belong. He that translated Epiphanius into Latin, more curiously then truly made a diffe­rence betwixt beleeuing the church and the other articles. We beleeue (saith Ianus Corua. in transl. An­chorat. Epiph. in extremo. he) one holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church, we confesse one baptisme for the forgiuenesse of sinnes, and looke for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. But the Greeke which Epiph. reciteth out of the Nicene creed, is alike in all the articles, [...] in the Church, in the baptisme of repentance, in the resurrection of the dead. And Paschas. diac. Rom. Eccles. contra Maced. lib. 1. cap. 1. Paschasius doubteth not to say, that the ignorance of some drew the preposition In praefat. ibi. in from the former sentence concerning beleefe in the holy Ghost, into the article of the church: yet (as he sheweth) credere Deum, & in Deum greatly differ. That there is a God, the Apostle saith, the diuel belee­ueth: but no mā is held to beleeue in God, but he that Piè in cum sperauerit. religiously puts [Page 157] his trust in him. Cyril. Hierof. catceh. 18. Cyril also reciteth the articles after the same manner, without any difference in the particulars, yet with In, to euerie one of them, and in that sense, in which we take them. Ruffin. in sym. Apost. sect. 35. Ruffin (as Paschasius before) denieth that the Creed saith: In the holy Church, in the forgiuenesse of sinnes, in the resurrection of the flesh. Because that were to equall our beleefe of these points, with our beleeuing in the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost. But of these articles we are to beleeue, that they are true, that there is a Church, gathered vnto God, that there is a remission of sinnes, that there is a resurrection of the flesh. So doth August. Serm. de tempore. 115 Au­stin (if those Sermons be his) read and vnderstand it. I beleeue the Catholicke Church &c. We must beleeue, that God will vouch­safe the resurrection of bodies, and the forgiuenesse of sinnes. And whereas Serm. 119. in an other Sermon, he saith in the Church, so doth he also, in the forgiuenesse of sinnes, and the meaning is all one. And Serm. 131. in a third Sermon he giueth vs this caueat: we must know (saith he) that we must beleeue the Church, not beleeue in the Church, that is, must beleeue there is a Church. So then, [...]. Credere Eccle­siam. Heb. 11. 6. To beleeue the Catholicke Church, is not to beleeue all that the Church saith (which neither the Greeke nor the Latin will beare) but to beleeue there is a Church; [...], Credo esse Ecclesiam: which in the phrase of the new Testament, for the Greeke, might be [...]. Which is word for word, I beleeue that there is a Church. Now if any man shall demaūd of me, what the meaning of this article is, or what we beleeue, by beleeuing there is a Church, and what that Church is, to which so many gracious promises are made, and of which so many glorious things are spokē in the scripture; I will indeuor to satisfie him, as briefly as I can with plainnesse. First then (leauing the holinesse and catholicknesse of this church to be discussed Chap. 15. in due place) I say, that by beleeuing the Church, we beleeue that there is a company of men called to true faith in Iesus Christ, and to the participation of those priuiledges, which belong to all the true members of his mysticall bodie, some of the principall whereof are recited in the articles fol­lowing. But we may not imagine, as the Papists doe, with­out any likelihood of true reason, that this company is their [Page 158] Pope and Bishops assembled in a generall councel, or that they of this companie make one visible congregation, but that they are all one Church in regard of the common meanes of salua­tion, which they embrace, and their dependance vpon on my­sticall head Iesus Christ, of whose bodie they are all members. So that by Church in the Creed, we vnderstand such of the e­lect, as are by faith liuely members of our Sauiours bodie, or at the least, are by the baptisme of the spirit and water in corpo­rated into that bodie, howsoeuer as yet they haue not faith. I denie not that all the elect, euen those, which are yet vnborne, belong to the Church of Christ, but I thinke the Creed doth not stretch so farre, but onely to them, that are actually mem­bers of Christ, not to all, that are so in Gods euerlasting prede­stination. In this sense, namely for the liuing members of Christs bodie, the word Church is often vsed in the Scripture. Mat. 16. 18. Ʋpon this rocke will I build my Church. Act. 20. 28. The Church, which he hath purchased with his blood. Eph. 1. 21. 22. God hath giuen Christ ouer all things to be the head of the Church, which is his bodie, the fulnesse of him, that filleth all in all things. & 5. 23. Christ is the head of the Church, and the same is the Sauiour of his bodie. So is it taken in the same chapter diuers times. vers. 25. 27. 29. 32. He is the head of the bodie of the Church. Thus doe the ancient writers speake of the Church. August. de bapt. cont. Do­nat. lib. 5. cap. 27. Austin denieth, that he dares take any for the Church of Christ, but those that are iust, and holy, no though they haue bene baptised: For (as he saith Cont. Cresc. lib. 2. cap. 21. in another place) they that are con­demned by Christ, are not now in his bodie, which is the Church: be­cause Christ cannot haue members condemned. As for the reprobate (saith De bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 1. cap, 17. the same Author) whether they seeme to be within the Church, or be apparantly out of it, they are alwaies diuided from the vnitie of the Church, which is without spot or wrincle. The Church (saith Clem. Alexan. Strom. lib. 7. Clement of Alexandria) is the company of the e­lect. Therefore saith Cyprian. epist. 49. Sect. 2. ad Cornel. Cyprian, that the vnitie of Christ and the Church is coupled together with indiuisible links. For (as he saith & epist. 55. Sect. 8 ad eund. Cornel. otherwhere) the Church that beleeueth in Christ, and holds that which once it hath receiued, neuer departeth wholy frō him: they are the Church, that cōtinue in the house of God: but they are not a plan­ting planted by God, who are not setled with the fastnesse and sound­nesse [Page 159] of wheat, but are scattered like chaffe by the breath of the ene­mie Sathan. The Church standeth on the right hand (saith Hieron. epist. 140. Ie­rome) and hath nothing in it, belonging to them, on the left hand. And Hieron. ad Ephes. 5. againe: He that is a sinner, and defiled with any filthinesse, cannot be called one of Christs Church, nor be said to be subiect to Christ. There are many such sayings in the writings of the Fa­thers, grounded vpon the booke of Canticles; which all men know intreateth of the true church. There is no doubt (saith Bernard. in cant. ser. 78. Ber­nard vpon the Canticles) but the elect are the Church of God. But the reprobat (as one of your Ioan. de Tur­recremata lib. 4 sum. part. 2. cap. 20 Cardinals saith) are not truly mēbers of the Church. Of many beleeuers purged from their sinnes, there is made one Church, saith Albert. in Math. cap. 26. Albertus magnus, Thomas his master. Thomas in Apoc. cap. 3. Thomas himselfe expounding that place of the Reuelation, In the Temple of my God, saith, that by the temple of God, the Church of the faithfull is vnderstood, which is the speciall temple of God: and to that purpose he alledgeth that of the Apostle: 1. Cor. 3. 17. The temple of God is holy, which you are. And in Thomas ad Rom. cap. 12, an other place he saith, that the mysticall bodie of Christ is the Church. Now the vnion of this mystical bodie is spiritual, by which, through faith and charitie, they are vnited to God, and one to another. As the godly, or they that are holy, are the members of Christ, so the wicked (saith Ambros. in Psalm. 35. Guliel. Altiss. in sum. lib. 3. tract. 2. cap. 1. q. 5. Ambrose) are the members of the Diuell. The congregation of them that beleeue aright, is the Church, saith Altissiodorensis. Who can reasonably doubt whether this be the Church spoken of in the Creed, or no?

As for the promises, and commendations giuen to the Church in the Scripture, to what other Church should they apper­taine? The Doue, and the perfect one praised in the Canticles, is (as Epiphan. ha­res. 35. Epiphanius truly saith) the holy spouse and Catholicke Church. Whereas, the Church in the Canticles (saith August, de bapt. contra Donat. lib. 5. cap. 27. Austin) is described to be a garden inclosed, a fountain sealed vp, a wel of liuing water &c. I dare not vnderstand this, but of the holy and righteous, not of co­uetous men, not of deceiuers, extortioners, vsurers, drunkards, en­uious persons, although they haue receiued the same baptisme, but haue not the same charitie, or sanctifying grace. The promises & praises belong either seuerally to euery one of the elect called; as that Mat. 16. 18. & Theophyl. ad cum locum. the gates of hell shall not preuaile against the Church: that [Page 160] Ephe. 5. 23. 25 the Church is loued and cherished by Christ her husband & head: or to the congregations of beleeuers, in regard of the elect a­mongst them. Once this I dare boldly affirme (let any Papist disproue it if he can) that the Church is no where in all the Scripture taken for one companie through the world, in respect of any outward gouernment or dependance: which is the foun­dation of all your doctrine, touching the Church: but in regard of the common meanes of saluation by faith in Christ. And here I might well make an end of answering to this treatise, be­cause I haue ouerthrowne the maine strength of your discourse, and discouered to all men that will not be wilfully blind, the weaknesse of your reason: but for the better satisfaction of the vnlearned, I will follow you from Chapter to Chapter, that the truth may the more easily be discerned.

A. D.

CHAP. XI. That the Church, whose doctrine must be to vs the rule of faith, must alwayes continue without interruption, from Christ his time, till the worlds end.

A. W.

That there alwayes hath bene, since the beginning of the world (excepting perhaps the time betwixt the fall of our first parents, and their faith in the Messiah) that there is, and alwaies shal be a Church, viz. certaine men that are predestinate to life, and actually beleeue in Iesus Christ, it neuer came into any of our minds to be doubted of: that there should be such a com­panie as you conceipt, all the Papists in the world cannot proue.

A. D. §. 1.

Considering what hath bene proued in the former Chapter, about the infallible authoritie of the doctrine of the true Church: I hope no Christian will deny, but that so long as this Church doth continue, we haue of it a sure pillar and a firme foundation, whereupon we may safely build our beleef. For either a man must deny, that euer our Sa­uiour did make any such promise, gaue such charge and commission, left any such warrant, set forth such a commaundement, or thundred out any such threats, as before is rehearsed: which were to denie the Scriptures, which scriptures are generally receiued by all Christians, [Page 161] no otherwise then (as they are) the vndoubted word of God: or else he must wrest the interpretation thereof, both from that which the words, of themselues, naturally yeeld, and also from the common sense and vnderstanding, either of all, or the most learned, and al­most of the vnlearned also, of the whole Christian world: or else he shall be forced to confesse that, which, not I, but Saint Paul hath 1. Tim. 3. said: Ecclesia est columna & firmamentum veritatis: the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. Onely it may perchance seeme to some (of those, that doe, at this day oppose themselues against the au­thority of the Church,) that this was true, for Saint Pauls time, and perhaps for some three, foure, fiue, or six hundred yeares af­ter: but not to be presumed vpon in latter times, and namely when Luther began his reformation (as they tearme it) or now adaies.

A. W.

Considering how weake your proofes haue bene, as in the former Chapters, so namely in the last, about the infallible au­thoritie of the doctrine of the true Church: I hope there is no reasonable man, not only no Christian, that will build his faith and saluation vpon so tottering a pillar, and so slipperie a foun­dation. But because you seeme to dote so much vpon your last Chapter, I wil once againe be content to examine the substance of it, as it is here repeated by you, with some litle alteration.

  • Either we must denie that our Sauiour, hath so promised, char­ged, warranted, threatned, or we must falsely interprete the scriptures; or else we must grant, that the authoritie of the Church is a sure pillar, and firme foundation, whereupon we may safely build our faith.
  • But we neither may denie that our Sauiour hath so promised, charged, warranted, commaunded, threatned, neither may we falsely interpret the Scriptures.
  • Therefore we must grant, that the authoritie of the Church is a sure pillar and firme foundation, whereupon we may safely build our beleefe,

First in general for your whole syllogisme, if the cōclusion you To the syl­logisme. intend, were no other, thē that you pretēd & propoūd, that the Church is the pillar & groūd of truth, as S. Paul saith, there would be no question in this matter betwixt vs. For we haue learned [Page 162] to acknowledge the truth of all and euerie part of the scripture. But the beginning of this Chapter sheweth, that you meane, by the Churches being the pillar and ground of truth, that we may safely build our beleefe vpon the Churches authority: which, as I prooued in my answer to that Chapter, is no part of the Apostles meaning. In this sense must we take your con­clusion.

Secondly, in particular, I denie your Maior; because your dis­iunction To the pro­position. is naught: presuming a necessitie, where there is none: For neither we need to denie that our Sauiour hath so promi­sed, charged, warranted, commanded, threatned; neither is there any cause why we should falsely interprete the Scriptures: and yet we haue no reason to grant, that our faith may safely be built vpon the authoritie of the Church. No such thing (as I haue shewed) can follow vpon the words of scripture al­ledged by you. Therefore we need not denie the promises, charge, warrant, commandement, or threatning of our Sauiour, or else grant the Church, such an vnlimited authority. Nei­ther will the true sense of those Scriptures, either enforce or beare any such illation or conclusion, touching the infallible authoritie of the Church.

And whereas you thinke to face out the matter, with naming the common sense and vnderstanding, either of all, or the most lear­ned, and almost of the vnlearned also of the whole Christian world: my answer propounding the iudgement of many excellently learned, and ancient writers of those places, prooueth that to be but a vaine popish brag, without all likelihood of truth, es­pecially since you, that Chap. 1. spare not to heape vp testimonies of Fathers, when they are needlesse, and Chap. 14. to quote their bookes and chapters, sometimes for a bare phrase, alledge not so much as the name of any one author, for the proofe of your interpre­tation of twelue seuerall places of scripture.

Your proffered seruice, in helping vs with this distinction, hath more shew of kindnesse, then good meaning. For it is not brought in, to confirme our answer, but to giue your selfe occa­sion of vttering that, which you are taught to vrge for proofe of this question. But we neither need your aide, and haue good [Page 163] cause to suspect your fauours. In a word, your distinction is such as none of vs euer brought, or would bring to answer those places of scripture. We confesse, that whatsoeuer was promised to the Church in those texts, was promised for conti­nuance to the end of the world: but we say, that the first pro­mise was not concerning the Churches not erring, the three last are particular to the Apostles, at least for such a measure of teaching. But what should I repeat that, which was deliuered in the verie last Chapter? The thing you harpe vpon, though vntunably, is, that your Romish church, or rather the Church of the East & West, were indeed the pillar and ground of truth, for the space of some 600. yeares after Christ, but afterwards fell away from that soundnesse of doctrine, which before it had cleaued vnto. Such a matter there is acknowledged by our Di­uines; yet no man saith, either that the Church erred not, in any point, during that time (for all men know it erred in diuers though not fundamentall, if we may gesse by the writings of the learned in those ages) or that the Church hath, or shall want the performance of Christs promise, at any time, for a moment. But what is all this to the matter we haue in hand? Well: Let vs see yet, what you say.

A. D. §. 2.

Against these men I set downe this assertion. The true Church of Christ (which the forenamed testimonies of Scripture do com­mend) was, and is to continue, without interruption, till the worlds end. This I prooue: First, out of the verie words of those promises which I cited out of Saint Matthew, and Saint Iohn. For how can Christ our Sauiour, or his holy Spirit, be with his Church, in such sort, as there is promised; to wit till the worlds end, and for euer: and especially, as is said in Saint Matthew: Omnibus diebus vs­que ad consummationem seculi: All the daies, euen to the end of the Matth. cap. 28. world; vnlesse the Church also be all the daies, vntill the end of the world? For if the Church for any time, daies, monthes, or years doe cease to be: Christ cannot for these yeares, moneths, and daies, be truly said, to be with his Church (sith he cannot be with that which is not) and consequently he cannot be said, to haue fulfilled his promise, wherein he said, he would be with his Church, all the daies, vntill the end of the world.

A. W.

The men, against whom you set downe this Assertion, are of your owne making, that you might haue, against whom to shew your valour: once it cannot concerne vs, who acknow­ledge the continuance of Christs Church, without interruption, till the worlds end. As long as these times shall run on (saith August. in Psalm. 71. Au­stin) the Church of God, that is, the bodie of Christ, shall not be wanting vpon earth. This is the Church, spoken of in as many of these testimonies, as are not peculiar to the Apostles, name­ly the elect, from time to time: not your Romish synagogue, wherein Bellar. de Eccles. milit. lib. 3 cap. 7. per lot. many of the reprobate also are included, and that as members of your congregation, who cannot without disho­nour of our Sauiour Christ, be accounted parts of his glori­ous bodie.

The truth of your Assertion needeth no proofe, and the weaknesse of your proofe is a disgrace to your Assertion. Christ will be with his Church, at all times whensoeuer there are any that beleeue in him, not onely whilest the Apostles liue: there­fore there shall alwaies be some in the world without interrup­tion, that shall beleeue in him. This is but a loose consequence: I grant the conclusion, or consequent, that there shall be a Church alwaies: but I denie that therefore there shall alwaies be one, because our Sauiour promiseth to be with it, whensoe­uer it is. Put case our Sauiour had thus spoken; I will be with you, in your persecution, all the daies, euen to the end of the world: might a man reasonably conclude from hence, that ther­fore the Church shall be alwaies persecuted, without any in­terruption, or ease one day from persecution? Such is your consequence, and as such, insufficient to prooue your As­sertion.

A. D. §. 3.

Secondly, I prooue the same, out of an other promise, or prophe­sie of our Sauiour Christ, to his Church, wherein he saith: Portae inferninon praeualebunt aduersus eam: the gates of hell shall not Mathew. 16. preuaile against it. For how was it true, that the gates of hel shall not preuaile, if they haue preuailed so much, as vtterly to abolish the Church, or at least, to banish it quite out of the world, for so long a time? Granting therfore (which euery Christiā must needs grant) that the prophesies & promises of our Sauiour, are alwaies fulfilled, and [Page 165] that they are vnfallibly true; we may not doubt, but that the church hath euer bene since Christ his time, and shal neuer cease to be in the world.

A. W.

This proofe is little or nothing better then the former: thus you conclude.

  • If Christ haue promised, that the gates of hell shal not preuaile against his Church, then it must continue without interrup­tion till the worlds end.
  • But Christ hath promised, that the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it.
  • Therefore it must continue without interruption, till the worlds end.

I denie the consequence of your maior: first because the To the pro­position. Church in this place doth not signifie such a companie of men as you by that name vnderstand; but the congregation of the elect, who by true faith confesse, as Peter did, and being built vpon our Sauiour the rocke, shal neuer be remoued and perish. And this promise is made not onely to all ioyntly, but to euery one seuerally, as it was to Peter and all the rest of the Apostles. If there be any (saith Origen. in Mat. cap. 16. Origen) against whom the gates of hell shall preuaile, such a one is neither the rocke vpon which Christ buil­deth, nor the Church, which is built by Christ vpon the rocke. Petra est omnis. Eue­rie one (saith Apud Thom. in caten. ad Mat 16. the same Origen) that is a follower of Christ by imitation, is a rocke or stone. But he, against whom the gates of hell preuaile, is neither to be counted a rocke nor the Church, nor part of the Church, which Christ builds vpon the rocke. Againe, whosoeuer is Christs disciple (saith Ad Mat. 16. the same author) is a rocke: but many are called, and few chosen. As if he should haue said, that the Church, against which the gates of hell shall not preuaile, is euery one of the elect; and that he against whom those gates do preuaile, is none of the elect or church, to which that promise of our Sa­uiour was made. Theophyl. ad Mat. 16. Theophylact, though he expound the place of the Church somewhat generally, yet hee doubteth not to adde, that euery one of vs also is the church, which is the house of God: if therefore we be confirmed in the confession of Christ, the gates of hell, that is, sinnes, shall not preuaile against vs. The gates of hell (saith Gloss. ordin. ad Mat. 16. your Glosse) are sinnes, threatnings, flatterings, heresies, [Page 166] whereby they that are weake, runne into destruction: who are not to be thought to haue built the house of their profession of beleeuing soundly vpon the rocke, but vpon the sand: that is, to follow Christ with a simple and true intent, but to haue made a shew for some earthly respect. For he that receiueth the faith of Christ with the in­ward loue of his heart, easily ouercometh whatsoeuer outwardly be­falleth him. Lyra ibi. Lyra saith, that the church here spoken of, consisteth of those persons, in whō there is true knowledge & confessiō of the faith & truth; & not of any men, in respect of their power or dignity eccle­siasticall or ciuill; because many Princes, Popes, and other inferiour Christians, are found to haue made Apostasie from the faith. Lucas Bru­gens. ibi. Luke of Bruges, though he will not haue this promise of victorie be­long to euery particular member of the church, yet he granteth that euery liuing member thereof, stedfastly cleauing vnto it, may conceiue good hope of triumphing ouer all Satans forces. I thinke (saith Hieron. ad Mat. 16. Ierome) the gates of hell are vices and sinnes, or surely the doctrines of heretickes, by which men being entised are led to hell. Doth any of these writers expound this place of such a com­panie as you dreame of? Nay, doth not our Sauiour himself re­straine it to the elect, and yet apply it to euery one of them? For who beside them, is built vpon the rocke? or which of them in his due time, is not so built? Ioan. 6. 37. All that the Father giueth me, shall come vnto me: and him that commeth to me, I cast not away. And againe, Ver. 40. This is the Fathers will that sent me, that of all which he hath giuen me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it vp againe at the last day.

Secondly, the consequence of your maior is yet more weake, because you misinterprete the text: as if our Sauiour meant to promise a perpetual continuance of his Church vpon earth, by saying that the gates of hell shall not preuaile against it. For hereby it must needs be granted, that the gates of hell do preuaile against all such Christians, as by persecution or any violence are taken out of the world. Yea Peter himselfe, and his fellow Apostles, to whom this promise was first made, found not the true performance of it in their owne persons, but were ouercome by the gates of hell. Do you magnifie our Sauiours promises, that make them faile so notoriously, euen to the [Page 167] Apostles themselues? The gates of hell (saith Theophyl. ad Mat. 16. Theophylact) are temporall persecutors, who endeuor to send Christians to hell. He­retickes also are gates leading to hell. The Church therefore hath preuailed against many heretickes and persecutors. The gates of hell (saith Gloss. interl. ibi. your Glosse) shall not separate the Church from my loue and faith. Persecutions of tyrants (saith Lyra ibi. Lyra) assaults and ten­tations of wicked spirits shall not preuaile, by subuerting the Church from the true faith. Luc Brugens. ibi. Brugensis speaketh yet more plainly: The gates of hell shal not preuaile (saith he) so that the Church shal be ouerthrowne, that is, separated from Christ, or Salute in Christo excide­re, aut frustrati fall away from salua­tion by Christ, or faile of it. The Apostles and other holy Martyrs and Christians, were ouercome in regard of their continuance vpō earth; but not separated frō Christ: nay rather they are more nearly ioyned to him. It is one thing to say the Church, that is, they that truly beleeue in Christ, shall by no power of Satan and his instruments, either inward or outward, be seuered from Christ, or faile of saluation by him: another to affirme that there shall alwayes be some on earth that shall beleeue and make profession of the Gospell. Bellar. de Concil. lib 2. cap. 2. §. Se­cunda classis. Bellarmine applies this text one while to the generall Councels approued by the Pope, which (as he saith) by reason of this promise cannot erre, either in beleeuing or in teaching: De Pont. Rom. lib. 1. c. 9. §. Quinta. another while to the vniuersall Church and to the sea of Rome, which absurdly and falsly he maketh the rocke, vpon which the vniuersal Church is built: so that by the Church, according to Bellarmine, Rome, or Peters seate (as he calleth it) must be meant first and principally, from which at the second hand, the vniuersall Church must haue her perpetuall stabilitie. But what should I stand any longer vpon this place, hauing shewed that the promise is not of the Churches continuance, without interruption, but of the certaintie of their saluation, that beleeue truly in our Sauiour Christ, and so being built vpon the Math 7. 25. Ioan. 10. 28, To the As­sumption. rocke, cannot be shaken downe or ouerthrowne by any storme.

In this sense I grant the minor: our Sauiour hath made a pro­mise, that no one member of his shall perish, though the gates of hell send out and employ all their forces against him. He that confesseth and beleeueth with Saint Peter, shall be saued with [Page 168] Saint Peter. But I denie the minor, according to the sense you make of it, concerning the perpetuall continuance of a cer­taine companie, without interruption or error: and yet I beleeue the Catholicke Church; and that at all times there are some true members thereof vpon earth, chosen to life, and iustified by faith in Christ.

A. D. §. 4.

Thirdly, I may confirme the same out of other Scriptures, where the perpetuitie of the church is either affirmed or promised: of which kind of testimonies, being very many, I wil onely rehearse some few. Of the Church (if we wil beleeue S. Austin his exposition) it is said, Deus fundauit eam in aeternum: God hath established it for euer. And of it, signified by the name of the kingdome of Christ, the Pro­phet Psal. 47. Daniel saith: Suscitabit Deus coeli regnum, quod in aeter­num non dissipabitur: The God of heauen shal raise vp a kingdom, Dan. 2. which shal not be broken in peeces for euer. As is also said in S. Luke: Regni eius non erit finis: there shall be no end of his king­dome. Luc. 1.

A. W.

These few are more then need, for the proofe of that, wherof no man doubteth: but if they were twice as many, their weight would be too small for the matter you vndertake to proue by them: as it wil appeare by the weighing of them in the ballance of true reason.

  • That (say you) which God hath established for euer, so that there shal be no end of it, must alwayes continue without interrup­tion, till the worlds end.
  • But God hath so established the Church, that there shalbe no end of it.
  • Therefore the Church must alwayes continue without interrup­tion, till the worlds end.

That the Church shall continue in all times and ages, as I haue often said, we grant and maintaine: that such a Church To the pro­position. as you fancie to your selues, either shall be alwayes, or euer was in the world, since the Apostles, we vtterly denie. Farther, I say your proposition is false: because the continuance of the church dependeth not vpon her being in the world, but vpon her be­ing ioyned to Christ. And if the Church shal remaine euen after this world is ended, and then especially flourish; what folly is it [Page 169] to thinke it continueth not, vnlesse it be vpon the earth? May I not certainly conclude, that it shall continue after this world, because it is established for euer? How then doe you gather hereupon, that it ceaseth to be, if it be not in this world at all times without interruption? Was not this spoken of the Church of the Iewes also? Is not the like affirmed of the ceremonies? And yet neither of these hath continued, nor did continue without interruption, while they stood, before the time of their abolishing. That Psal. 48. 1. the Psalme was written either wholy or prin­cipally of Ierusalem, and of the Church of the Iewes belon­ging thereunto, both the course of it manifestly sheweth, and he that considereth the expositions of it by Hieron. & August ad Psa. 47. per tot. Ierome and Au­stine, and what ado they haue to fit the seuerall verses thereof to the Church of Christ, will easily be perswaded. But what Church meane they, thinke you? Such a companie of men as you talke of? Let Hieron. ibi. ad ver. 1. Hierome speake. If you would know of him, what that citie of our God is: he answereth, that it is Anima san­cta. An holy soule: and by the citizens and housholders of it, he vn­derstandeth Boni actus. good actions. Againe: What is the Lords holy mountaine? Assump. dom. homin. corpus. The nature of man, which our Lord tooke vpon him. I might go forward with the rest of the Psalme in like sort, but it is enough that I haue giuen a tast of this ex­position. The like difficulties may be obserued in Augu­stines interpretation; besides the great difference betwixt him and Hierome, in their commentaries vpon this Psalme. Now that the people, and worship of God among the Iewes had the like sayd of them, it may appeare by these pla­ces. Psal. 111. 9. [...] Hee hath commaunded his couenant for euer. 133. 3. There, that is, vpon the mountaines of Sion, the Lord promised his blessing and life for euer. 132. 13. 14. The Lord hath chosen Sion, and loued to dwell in it, saying, This is my rest for euer, here will I dwell, for I haue a delight therein. If then, for all these promises and commendations, the Church and seruice of God be perished from among the Iewes; how can you from this onely conclude, that the Church of Christ shall continue with­out interruption?

Your minor also is false, vnderstanding by Church (as you do) To the As­sumption. [Page 170] a certaine companie of men, infallibly taught in all points of faith, and infallibly to be beleeued by all men. To the proofes of it I answer, that they are all insufficient; which I will shew in particular. Psal. 48. 8. The Psalme (as I haue shewed) belongeth to the citie of Ierusalem, to the Temple and Church of the lewes. The phrase doth not necessarily require any such continuance, with­out interruption. Psal. 105. 8. The Lord (saith another Psalme) remembred his couenant for euer. The Prophet speaketh of the performance of that point of Gods promise to Abraham, which concerned the outward prosperous estate of the Iewes: so it is expounded in the next verse: vers. 9. The couenant that he made with Abraham, and the oath that he sware to Isaac: yet did the Lord punish them oftentimes himselfe, and giue them vp into the hands of their enemies, Psal. 106. 40 41. 42. 43. as the history of the Scripture sheweth, from time to time. So speaketh the Prophet Isai. 63. 9. Esay also of his kindnesse to­ward them: In all their troubles he was troubled, and the Angell of his presence saued them: in his loue and in his mercie he redeemed them, and he bare them, and caried them alwayes continually; yet was not this without interruption, either in the wildernesse, or in the land of Iewry. Therefore Gloss. interl. ad Psal. 47. your Glosse expoundeth for e­uer, Stabiliter. stedfastly: and Gloss. ordin. ibi. another Glosse taketh it as spoken in com­parison of the ceremoniall Law: not for an houre or short time, as (be­fore) the tabernacle of Moses was: signifying that there was no change in religion to succeed the Gospell of Christ, as the Gos­pel was to succeed the law of Moses. What is this to continuing without interruption?

First I oppose to your bare word, whereby you so peremp­torily affirme, that by the name of Dan. 2. 44. the kingdome of Christ, the Church is signified, the authoritie of Theodoret. ad Dan. 2. 44. Theodoret, who vnder­standeth it of our Sauiours eternall gouernement: The Prophet sheweth (saith Theodoret) the end of things present, and the king­dome of heauen without end. And whereas you wil haue his king­dome in this world to be meant, he refuteth that conceit by this reason: If they stand vpon it, that our Sauiours former comming is signified by these words, let them shew (saith that ancient Father) that the Romane Empire perished, as soone as our Sauiour appeared. And afterward: At his second comming he shall strike the image [Page 171] vpon his feete of Iron and clay, &c. and hauing destroyed all king­domes, and made them as it were to be forgotten, he shall bestow his kingdome vpon them that are worthie of it. The kingdome of Christ (saith Lyra ibi. Lyra) is especially in heauen, where the citizens are immor­tall. Hitherto belongeth that in Apud Iren. in arg. lib. 5. c. 26 Irenaeus, in the argument of a chapter, that Iohn and Daniel foretold the dissolution & desolation of the Romane Empire, which should go before the end of the world, and our Sauiour Christs euerlasting kingdome. So doth Barradius expound Num. 24. 17. that prophecie of Balaam, concerning our Sauiours destroying of Moab and Sheth: Christ (saith Sebast. Barra. in cōcor. Euan. lib. 9. cap 9. he) shall smite the captains of Moab, and destroy all the sonnes of Sheth at the last day of iudgement. I doubt not, but in any reasonable mans iudge­ment, the authoritie of these writers is of weight enough to crush your bare affirmation to powder, that, for ought you haue said, we may interprete these places of our Sauiours kingdome in heauen. But that I may answer the place to the full, I grant that the prophecie belongeth to the kingdome of Christ, euen in respect of this world also; as it is plaine by the time the Pro­phet speaketh of, namely the destroying of the kingdomes of Syria and Aegypt, the remaines of Alexanders conquest. And so Theodoret is answered, who grounded his exposition concer­ning Christs second coming, vpō a mistaking of Daniels image, as if that belonged to the Empire of Rome, which was prophe­sied of the Syrian and Egyptian kingdomes. I say then, first, that this kingdome of Christ is not any outward state of the true Church, which should continue without all maner of interrup­tion. For who knoweth not, that diuers heresies haue for a time mightily preuailed against the Church outwardly, so that they seemed to haue gotten the vpper hand? Who hath not heard, that Hieron. dialo. contra. Luciser. the whole Christian world sometimes wondred at it selfe, that it was become an Arian? Was it not almost foure hundred yeares, before the Church came to be of so great account in the world? Is it not prophecied in the Apoc. 12. 6 Reuelation, that she should be for­ced to flie into the wildernes for the space of 1260. daies? How then should the outward kingdom of Christ be said to continue (simply) without interruption? Some subiects of the kingdome might liue scattered here and there, but out of question the [Page 172] kingdome was not in those times to be found, if we measure it by any outward state. I say therefore secondly, that by the king­dome of Christ in Daniel and Luke, the spirituall gouernment of our Sauiour is signified, whereby he ruleth in the hearts of his chosen; so that no force of Satan or his instruments can dis­possesse him of this kingdome, but that it shall alwaies continue in dispight of the gates of hell. This appeareth in that place of Luk. 2. 32. 33 Luke more manifestly. For what is the throne of Dauid, what is the house of Iacob, but the elect of God among the Iewes and Gentiles? All are not Israel (saith the Rom. 9. 6. 7. Apostle) that are of Israel: neither are they all children, because they are the seed of Abraham: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. The kingdome of Christ is o­uer Gal. 6. 16. the Israel of God, and they are that house of Iacob, of which the Angell speaketh to the virgin Mary, concerning our Saui­ours kingdome, which shall haue no end.

A. D. §, 5.

Lastly, I might confirme the same with the testimonie of the an­cient Fathers, Origen, Saint Chrysostome, S. Bernard, and especial­ly of S. Austin, who disputing against the Donatists, saith thus, as re­hearsing In Psal. 101. one of their speeches: Sed illa Ecclesia, quae fuit omnium gentium, iam non est, perijt: That Church, which was of all nati­ons, Conc. 2. is not now, it is perished. Vnto which their speech, he answe­reth; O impudentem vocem! Accounting it great impudencie to say, the Church is perished. And in the same place he bringeth in the Church, as speaking personally thus: Quam diu ero in hoc se­culo? Ibidem. annuncia mihi propter illos qui dicunt: Fuit, & iam non est: apostatauit, & perijt Ecclesia ab omnibus gentibus. Et an­nunciauit, nec vacua fuit vox ista. Quis annunciauit mihi nisi ipsa via? quando annunciauit? Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus vsque ad consummationem seculi. How long shall I be in this world? tell me in regard of them who say, the Church indeed was, but it is not now: it is become apostata, and is perished out of all nations. And he told me, neither was this word in vaine: who told me but the way it selfe? (to wit Christ, who saith, I am the way:) when did he tell? Behold I am with you vntill the end of the world.

A. W.

Here is a flourish of names to little purpose, especially since these authors you mentiō, agree with vs about the true Church, that consisteth only of the elect, & not (as you teach) of all sorts [Page 173] good and bad, elect and reprobate, so they make an outward profession of beleeuing: But Austin condemneth the Dona­tists of impudencie, for saying that the Church was in their time perished out of the world, saue that it remained in a part of Africa amongst them that held with Donatus. So would he crie out against you Papists, if he liued at this day, and heard you com­plaine, that there is no Church in the world, but only in Rome, & in those countries, which depēd vpon the Church of Rome. Onely Donatus his part (as August. ad Psal. 101. concio. 2. Austin calleth it) was the Church with them: and onely the Popes part is the Church with you. You are not indeed as yet come so farre, as they were, because some other countries, besides Italy, are content to be ruled by your Pope: but when it shal please God to leaue that strumpet, the Church of Rome destitute of friends (as her wound is vnre­couerable, and she draweth euerie day nearer and nearer to her end;) August. con­tra part. Donat then will you take vp the verie same complaint, that the Donatists vsed, and there shall be no Church at all but in Rome, or where the Pope shall lurke, in some other corner of the world. We denie not that the Church, Mat. 28. 20. to whom our Sauiour maketh that promise, shall continue till the end of the world, and we detest Donatus heresie, in affirming, that it was then to be found onely in Africa. But (as I said before) what maketh this for the continuance of such a Church, as you imagine? This rather belongeth to the visibilitie and famousnesse of the Church, whereof in the next chapter.

A. D.

CHAP. XII. That this Church, which must be to vs the rule of faith, as it must alwaies continue, so it must also alwaies be visible.

A. W.

It is yet to prooue, and alwaies will be, that there is any such Church, as must be to vs the rule of faith: what should we then striue about the continuance and visibilitie thereof? But you must needs be answered, according to the counsell of Salomon, Lest you be wise in your owne conceit, to the hurt [...] Prou. 26. 5. of other.

[...]
[...]

A. D. §. 1.

Now hauing prooued that the true Church of Christ must al­waies continue, without interruption, till the worlds end: it remai­neth that I shew also in what manner it is to continue; to wit, whe­ther it shall alwaies be visible. That is to say, whether, in all ages, it was, and shall be a companie of men, who may be seene, and in some sort, plainely knowen to be that companie, which men are to beleeue, by faith, to be the true Church of Christ: or that it shall be, some­time at least, inuisible; that no man can see those men, nor know them to be that companie, which we must beleeue, to be the true Church of Christ.

A. W.

That the Church of Christ must alwaies continue, is a point that needeth no proofe: that it is to continue without interrup­tion, if we did not beleeue alreadie, we should neuer be driuen or perswaded to it by your weake reasons. But (as me thinks, I must be faine to tell you oftner) the continuance of the true Church without interruption makes nothing at all for that imaginarie Church of your deuising, of the visibilitie whereof you intreat in this Chapter. Wherein, first you goe about to propound, and expound the question; then you make a shew of proouing it, according to the conceit, you haue of it. In the propounding of the question, for the readers better vnder­standing, I must let him know, that howsoeuer your words, shall alwaies be visible, seeme to tie the question onely to the time hereafter to come, yet your meaning is to enquire, whe­ther the Church of Christ haue not alwaies, since his first com­ming, and shall not alwaies, till his second comming, be ap­parent and visible. This is manifest by your exposition, In all ages it was, and shall be: and by your proofes, which at the least in your opinion, concerne the whole Church of Christ, euer since his comming in the flesh.

Your exposition rather darkens, then cleares the State of the question. For who would not thinke, by your words, that one part of the controuersie betwixt you and vs, is, whether the men, the companie of whom is the church, may at all times be seene or no; as if we were so voide of sense as to imagine, that men could be at any time (except by miracle) inuisible? Do not your words imply thus much? I pray you consider them [Page 175] a little with me. The question is (say you) whether the Church be alwaies a companie of men, that may be seene. If you answer, that I must adde that, which followeth, And in some sort plain­ly knowen to be that companie: I replie, that your selfe afterward make those two distinct parts of the question, when you ex­pound what is meant by Inuisible, that no man (say you) can see those men, nor know them to be that companie; wherein you may reasonably be thought, first to speake of those mens being seene, and secondly of their being knowen to be such a com­panie.

But to make short, and to speake plaine withall; the que­stion of the Churches inuisiblenesse is double. First whether a man by his bodily sight can discerne, who they are, that be members of Christs mysticall bodie or no? that is, who be e­lect, and who be not. This we say (& herein you agree with vs) is vnpossible: because God doth not reueale this point to men, neither are they able to iudge, who are truly iustified and sanc­tified, and who are not. Secondly the question is, whether the catholicke Church, spokē off in the Creed, can be discerned by the same bodily sight, or no: we say it cannot, because it con­taineth none but the elect; you say it can, Bellar. de Eccles. milit. lib. 3. cap. 2. Turrian. de Ec­cles. & ordin. ministr. because it consi­steth of all them that make profession of christian Religion, vn­der the absolute gouernment of the Pope of Rome. The onely true meanes to make a full end of this controuersie, is to shew what the Church is, of which the Creed & the Scriptures speak so many, and so glorious matters. This point you haue not once touched, but either ignorantly, or craftily concealed that dif­ference betwixt vs, and alledge that for the definition of the Church, which if it were true, as it is euidently false, yet is but one priuiledge of the Church, and expresseth not the nature of it. But let vs leaue these matters, and consider what it is, that according to your former discourse, you are to prooue. Now, that is (say I), that there alwaies hath bene, since our Sauiours comming, is, and shall be, to the end of the world, a companie of men famous, and visible in the world, so that all men, at all times, may discerne, that they are the true Church of Iesus Christ. For (that I may, in part, vse your owne words, as they follow in this [Page 176] chapter) if at any time it could not be knowen, then the men, that liued in that time, wanted necessarie meanes, whereby they might attaine to the knowledge of true faith, and consequently, whereby they might come to saluation. Giue me leaue to apply that to all men, which you speake of all times. If there euer were, are, or shall be any men, to whose sight the Church was not so visible, that they might discerne and know it; then those men wanted necessary means whereby they might attaine to saluation: which if it were so (say you) how is it vniuersally true, which is vniuersally said in Scrip­ture, God would haue all men to be saued, and to come to the know­ledge of the truth? Do you not perceiue that your reason neces­sarily requireth to haue it prooued, that the Church is visible, as at all times, so to all men? For if it faile in either of these re­spects, your consequence will follow, that some men haue wan­ted necessarie meanes of saluation, and so God would not haue all men saued. Therefore you propound the question verie insuf­ficiently, when you say, We inquire, whether the Church at any time be inuisible, so that no man can see those men &c. For though at all times some men may see and know it; yet vnlesse all men, at all times may, you haue prooued nothing to purpose in this whole Treatise.

A. D. §. 2.

In which matter my Assertion is, that the Church of Christ (of which the places of Scripture afore cited do speake) must alwaies be visible.

This I prooue: first by that plaine Prophesie of Isaias in the 61. Chapter. (Which Chapter to be vnderstood of our Sauiour Isa. cap. 61. Christ and his Church, we may gather out of Saint Luke, where our Sauiour himselfe citeth some words out of that Chapter, and Luc. 4. expoundeth them to be fulfilled in himselfe.) The words of the Pro­phesie are these. Foedus perpetuum feriam eis, & scietur in gen­tibus Isa. 61. semen eorum: Omnes qui viderint eos, cognoscentillos, quoniam isti sunt semen cui benedixit Dominus. I will make a perpetuall couenant or league with them, and their seede shall be knowen among Nations: all that shall see them, shall know them, that they are the seede, which our Lord hath blessed. How could he more plainely haue foretolde the visiblenesse of the Church?

The places of Scripture afore cited speake not all alike: some of them concerne the Apostles onely, and that not onely as they are a companie, but as they are seuerall teachers authori­sed by our Sauiour Christ, with so high and absolute a com­mission: some belong to all true christians, as well seuerally con­sidered one by one, as taken iointly all together. Some apper­taine to all Ministers, some reach to all professors of the truth of the gospell. How then can you truly say, that the true Church of Christ (of which the places of Scripture afore recited doe speake) must alwaies be visible? The Apostles haue not bene visible these 1500 yeares. The elect, that is the Church, built vpon a rocke, neuer was, nor euer shall be visible in this world. All Ministers were not, nor can be visible to all men. All professors neither are the true Church of Christ, nor can by any meanes possible be seene of all mē, as one church, but with the eies of the mind. Particulars are subiect to sense, but vniuersals are discerned onely by vnderstanding. Your assertion then is false: but we will take it, as it is set downe by you, supposing that those places of Scripture speake of the Church in generall. Yet we may not forget that the second point must needs be added, concerning all men; and so your assertion must be this, The true Church of Christ must alwaies be visible, to all men liuing.

To make way to your argument out of this prophesie, you go about to prooue that the Isai. 61. 8. 9. Chapter is to be vnderstood of our Sauiour Christ & his Church: your proofe lieth thus.

  • Our Sauiour himselfe citeth some words out of that Chapter, & expoundeth them to be fulfilled in himselfe.
  • Therefore that Chapter is to be vnderstood of our Sauiour Christ and his Church.

This consequent doth not follow vpon that Antecedent First because the whole chapter may be written of our Sauiour him­selfe, and yet not of his Church also. Secondly because some part of it may be of our Sauiour, and yet not those words you alledge. For who is he that knoweth not, that one and the same Chapter often times, conteineth diuers prophesies, belonging to diuers matters and parties? But though your proofe be naught, your opinion is true. For those words & that [Page 178] whole chapter concerne our Sauiour, and his Church. Let vs see how you reason.

  • If our Sauiour promise to make a perpetuall couenant with his Church, and that their seede shall be knowen among na­tions, and that all that shall see them, shall know them that they are the seed, which our Lord hath blessed, then the Church must alwaies be visible to all men liuing.
  • But our Sauiour hath promised to make a perpetuall couenant with his Church, & that their seed shall be knowen among nations, and that all that shall see them, shall know them, that they are the seed which our Lord hath blessed.
  • Therefore the Church must alwaies be visible to all men li­uing.

I denie the consequence of your Maior: Though our Saui­uiour To the pro­position. made such a promise, and indeed hath, and doth daily performe it; yet it doth not follow thereupon, that the Church must alwaies be visible to all men. Shall the promise of our Sa­uiour faile, if the Church at some time be not Apoc. 12. 6. apparent to all men? 12. Art. part. Take heed we giue not the Atheists of the world oc­casion to say, that his promise was neuer fulfilled, because the 1. art. 1. Church was neuer knowen to all men liuing at any one time. The Lord by this prophecie foretelleth the enlarging of the Church amongst the Gentiles, not the visiblenesse of it, at all times, to all men. But the couenant ( y you will say) is perpetu­all. True: that is (saith Gloss. ordin. ad Esai. 61. your glosse) not as the old Testament, to which the new hath succeeded; and therefore he expoundeth the perpetuall couenant, to be Euangelium aeternum. the eternall Gospell, which shall neuer be abolished for anie other, as the ceremoniall Law was, by the sa­crifice of our Sauiour Christ. Glos. inter l. ibi. An other of your Glosses calleth it a perpetuall couenant, because it shall be certainly performed, ap­plying to that purpose, the place of Matthew. Mat. 5. 18. Heauen and Earth shall passe, but one iot or title of the Law shall not passe, till all things be fulfilled. The other clause is as little to your pur­pose. The Prophet saith not that all men, at all times shall, or may see the Church, but that all, which shall see it, shall know it. Neither is that sight an outward beholding of those men, that are members of the Church, but a discerning spirit giuen by [Page 179] God to them, whom he hath appointed to euerlasting life, by faith in Christ. For if we strictly presse the words, who seeth not, that this promise hath failed, since there haue bene ma­ny in all ages, yea in our Sauiours owne daies, who for all his powerfull miracles, diuine doctrine, and vnspotted conuersa­tion, acknowledged neither his Church nor himselfe? Say not, they might haue done. For that is not the question. The Pro­pher saith, All that see them, shall know them, not may know them. Gloss. ordin. Your ordinarie glosse applieth this to Apostolos & eorum imita­tores. the Apostles, and their followers, or those that imitate their workes. So doth Vatablus, opera eorum. Vatablus expound them, their workes. And Lyra, operibus miraculosis, & virtuosis. Lyra more parti­cularly sheweth what works are meant. They (saith Lyra) that shal see them distinguished from other men, by their miraculous and powerfull works, wherein the Apostles, and other their successors ex­celled the common people, and yet excell them in many things. Now the Apostles themselues, for all their many, and strange mira­cles, might haue bene, and had bene vnknowen, I will not say to many men, but to many nations, and the farre greatest part of the world, if they had not, Math. 28. 19. according to their commission, trauelled from place to place, and so into diuers countries brought the first tidings of themselues. How can it be then, that at all times since the death of the Apostles, the Church hath bene visible to all men, seeing there hath bene neither charge, nor warrant, nor practise of any such vniuersall mini­sterie? If any man had rather vnderstand this Prophecie of the knowledge, that the vnbeleeuers haue of the Church, the mea­ning Os [...]rius in Esa. lib. 5. ad ca. 61. is, that the Lord will bestow such graces of Sanctificati­on vpon his children, that euen their verie enemies, amongst whom they liue, shall be driuen to acknowledge them for the people of God. But what is this to the visiblenesse of the Church, to all men at all times?

A. D. §. 3.

Secondly our Sauiour hath ordained this his Church to be the light of the world; according as he saith, Vos estis lux mundi, Matth. 5. you are the light of the world: and to be a rule or meanes, by which all men, at all times, may come to the knowledge of that One, in­fallible, entire faith, which is necessarie to saluation, as hath bene prooued. But how can it be the light of the world, if it selfe [Page 180] be inuisible? (Nemo accendit lucernam, & ponit eam sub mo­dio. No man lighteth a candle, and when he hath done, setteth it vnder a bushell, where it cannot be seene.) And how can it be a meanes, by which, at all times the infallible truth may be made knowen, to all sorts of men; if it selfe at any time, could not be knowen of men? Or if you say, that sometimes it could neither be knowen it selfe, nor be a meanes, by which the true faith might be made knowen; then, sith that I prooued that it is a necessarie meanes, and so necessarie, that without it, according to the ordinarie course, there is not sufficient meanes prouided by Almightie God to instruct all men infallibly in all points of faith: Then (I say) men, that li­ued at that time, wanted necessarie meanes, whereby they might attaine to the knowledge of true faith, and consequenly, whereby they might come to saluation. Which if it were so, how is it vni­uersally true, which is vniuersally said in Scripture? Deus vult omnes homines saluos fieri, & ad agnitionem veritatis venire. God would haue men to be saued, and to come to the knowledge of 1 Tim. 2. the truth. For how can he be said, to haue a true will to saue all men, If he haue not, at all times, prouided meanes sufficient, wher­by, all men may come to the knowledge of true faith, and thereby, by degrees, to saluation? Sith especially, he hath power to prouide these meanes: and knoweth, that without these means prouided, it is vn­possible for men to attaine true faith, and eternall saluation. For knowing it vnpossible, he cannot be said to will it; sith no wise man willeth that, which he knoweth perfectly to be altogether vnpossi­ble; and much lesse may Almightie God be said, to will any thing, which is absolutely vnpossible, considering that his wise­dome is infinite, and that his will is alwaies ioyned with some worke or effect, by which worke or effect, that which he willeth, at least, is made possible to be done. VVherefore to verifie that Almightie God would haue all men saued, we must needs say, that he hath pro­uided, for all men, these meanes, which be necessarie, and without which, it is vnpossible for them, to come to the knowledge of true faith, and thereby to saluation: One of which meanes, is a visible Church, of which they must heare and learne the true faith; which is the first, and a necessarie step to saluation. The Church therefore must needs be alwaies visible.

This your second reason is thus to be framed:

  • If the Church be not visible to all men, at all times, then it is not ordained by our Sauiour to be the light of the world, and a rule or means by which all men at all times may come to faith and saluation.
  • But it is ordained by our Sauiour to be such a light, and such a rule or meanes.
  • Therefore it is visible to all men at all times.

That I may be the more easily vnderstood by the ordinarie Reader, I wil apply my answer to the course that you haue takē in setting downe your reason: where in the first place we haue your minor, and one proofe of it; another followeth after your proposition, and there shall be examined.

Concerning your Assumption, I say it is false. The Church is To the As­sumption. not ordained to be such a light, rule and meanes: To Math. 5. 14. your proofe touching the light, I answer, with diuers of the auncient, that our Sauior speaketh to, and of the Apostles, not of the Church in succession from time to time. All the Apostles (saith Chrysost. ad Psal. 38. Chry­sostome) are the light, to whō he said, Ye are the light of the world. These were the light of the eyes of the two testaments, the Law and the Gospel. For they by the light of our Lord, Illuminant nobis. enlightened for vs the old and new testaments. He that reproueth those things that are done secretly, is the light (quoth Theophyl. ad Math. 5. Theophylact.) For all that ma­keth any thing manifest, is light. But they (the Apostles) enlightned not one nation, but the world. So doth Aug. in Ioan. tract. 23. & De Sanctis. ser. 43. Austin somtimes expound it. So Hieron. ad Math. 5. Ierom, Hilar. a pud Thom. in caten. ad Math 5. Hilary, & Remigius. Luc. Brugen. ad Math. 5. Lucas Brugensis a learned Papist, not onely applieth this text to the Apostles, but also af­foords vs a second answer. You are, that is (saith he) you must be, or ought to be the light of the world, that you may carry the light of the Gospel into the world, he set round about with darknesse. And thus in a manner do Austin and Hilary expound it.

But let vs vnderstand it of all teachers, that they are the light of the world, as indeed they are, in a certaine proportion. What then? Will it follow hereupon, that therefore the Church is at all times visible to al men? The Apostles themselues, whom this doth especially concerne, were not so. For many thousands in the world died, after Mark. 16. 15: the generall commission giuen to the [Page 182] Apostles, before it was any way possible for them to take any knowledge of such Preachers, or of the Gospell. Your great Cardinall Bellar. de verb Dei scrip. lib. 3 cap. 2. ad arg 3. Bellarmine will needs haue the place expounded, not of the Apostles doctrine, but of their conuersation: which is not so easie and readie to be knowne as their preaching was. Tertul­lian applieth it to the behauiour of all Christians. Why hath our Lord (saith Tert. de cultu foemina. cap. 13. he) compared vs to a light, and a hill, if we shine not in the midst of the darknes, if we hold not vp our heads in the middle of them that lie drowned? But out of question, this holinesse of true Christians, is not alwayes visible to all men, neither can it be­long to your Church, the Bellar. de Ec­cles. milit. lib. 3 cap. 2. §. Atque hoc. members whereof may be vtterly void of true faith and loue, saue onely in the outward profession. Take it how you will, for doctrine or manners, or both, you are neuer a whit the nearer. If I would presse the words, I could say, that our Sauiour requires no more in this place of the light, but that it giue light Mat. 5. 15. to all them that are in the house: that is, to all in the Church, or at the most, to them that are neare neigh­bours thereunto. For what Apoc. 1. 12. 20. & 2. 5. candle is there so bright, that the light of it can be seene ouer all the world? What though our Sa­uiour call his Apostles the light of the world? doth he meaue, that they all ioyntly together considered, as a companie, are so; or that euery one of them (seuerally) is the light of the world? If you will haue it spoken of them as the Church (and else it can­not serue your turne to proue the perpetuall visiblenesse of the Church) I doubt how you will be able to shew, that they were the light of the world. For they did not enlighten the world by any ioynt act of them all together, but by their seuerall prea­ching in seuerall places. Neither did they perswade men to be­leeue, because they were such, or such a company; but euery one of them taught the doctrine of the Gospell, and was of himselfe without relation to all, or any of the rest, the light of the world in that part, where it pleased God to blesse his labours, to the begetting of faith. If you say, that euery one of them was the light of the world (as doubtlesse euery one was) then will it not follow, that because the Church is the light of the world, there­fore it must be at all times visible to all men. For neuer any one of the Apostles was so; no nor all of them, as I said before, many [Page 183] thousands being taken out of the world, after the Apostles be­gan to preach, ere they could possibly haue any glimpse of such a light. To conclude, the Apostles were, and the Ministers (in some sort) now are the light of the world, because by their prea­ching, it pleaseth Almightie God to open the eyes of worldly men, that Act. 26. 18. they may turne from darknes to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receiue forgiuenesse of sinnes, and in­heritance among them which are sanctified by faith in Christ: not as if any, or all these must at all times be visible to all men; but that there may be meanes for the saluation of those whom the Lord (of his infinite loue) hath chosen out of the world, to be heires of his endlesse glory.

By all men, we may vnderstand either euery particular man, or Of the pro­position. all sorts of mē. If you wold proue that which you vndertake, you must meane euery particular man, as I haue shewed in answe­ring the fifth Chapter; and as it is apparent in this afterward, where you repeate that which before you had deliuered con­cerning Gods will to haue euery man saued, one and other. But I know not how, in the proofe of your proposition, you seeme to expound all men by all sorts of men. How can it be a meanes (say you) by which at all times the infallible truth may be made knowne to all sorts of men, if it selfe at any time could not be knowne of men? In this sense, if I should grant your whole fyllogisme, yet would the point in question remaine still vnproued. For the Church may be ordained for the light of the world, and for a rule or means whereby all sorts of men may come to faith and saluation: and yet at no time be visible to euery particular man. To speake more plaine; your proposition may be vnderstood two seueral ways; first thus, that all men shall be taken in the one part of it, namely in the antecedent or former part, for euery particular man; in the other for all sorts of men. If it be thus vnderstood, I say the con­sequence is naught. Secondly, those words All men, may haue the same signification in both parts of the proposition, yet in two diuers senses. For they may be taken either for Al sorts of men, and then, as I haue shewed, the syllogisme proueth not that which is in question: or for euery particular man, in which sense onely I allow of the proposition, as true and to the purpose. [Page 184] It had bin better therefore that you had spared the proofe of it, especially vnlesse you could haue done it better. Math. 5. 15. The light which is not put vnder a bushel, is not the church, but the apostles. He teacheth them (saith Theophyl ibi. Theophylact) to endure the trial, and to haue great care of their conuersation, as they Aspectabiles eritis. on whom al men gaze. Thinke not therefore (saith our Sauiour) that ye shal lie hid in a cor­ner: Ye shal be the light of the world: and therefore see that you liue vnblameably, and become not an offence to other men. Who can ga­ther from hence the consequence of your proposition; If the Church be not visible to all men at all times, it is not ordained by our Sauiour to be the light of the world?

Your second proofe, concerning the rule and meanes, is no lesse insufficient. If the Church at any time could not be knowne of men, (you must needs meane of euery particular man, if you will speake to the purpose) it cannot at all times be a meanes, by which the truth may be knowne to all sorts of men. This is the con­sequence I denied before, either brought by you for a new proofe, or repeated idly within 3. or 4. lines after it was first de­liuered.

Here you returne to your minor, and to proue the latter part To the proof of the latter part of the assumption. of it, propound the second time your maine reason, answered at large in the fifth Chapter. It would be tedious, and losse of time and labour, to repeate all that was then said: I wil therfore content my selfe to draw it into forme, as it lieth, and to denie the false propositions, without any more adoe, vnlesse I meete with somewhat by the way, which was not in your former dis­course. Thus you reason.

  • If the Church be not ordained by our Sauiour, to be a rule or meanes, by which all men, at all times, may attaine to faith and saluation; then some men, at some time, haue wanted one necessary meanes to that purpose.
  • But no man at any time hath wanted any necessary meanes to that purpose.
  • Therefore the Church is ordained by our Sauiour to be a rule or means, by which all men at all times may attaine to faith and saluation.

I denie your Assumption; which you endeuour to proue [Page 185] in this sort:

  • If any man at any time hath wanted any necessary meanes, then it is not vniuersally true, that God hath a true will to haue all men saued, and come to the knowledge of his truth.
  • But it is vniuersally true, that God hath a true will to haue all men saued, and come to the knowledge of his truth.
  • Therefore no man, at any time, hath wanted any necessarie meanes.

Againe I denie your minor, referring the Reader, for the true sense of 1. Tim. 2. 4. that Scripture, to my answer in the fift Chapter. The proofe of your consequence, about which you labor like a man that claps plaister vpon plaister on a sound place, is altogether needlesse, and not worth the examining; saue onely that in the last clause thereof, you confidently harp vpon the former string, which soundeth nothing but the necessitie of a visible Church to saluation. But the Apostle, Rom. 10. 14. 15. where he sheweth what is of necessitie to faith, neither mentioneth, nor any way implieth a visible Church, but only requireth a sending of some to preach: and that may be from God immediatly, not by succession, Gal. 1. 1. in and by men. Did not our Sauiour Christs preaching bring ma­ny to faith in him, and so to saluation? Did not Peter Act. 2. 41. conuert 3000. at one Sermon? Did not the Apostle Paul plant many Churches? Was any of these a visible Church? or did the people to whom they preached, either seeke to them, as to a visible Church, or beleeue that they deliuered, because they were sent by a visible Church? It is true, that no man (ordinarily) can be­leeue, vnlesse he heare; no man can heare, vnlesse there be one to preach to him: no man can preach, vnlesse he be sent. But what is all this to the necessitie of a visible Church? Looke through the whole history of the new Testament, and see how many examples you can finde of any, that were but so much as occasioned to beleeue, by the meanes of a visible Church. The same of our Sauiours miracles drew many to the hearing of him, not the knowledge of any visible Church. Act. 10. 3. 5. Cornelius a deuout man, and one that feared God, liuing neare to the pla­ces where the Gospell was preached, was not moued by the visible Church, but by a vision from heauen, to send for Peter, [Page 186] that he might heare and beleeue. I might shew the like in di­uers other examples, that the Apostles were faine seuerally to go from place to place to preach the Gospell, and not to stay, till the fame of them, or a visible Church should moue people to enquire after them. I denie not, that 1. Cor. 14. 23 25. occasion may be giuen to men to hearken after the Gospell, by reason of some visible Church, whereof they may by diuers meanes haue vnderstan­ding: but, that it is vnpossible for men to come to the know­ledge of true faith, and hereby to saluation, without a visible Church; or that a visible Church is alwayes the first step to sal­uation, though sometimes it may be the first occasion of hearing and beleeuing.

A. D. §. 4.

Thirdly, if the vniuersall Church of Christ, should for any space of time be inuisible: it should for that space cease to professe out­wardly that faith, which in heart it did beleeue. For if it did out­wardly professe, how should it not by this profession be made visible and knowne? But if the vniuersall Church should for such a time faile to professe the faith, hell gates (contrarie to Christs promise) did mightily preuaile against it. For, were it not a mightie preuai­ling, that the whole Church should faile in a thing so necessarie to saluation, as we know, outward profession of faith to be necessarie, both by that of our Sauiour: Qui negauerit me coram homini­bus, Math. 10. ego negabo illum coram Patre meo: He that shall denie me before men, I wil denie him before my Father? And, Qui Luk. 9. me erubuerit & sermones meos, hunc Filius hominis erubescet: He that shal be ashamed of me and of my words, him the Sonne of man wil be ashamed of. And by that of S. Paule: Corde credi­tur ad iustitiam, ore fit confessio ad salutem: With heart we be­leeue Rom. 10. to iustice, with mouth we confesse to saluation. Which place learned men interprete to signifie, that profession of faith is some­times necessarie to saluation: and they say further, that this some­times is so oft, as either the glorie of God, or the profite of our neighbour, doth of necessitie require it: the which cases of necessitie do happen verie often; and great maruell it were (or rather vn­possible) that they should neuer haue happened, for so long a time as the Protestants would haue their Church to haue beene in­uisible.

A. W.

  • [Page 187] If the vniuersall Church of Christ (say you) should for any space of time be inuisible, it should for that space cease to professe outwardly that faith which in heart it did beleeue.
  • But it may not for any space cease to professe that faith.
  • Therefore it may not for any space of time be inuisible.

To omit that fancie, that there is one such vniuersall Church To the pro­position. of Christ vpon earth (whereof hereafter, when I come to speake of the Catholicke Church,) I denie the consequence of your proposition. For it is possible, that al the Churches in the world should gloriously professe the true faith, and yet many thou­sands be vtterly ignorant, that there are any such Churches. Was not your Church of Rome (which hath bene famous e­nough for outward state) altogether vnknowne (at the least a long time) in the Indies and America, till within these 100. yeares, or thereabouts? And yet do you aske, If it did outwardly professe, how it should not by this profession be made visible and knowne? Hath not the kingdome of China, if we beleeue the re­port of your Iesuites and other Friers, bene a mightie and rich estate many hundred yeares; and yet not heard of till of late, in most parts of Christendome? If you reply, that the Churches must needs be knowne to them, amongst, or neare whom they are: I answer, that this proueth not their visibilitie to all men at all times; no nor to them, in the midst of whom they dwell, vnlesse the Churches be setled in some outward peace, that the members thereof may freely shew themselues.

Your minor is false: it may come to passe, that the Church To the As­sumption. may cease for a space to make open profession of that faith, which in hart it doth beleeue: else how could 1. Reg. 19. 18. Eliah, liuing in the kingdom of Israel, haue bene ignorant, that there were 7000. true wor­shippers of God in that countrey? Your proofe is insufficient.

  • If it might come to passe (say you) that the Church should cease to professe outwardly, then should the gates of hell mightily preuaile against it, contrary to our Sauiours promise.
  • But the gates of hell shal not mightily preuaile against it, contrary to his promise.
  • Therefore it may not come to passe, that the Church should cease so to professe.

[Page 188] The consequence of your maior is too weake. Our Sauiours promise is neither to the whole Church, considered as a com­panie ioyntly together, but to euery true beleeuer, as I shewed before; nor concerning outward profession, against which Pe­ter (the head of the Church, as you dreame) grieuously sinned: but of continuing ioyned to Iesus Christ, as the head, by a true iustifying faith, resting on him for saluation. In which estate Peter alwayes was preserued by our Sauiour, though Mat. 26. 70 72. 74. the diuel preuailed against him to the deniall of his Lord and Master, for feate of death. But let vs see your proofe.

  • If outward profession be a thing necessary to saluation, then if the church faile in that, the gates of hell mightily preuaile against it, contrary to our Sauiours promise.
  • But outward profession is a thing necessary to saluation.
  • Therfore if the Church faile in outward profession, the gates of hell mightily preuaile against it, contrarie to our Sauiours promise.

I denie your minor. Such outward profession as you meane, is not To the As­sumption. necessary to saluation.

For the better clearing whereof, we must a little examine what it is, for a thing to be necessary to saluation; then, what profession may be counted necessary. For the former: that is necessary to the saluation of a man, without which he cannot possibly be saued. Now these things are either simply necessarie, so that the absence of them shuts a man out of heauen; or necessarie onely in some sort. Simply necessarie, on mans part (for in that sense we speake now of things necessarie) are, acknowledgement of sinne, faith in Iesus Christ, and repentance: wheresoeuer any of these is wanting, there is no possibilitie of saluation, so long as they are wanting. Other things there are onely so far necessarie, as that the contempt or neglect of them, ba [...]s a man of saluation. Such are the Sacraments and outward profession: both in generall, by becoming a member of some true visible Church, and in particular, by witnessing the truth, as oft as the Lord shall minister iust occasion. Con­cerning this latter kinde of things necessarie, we are to know that if we truly repent our contempt and neglect of these duties, [Page 189] and beleeue in Iesus Christ, there is mercie for vs with God, though for want of oportunitie we can neuer come to the per­formance of them.

Touching the latter point of outward profession, it is (as I signified ere while) of two sorts: either a ioyning of our selues to some Church professing true Religion, or a bearing wit­nesse of the truth of God, which we professe. To this latter especially belong the two former places of Scripture alledged by you. To the former, that text which you set in the last place, as it shal appeare by and by. You will aske me perchance, whe­ther of these two, is the profession you speake of. Surely to speake plainly and properly, neither of them. For it is a conceit of your owne deuising, without any authoritie or warrant of Scripture; and namely of those places you bring for proofe of it: yet may it in some sort be referred to the latter, as being a meanes whereby we may auouch the truth of God, whereof we are professors. So then the answer is, first, that no kinde of outward profession is simply necessary to saluation, as if the absence of it, were in it selfe damnable, though the contempt or neglect of the dutie, not repented of, brings certaine dam­nation. Secondly, that it is not necessary to saluation, ei­ther simply, or in any sort, that a whole Church should at all times make open profession to the world of that Religion which they hold, and secretly practise. This is that outward profession, which is meant in your minor: by which conceit you shut out of heauen all Churches, that is, all assemblies of the faithfull, which at any time haue for borne to cast them­selues wilfully into the mouthes of the bloud-thirstie and ra­uening persecutors, by proclaiming openly their faith in Christ. It is too true, that an ouer-great zeale of martyr­dome caried Ignatius ad Rom. Cyprian. de Martyr. Ioan. 4. 1. 2, 3., & 8. 59. & 9. 39. Act 8. 1. & 9. 24. 25. some men, now and then, farther then they should haue gone, to the endangering and losing of their liues. But it is as true, that our Sauiour, his Apostles, and the Churches, from time to time, haue beene carefull to hide themselues from the sight of Tyrants, when the Gos­pell was persecuted, as farre as their callings, and other occasions would giue them leaue. Indeede they [Page 190] they neuer would (neither is it lawfull) denie the truth of God, or themselues to be professors of it, if they were called in que­stion for it: yet did they conceale, as much as they could, from the persecutors, their times and places of meeting, and also the seuerall members of their Churches. To denie Christ, or the truth of his religion is alwaies damnable, and without repen­tance, bringeth damnation vnauoideably; not to make publicke profession of religion is not alwaies so; but then onely, when the Lord, by some speciall occasion, according to the generall dutie of a Christian, or a mans particular calling, thrusteth or draweth him foorth to giue testimonie to the truth, by main­taining it, or suffering for it. Which your selfe also after­ward acknowledge, by the iudgement of the learned, who teach that profession of faith is sometimes necessarie to sal­uation.

Now for answer to your proofes, I say (as before) that the two former concerne especially, the denying either of religion in generall, or some speciall truth in question, when the Lord, as it were, calleth vs out to professe and auouch it: as he did the Apostles Mat. 10. 5. in that place, by sending them abroad to preach the Gospell. If you (saith our Sauiour in effect) or any other mi­nister shall forbeare to discharge your duties, by preaching my truth, and maintaining it, if you be called in question for it, I will neuer acknowledge you for mine, in the kingdome of hea­uen. Mat. 28. 19. Act. 10. 42. The Apostles calling necessarily required preaching of the word, and for them to haue failed in that dutie, for feare or shame, or otherwise, had bene to denie their Lord and master. Yet were they not so tied to this dutie, that they must needs continue their publicke preaching, in those places, where per­secution was raised against them, but Mat. 10. 23. they might flee from one Citie to another: and yet not be counted to denie the Lord Iesus. As for the Churches, that were gathered by the Apo­stles preaching, there is neither charge, nor reason to be shewed why they should bewray themselues to their persecutors, by o­pen practise of religion in the eies of the world. Indeed the worship of God is not to be neglected, though we cannot per­forme it without manifest daunger of our liues; but there is no [Page 191] necessitie to worship God publickly, where the truth is persecu­ted. Therefore did the anciēt Christiās, in such places assemble as secretly as they could, neither leauing the exercises of religion for feare, nor by an incōsiderate zeal, hazarding their own liues. To denie Christ is not to conceale himselfe frō persecutors, but being found by them, to renounce his profession: and so is the place ordinarily applied by Cyprian. epist. 56. ad Thibar. Sect 3. Cyprian, Clerus Romā, ad Cyprian. e­pist. 30. 31. Cy­pria. epist. 55. ad Corncl. sect. 13. Delapsis. sect. 14 Ad Nouatian. haer. sect. 7. the Clergie of Rome, and Tertul. in Scor. cap 10. 11. Tertullian, men enough fauouring martyrdome. Yea De fuga in persec. cap. 14. Tertullian in that verie booke, wherein he labours to prooue, that it is not lawfull for a man to flie in time of persecution: yet aduiseth men to hold their assemblies for the exercises of religion, in the night time, if they cannot haue them conueniently in the day. Theophyl. ad Math. 10. Theophylact expoundeth this confession and deniall, of ac­knowledging, or denying Christ to be God. Luc. Brugen. ibi. Brugensis some­what more particularly, He that denieth me to be his Lord and Sauiour, that he beleeueth in me, that he sticketh fast to me, and my doctrine. So doth Ianse. harm. cap. 55. Iansenius vnderstandit, though he stretch it also to the denying of Christ, by wicked conuersation. The de­nying of Christs name (saith Lyra. ad Mat 10. 33. Lyra) is alwaies a mortall sinne, Not to confesse or be silent (concerning it) is sometimes a mortall sinne: As if a man be silent, when he is asked of it; If he professe it, being not asked, it is a worke of supererogation. Doth any of these, or any man else, conclude the visibilitie of the Church from these, or the like places of Scripture? No man is to denie our Sauiour, nor to be ashamed of his truth. What then? There­fore must they that beleeue in Christ, openly make profession thereof, at all times, without Mat. 10. 16. any wisedome of the Serpent, for their owne preseruation: or else can they not be saued? A cruell and foolish conceit.

This proofe is to as little purpose as the former. Confession by mouth is required to saluation: therefore outward profession of faith Rom. 10. 10. is at all times necessarie. Who sees not the weaknesse of this cōse­quence? Doth not he confesse with mouth, that ioynes himselfe to some knowen Church of Christ, and communicates with them (ordinarily) in the outward worship of God: though all the world know not there are any such beleeuers & professors; yea though the people, among whom they liue, be not priuie [Page 192] to their meetings and profession? There may be occasion for a man, or a Church to manifest themselues vnto the world: and they that in such a time shall faile, can looke for no mercie at the hands of God, without true and earnest repentance. But this prooues not, that therefore the Churches must make such publicke profession, that they may at all times be knowen to all men. To perswade vs of the former (wherein there is no doubt) you tell vs that Learned men (autors in the aire, as D. B. P. a­gainst the reformed Ca­tholicke. pag. 677. one of your side saith, in the like case) interprete this place, to signifie that profession of faith is sometimes necessarie. Who euer denied it? But doth any learned man say, that therefore the Church must alwaies make such profession? That is the point in que­stion: and of that you are as dumbe as a fish: yea do you not perceiue, that Lombard. & Gloss. Ordin. & interlin. ibi. your learned men, refute that conceit? Doth not he, that expoundeth that place of necessitie at sometimes, denie that it requireth such necessitie at all times? It is necessarie (saith Frier Dominic. Sotus ad Rom. 10. Soto) for a righteous man, that he may obtaine euerlasting life, to confesse his faith with his mouth, wheresoeuer the time Necessarium praecepti tem­pus. ne­cessarily required by this precept offers it selfe. Catharin your Bi­shop speaketh yet more plaine: Ambros. Ca­tharin. ibi. Such confession (namely, that a man confesse with his mouth, that which he beleeueth in his heart, as he expounded himselfe a little before) is not alwaies required, but (as Thomas saith) according to the time and place. h Thomas. ibi. vide Thom. 2. 2 q. 3. art. 2. And indeed so Thomas saith, adding withall, that Praecepta af­firmatiua obli­gant semper, scel non ad semper. Affirmatiue commaundements binde at all times, but require not performance at all times. Your interlinear and ordinarie Glosses, and Lom­bard restraine it to the time of persecution: or at least, when the truth is called in question. Caietan makes this Caietan. ibi. when more ge­nerall, but signifieth, that this confession is not at all times neces­sarie.

As for the times, when it is to be held for necessarie, your learned men do somewhat more particularly deliuer the point, then you report it. Confession of Gods truth (quoth Sotus ad Rom. 10. Sotus, and therein he followth Thomas. ibi. Thomas) is necessarie vpon paine of losing saluation, either when it is required by a persecutor of the faith, which confession the martyrs made with their bloud: or when it is necessarie for those Subditis that belong to our charge, by danger of heresie [Page 193] likely to ensue: which dutie of confession properly concerneth Pre­lates, &c. These occasions haue many times bene offered, and accordingly See Acts & monumēts of the Church. many professors of that truth which wee now maintaine, haue, with the shedding of their bloud, giuen testimonie of the Gospell, against the errours and tyrannie of your Antichristian Prelates. Those holy martyrs, who from time to time haue bene butchered by your Synagogue of Sathan, were of the same Church with vs, howsoeuer they saw not the truth of God in many points so clearely as it hath pleased him to reueale it to vs by the ministerie of his seruants in these latter dayes. If they vsed their best discretion and ende­uours, to hide themselues (as much as might be) from your furie, they did no more then the light of nature and Scripture warrant, to preserue life, without denying their faith in the Lord Iesus, or refraining to performe true worship to him, though they did it secretly. And thus much of your argu­ment.

A. D. §. 5.

Fourthly if the Church were not visible, we could not fulfill that Math. 18. commaundement of our Sauiour, wherein he said: Dic Ecclesiae: Tell the Church. For how can wee tell the Church any thing, if we cannot tell where to seeke it: neither if we did by chance meete it, could we know it to be the Church?

A. W.

  • If the Church (say you) be not visible to al men, at all times, then can we not tell the Church, according to our Sa­uiours commaundement.
  • But we must tell the Church, according to his commaunde­ment.
  • Therefore the Church must be visible to all men, at all times.

That I may answer directly and plainly to your Syllogisme, To the Pro­position. I must vnderstand what you meane by Church and we. The Church may signifie in this place, either the whole companie of the faithfull, or seuerally euerie particular congregation, which yet properly is not the Church, but a Church. So may the other word We be taken for All men whatsoeuer, or onely for such as make profession of Religion. Taking Church in [Page 194] the former sense, I denie the consequence of your Maior. We must fulfill that commaundement of our Sauiour, though the whole companie of the faithfull be not at all visible. For the charge is not to tell the whole company, but the seuerall Chur­ches whereof we are members. I haue shewed this before: I wil onely put you in mind of a learned Papists exposition, formerly alledged. We are not willed (saith Lue. Brugens. ad Mat. 18. 17. Brugensis) to tell the vniuer­sall Church spread ouer the earth, but that particular Church, Cui conuiuit & subiect. &c. to which euery man is subiect, and wherein he liues. If by we, you meane none but professors of Religion, as our Sauiour Christ doth, and as See Chap. 10 sect. 8. Brugensis, and all other interpreters vnderstand it; then howsoeuer you take the Church for the whole companie, or the seuerall congregations, I denie your consequence in that respect also. The faithfull may tell their particular Churches, whereof they are members, though the Church be not visible to all men, at all times. It is enough if euery man know his owne Church, to which he belongeth, though he know not of any other in the world.

Your minor is vtterly false, if (as you must needs do, accor­ding To the As­sumption. to that you intend) you meane either all men, or the whole Church. For as I said before, our Sauiours charge is neither to all men, but only to Professors of Religion: nor concerning the whole Church, but particular congregations. And so your fourth reason proouing the visibilitie of the Church, at all times to all men, by our Sauiours commaundement, to tell the Church, is of as small force as the former. It is sufficient, as I noted ere while, for the fulfilling of this charge, that euerie man know the Church, of which himselfe is a member, and which he is to tell: and in this sort the Churches are alwayes vi­sible.

A. D. §. 6.

Fiftly, it is certaine, that once the true Church of Christ was visible, to wit, when it first began in Ierusalem, in the Apostles and Disciples of our Sauiour Christ, and that companie, which by their preaching was conuerted to the faith. But there can no reason be shewed, why it should be visible then, and not now. If it were needfull [Page 195] to be visible then, because otherwise it could not be a Church, that is, A Societie of men lincked together, in the profession of one faith: in the vse of the same Sacraments: vnder the gouern­ment of lawfull Pastours: for the same reason, it must needs be visible now; because, (as in the last Chapter is prooued) there must be a Church now: and therefore it must be a societie of men, pro­fessing the same faith: vsing the same Sacraments: liuing vnder the gouernment of lawfull Pastours. For all this pertaineth to the verie essence of the Church.

If also it were needfull to be visible then, that those offices and functiōs, which must be done in the Church, might be wel performed: to wit, as there were in the Church some Pastors, & some sheepe, (as Saint Gregory Nazianzene saith) some to commaund, some to o­bey: some to teach, some to be taught: some to feed the flocke of Oratione de moderat. in disput. habenda. Christ, some to be fed: so (that euerie one of these, might do what pertained properly to his dutie;) it was needfull, that the Pastors must know their sheepe, and the sheepe their Pastours, and that those that should teach, and rule, and minister the Sacraments, must see, and know them, whom they were to teach and rule, and to whom they were to giue the Sacraments. And on the contrarie side, the other had need to haue knowen those, of whom they must be taught, whom they must obey, & from whom they were to receiue the whol­some food of the holy Sacraments. If (I say) this reason prooue, that it was needfull then, that the Church should be visible and knowen: for the same reason, it will be also needfull to say, that the Church must be visible, now, and at all times. For, at all times, there must be Pastours and sheepe in the Church, being the sheepefold of Christ. And at all times these Pastours must gouerne, instruct, and minister the holy Sacraments: and the other must receiue gouerne­ment, instruction, and the foode of the holy Sacraments, at their hands. And consequently, there had need be some visible tokens, at all times, by which the Pastours may know their sheepe, lest for want of this knowledge, they may vnawares, Dare sanctū canibus, & pro­ijcere margaritas ante porcos, Giue that which is holy to dogs, and Matth. 7. cast margarites before hogs, which our Sauiour commandeth them not to do. And on the other side, there had need be some visible markes, by which the sheepe may know and discerne their lawfull [Page 196] Pastors, and true preachers, from false teachers, and intruding v­surpers. For otherwise, they could not tell, whom to heare & obey, and whom to repaire to for the Sacraments: and contrarie, whom to take heed of, as of false Prophets: whose voice to neglect, as of strangers: and whose poisoned food of polluted Sacraments to reiect, no lesse then a baite laid to kill them by theeues and robbers; as it importeth greatly euery one to do.

If lastly it were needfull to be visible then, that those, which were out of it, might ioyne themselues vnto it, and become members of it; thereby to participate the graces and benedictions, which Christ our Lord communicated onely to it; and to escape the deluge of eternall damnation, wherewith all was sure to be drowned, that were found out of it, as it were, out of another Noe his Arke: this reason also requireth and vrgeth, that the Church must be visible now, and at all other times. For if, at any time, it were not visible; how could men, that were out of it, come vnto it? Or how could they attaine saluation, if they did not enter into it? Sith at all times, the merits and fruits of Christs passion are inclosed in it: and the means of saluation, and to escape eternall damnation, are onely found in it. The Church therefore is visible at all times. For at all times, that prophecy of Isaias must be true, wherein our Lord speaketh thus to the Church: Aperiētur portae tuae iugiter, die ac nocte non clau­dentur; vt afferatur ad te fortitudo gentium, & reges earū addu­cantur; Isa. 60. Gens enim & regnū quod non seruierit tibi, peribit. Thy gates shal be cōtinually opened, day & night they shall not be shut, that the strength of nations & the kings therof may be brought vn­to thee; for the nation & kingdome which shal not serue thee, shall perish.

A. W.

This is your fift argument, wherein you haue wasted more paper, then in all the former. Let vs see if your paines be not to as little purpose.

  • If the true Church (say you) was once visible (you should adde, to all men) and no reason can be shewed, why it should be so then, and not now, then it is so now.
  • But the true Church was once visible, and no reason can be shewed why it should be so then, and not now.
  • Therefore the true Church is now visible.

[Page 197] Who denies this conclusion? or what do you get by it? The To the Syllo­gisme. question is, whether the Church of Christ be alwayes visible to all men, or no. You conclude, that it is now visible, speaking nei­ther of all men, nor of all times; in which two points the whole controuersie betwixt vs lieth: saue that we also denie that there is any such one Church, as you fondly suppose, without any shew of proofe. But that I may let nothing passe which is worth the answering, I will apply this argument of yours, as directly to the question as I can. To speake plaine to euery mans vnder­standing: the doubt is, whether there be not at all times some one companie of Christians or other, that maketh publicke profession of religion, so that all men whatsoeuer and wheresoeuer, may take notice of them, as the true Church of Christ, or no. In this question we differ from you in two points. First we say, that there neuer was any such companie in the world, that could be knowne to all men. Secondly we adde farther, that euery true Church may be so opprest and driuen into a corner, that it can be discerned by none but the members of it; and yet may continue in the pra­ctise of religion by the ministery of the word, sacraments and censures. Now then, I thus frame your reason, for proofe of the question.

  • If at any time there were a company of mē visible to all the world, and no reason can be shewed why there should at that time be such a companie, and not at all other times also; then there hath bene alwayes, is now, and shall be for euer such a com­panie visible to all men.
  • But there was once such a companie visible to all men, and no rea­son can be shewed, why there should be at any time, and not at all times.
  • Therefore there alwayes hath bene, is, and shal be such a company visible to all men.

I denie the consequence of your maior; though there had To the pro­position. bin sometime such a company, and no man were able to shew sufficient reason, why there should be such a companie then, and not alwayes; yet I say, it doth not follow, that therefore there must at all times be such a companie. The ground of my deniall, is, that God hath not reuealed to men the reason of all [Page 198] his decrees and actions. Your Pope himselfe (as presumptuous as he is) I thinke, dares not vndertake to declare or determine, why many things fall out, which we see dayly come to passe. I presume all this while, that you denie this possibilitie of giuing a reason, to men onely, not to God also: for else your minor wil want little of blasphemie.

Your minor hath two parts, and it is false in both. For neither To the As­sumption. was the Church (as you speake) in the Apostles time visible to all men; and there may be some reason, why though it had bin so then, yet it should not continue so alwayes. Of the former I haue said enough heretofore; and it is a conceit without truth or likelihood, that all the world might take knowledge of the Church, when it began in Ierusalem. For the other point, though I might stand vpon it, and put you to proue, that there can no reason be giuen; yet will I endeuour for your better sa­tisfaction, if it may be, to shew some reasons why it must needs be visible in the beginning (yet was it not then visible to all mē) and need not be so at all times. But first let vs examine your proofe. I will propound your reason in a syllogisme, and then answer to it.

  • If the Church were in the Apostles time to be visible, 1. because otherwise it could not be a Church: 2. the offices and fun­ctions of the Church could not else be well performed: 3. else men could not ioyne themselues vnto it: and these reasons, why it should be visible, still continue; then no reason can be shewed, why it should then be visible, and not alwayes.
  • But it was then to be visible for those reasons, and they alwayes continue.
  • Therefore no reason can be shewed, why it should then be so visible, and not alwayes.

I do purposely omit the former part of the Assumption, that the Church was visible to all men, because I spake suffici­ently of it before, and it wil but hinder the examining of this syl­logisme. To which that I may answer orderly and plainly, I de­ny To the pro­position. the consequence of the maior. Although these three had bin some of the reasons (whether they be or no, we will consider in the Assumption) why the Church at the first must needs be [Page 199] visible: and these reasons still continue: yet would it not follow, that then no reason can be shewed, why it should be visible then, and not so alwayes. For there may and shall be other rea­sons giuen of the necessitie of visibilitie in those times.

Your minor also is false. Neuer a one of the three alledged To the As­sumption. by you, is any necessary reason of the Churches visibilitie in the Apostles times; as shal appeare in the handling of them. Where­in first I must speake a word or two of the definition of the Church, as it is propounded in this place. In the whole course of your treatise, as I haue noted in my answer here and there, you meane by the Church nothing else but your Clergie, or ra­ther your Bb. assembled together in a generall Councell. Here (be­like vpon better aduice) you are content to allow the people also for parts of the Church. But to let that passe: the first fault in your definition is, that you fancie to your selfe one visible v­niuersall Church, consisting of all such as you account true Christians throughout the world: whereas you are not able to bring any place of Scripture, in which the holy Ghost so spea­keth of the church. I deny not, that all Christians agreeing in one profession, may in some sort be said to be of one church: but that the Church whereof the Scripture speaks, and of which we therefore must speake, if we will speake to any purpose, is to be conceiued as any one such societie. The same word, the same sacraments, the same kind of gouerners may be in diuers chur­ches, and yet not all these be one societie. We may imagine the like in common wealths or kingdomes, that seuerall states may haue the same kind of lawes, customes and magistrates, and yet not be all one kingdome or common wealth. Your second fault is, that vndertaking to define the true church, you content your selfe with the same faith, and the same sacraments: whereas no company nor man can be of that church, but they that hold the true faith of Christ, and the right vse of the sacraments. The third thing I will obserue, is rather by way of explication, then of refutation: you require the gouernment of lawfull pastors, as a thing essentiall to the church. If you speake of that church, to which our Sauiour makes those goodly promises Mat. 16. 16. & 28. 20. in the Gos­pell, it may be for a time without such gouerners: the promises [Page 200] themselues not concerning the whole bodie, in respect of their lawfull Pastors, but euery particular, in regard of his faith in Ie­sus Christ. And indeed, howsoeuer it be true, that to the being of a Church, as it is commonly taken, it is necessary that there be both a pastor and a people: yet a people depriued of their pastors by what meanes soeuer, and hauing no dependance vpon any other congregation, doth not cease to be such a Church as our Sauiour promiseth to protect from spiritual and bodily enemies: yea a people so destitute, hath power to chuse a pastor for themselues, and therefore are still in some sort a Church, because that power is no where out of a Church, but is appropriated to the companies of beleeuers, who make seueral Churches, though not properly and fully Churches, for want of lawfull gouerners. In the last place, I may not omit to note your craft, in adding to your definition of the Church, the go­uernment of lawfull Pastors; as if you would haue the ignorant imagine, that there were certaine Pastors who had some ioynt gouernment of the Church: for example, perhaps your Pope, and his Councell of Cardinals, or a Councel of Bishops assem­bled by his authoritie, and gouerned by his direction. In this sense we vtterly denie, that any gouernment of Pastors is ne­cessary to the being of a Church; though we gladly embrace the helpes of Synodall, prouinciall, nationall and generall Coun­cels. All true Churches properly so called, are gouerned by their seuerall Pastors: but this makes them not one church, as long as there are not more, or at the least one, gouerner cōmō to thē al. This Bellar. de Ec­cles. milit. lib. 3 cap. 2. Turrian. de Ec­cles. & ordin. ministr. Stapl. princip. doct. controu. 1. lib. 1. cap. 3. the learned of your side discerning (though you cannot or wil not see it) neuer define the Church without relation to one generall pastor, the Pope of Rome. As for the seuerall pa­stors, be they neuer so lawful, they do no more make their con­gregations one Church, in respect of their gouernment, then the Companies of London, because they are gouerned by their Maister and Wardens, (seuerally) make one bodie, without respect of their common subiection to the Lord Mayor of that citie. You wil then perhaps demand of me, whether the Church be not a meere sound onely, hauing nothing truly answerable thereunto indeed? I answer to this question, that the Church [Page 201] is more then a meere sound, and hath a thing in nature truly an­swerable to the name, and that in two respects. For the Church may be taken for the whole multitude of them, that in all places of the world professe the Gospell of Iesus Christ: and in this sense it containes all, saue the Iewes and the heathen. Second­ly, the Church truly and properly is the companie of the elect, that are called to true faith in Iesus Christ. More particularly it signifieth such of the elect beleeuers, as are liuing in the world. And this is that Church, to which those glorious and comfor­table promises of our Sauiour do appertaine: though there be also some promises of outward blessings, which are common to all Churches and professors of Christian Religion. Now these elect thus called, are truly a Church, because they are a companie linked together in the sound profession of the same true faith, and members of the same mysticall bodie of Iesus Christ, vnder the go­uernment of the holy Ghost his Ʋicegerent. I do not take vpon me exactly to define the Church, but onely to shew in grosse, what is necessary to the being of it; nor perhaps all that, but the espe­ciall point, where in you haue failed, which is subiection to one and the same Lieutenant and Soueraigne, not to diuers of the like kind seuerally, as your definition seemeth to require. But of this matter enough.

Now I answer to your minor, that there was no necessitie of the Churches visibilitie, that it might be such a societie as you imagine. For there haue bin, and easily may be such socie­ties, which may be, and haue bin hid from all the world, saue those of their owne companie. Consider I pray, what should hinder this. Is it not possible for a companie of men to professe the same religion, but other men must needs be priue to that their profession? It is like enough, that such a company grow­ing to a great multitude, and ordinarily. holding the exercises of their Religion, will in time be discouered: as it fell out with the true Christians in the late persecution vnder Queene Marie. But this proueth not, that therefore there cannot be any such societie, but the world must needs take knowledge of it. Could your detestable traitors band them selues together in that mon­strous plot of treason and murder by gunpowder, yea and as­semble [Page 202] so often, and worke so hard in the diuels seruice, with­out being descried: and cannot God by his prouidence keepe his seruants, meeting together for his worship, but that Satan shall certainly discouer them? It is more then manifest (how long or short a while soeuer they may keepe themselues vn­knowne) that they may be such a companie, and not by and by be knowne.

The second point in the first part of your minor is this, and thus concluded.

  • If the Pastors were to know the sheepe, and the sheepe the Pa­stors, and this could not be, vnlesse the Church were visible; then was this one reason of the Churches being visible.
  • But the Pastors were to know the sheepe, and the sheepe the Pa­stors, and this could not be vnlesse the Church were vi­sible.
  • Therefore this is one reason of the Churches being visible.

I may graunt you the whole Syllogisme, in the termes it is To the Syllo­gisme. propounded by you, and yet neither I lose, nor you get any thing. For there is no more concluded by it, but that the church must be visible to the members of it: the Pastor must know the sheepe, and the sheepe the Pastor: Which of vs euer denied this visibilitie? or what is this to proue, that the Church in the beginning of the Gospell was to be famously visible in the eies of all the world?

In a word then to your propositions seuerally: you must adde To the pro­position. to your maior, one of these two clauses, either to the members of it, signifying that the Pastors and sheepe could not know one another, vnlesse the Church were then visible to the members of it; or to all men, meaning that there could not be such mutuall knowledge betwixt the Pastor and the sheepe, vnles the church were visible to all men. In the former sense your proposition is true, but altogether wide from the marke you ayme at. In the latter you shoote right, but a great deale ouer. For though your consequence by this meanes wil proue true, and to the purpose; yet your minor wil be ouerlarge, and your question stil remaine vnproued. For it is ridiculous to imagine, not onely to affirme, To the As­sumption. that the Pastor and flocke cannot know each other, except all [Page 203] the world know them too. Why may not the like be said of the husband and the wife, the father and the children, the maister and the seruants? May there not be gouerning and obeying, but where all men see these actions performed? But I dwell too long vpon so cleare a matter. Onely I was desirous to suite my answer somewhat like to your argument, for the length of it, lest shortnesse might make your followers thinke it not well answered.

We are now come to the third point of the former part, which you conclude thus.

  • If men, that were out of the church, were to come into it for salua­tion, and this could not be vnles it were visible, then was this one reason of the visibilitie thereof.
  • But men out of it, were to come into it for saluation, and this could not be, vnlesse it were visible.
  • Therefore this is one reason of the Churches visibilitie.

This is the onely argument of the three, that hath any shew To the As­sumption. of reason in it: and yet this also is far from any necessary proofe. For if in your minor you meane, that all and euery man was to come into the Church for saluation, as if God had intended the saluation of euery particular man by the publishing of the Go­spell: your said minor is in that respect false. For our Sauiour himselfe Luk. 10. 21. giueth his Father thankes, that he had hid the mysteries of the Gospell, euen there where it was publikly preached, from the wise and men of vnderstanding, and reuealed it to babes or simple men. Yea he professeth, that there was an especiall act of God his Father required Ioh. 6. 44. 65. to the drawing of men to beleefe, euen there where himselfe preached most powerfully, and that some only and not all, were so drawne by God. Neither doth the difference in this case proceed from man, but from God; lest that man, which makes the difference betwixt himselfe and another, should haue iust cause to boast, as if he were more beholding to himselfe, of whom he had the very act of being willing to be saued, then to God, who onely gaue him power to be willing. Therefore Thom. ad Rom. 9. See Chap. 5. sect. 1. C. your glorious and Angelicall D r. Thomas saith, that there can no more reason be giuen why God intendeth the sal­uation of this man, and not of that man, then why the Mason layeth [Page 204] this stone aboue, and that below, each of them hauing a like fitnesse to each place. But if by men, you vnderstand those men that were chosen of God to euerlasting life, Act. 13. 48. to whom onely the preaching of the Gospell was effectuall to true faith and sal­uation, then I denie your minor in regard of the latter part also. For there was no necessitie of the visibilitie of the Church to that purpose, as if God could not otherwise haue procured that they should beleeue and be saued: I adde farther, that the meanes which it pleased God to vse, for the conuerting of those that were then to be saued, and ordinarily for publish­ing the glad tidings of the Gospell, was not the visiblenesse of the Church, but the preaching of his Apostles. So that (as I signified before) the greatest natiōs of the world embraced the Gospell of Iesus Christ, not because they saw some visible Church, to which they might adioyne themselues, but for the euidence of the truth which some one man or other preached to them, without any reference or respect to any visible Church whatsoeuer. Act. 8. 4. The dissoluing of the visible Church at Ierusalem, was the occasion of preaching the Gos­pell through the world.

Hauing thus examined your seuerall proofes, I returne now to your principal assumption; for the farther confuting wherof, I must shew, that there may be some reason giuen, why it might please God to haue the Churches visible in the beginning, and not alwayes. To which purpose I must first intreate all men to vnderstand, that I do not vndertake precisely to set downe the reasons why God wil haue his churches somtimes famously knowen, sometimes hidden from the knowledge of the world. For his counsels are vnsearchable, and his wayes past finding out. Farther, I acknowledge in all truth and humblenesse, that I hold the reuealed will of God for a sufficient reason of any thing which he doth will, though I could in my ignorance obiect somthing against it, which might affoord some cause of doubting. With this protestation I say, these might be some reasons. First, wheras the means of saluation had bin, for a long time, shut vp in the land of Iurie, and in a manner, made pro­per to the Iewes; now the partition wall being broken downe, [Page 205] the Gentiles also were to be receiued into the Couenant; which (to our reason at least) could not conueniently haue bene done, vnlesse the profession of the truth had bene famous and visible. But when once by this meanes the sound of it was gone ouer the world, there was no such necessitie of continuing vi­sible Churches. Secondly, this visibilitie was at the first the more necessarie, because otherwise the Iewes, Act. 2. 38. to whom first the Gospel appertained, being dispersed in many nations, could not so easily take knowledge of it: now & 13. 46. they haue iudged themselues vnworthie of it, and the Lord hath giuen it to vs Gentiles. Thirdly, it was no small proofe of the truth of the Gospell, and the power of God working by the ministery of the word, that so great multitudes should so speedily be con­uerted by so weake meanes: there is not alwaies the like vse of the Churches visiblenesse. Fourthly, though the Lord in his mercie, would haue the Gospell published to the world, yet when it became generally abused to wantonnesse, that mens eares itched after new doctrines, and esteemed more of their owne deuises, then of the true worship of God, appointed by himselfe; it pleased his maiestie to leaue men to their owne blindnesse, and presumption, reseruing to himselfe a small com­panie here and there, whom he kept, as the 7000 in Elias time. Lastly it was requisite that the prophecies in 2. Thes. 2. 10. Paul and Reuel. 17. 1. Iohn, concerning Antichrist, and his tyrannie, and vniuersall Apo­stacie, should be fulfilled; which could not haue come to the iust height of extremitie, if any Churches, at least in those parts where Antichrist preuailed, had continued visible. These are a few of those reasons, which in the blind iudgement of man, not able to sound the depth of Gods secrets, might be an oc­casion of making the Churches of Christ cease to be famous, and of keeping the true professors Reuel. 12. 6. shut vp in the wildernesse; till the time appointed by God for Antichrists decay and ruine approached. Yet did not the Lord all this time, leaue himselfe and his truth without witnesse, but from time to time, stirred vp the spirits of his children, to make the world search the Scrip­tures, and discerne, if they would, that your Church of Rome so famous & visible, was corrupted with many errors, and become [Page 206] the verie seat of Antichrist. Thus I haue answered your fift rea­son, in the conclusion whereof you adde a testimonie of Scrip­ture, to confirme the necessitie of the Churches perpetuall vi­siblenesse to all men.

  • If (say you)
    Esai. 60. 11.
    that prophecie of Esay (Thy gates shall be continually open) must at all times be true, then the Church is visible at all times, to all men.
  • But that Prophecie must be true at all times.
  • Therefore the Church, is visible at all times, to all men.

Though you ordinarily leaue out that clause of the Churches To the syllo­gisme. visiblenesse to all men, yet I make bold to supply it; because I am desirous to perswade my selfe, that you doe so, rather for shortnesse sake, then in a craftie purpose to deceiue the Reader.

I denie the consequence of your Maior: first, because that prophecy may be alwaies true, and yet the Church not alwaies To the pro­position. visible. For all prophecies in Scripture are alwaies true, as be­ing from God, and yet doth it not follow hereupon, that there­fore whatsoeuer is prophecied must alwaies be true. It was prophecied by God himselfe, that Gen. 15. 13. the children of Israell should be seruants in Aegypt: May I then say as you do If this pro­phecie must alwaies be true, they must alwaies be seruants in Aegypt? I trow not. Prophecies are alwaies true; but true onely, according to the meaning of them: that such or such things must be, at the time, and in the manner signified by them. If you say, your meaning is no more, but that if that pro­phecie be true, then the Church is alwaies visible to all men; I answer, that At all times was put in without cause, and might as you see, breed a question in your proposition.

Secondly, taking your Maior in that sense, I still denie the consequence of it. For the gates of the Church may be open at all times, & yet all men neither see thē alwaies open, nor know that there are any such gates, or Church. Might not the gates of Mexico, or some Citie in the East Indies, China, or America be alwaies open, and yet none in these westerne parts euer heare of any such Citie? You will say perhaps, that the Pro­phet by the gates being open, signifieth the visibilitie of the [Page 207] Church. It is not enough to say so, vnlesse you prooue it too. But that I may yeeld somewhat of my right in this case, and not put you to your proofes in so hard a matter: I answer with August. de ciuit. dei lib. 20 cap. 68. Austin speaking of such prophecies and promises, that this place belongeth properly to the Church of the elect, into which, without any restraint, many of the Gentiles do enter continually from day to day, by their actuall beleeuing truly in Iesus Christ. Which answer may the better appeare to be true, if we consi­der that this promise is made to the Iewes, whose Church­gates must alwaies stand opē to entertain the Gentiles coming vnto it. But this can no way be true of the outward Church of the Iewes, which then florished in Ierusalem, & was vtterly de­stroyed some fortie yeares after our Sauiours ascension. There­fore it must belong to that remnant of Israel, Rom. 9. 6. 7. & 11. 2. 7. which is accor­ding to the election of grace. Do not replie to this answer, that the gates of this Church were alwaies open, euen before our Sauiours coming. For this Church, in respect of the Gentiles, had not a gate then, but a little wicket, which stood not al­waies open, but was opened now and then, vpon occasion, when it pleased God, to bring some one or other of the hea­then, extraordinarily to saluation, by the acknowledging of the Messiah to come. These gates are now, & haue bene this 1500 yeares and vpward shut vp against the Iewes: as Rom. 9. & 10 the Apostle lamentably coplaines, not, as some imagine, because the visible Church was translated frō the Iewes to the Gentils, which Paul would neuer so ambitiously haue affected, as in respect of that Rom. 9. 3. To be contented to become Anathema, that his countrimen might enioy the glorious smoke of such an outward priuiledge (I speake in comparison of election to euerlasting life:) but for that the Lord would giue ouer his people the Iewes, and not choose (ordinarily) out of them, heires of his heauenly kingdome, as before he had done. We see, and reioyce at the sight, that the Lord of his great mercie, calleth out some few from amongst that desperate multitude of the Iewes, as before he did out of the Gentiles, but the gates are now set open, for the Gentiles, and a small posterne for the Iewes.

But what if I should grant you, that this prophecie may also [Page 208] be expounded of the outward profession of Religion, must the Church then needs be visible at all times to all men? The maine reason of the gates continuall standing open, is signified by the Prophet to be this: That the strength of the nations, and their kings may come into the Church. But this was long ago fulfil­led, by the iudgement of your owne writers. The strength of the nations, that is the most warlike nations saith Vatablus: which (saith Vatabl. ad Esay. 60. 11. he) was fulfilled; when the Romanes were added to the Church. The opening of the gates, Lyra. ibi. Lyra referreth to Constantines time, and therefore in his iudgement, they were shut more then 300. yeares after Christ. And so farre is he from once thinking on the visibilitie of the Church, prophecied of in this place, that he brings three other interpretations, and not mentions your conceit. The gates shall be open: because (saith Lyra) Constantine commaunded, that the Church gates should be opened, which before were shut, and that new Churches should be built. This also may be expounded (saith he) of spirituall ope­ning, because the Church is alwaies open, to receiue them, that re­pent. And because, since Constantines time, men began to flocke to the Church of Christ without feare. The strength of the nations was brought, because (saith the same Author) by the example of Constantine, many Potentates and kings came to the faith of Christ. The gates of the Church (said Hieron. ad Esay. 60 li. 17. Ierome, before Poperie was hatched) shall alwaies be open to them, that desire to be saued, that entrance may not be denied, either in prosperitie or aduersity, to them that will beleeue. Thus this place of Esay will not prooue the visibilitie of the Church, to all men at all times.

A. D. §. 7.

Sixtly, the onely reason and ground, by which heretickes hold the Church to be inuisible, is, because they imagine the Church to con­sist onely of the elect, or onely of the good. But this is a false ground, as appeareth by the name of Church in Greeke Ecclesia, which euen by the Etymology of the word, doth signifie the companie of men called: now sure it is, that moe are called then elected, as our Saui­our saith, Multi vocati, pauci electi. Againe, this ground is shewed to be false, by those parables, in which the Church is compared to a Math. 20. Math. 3. Math. 23. Math. 13. floare, wherein wheat and chaffe are mixed. And to a mariage, to which came good and bad. And to a net, wherein are gathered all [Page 209] sorts of fishes good and bad. And to ten Ʋirgins, wherof fiue were foolish, and excluded from the celestiall mariage. This ground is Mat. 25. also shewed to be false out of Saint Paule, who commaundeth the Corinthians, to expell an incestuous person out of the Church. Er­go, 1. Cor. 5. before this expulsion, there was such a person in the Church, and therefore the Church doth not consist, onely of those, that be good.

A. W.

Because your owne reasons are not strong enough, to proue the point in question, you thinke to helpe the matter by ouer­throwing the ground, whereupon onely, as you confidently a­uouch, we build our deniall of the Churches visibility at all times. But neither is that our onely ground, and if it were, you are not able to shake it. Concerning the former, we denie the visibi­litie of the Church, as it is vnderstood in those places, where our Sauiour promiseth spirituall graces to it, and as it is taken in the Creed; because that Church is the mysticall bodie of Christ, and therefore can consist of none but those, that are truly iustified and sanctified, as none but the elect are. But we farther denie the same visibilitie, because you would haue vs beleeue that the Catholicke Church is visible. To which we answer, that this Catholicknesse (let the Church be what it will) maketh it inuisible: because Aristot. & omnes logici. that which is Catholicke, is ge­nerall, consisting of many particulars: and we haue learned, that vniuersals are not subiect to sense, but onely to be con­ceiued by the minde, as hauing no outward shape, which can be seene or knowen by any of the fiue senses. Moreouer, if we take the question, in the most reasonable sort that may be, (and so it is verie seldome handled by you) Whether there must al­waies be some one or other companie of men, that may be famous­ly knowen of all the world, to be a true Church of Christ: Still we continue in denying that visibilitie. First, as it is propounded by you, for an Article of Faith, and an essen­tiall propertie of the, or a true Church. Secondly, because we are taught in the Scriptures, that the true Church, that is, the professours of Christs true Religion, shall be faine to flie into the wildernesse, and so must needes be out of the sight of (at least) the greatest part of the world. I am [Page 210] loth to repeate these things so often, but you driue me to it: my helpe is to do it, as shortly as I can.

All the forces you bring to ouerturne the ground, vpon which our denial of the Churches visibilitie stādeth, are diuided by you into two bands, with the former whereof, thus you set vpon vs.

  • The companie of men called, consisteth not of the elect onely.
  • The Church is the companie of men called.
  • Therefore the Church consisteth not of the elect onely.

I denie your Minor: many men are called, that are not of the To the as­sumption. Church, which consisteth of such onely, as being called, are also elect. It is true that the word Church is sometimes so ge­nerally taken, that it compriseth all such, as make profession of faith in Christ, but this is not the Church, of which the Creed speaketh, and to which our Sauiours promises apppertaine: yea besides this Church, there is the true Church of Christ, whereof he is head, whose bodie hath neuer a rotten or dead member, such as ouer many, perhaps the greatest part of them, that make profession of beleefe, commonly are. In a word, the whole course of your Treatise failes in this point, that where­as the word Church is diuersly taken, you apply that to it, in the generall meaning of the word, which was spoken of it by our Sauiour, the Prophets and Apostles, in that speciall signi­fication, by which it containeth none but the elect.

To your proofe I answer farther. First that the word [...], in the verie nature of it, doth not signifie The companie, that is any certaine companie called, but generally a company, that is any such companie whatsoeuer. Secondly I adde, that the word is also sometimes taken for a companie, whether called or not called: as, Psal. 26. 5. [...]. I haue hated the companie of the wicked. Where the Prophet speaketh not of any companie called together, but absolutely of the wicked, howsoeuer assembled, or not assem­bled. Thirdly, I say it is enough, in respect of the nature, and Etymology of the word, that the Church be a companie of men called, neither can it any way be enforced from the signi­fication of it in Greeke, that the Church must needs compre­hend all, that are in any sort called. Indeed the elect onely may Rom. 8. 30. [Page 211] truly be said to be called, in an especiall manner: because they haue besides the outward sound of the preacher, the inward voice of the spirit, and are not onely called to beleeue the truth of the Gospell, but also to beleeue truly in Iesus Christ to sal­uation:

This is your rereward, with which you charge vs afresh, and that as it were, both with foote and horse. First you throng together many places of Scripture, as if your confidence were greater in your number, then in vour valour: Let vs encoun­ter you.

  • That, which is compared to a floare, wherein wheat and chaffe are mixed.
  • To a mariage, to which come good and bad.
  • To a net, wherein are gathered all sorts of fishes, good and bad.
  • To ten virgins, whereof fiue were foolish and shut out from the coelestiall mariage, consisteth not of the elect onely.
  • The Church is compared to such a floare, marriage, net, virgins.
  • Therefore the Church consisteth not of the elect onely.

A verie hot assault: but your bullets fall a great way short of To the syllo­gisme. the marke, you do, or should aime at. For all you prooue by this reason is onely this, that the Church, taken for the whole com­panie of them, that make profession of the Gospell, consisteth not onely of the elect. Who euer dreamed it did? You are so farre from ouerturning our ground, that you neuer once come neare it, for all this braue shew you make.

In particular, I denie your Minor. The Church we speake To the as­sumption. of, is not compared to any such things. The Church (saith August. epist. 48. ad Vincent. Austin) which groweth in all natiōs, is preserued in the lords wheat, and shall be so preserued to the end, till it haue taken possession of all, yea euen the most barbarous nations. The floare (in August. vbi supra. Austins iudgement) is not the Church, but the place rather, in which the Church is kept: for that (as he truly saith) is the wheat. And in the same Epistle he speaketh yet more plaine of an o­ther of your parables. That is the Church, (saith Vbi supra. Austin) which swimmeth in the Lords net with naughtie fishes, from which in heart and behauiour, it alwaies is separated. Could any thing be spoken more direct? The floare and the net are, in a generall [Page 212] sense, the Church; but the true Church indeed is, in the one the wheat, not the chaffe, in the other, the good fishes, that swimme among the naughtie ones. I may also farther ex­cept against these Parables, because they are otherwise ap­plied, then they are intended by our Sauiour; who neuer meant, by any one of them to teach, that the Church consi­steth not of the elect onely. Who (saith August. ad Vincent. epist. 48. Austin) can, without great impudencie, go about to prooue anything for his purpose, by interpretation of any Allegorie, vnlesse he haue manifest testi­monies, whereby those matters, that are obscure in it, be cleared?

This is your last charge, to as small purpose, as either of the former.

  • If there may be an incestuous person (say you) in the Church, then it consisteth not onely of those, that be good.
  • But there may be an incestuous person in the Church.
  • Therefore the Church consisteth not onely of those, that be good.

It is apparent that by good, you vnderstand those, that can­not be charged with any grosse outward sinne, as Incest, or such To the syllo­gisme. like. In which sense, I say your conclusion is nothing to the purpose. For we do not affirme, that no man is of the Church, which by any occasion falleth into some grieuous sinne: so should we exclude Peter, Mat. 26 70. when he denied his master; Dauid, 2. Sam. 12. 9. when he committed adulterie and murther; Noe, Gen. 9. 21. when he was drunke; Abraham, Gen. 12. 23. & 20. 5. when he lied, and many other: who for all these sinnes, held fast their faith in the Messiah, and continued true members of Iesus Christ, according to Gods election, howsoeuer those sinnes of theirs deserued separation from Christ, and damnation. The Church may consist of some, who for the present, are in regard of some great sin, not good, and yet consist of the elect only, as the former examples shew.

Farther, I denie the consequence of your Maior. It is not To the pro­position. all one to be in the Church, and of the Church, that is, to be an outward professor, and to be a true beleeuer. And that the Church is the companie of the elect, in the iudgement of the an­cient writers, these testimonies shew. Ambros. ad Eph. 3. Ambrose maketh the [Page 213] Church, the people, whom God hath vouchsafed to adopt. Whereas the Church (saith August. de bapt. contra Donat. lib. 5. cap. 27. & lib. 6. cap. 3. Austin) is so described in the Canticles, that it is called a fenced garden, my sister, spouse, a fountaine sealed vp, a well of liuing water, a paradise with fruite; I dare not vnderstand this but of the holy and righteous. The holy Church (quoth Greg. in Cant. & in Iob 28. cap. 9. Grego­ry) is a garden, because when it begets many to the faith, it sends forth faire flowers, like a good ground. And it is well called a fenced garden, because it is fortified round about with the trench of cha­ritie, that no reprobate may come into the number of the elect. If the spouse of Christ, which is the Church, be a fenced garden (saith Cyprian. ad Mag. epist. 76. sect. 2. Cyprian) being shut vp, it cannot lie open to the prophane and strangers. But what should I recite seuerall testimonies? Looke Origen. & Bernar. in can. serm. 78. Origen, Bernard, and other writers vpon the Canticles, and you shall easily see, that the spouse of Christ is the companie of the elect.

A. D. §. 8.

Lastly, the ancient Fathers did teach, that the Church is visible. Hom. 30. in Mat. Origen saith, Ecclesia plena est fulgore ab oriente vsque ad oc­cidentem: The Church is full of brightnesse from the East to the West. Ecclesia (saith S. Cyprian) Domini luce persusa, radios suos per orbem spargit: The Church being bright with the light Lib. de Vnitate Eccles. of our Lord, doth spread her beames throughout the world. Facilius est (saith S. Chrysostome) solem extingui quàm Ecclesiam obscu­rari: Lib. 4. in cap. 6 Isa. It is more easie that the Sunne should be extinguished, then that the Church should be obscured, that is to say, darkened and quite without light. Saint Augustine also alluding to (or rather expoun­ding) those words of our Sauiour, Non potest ciuitas abscondi su­pra montem posita, saith, Ecclesia supra montem constituta, Lib. 3. cōtr. epi. Parm. cap. 4. abscondi non potest: The Church being built vpon a mountaine, cannot be hid. And againe in another place he saith, Quid amplius dicturus sum quàm caecos, qui tam magnum montem non vi­dent, Troct. 2. in ep. Ioan. qui contra lucernam in candelabro positam, oculos clau­dunt? What shall I say more, but that they are blind who do not see so great a mountaine, who shut their eyes at the candle set vpon the candlesticke?

A. W.

These and such like speeches of the Fathers, were vttered by them for the most part, concerning the Church, as it flourished in their dayes; and not of the perpetuall estate therof, from time [Page 214] to time. Neither speake they properly of the Church, which is indeed the spouse of our Sauiour the bridegroome: but of the mul­titude of them, who hold the truth of doctrine against all cauils and oppositions of hereticks; amongst whom only the Church of the elect ordinarily was preserued. Your reason then is little worth.

  • The Fathers say, the Church is visible.
  • Therefore it is alwayes visible to all men.

The consequēce of your Enthymem is naught, as wel because it might be visible in those times, and not always; as also for that it is not all one to say it is visible, and it is visible to all men at all times. Now to the particulars.

First I answer to Origen. in Mat. hom. 30. Origens testimonie, that he speakes not of the Churches visibilitie, but affirmes that the truth (which is the brightnesse or light he mentions) is in the Churches euery where, East and West. That this is his meaning, it is plaine by the be­ginning of that homily, and the whole course of it, to the very place you alledge. Origen expounds there that place of the Gospell, As the lightning cometh out of the East. This exposition begins thus. We must know (saith Origen) that the brightnesse of the truth doth not appeare in one place of Scripture, and cannot be defended by another, but that it may be maintained out of all parts of Scripture, the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostles writings. And this truth arising from the East, that is, the begin­nings of Christ, shineth to the very time of his passion, in which was his setting or fall. A little after: We may also thus vnderstand it, that Christ appeared to be the word, and the truth, and wisedome, frō the beginning of the creatiō of the world, to the last writing of the Apostles, that is from Genesis to the Apostles books; after which there are none of like authoritie or beleef. Or thus, that the Law and the Prophets continued till Iohn, in whom the brightnesse of truth was. The East was the Law: the West, Iohn, the end of the Law. Now onely the Church neither takes away the word and sense of this brightnesse, nor addes any thing else as propheticall. The place you bring, lieth thus: Euery doctrine professing it selfe to be truth, when it is not truth, either among the Gentiles, or among the Barbarians, is in some sort Antichrist, going about to seduce, as truth, and to se­uer [Page 215] vs from him that said, I am the truth. Therefore we must not giue eare to them which say, Behold here is Christ; but do not shew him in the Church, which is full of brightnesse from the East to the West, which is full of the true light, which is the pillar and ground of truth, in which whole Church, the whole comming of the Sonne of man is. Now the comming of the Sonne of man, is before expoun­ded by him to be the word of truth. Doubtlesse if you had not taken this proofe vpon Bellar. de Ec­cles. milit. lib. 3 c. 12. §. Vltim [...] Bellarmines, or some other mans cre­dit, you would neuer haue brought it to proue the visibilitie of the Church to all men at all times.

What saith Cyprian. de vnit. eccle. §. 4. Cyprian in the place alledged, but that the Church is dispersed ouer the whole world? Doth this proue, that it is at all times visible to all men? Or hath Cyprian any such purpose in that place? Is not his whole drift to shew, that there is but one Church, because the truth they professe is but one? The title of his booke, is Of the vnitie of the Church. The place you bring, concludes, that howsoeuer the beames are scattered or spread here and there, yet the light is but one. The Church, that is true beleeuers, were in this land in the dayes of persecutiō, and is now in Spaine, Italy; and perhaps in Rome it selfe. This proues not a perpetuall visibilitie.

What need we any other answer to this testimonie of Chry­sostome, then that which your owne exposition affoords vs? Chrysostoms meaning is, that the Church cannot be quite without light, say you. What thē? Must it needs be visible then to al men? The Moone is neuer wholy darkened, no not in the grea­test eclipse, nor in the change, but is alwayes in the one halfe light: and yet he were mad that would conclude hereupon, that therefore it may be seene at all times of all men. Indeed Chrysostome speaketh of the continuance of the Church, not of the visiblenesse thereof. That may appeare by his saying, that the Church hath her roote in heauen rather then in the earth. This ar­gues stabilitie, not visibilitie. And what Church hath rooting in heauen, but onely the Church of the elect? The Church (saith Chrysost. in cap. 6. Esai. homil. 4. Chrysostome in the same place) is more honorable then heauen, because heauen is made for it, not it for heauen. Is heauen made for any Church, but that of the elect? Besides, it was not the [Page 216] visibility, but the being of the Church, against which those tyrants whom Chrysostome there mentioneth, so mightily laboured; which yet continued in despight of them all.

These and such like places of Austin, shew the flourishing e­state of the Churches in those times, and conuince the Dona­tists, against whom Augustine writ, of wofull blindnesse, who would see no church, but their owne heretical assembly in a part of Africa. But they neither were intended, not can with any reason be applied to proue that the church is alwayes visible to all men. August. con. epist. Parmen. lib. 3. cap. 5. The former of the two places, as I shewed before, is interpreted by the Fathers, of the Apostles: That the Apostles (saith Hieron. ad Math. 5. Ierome) should not hide themselues for feare, but freely shew themselues, he teacheth them to preach boldly, when he saith, A citie set vpon an hill, cannot be hid. But let vs take it to be meant of the Church. It must needs be a monstrous hill, that can shew a citie set vpon it to the whole world. A citie standing on a hill, is the easier and the farther to be seene; but there is no hill high e­nough to be seene ouer the whole world. I would farther know, whether euery particular Church be not a citie vpon an hill or no. And yet is no such Church to be seene of all men.

Concerning August. in 1. loan tract. 2. the latter place, Austin worthily cals them blind, that could not, or rather (as he truly saith) would not see that great mountaine, vpon which the Church then stood, but would shut their eyes against the light that shined vpon them. Yet who is so ignorant, that he knowes not, or so shamelesse, that he will not cōfesse, that there were many aliue at that very time, which had no knowledge, that there was any Church in the world? But there neither were, nor could be any such among the Dona­tists, or other like heretickes, who forsooke the Church to fol­low their owne fantasies. Reuel. 1. 20. & 2. 5. The candle is the Minister or the word, shining by his ministery; the candlesticke is the particular Church, where that ministery is: if any liuing in or neare the place where such a candle burneth bright, will not see the light of it, he may well be called wilfully blind. So may not they which are so far, that the beames of the light cannot shine vnto them.

[Page 217] Now the summe of that which hath bene answered, con­cerning the perpetuall continuance and visiblenesse of the church, is this: that the church, to which that continuance is promised, is the number of the elect, and not any one outward companie of men, succeeding one another in a famous and visible pro­fession of Christian Religion. Yea farther, though we do not vndertake to affirme, that there hath not bin at all times some one companie or other of true Christians knowne to them, a­mong whom they liued, to be professors of the Gospell: yet we doubt not to say, that there can be no sufficient proofe brought out of the Scriptures, that there must of necessitie be alwayes such a company: as if our Sauior Christs promises to his church were not performed, vnlesse the world might at all times per­ceiue where such a companie were to be found.

A. D.

CHAP. XIII. How we should discerne and know which is the true visible Church of Christ.

A. W.

It may perhaps seeme needlesse that I should proceed any further in the confutation of this treatise, because still the maine point, that there is such a Church, is presupposed, and not pro­ued. But howsoeuer it be true, that there is indeed no one vi­sible church of Christ, which may challenge or beare the name of the whole church; yet it will be worth the doing, to finde out the markes or signes, by which we may discerne which congregation is a true church of Christ, and which is not. Let vs therefore proceede in examining this dis­course.

A. D. §. 1.

Hitherto I haue shewed that the rule of faith (which all men ought to seeke, that by it they may learne true faith) is the do­ctrine of the Church of Christ: and that this Church doth con­tinue, and is alwayes visible, that is to say, such as may be found out and knowne. Now the greatest question is (sith there are diuers companies of them that beleeue in Christ; euery one of which, chal­lenge to themselues the title of the true Church) how euery man [Page 218] may come to know assuredly, and in particular, which companie is in­deed the true visible Church of Christ, whose doctrine we must in all points beleeue and follow.

To this question I answer, that euery companie which hath the name of Christians, or which challenge to themselues the name of the Church, are not alwayes the true Church. For of heretickes we may well say, as S. Austin doth: Non quia Ecclesiae Christi videntur habere nomen, idcirco pertinent ad eius consecratio­nem: They doe not therefore pertaine to the consecration of the Church of Christ, because they seeme to carry the name of the Church of Christ. For (as the same S. Austin saith in another Lib. contr. epist. Parm. cap. 7. place) heretickes are onely whited ouer with the name of Christi­ans; when indeed Si haeretici sunt (as Tertullian sayth) Christiani esse non possunt: If they be heretickes, the cannot be true Christi­ans. Lib. de praescrip. The reason whereof, the same Tertullian insinuateth to be, be­cause they follow not that faith which came from Christ (to his A­postles and Disciples, and which was deliuered by them, from hand to hand to our forefathers, and so to vs) but they follow that faith which they chose to themselues: of which election or choise, the name of hereticke and heresie did arise.

A. W.

Hitherto you haue laboured to proue the maior of your maine syllogisme, propounded in your preface, namely that the faith, which the authoritie of the true Catholick Church commends vnto vs, is to be held for the true faith. What successe you haue had in this proofe, let them say that haue compared your argu­ments and my answers together. Now you are to proceed to the proofe of your maine assumption, that they onely are the true Church, which make profession of the Romane faith. Your syllo­gisme is thus framed.

  • They onely are the true Church, to whom the certaine marks, by which the Church is to be knowne, belong.
  • But they that professe the Romane faith, are they to whom those markes belong.
  • Therefore they onely that professe the Romane faith, are the true Church.

The proposition or maior of this Syllogisme is not exprest by you, but necessarily implied in this thirteenth Chapter: [Page 219] where you say, that the way to discerne which is the true Church, is first to set downe, which be the certain marks whereby all men may easily know the Church. The assumption or minor you ende­uour to proue in the fiue Chapters following by a Syllogisme thus concluded.

  • They onely who are one, holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke Church, are they to whom the certaine markes of the true Church belong.
  • But they that professe the Romane religion, are they who are one, holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke Church.
  • Therefore, they onely that professe the Romane faith, are they to whom the certaine markes of the true Church be­long.

Your proposition or maior is in the two next Chapters; your assumption or minor in the sixteenth. In handling the propo­sition, first you labour to disproue the markes of a true church, which we assigne: and that in Chapt. 14. then you assay to pro­pound and confirme other of your owne; as we shall see here­after, if God will, when we come to Chap. 15.

Whereas you expound what you meane by a visible Church, viz. such a one as may be found out and knowne: you straighten the question, and auow that which no man denieth. For the question betwixt vs, is not whether the Church may be found out or no, but whether it be so visible and famous a congrega­tion, that it may at all times be knowne of all men. If this be not that you should proue, what will become of your grand rea­son, that therefore Cha. 5. & 12 there must alwayes be a knowne Church, the doctrine whereof euery must rest vpon in all matters of faith, because otherwise it cannot be vniuersally true, that God will haue all men to be saued?

It is indeed a matter worth the enquiring, which companies of them that professe Christian Religion, are the true Churches of Christ. For that all are not, it is apparent by your Antichri­stian Synagogue: and that all true Christians are bound (as much as lieth in them) to become members of some true church of Christ, it is manifest, because else they cannot ordi­narily performe the duties of his true outward worship, which [Page 220] are no where done but in his true churches.

If the choise of any doctrine not receiued from Christ, be sufficient to make men heretickes, and churches hereticall; what may the world thinke of your synagogue, which is not asha­med openly to professe, that she holdeth many points of do­ctrine, which haue not proofe out of the written word of God? For whereas to shift off the matter, you come in with deliuerie of I know not what, from hand to hand by the Apostles and your forefathers: who sees not that this conceit of yours both con­demneth the Scriptures of insufficiencie, and maketh the re­ports of men the rule of the true faith, and openeth a wide gate to let in all deuices of mans corruption? What auailes it, to know, that all doctrine is heresie, which comes not from our Sauiour Christ, if we must beleeue that all came from him, which your Pope and his Councell tell vs, they haue receiued by tradition? why should we not rather hearken to Occham in opere 90. dierū your Oc­cham, who truly affirmed that heresy is an opinion chosen by a man, contrary to the holy Scripture? Surely there is great cause to sus­pect them of heresie, who refuse to make triall of their doctrine by Scripture, whatsoeuer they talke of tradition from the Apostles by their forefathers.

A. D. §. 2.

The way therefore to discerne which is the true Church, is irst to set downe, which be the certaine markes, by which all men may easily know the Church: and then to examine to whom these markes doe agree. The which, that I may the better performe in the Chapter following, here I thinke good, first briefly to note what belongeth to the nature of a good and sufficient marke.

Note therefore that two things are required in euery sufficient marke. The first is, that it be not common to many, but proper, and onely agreeing to the thing, whereof it is a marke. As for ex­ample, it is no good marke whereby to know any particular man, to say he hath two hands or two eares, because this is common to ma­ny, and therefore no sufficient note or marke whereby one may be distinguished or knowne from all other. But a marke, whereby we may discerne one speciall man from all other, must be some one thing, or moe, which hee hath, and others haue not. As if hee [Page 221] were longer, larger, or fairer then the rest; or if some others were Taller, bigger Tall. Faire. as long, and other some as faire, yet none were long, and faire both, but onely he. The second thing, required in a good marke, is, that it be more apparent, and easie to be knowen, then the thing. For example, If I were to describe and make knowen a certaine man, who were otherwise vnknowen. I must not thinke it sufficient to giue the definition of his essence, or to assigne the se­cret disposition of his heart, liuer, and other inward parts, which are commonly harder to be knowen, then the man himselfe. But I must declare some apparent thing in his face, hands, or some out­ward part of his bodie: or in his voice, apparell, behauiour, or such like; which agreeing onely to that man; and being easie to be knowen, may be a meanes to make vs know the man we seeke for.

A. W.

He that professeth to set downe certaine markes, whereby all men may easily know the true Church, that is, which Church indeed holdeth the true religion of Iesus Christ: vn­dertaketh that, which he will neuer be able to performe. For it is a matter not easily to be discerned by naturall men, no though we should admit those for sufficient markes of it, which are falsely propounded by you, to that purpose.

Bellar. de Ec­cles. mil. lib. 4. cap. 5. Bellarmine, from whom you tooke this, as (in a man­ner) all the rest of your Treatise, assignes three properties of your markes: those two, that you name, and a third, that they must be inseparable from the true Church. Now such plaine men, as we are, haue conceiued by the first and last properties, that no marke is to be taken for a note of the true Church, but that, which cannot be common to it, with any other Church, But you hauing learned of Gregor. de Valent. Analy. fid. lib. 6. cap. 7. Gre­gorie de Valentia, or discerned your selfe, that the foure marks you giue, are not such, if we consider them seuerally; tell vs here afore hand, that we must take them altogether, or else we marre all. So that, whereas afterward you seeme to make a shew of teaching vs Chap. 15. foure certaine markes, to know the true Church by, when all commeth to all, we haue but one marke made of those foure botched vp to­gether.

[Page 222] But let vs take a view of these two things, that you require, in euerie sufficient marke; the former whereof is, that it be proper to the thing, of which it is a marke.

This, you say is true, but not sufficient: For some marke may casually be proper to a thing at this time, which an other time may neither be proper to it, nor belōg to it at all. Witnesse your long and faire man, who may lose his legs, and his beautie, or be ouergrowen by some other, and so can by no meanes be knowen, for the longest and fairest. Persecution was some­times a marke, whereby the true Church might be discerned: for it was proper to it; no men but Christians being killed or punished for religion. Yet I thinke no man would giue this for a marke to know the true Church by. Once Bellar. de notis Eccles. lib 4. cap. 18. your Cardi­nall Bellarmine, is so farre from it, that he maketh the outward prosperitie of the Church, one of his fifteene notes, Lib. 4. cap. 3. whereby he would haue the true Church discerned. Therefore euerie sufficient marke of the Church must be such, as is alwaies to be had in the Church, not now present, an other time absent. Generally, to make a marke truly proper to a thing, it is re­quired: first that it alwaies agree to the thing: Secondly, that it neuer agree to any other thing whatsoeuer.

This second property of a marke, that it must be more appa­rent, and easier to be knowen then the thing, I acknowledge to be true: so you tie not this alwaies to outward sense, whereof you bring example. For that greater apperancie to sense, is there onely required, where the thing we seeke for, is to be iudged by sense: but it is not requisite, that in matters which we can not know by any outward token, the marke, whereby they are to be knowen, should be outwardly more apparent: it is suf­ficient, if by search, and discourse it may more easily be dis­cerned.

A. D. §. 3.

Wherefore, when we will assigne some good markes, by which, all sorts of men may, in some sort, discerne, which particular companie of men is the true Church, we must haue speciall regard to assigne those things, which in some matters may be apparent to all sorts of men; sith all sorts of men had need to seeke out, and according to their capacitie discerne which is the true Church: we must also [Page 223] assigne those things, which agree to no other companie, but that which is the true Church; to the intent that when a man shall see all those things, which be assigned as marks, to agree to any companie, he may straightwaies conclude, that companie to be the true Church: as on the contrarie side, if he perceiue, either all, or any one of them to be wanting, in any company, he may be sure, that, that companie is not the true Church.

A. W.

In the former part of this chapter, you told vs, that the way to discerne, which is the true Church, was to set downe, which be the certaine markes, by which all men may easily know the Church. Here in the conclusion, you mince the matter, I know not how, that All sorts of men may in some sort discerne, and in some matters, may be apparent to all sorts of men. If it be enough to discerne in some sort, that is, to giue a blind gesse, which is the true Church, what should certaine marks need: or why may not some common signes serue the turne? Neither will it fit your purpose, that the notes be such, as that all sorts of men may by them discerne the Church: but they must be so apparent, by your doctrine, that euerie man of euerie sort may easily, and as it were, with playing, be able to iudge which is the true Church. Your last clause, that the markes in some matters, must be appa­rent to all sorts of men (that I may freely professe my dulnesse) passeth my vnderstanding. What is the meaning of these words, in some matters? If they signifie no more, but in some sort: it had bene good, you had spoken plaine, and not vexed your Readers with a needlesse labour of gessing at your mea­ning. Especially since (for all your faire promise of I wote not what easinesse in discerning, which is the true Church) all men may see, they must be driuen to bestow much time and paines, in examining the markes, you will set downe: because they are such as do not singly euerie one by it selfe, shew which is the true Church, but must all be ioyned together to breede this knowledge:

A. D.

CHAP. XIIII. That those markes of the Church, which Hereticke as­signe, be not good markes.

A. W.

This is a verie generall title, implying, as a man would [Page 224] gesse, by the words, that you meant to refute all marks, that e­uer were set downe by any Heretickes. But if we should take your meaning, in that sense, your discourse would not answer our expectation. Besides, if all markes assigned by heretickes be naught, yours cannot possibly be good, which are brought by the grand hereticks of the world, the vowed vassals of the great Antichrist, the Pope of Rome.

A. D. §. 1.

Out of that which in the former chapter, I briefely noted, about the nature of a good marke, we may easily gather, that those markes, which some heretickes assigne, to wit, the true doctrine of faith: and the right vse of the Sacraments, are no good markes, by which all sorts of men may come to know, which is the true Church, but are meanes (as Heretickes vse them) to cast a mist ouer the whole matter, when as they know, that they can, most easily, conuert all the Sacraments, and holy words of Scripture, Ad imagines phan­tasmatum suorum, vnto their owne imaginations and phantasti­call opinions (as out of Saint Austin we may gather, that the man­ner of heretickes is,) especially when the authoritie of the Church, (which should correct those deprauations and false expositions) is not first, by other markes, knowen and admitted.

A. W.

You would seeme to haue an especiall gift of making things easie: by your markes the Church may easily be discerned: out of the former Chapter we may easily gather. But I thinke it wil prooue to be so easily gathered, that a weake man may easi­ly make you lose your labour in gathering.

That place of Austin doth so fit you Papists, as if he had spoken it of you by name. For to go no farther, then the mat­ter in hand, who euer wrested the Scriptures, more to their phantasies, then you Papists, who are not ashamed nor afraid to apply the most gracious and comfortable promises of our Sauiour Christ to his mystical bodie the Church, to an heape of prophane misbeleeuers, so Bellar. de Eccles mil. lib 3. cap. 10. they make outward profession of the Gospel in obedience to the Pope of Rome? It is enough, by your doctrine, to make a man a true member of the mysticall bodie of the Sonne of God, if he professe, as I before said, though he haue no part of the life of Iesus Christ in him.

A. D. §. 2.

The doctrine of faith, therefore (I say) and the right vse of [Page 225] Sacraments, be not good markes, whereby men may discerne which is the true Church.

This I prooue. First, for that by the true doctrine of faith (which they assigne for a marke of the Church) either they meane, true doctrine in some points onely, or in all. True doctrine in some points onely, is no good marke, because the heretickes teach the truth in some points. This therefore being not proper to the Church, but agreeing rather to heretickes, can be no good marke of the true Church: because it wanteth the first condition of a marke, which is, to be proper, and agreeing onely to the thing, whereof it is a marke. True doctrine also in all points, although it be proper (if we ioyne to it the right vse of Sacraments, with obedience to lawfull Pastors) and agree onely to the true Church, yet it is no good marke: because it faileth in the second condition, which is requred in a good marke, that is to say, it is not apparent or easie to be knowen of all those, who should seeke out the true Church. As I may easily prooue, because to know which companie teacheth the truth in all points, requireth first learning, whereby one may vnderstand the tearmes, and state of the question, or controuersie: besides, iudgement to discusse and weigh prudently the worth and sufficiencie of the authorities and reasons of both parts, that vpon this pondering of reasons, he may prudently conclude which is the better part. Moreouer one had need to haue a supernaturall light of Gods grace and assistance of his spirit, where­by he may discerne and see those things, which be aboue all naturall rules and reasons. Ad haec quis idoneus? Who can say that him­selfe is sufficiently furnished with these helpes? Who can be infalli­bly sure, that he hath all these, in such sort, as is requisite, for obtai­ning, by his owne industrie, true and infallible faith, in all points? Surely, at least, the vnlearned must needs confesse, that in diuers my­steries, they do not so much as vnderstand the tearmes & state of the question: & much lesse are they able, to examine sufficiētly the worth of euery reason: neither are all such as can perswade themselues, that they are singularly inlightened, and immediately taught of Gods spi­rit: neither, if they did thus perswade themselues, could they be vnfallibly sure, that in this their perswasion they were not deceiued; sith it is certaine, that some of them, that most strongly per­swade themselues to be thus taught, are in this their perswasion [Page 226] deceiued: neither can the vnlearned sufficiently know the truth, in euerie particular point, by giuing credit to some one, or other lear­ned man, or any companie of the learned: vnlesse that company be first knowen, to be of the Church, and consequently to be guided in their teaching, by the holy Ghost, as I prooued before. So that it is most hard or rather vnpossible for a man, and especially for an vnlearned man, in all points, Liquidam à tot erroribus discernere Li. 3. con. Faust. cap. 13. veritatem, to discerne the plaine truth from so many errours, as S. Austin saith. It is also most hard for a man of himselfe to iudge, which vse of Sacraments is right, if he be not first taught by the Church: sub this is a principall point of the true doctrine of faith, which is (as I said) verie hard or rather vnpossible to be perfectly knowen by a mans owne selfe. But to know, first, which companie is the true Church: and then, by giuing credit to it, to learne which is the true faith, and which vse of Sacraments is right, there are not so many things required, nor any great difficultie, as shall be declared. For the Church is that direct way, which Isaias speaketh of, when he saith: Haec erit vobis directa via, ita vt stulti non errent per eam. Isa. cap. 35. This shall be to you a direct way, so that euen fooles, (to wit simple and vnlearned men) may not erre in it.

A. W.

These are the two onely marks, whereby the true Church may be knowen, or to speake more plainely, whereby we may iudge of any companie of men professing Christian Religion, whether they be a true Church of Christ or no. For the bet­ter vnderstanding whereof, we must know, that howsoeuer we ioyne the Sacraments with the word, in this matter: yet we do not thinke them to be absolutely of equall necessitie with it, to the being of a true Church. The true preaching of the word is so simply necessarie, that whersoeuer it is, it maketh the Church, in which it is, a true Church of Christ: and whersoeuer it is not, there is no true visible Church. We denie not, that in time of persecution, many true Christians may be without op­portunitie of meeting together, for the true worship of God in hearing his word, and calling vpon his name, which alwaies accompanieth true preaching, and yet still continue true mem­bers of Christs mysticall bodie the Church. But we say, that these men cannot be truly called such a visible Church of Christ [Page 227] as we now seeke for. Yet if these men shall ordinarily assemble themselues together, to offer vp praier to God, and by mutuall conference to edifie each other in knowledge and obedience: thogh they haue no certaine minister appointed for the perfor­mance of these duties: there can no reason be alledgd, why they should not be held for a true Church, though not perfect & com­plete; or why men should not ioine with them, hauing no means to become members of any complete congregation, properly being a Church. The word then, in our opinion, is simply ne­cessarie: and of it selfe sufficient, (as Luther. de Concil. & eccl. Luther truly saith) where no other signe of a Church can be discerned, to conuince a mans con­science, that there is a true Church, where he findeth the word tru­ly preached. Now the administration of the Sacraments is not so necessarie, but that there may be a true Church without it, vpon occasion: as Ios. 5. 5. the Iewes had no circumcision amongst them, all the fortie yeares, when they trauelled through the wildernesse. The reason of this difference is assigned to be this: that the word is as it were, the cause efficient of the Church, so that without it, there can be no Church: but the Sacraments are only seals of Gods mercies, and helps for the increasing of those graces, which are receiued by the ministerie of the word. Now these seales and helpes are not requisite simply, to the being of that they seale & helpe vs in, but onely to the better being, and increase of them. But if I may be bold, with reuerence of other mens iudgement, to speake my poore opinion, I think this rea­son sheweth the different necessitie of the word, and the Sacra­ments, rather to the making of particular men true Christi­ans, thē to the giuing of this or that companie the true being of a visible Church. And therefore (vnder correction) I would ra­ther say, that the truth of doctrine deliuered in the ministery of the word, and praier are absolutely necessary, & the administra­tion of the Sacraments not so altogether: because the former are such parts of Gods seruice, as may and must alwaies be performed, when the Church is assembled, but the Sacraments, neither can alwaies, nor need, at all such meetings, to be admi­nistred. Which we speake not, as if the true vse of the Sacra­ments, were not a necessarie part of Gods seruice, to be done, [Page 228] vpon all opportunities, with reuerence and willingnesse; but for that (as before I noted) there cannot be (at all times) such opportunitie. Yea it may fall out, that in some true Church of Christ, there shall be no occasion to administer the Sacrament of Baptisme in many yeares. This then is that, which we hold concerning the markes of a true Church: First, that where­soeuer we see the word of God truly taught, and the Sacra­ments truly administred, there we may be sure, there is a true Church of Christ: Secondly, that wheresoeuer the former of these is wanting, there is no true Church, whatsoeuer shew, or marke otherwise there be. Thirdly, that wheresoeuer the word of God is truly preached, and accordingly professed, there is a true Church, though the Sacraments vpon occasion as is afore­said, be not there administred: so that they be not neglected, vpon any contempt, or erroneous conceit of their not being necessarie.

To disprooue our doctrine, concerning the markes of the, or rather of a Church, you bring this reason.

  • If true doctrine be a marke of a true Church, then ei­ther true doctrine in some pointes, or true doctrine in all.
  • But neither true doctrine in some points, nor true doctrine in all, is a marke.
  • Therefore true Doctrine, is not at all a marke of a true Church.

I denie you Minor. True doctrine in all points is so certaine a To the as­sumption. marke of a true Church, that wheresoeuer we finde that, we may be sure there is a true Church. But because we enquire after such a marke, as may not onely assure vs, which is a true Church, but also teach vs to know euerie true Church: I answer more particularly, that true doctrine in some pointes, viz. such as are fundamentall, is so necessarie a marke, as that there is no where any true Church, but where there is such true doctrine; and that there is vndoubtedly a true Church, where­soeuer that truth is taught and held.

Your Minor you prooue thus, first, that true doctrine in some points is no good marke.

  • [Page 229] That which is not proper to the true Church, but agrees rather
    Proofe of the Assumption.
    to heretickes, is no good marke of the true Church.
  • But true doctrine in some points onely, is not proper to the true Church, but agreeth rather to heretickes.
  • Therefore true doctrine in some points onely, is no good marke of the true Church.

Againe I denie your minor, taking it in the best sense: for if I To the As­sumption. should take it in the worst, your whole syllogisme would be no­thing to the purpose. My answer shall (I trust) make both these points plaine to euery man. I say then, that true doctrine in all the fundamentall points of religion, is proper to the Church: so that no hereticks hold all such points, though some haue held many of them. Or if any companie do hold them all, and yet for some error in other points of lesse moment, be counted, and be here­ticall, their heresie is not such as may make them cease to be members of a true Church, Thus much of your assumption in the best sense.

By true doctrine in some points onely, you may meane that it is not a propertie belonging to the true Church, to beleeue truly some points onely, and not all: and this indeed is rather pro­per to heretickes, then the true Church, because it is the dutie of all true Churches to beleeue all things that the Lord hath taught in the holy Scriptures; whereas hereticks take vp con­ceits of their owne, which they mingle with the truth of God, either ignorantly or deceitfully. I haue reason to suspect this meaning, because you thrust in this word onely. In this sense your conclusion fighteth with a shadow. For we do not make it a marke of a true Church to beleeue some points onely, but say it may be, and is a true Church, though it erre in some points, so it hold the fundamentall points soundly and truly.

This is the proofe of the second part of your minor, that true doctrine in all points is not a good marke of the true Church: and it is thus concluded.

  • Euery good marke of the true Church is apparent, or easie to be knowne of all those who should seeke out the true Church.
  • But true doctrine in all points is not apparent or easie to be known of all such as should seeke out the true Church.
  • [Page 230] Therefore true doctrine in all points, is no good marke of the true Church.

Your maior is false. It is not required that euery good marke be To the pro­position. apparent or easie: if it may be at all found, though with difficulty and labour, that hardnesse cannot hinder it from being a good marke. Do not your selfe acknowledge afterward, that there is some difficultie in learning to know which cōpanie is the true church, and which vse of sacraments is right? What else meane you, when you say, there are not so many things required, nor any great dif­ficultie? Indeed (as I doubt not but to make it appeare) there is neuer a one of those foure markes you assigne, but asketh great labour, and requires many things to the true and perfect know­ledge of it. How then should all foure be apparent or easie to be knowne? Yea, I will say more; some of them are such, if not euery one of them, that a man can neuer come to the certaine knowledge of them by any labour whatsoeuer. And therefore if this be a sufficient exception against the doctrine and sacra­ments, why they may not be markes, either you must deuise some easier and plainer markes then you haue yet propounded, or do propound any where in this treatise, or else there will be no certaine meanes to know which is a true church of Christ, and which is not.

The rest of your long discourse concerning this first proofe, To the As­sumption. is spent in prouing that which no man euer denied, viz. in con­firming your minor, that true doctrine in all points is not easie to be knowne: which we all grant, and so passe ouer to the next point of the sacraments.

It is most hard (say you) for a man of himselfe to iudge, which vse of sacraments is right. What meane you by saying of himselfe? If he be not first taught by the Church: what needs this by the Church? It is hard indeed for a man of himself, without any tea­ching, to iudge of any such matter: but it is not hard for any man of reasonable vnderstanding, to discerne by a little teaching, what is right in this point, what wrong. For he may easily learne with small helpe, the institution of both the Sacraments out of the Scriptures, wherein all things are set downe which belong necessarily to the right administration of them. As for matters [Page 231] of circumstance, which appertaine not to the being of the sa­craments, a man shall not need to make any so great question, whether they be rightly administred or no, as long as he seeth the substance kept whole & sound, according to our Sauiors in­stitution: as if the sacraments were not truly sacramēts, and such as may be taken, though some matters in the administration of them, be not so well ordered as they might and ought to be. That the sacraments be in all substantiall points rightly admi­nistred, it is a matter of necessitie, whensoeuer they be admini­stred: and that may be iudged of, without giuing credit to what­soeuer the church will teach in that behalfe: which is your tea­ching by the Church, and on which you still harpe, though very vntuneably.

You fall now from simple disprouing of our marke, by rea­son of the hardnesse to know what is true doctrine in all points, to procure a dislike of it, by comparing it with the easinesse of yours: but of this I spake somewhat before, and must say more when I come to examine your marks, so much commended. In the meane while, I may not forget to shew the poorenesse of the proofe you alledge for this surmised easinesse. The matter you vndertake to proue, is, that to know first which company is the true Church, and then by giuing credit to it, to learne which is the true faith, and which vse of sacraments is right, is a point of no great difficultie. This you would proue by that place of Isay: This shal c Isa. 35. 8. be to you a direct way, so that euen fooles shall not erre in it. But what a weake proofe is this? First, how shal I know that the Pro­phet speaketh here of the Church? You say so. Would any man dispute so loosly?

  • If the Church (say you) be that direct way I say speaketh of, then to know first which companie of men is the true Church, and by giuing credit to them, to learne what doctrine, and what vse of the sacraments is right, is a point of no great dif­ficultie.
  • But the Church is that way he speaketh of.
  • Therefore to know first which company of men is the true church, is a point of no great difficultie.
    To the pro­position.

First I denie the consequence of your proposition. For though [Page 232] the Church were that way the Prophet speaketh of, yet might it still be an hard matter to know where that way lieth. Put case I cannot misse when I am in the way; will it follow hereupon, that therefore it is a point of no difficultie to find it?

Secondly I denie your minor also: The Church is not that way. To the as­sumption. Was it not meere you should haue proued a matter of so great importance? Your bare word is a poore proofe; and yet that is all you bring vs. I omit the error of the translation, and the va­rietie of translations. There is a note Edit. vulgar. apud Vatabl. in the margine of your vulgar edition, as it is printed with Vatablus, that expoundeth the way to be Christ. Is not this interpretation of as great credite as your word? Vatablus speaketh much to the same purpose. The way (saith Vatabl. ad Isa. 35. he) that leadeth to God by Christ, shall be so certain, that euen they who haue no skill in trauelling, shall not stray out of it. Your Gloss. interl. ibi. Glosse, by the way, vnderstands the faith of Christ. And so doth Tertul cont. Marcion. lib. 4 cap. 24. Tertullian, who also in the translation differeth much from your vulgar. The meaning is (as these interpreters haue truly said) that the doctrine of the Gospell is a sure and plaine way to life euerlasting: in which way the simplest soule that beleeueth in Iesus Christ, shall be safely conducted by God spiritually into heauen: as the Israelites (to which story the Prophet seemes to allude) were guided by him corporally into the land of Ca­naan. This is that which the same Prophet speaketh of in Isa. 30. 21. an other place: Thine eares shal heare a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it. Whereby the gracious direction of God is signified, teaching his children by that spirit Ier. 31. 31. which he giues them, to go forward in the right way that leadeth to euerlasting life. Who euer expounded these places of the Church?

A. D. §. 3.

Secondly I proue the same, because when we seeke for the true Church, we seeke it principally for this end, that by it, as by a neces­sarie and infallible meanes, we may heare and learne of it the true faith in all points, which otherwise in itselfe is hidden, obscure and vnknowne to vs: according to that of S. Paul: Animalis homonon 1 Cor. 2. percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei: The sensuall man doth not per­ceiue those things which are of the Spirit of God. For sith none by the onely power of naturall wit (which in vnderstanding vseth the helpe of outward senses) can obtaine the supernaturall knowledge [Page 233] of diuine mysteries, which we beleeue by our faith: neither doth the Spirit of God (who as the principall cause, infuseth this gift of faith into our soules) ordinarily instruct any man in the knowledge of true faith, immediatly by himselfe alone, or by an Angell sent from hea­uen: we must needs if we will haue true faith, seeke first for that which it pleaseth Almightie God to vse, as the ordinarie instrument and as a necessary meanes by which men may learne true faith; the which is no other but the preaching and teaching of the true church, according to that saying of S. Paul: Quomodo credent ei quem non audierint? quomodo audient sine praedicante? quomodo Rom. 10. praedicabunt nisi mittantur? How shall they beleeue him, whom they haue not heard? how shall they heare without a Preacher? how shall they preach, vnlesse they be sent? Therefore the true Church, which only hath preachers truly sent of God, must first be found out, that by it we may heare and know which is the true faith. Therefore of the two, the true Church is rather a mark, whereby we may know the true preaching, and consequently the true doctrine of faith, then contrarie, that (as heretickes say) the doctrine should be a marke, whereby all men must know, which is the true Church.

A. W.

Belike, as you had good cause, you suspected your abilitie, to proue simply, that the true preaching of the word in all matters fundamentall, and the right administration of the sacraments, are not a good marke of a true Church. And therefore you ra­ther chose to proue, by way of comparison, that the true church is rather a marke to know true doctrine, then true doctrine a marke to know the true Church by. For so runs your conclu­sion directly.

  • If the end of seeking the true Church (say you) be principally, that we may by it, as a necessarie and infallible meanes, learne true doctrine in all points, to which otherwise we cannot attaine, then the true Church is rather a marke to know true doctrine, then true doctrine a marke to know the true Church by.
  • But the end of seeking the true Church, is principally that we may by it, as a necessarie and infallible meanes, learne true doctrine in all points, which otherwise wee cannot at­taine to.
  • [Page 234] Therefore the true Church is rather a marke to know true do­ctrine, then true doctrine a marke to know the Church by.

Though the conclusion as I said, be not directly to the que­stion, To the Syllo­gisme. which is not comparatiue but simple, whether true doctrine be a good mark to discerne a true Church by, or no: yet I will take it as it is, and answer to the parts of it.

Your maior in the antecedent may haue a double meaning: First, that we cannot in any point learne true doctrine but by To the pro­position. the Church; and then I denie the consequence. For true do­ctrine in the fundamentall points of Religion may be a good marke of the true Church, though we seeke the true Church, because there are many points which we cannot learne with­out it.

But howsoeuer you vnderstand the maior, the minor is eui­dently To the As­sumption. false. First, because the principall end of seeking the true Church, is, that we may truly worship God in the assembly of his children, to his greater glorie, and our farther assurance of his loue to vs; as we may see Psal. 42. 1. 2. & 47. 5. 6. & 48. 8. 9. & 84. 1. 2. 10. euery where in the booke of the Psalmes. Secondly, because we are not to learne of the true Church, as a necessarie and infallible meanes, but of the ministers thereof, who are appointed by God to giue vs know­ledge of the meanes of saluation, by expounding the word of God to vs; not to binde vs to beleefe, by their autho­ritie.

Your minor you offer to proue in this maner.

  • If no man without faith can obtaine the supernaturall knowledge of diuine mysteries, and faith be not to be had, but by the teaching of the true Church; then the end of seeking the true Church, is principally that we may learne by it, as a ne­cessarie and infallible meanes, true doctrine in all points, to which otherwise we cannot attaine.
  • But no man without faith can obtaine the supernaturall know­ledge of diuine mysteries: nor faith be had, but by the teaching of the true Church.
  • Therefore the end of seeking the true Church, is principally that we may by it, as a necessary and infallible meanes, learne the true faith in all points, to which otherwise we cannot attaine.

[Page 235] The consequence of your maior is naught. It doth not fol­low, To the pro­position. that we seeke the true Church, to learne of it as a necessary and infallible meanes; because we cannot know the mysteries of Religion without faith, which commeth by the teaching of the true Church: For there may well be teaching and lear­ning, without any such authoritie in the Church that tea­cheth.

Your minor is very doubtfull, as I will shew in answering se­uerally To the As­sumption. to the parts of it.

First then, whereas you say, that no man without faith can ob­taine the supernaturall knowledge of diuine mysteries: if you meane that a man cannot acknowledge the truth of such mysteries without faith, your minor in that part is true: but if your meaning be, that a man cannot vnderstand what the meanes of saluation appoin­ted by God, are, without faith; I take your minor to be false. For though those meanes be indeed such, as no discourse of man euer could deuise or thinke on, being vtterly supernaturall, yet it is possible for a meere naturall man to learne what they are out of the Scriptures, and that without faith: because the Scrip­tures may be vnderstood by such helpes of the tongues and arts as humane learning doth affoord vs; though to the sauing know­ledge thereof, the especiall grace of God be absolutely neces­sarie.

The other point, that faith cannot be found but by the teaching of the true Church, may also haue a double sense. The first, that faith cannot be wrought in any mans heart but by the preaching of some man authorized to that purpose by the true Church: and this as I shewed before, is not alwayes true: for faith may be, and hath bene begotten in some by Chap. 3. the reading of the Scriptures, where the ministery of the word was not to be had; and by the teaching of ordinarie Christians, not set apart to preach the Gospell. The other meaning is this, that faith cannot be attained to, but by our hearkning to the voyce of such a Preacher as we alrea­die know to be sent by the true Church. And this indeed specially fits your purpose, but hath no likelihood of truth in it. For they that came to faith by the Apostles preaching, did not beleeue them as men autorized for their instruction by the true church, [Page 236] but as being conuinced in their consciences by the euidence of the truth they deliuered, without any regard or knowledge of their being sent by the true Church.

This weake minor of yours is vnderpropt in each part with a pillar of the holy Scripture: the former thus.

  • No sensuall man can obtaine the knowledge of diuine mysteries.
  • Euery man without faith is a sensuall man.
  • Therefore no man without faith can obtaine the knowledge of di­uine mysteries.

If by obtaining the knowledge of diuine mysteries, you meane as­senting To the syllo­gisme. to the truth of God concerning saluation, I grant your whole syllogisme: and in this sense it was needlesse to proue that part of your minor.

In the other sense, that a man cannot attaine to the knowledge of them but by faith, which the words manifestly import, I de­nie To the pro­position. the maior, for the reason before alledged: but whatsoeuer your meaning be, the 1. Cor. 2. 14. Anselmus. ibi. Apostle saith no more, but that a natu­rall man, without the grace of God, can neither once imagine any such meanes of saluation (and other there is none) nor ac­knowledge those meanes as true and sufficient. Of the former, the Apostle speakes in the ninth verse, affirming that the means of saluation prepared by God for men, are such as neither eye vers. 9. hath seen, nor eare hath heard, nor euer entred into any mans heart. Of the latter is the place alledged by you, where the word sig­nifieth vers. 14. rather an approuing and [...]. receiuing, then a perceiuing: and the spirituall man, whom he there opposeth to the naturall, is said to discerne of spirituall things, rather by acknowledging the vers. 15. truth of them, then by vnderstanding the meaning of the word preached concerning them.

Your translation (which I touched before) where you terme hominem animalem, a sensuall man, is senslesse. For who knowes not, that by a sensuall man, we meane a volup­tuous man, giuen vp to his pleasures and sensualitie? But the Apostle speakes not of such onely, but euen of the wisest and most vertuous that euer were amongst men, without grace: so that in his meaning, as well temperate Xenocrates and lear­ned Aristotle (called for his knowledge Naturae ge­nius. natures darling) vertu­ous [Page 237] Socrates and wise Solon, as Sardanapalus, Thersites, Nero, and such like, are naturall men: that is, such as haue no grace of God, but that shadow of it, which remaineth in all men, by nature; and is helped by education and humane learning. It is true, that Fernel. Phy­siol. lib. 4. c [...]. 7. Animalis & naturalis, is not all one in na­ture: yet doth Naturall better expresse the Apostles meaning, then sensuall; and generally, August. de nat. & gra. Sotus de nat. & gra. all writers haue made an opposi­tion, in this sense, betwixt Nature and Grace, not betwixt Sensualnesse and Grace: as you may see throughout Austins, Prospers, Ieromes, and your owne Schoolemens writings. Neither will it helpe the matter to say (as you doe) that Na­turall wit in vnderstanding vseth the helpe of outward senses. For sensuall signifieth not him that vseth his senses, to the vnderstanding of this or that, but him that is drowned in Sensualitie. Besides, naturall wit doth not vse the helpe of the outward senses, alwaies in vnderstanding; yea, there are many, and the most excellent pointes of Philosophie, in which, Sense hath nothing to doe, as in the discourse of Rea­son, and the knowledge of Logicke; with all those hard, and worthie Questions of the Soule, and of God himselfe, as farre as they are to be conceiued of, by the light of na­ture. If you will say, that we learne these things, partly by reading and hearing: I aunswer, both that we finde out many things in Philosophie, of our selues by studie, with­out anie helpe of Sense (which rather is an hinderance to the soule in the search of such pointes,) and also, that the know­ledge we haue of diuine mysteries, is first brought to vs, and continually increased in vs, by the same Senses of seeing and hearing: else were your Church as good be without those preachers you so much brag of.

The other part of your Minor, that faith cannot be had, but by the teaching of the true Church, you prooue, or rather endea­uour to prooue in this sort.

  • If no man can beleeue without he heare, nor heare without one preach, and no man can preach except he be sent, then Faith cannot be had, but by the teaching of the true Church.
  • [Page 238] But no man can beleeue, without he heare, nor heare with­out one preach, and no man can preach, without he be sent.
  • Therefore faith cannot be had, but by the teaching of the true Church.

I denie the consequence of your Maior, and affirme that faith may be had without the teaching of the true Church, though To the pro­position. no man can beleeue without he heare, &c. For Chap. 3. I haue shewed that some countries haue bene brought to beleefe without any such teaching by authoritie from the true Church. I also re­ferre the Reader to my answer to your Minor.

That place of the Apostle concerneth not the ordinarie mi­nisterie To the As­sumption. of the word, but the knowledge of the means of salua­tion: which (as Rom. 10. 14. the Apostle truly saith) could neuer haue bene thought on by any man, if it had not pleased God, to giue notice thereof to the world, by men appointed and autho­rised to that purpose by himselfe. But of this place and matter I spake sufficiently before, in this, and Chap. 3. in a former chapter.

A. D. §. 4.

Thirdly, true faith is included in the true Church, and as it were enclosed in her belly; as Saint Austin saith, vpon those words of the Psalme, Errauerunt ab vtero, loquuti sunt falsa. In ventre Ec­clesiae In Psal. 57. (saith he) veritas manet; quisquis ab hoc ventre sepa­ratus fuerit, necesse est, vt falsa loquatur. Truth remaineth in the belly of the Church, whosoeuer is separated (to wit by difference in doctrine) from this belly of the Church, must needs speake false. Therefore like as, if a man had Gold in his belly, we must first finde the man, before we can come to see the gold it selfe: so we must first by other markes, finde out the true Church, which hath the gold of true faith, hidden in her belly, before we come to see the gold of true faith it selfe. Sith especially, we cannot see it, vnlesse she o­pen her mouth, and deliuer it vnto vs, and that we cannot (being spiritually blinde) certainely know it to be true, and not counter­feit, but by giuing credit to her testimonie of it. According as the same Saint Austin saith, Euangelio non crederem, nisi me Ec­clesiae authoritas commouerer. I should not beleeue the Gospell Lib. con. Ep. Fund. cap. 5. it selfe, vnlesse I were mooued by the authoritie of the Church. For if we had not the testimonie of the Church, how should [Page 239] we haue bene infallibly sure, that there were any Gospell at all? Or how should we haue knowen, that those bookes, which [...]eare title of the Gospell, according to Saint Mathew, Marke, Luke, and Iohn, are true Canonicall Scripture; rather then those bookes, which are written in the name of Nicodemus, and Saint Thomas, bearing the same title or inscription of Gospell?

A. W.

Your third reason is thus to be framed.

  • That which is shut vp in the belly of the Church, so that we can­not see it, vnlesse she open her mouth, and deliuer it to vs, nor certainely know it to be true, but by giuing credit to her testimonie of it, is not a good marke to know the true Church by.
  • But true doctrine is so shut vp in the belly of the Church, that we cannot see it, vnlesse she open her mouth, and deliuer it to vs, nor certainly know it to be true, but by giuing credit to her testimonie of it.
  • Therefore true doctrine is no good marke to know the true Church by.

Your Minor is false, in both parts of it. First, it is vntrue, To the As­sumption. Part. 1. that true doctrine is so shut vp in the belly of the Church: yea ma­ny a true Church may hold some errors, and many an hereti­call Church some truth; onely the fundamentall points are ne­cessarie to the being of a true Church. Secondly though true doctrine be in the belly of the Church, as indeed there is no true Church, in which it is not: yet is it not so shut vp in it, as you imagine. For it is first and principally in the Scriptures, where it may be found without any such authoritie of the Church, as you dreame of: yea I haue shewed, that the Apostles them­selues did not beget faith in the hearts of them, to whom they preached, by any authoritie of the Church, but by euidence of the truth it selfe, which they taught. Concerning your proofe from August. in Psalm. 57. Austins authoritie; I first answer, that he expoundeth not that place according to the literal meaning of the Prophet, who speaketh not of any belly of the Church, but saith that those lewd men, of whom he speaketh, haue alwaies bene giuen to naughtinesse, from their mothers wombe. These wicked ones Vatablus ibi, (saith Vatablus) haue gone astray euer since, they came forth of the womb, they [Page 240] they haue erred, euer since they were borne. Yea Austin himselfe, as your August. in Gloss. interlin. Glosse saith, sometimes expoundeth it otherwise then here: God (saith Austin (foreknew sinners, euen from the wombe: as he said to Rebecca. So doth Hieron. ad Psal. 57. & Ierome also vnderstand it; so Theodoret. ibi. Theodoret. But let vs take it, as Saint Austin doth here mystically expound it: what will you prooue by it? That truth is so shut vp in the belly of the Church, that we cannot see it, vnlesse she deliuer it by her mouth? There is no such word in him, no such thing to be gathered out of him. His conclu­sion is, that therefore they, which differ from the true Church in doctrine, are in error: which is certainly true, concerning fun­damentall points, and verie probable, in all other points what­soeuer.

The other part of your Minor is, that true doctrine is so shut vp 2. Part. within the Church, that we cannot certainly know it to be true, but by giuing credit to her testimonie of it. For the disproouing where­of, it shall be sufficient, to call to minde that, which I haue of­ten answered, concerning those who beleeued by the Apostles ministerie, without any consideration or thought of their be­ing sent by the true Church: but onely being conuinced by the manifest truth of that which they deliuered, concerning forgiuenesse of sinne by our Sauiour Iesus Christ.

Your proofe out of Austin is insufficient, as it may appeare in this sort.

  • If Austin say, that he should not beleeue the Gospell, vnlesse he were mooued by the authoritie of the Church, then true doctrine is so shut vp within the Church, that we cannot certainly know it to be true, but by giuing credit to her te­stimonie of it.
  • But Austin saith so.
  • Therefore true doctrine is so shut vp in the Church, that we can­not certainly know it to be true, but by giuing credit to her testimonie of it.

I denie the consequence of your Maior. First, because (as To the pro­position. August. cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 31. Austin himselfe saith of Cyprian) we are not bound by the au­thoritie of Austins iudgement, as if his writings were Canonicall. We do Cyprian no wrong (saith Austin) when we distinguish his [Page 241] writings whatsoeuer they be, from the Canonicall authoritie of the diuine Scriptures. And againe, I take not Cyprians writings for Canonicall, but consider of them according to the Canonicall: and allow of that, with his commendation, which agreeth to Scrip­ture, but, by his leaue, refuse that which disagreeth from Scripture. This minde carried August. ad Fortun. epist. 111. Austin to other mens wri­tings, this minde he desired other men should carrie to his. Second­ly, I denie the same consequence, because Austin might be mooued, by the authoritie of the Church, to acknow­ledge the Gospell for true, and yet, without the same authori­tie, learne out of the Gospell so acknowledged, which is true doctrine, which false.

Concerning Austins testimonie, first, it is manifest, that he To the As­sumption. deliuereth not a rule, for all men to follow, as if by should not be­leeue he meant, that a man ought not to beleeue the Gospell; nor sheweth an impossibilitie of beleeuing it, vnlesse a man be moued, by the authoritie of the Church: but at the most, de­clareth, that the authoritie of the Church, preuailed with him so farre, as to make him acknowledge the Gospell for true, which else he had either not knowne, or doubted of. Second­ly, it is obserued according to the rest of his writings, that the Latine word he vseth, in the African dialect, signifieth Had not beleeued: so that the sense is, I had not beleeued the Gospell, as the truth of God, if the authoritie of the Church, had not moued me thereunto. The first motiue was the authoritie, that is, the learning, consent, holinesse of so many worthie men, as from time to time had held, and did hold the Gospell, to be the truth of God. Vpon this ground Austin gaue himselfe to the studie of the Scriptures, and by the euidence of truth deliuered in it, discerned that it was the word of God, according to the report and reputation commonly held of it. This sense agreeth with Austins purpose, who to refute the Manichees, that tooke their master Manes for the Apostle of Christ, thus reasoneth against them. I beleeue not (saith Austin) that he is Christs Apostle, and then demaundeth of the Manichee what course he would take to prooue it to him. Perhaps (saith he) you will read the Gospell to me, and assay to prooue Manichaeus person out of it: But what [Page 242] if you should light vpon one, that doth not yet beleeue the Gospell? Then follow the words alledged by you, I truly had not belee­ued the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church had not moued me. This is yet more cleare, by that which Austin writeth afterward. First (saith he) we beleeue, that which yet we cannot discerne, that being made stronger in faith, we may attaine to the vnderstanding of that we do beleeue, not men now, but God himselfe, confirming & enlightening our minde within. But howsoeuer we vnderstand it, Austin speaketh not of true doctrine shut vp in the Church, so that it cannot be knowne to be true, but by giuing credit to the Churches testimonie, which is the point in question: but one­ly of acknowledging the Gospell, to be the word of God. Now the same Church, or partie, which assureth vs, that the Gospell is true, may notwithstanding erre in the meaning of some points in it; and a man may discerne these errours, by the light, which shineth in the Scriptures, thus acknow­ledged.

First it is here confessed by your selfe, that Austins speach is not of all fundamentall points of true doctrine, but onely, (as I said) of knowing the Scripture to be the word of God: for so one­ly you reason out of it, and thereby shew plainly to all, that will see, that it cannot prooue the matter, for which you brought it. Secondly you proceed farther to prooue the point by an other reason, but faultie like the former.

  • If (say you) without the testimonie of the Church, we could not haue bene infallibly sure, that there is any Gospell at all, nor haue knowne that the Gospels of Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Iohn, are true Canonicall Scripture, rather then those of Nicodemus and Saint Thomas; then we cannot know true doctrine to be true, but by giuing credit to the Churches testimonie of it.
  • But we could not haue knowne those things without the testimo­nie of the Church.
  • Therefore we cannot know true doctrine to be true, but by gi­uing credit to the Churches testimonie of it.

A man that is so full of his compound syllogismes, as you To the pro­position. are, might learne to make better consequences in his Maior, [Page 243] then you commonly bring vs. Let vs grant you, that we could not know that there is any Gospell, or which is the Gospell, without the testimonie of the Church. All that will follow thereupon, is this, that we cannot know these two points of doctrine to be true, without giuing credit to the testimonie of the Church. Yea if I were disposed to trouble you, I would yet farther de­nie your said consequence, because though we cannot know these matters, without the Churches testimonie: yet we might know them without resting vpon the Churches authoritie. For the testimonie of the Church may be had by the ministerie thereof, without any such absolute authoritie of enioyning beleefe, or giuing credit to that she affirmeth, as an vndoubted truth.

This Minor, as the former in this chapter, consisteth of two To the as­sumption. Part. 1. parts, and is false in both of them, as I will shew particularly. First you say, that without the testimonie of the Church, we could not haue bene infallibly sure, that there is any Gospell. Your mea­ning is, that we could not haue knowne this certainely, but by giuing credit to the report of the Church, as a certaine truth. First, for the doctrine of the Gospell to saluation, it hath bene had, and may be had without any testimonie of the Church at all: taking the testimonie of the Church as you do, for the prea­ching of men publickly authorised to this dutie, by a companie of men so qualified, as you before describe your Church. I shall need no better proofe, then to put you in minde againe of those nations, many and great, who attained to faith and salua­tion, by the teaching of the Apostles seuerally, without any such argument of the Churches absolute authority. Secondly taking the Gospell, for the 4. bookes of the Euangelists, I answer, that there may be true faith & true Churches, without the know­ledge of those bookes, yea without the verie being of them: as it is manifest by the former example, many thousands being conuerted, and many Churches setled, without the knowledge, and before the publishing, or penning of them. But to come to the verie point, I answer further, that it is a grosse absurditie to make men beleeue, that there can be no certaine knowledge had, that there is any Gospell, but by giuing credit to the [Page 244] Church: whereas no man can know, that there is any such authoritie in the Church, or any Church at all, but by the au­thoritie of the Scripture. It is more then ridiculous for me to beleeue, that there is a companie of men infallibly taught of God, which is the truth, with authority to enioyne obedience to all men, in whatsoeuer they will teach, if I haue no better proofe of it, then their owne word. For since God hath indued man with reason, it is both simplenesse and sinne for him, to beleeue that, which is vtterly against the light of reason, if he haue no warrant from God so to do. But warrant he can haue none, to beleeue such a conceit of any company, but from the scriptures; as it is euident by your own Chap. 5. course, who make a place of scripture the ground of your whole disputation. Therefore whereas you teach men first to know the Church, and then by the Church, the Scrip­tures; we say this course is vtterly vnwarrantable, hauing no foundation, either in reason or reuelation. Yea contrariwise we truly affirme, that the Scripture must first be knowne, at the least in that point, of the authoritie of the Church; and then the Church by the Scripture. And this is Austins iudgement directly. Let vs not heare (saith August. de vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. he) this I say, this you say, but let vs heare, this saith the Lord. There are the Lords bookes, to the authoritie of which both of vs consent, both of vs giue credit, both of vs yeeld obedience: there let vs seek the Church, there let vs discusse our question. And afterward, I will not haue the Church to be shewed by mens doctrines, but by the Oracles of God. And againe, Chap. 16. Let vs seeke the Church in the Canonicall Scriptures. The like speeches are euerie where in that booke. Whether we be schis­maticks, or you (saith the same August. cont. lib. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 85. Austin) let neither you, nor me, but Christ be asked, that he may shew vs his Church. But where shall we know, what our Sauiour saith concerning his Church, and how he would haue it knowne, but in the Scriptures? Yet I denie not that the ministerie of men is necessarie to giue notice, that there are certaine bookes, in which it hath plea­sed God, to reueale the meanes of saluation to mankinde; though I acknowledge not any authority in the Church, whereby men should be bound to beleeue this their report, when as yet they are ignorant, that there is any such Church. [Page 245] You will say then, what shall we doe? or how shall we know that there is any Gospell? If you will giue me leaue, I will shew you what course is to be takē. When you vnderstand that there hath bin, and is still an opinion, that there are certaine bookes written by Gods authoritie and appointment, to teach men the way to saluation, do as any reasonable man would do, in a matter of such importance. Get the bookes, reade and studie them, with a true desire to see whether they be such as they are reported to be, or no. And because thou knowest by nature that there is a God, and that he onely is all-sufficient to discouer the truth of his owne purpose, touching the estate of his crea­ture, call vpon him, though in ignorance and weaknesse, that it would please him to direct thee in this enquiry after the means of thy saluation or happinesse. This done, thou shalt be sure to find, by the euidence of truth manifested in those bookes, that they are sent from God, and not deuised by man. If thou liue in such a place as affoordeth the interpretation of these bookes by the ministery of men, vse that singular blessing of God with reuerence and care to vnderstand, and thou shalt by the merci­full teaching of God, acknowledge these books to be the word of God, ordained for the saluation of thy selfe and other. This (will some man say) may perhaps breed a perswasion, that these bookes are from God, but how shall we come to be infallibly sure of it? How else, but by the worke of the spirit of God in thy heart? What (say you) must we runne to reuelations? 1. Cor. 2. 10. Who knowes the secrets of God, but the spirit of God? The truth it selfe discerned by that light which the spirit kindleth in our hearts, worketh assurance of beleefe; to which the testimonie of the spirit is added for our further confirmation. Neither is this any other reuelation, then you Papists require in this case. For ac­cording to your doctrine, no man can be perswaded infallibly of the truth of the Scripture, either for the text, or the interpre­tation, but by the especiall teaching of the spirit: otherwise he hath not faith, but opinion of these matters. See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 1. art. 3. Onely herein stands the difference betwixt vs, that you say, the argument whereby the spirit perswades vs to acknowledge the Scripture, is the authoritie of the Church: we affirme it is the euidence of truth, [Page 246] which he makes vs to discerne, by our vnderstanding enlightened, and to approue by our will thereto inclined, through his mightie and gracious worke vpon our soules.

The second part of your minor, is, that we could not haue Part. 2. knowne the Gospels of the foure Euangelists to be canonicall Scrip­ture, rather then those of Nicodemus and Thomas, if we had not the testimonie of the Church. Of the falsnesse of which opinion, I shall need to say little, because it is refuted in my answer to the former part. For this knowledge is not bred in vs by resting vpon the Churches authoritie, but by yeelding to the euidence of the truth, discouered to our hearts by the teaching of the holy Ghost. Concerning the authoritie of the Church in this point, it were a presumptuous and vnreasonable thing for any man (without very good proof, or great likelihood of reason) to deny or doubt of that which hath bin auouched so many yeares by the whole Christian world. But to make question of the bookes of Scripture, whether they be the word of God or no, and to denie that there is any meanes to know them for such, but the authoritie of the Church, is the next way to open a gap to Atheisme, & to lay open Religion to the scorne of the world. Can I not know the Scripture to be of God, but by the autho­ritie of the Church? How shal I then know it at all, since it is not reasonable to beleeue there is any Church that hath such au­thoritie, but by the warrant of the Scripture? They do all they can, to turne reasonable creatures into beasts, who teach vs, that we must beleeue the Church cannot erre, because the Scripture saith so: and yet denie that we can know there is any Scripture but by beleeuing it, because the Church saith so. This is to dance in a circle, as if a man were coniured, that he could not get out of it. How shall I know there is a Church? by the Scripture. How shall I know there are any Scriptures? by the Church. Would your proud Clergie thus make fooles of Christian men, if they did not despise them, as voyd of all reason? I wonder how your Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and the rest of your Clear­gie, can for beare laughing when they looke one vpon another, and remember how they cosen, and (if I may vse the word in a matter of such importance) gull the world with such palpable [Page 247] fooleries. But Reuel. 17. 2 your strumpet of Babylon hath made the Kings of the earth, and all nations drunke with the cup of her forni­cations, exalting her selfe aboue all that is called God, and ma­king her selfe Gloss. ad ex­tra. Ioan. 22. de verb. signif. cap. quum inter. the God of her slauish vassals. But the Lord is iust, who (according to 2. Thess 2. a 1 the Apostles prophefie) hath sent the world strong delusions, that they should beleeue lies, that all they might be damned which beleeued not the truth, but had pleasure in vnrigh­teousnesse. And certainly if there were not a great measure of 12. blindnesse and sottishnesse in the hearts of men, that Gods pur­pose might take effect, it were vnpossible that reasonable men should so be lead by the nose to errour and destru­ction.

A. D. §. 5.

Fourthly, if the true doctrine of faith, in all particular points, must be foreknowne as a marke, whereby to know the true Church, then (contrarie to that which hath bin proued) the authoritie of the Church should not be a necessarie meanes whereby men must come to the knowledge of the true faith. For if before we come to know which is the true Church, we must by an other meanes, haue knowne which is the true faith; what need then is there, for getting true faith already had, to seeke or bring in the authoritie of the same Church?

A. W.

This fourth reason and the next, labour to proue that part of your first assumptiō in this Chapter, which we deny not, that the true doctrine of faith in euery particular point, is not a good marke of the Church. It would therefore be but lost labour to spend much time in the examining of them; yet somewhat I must say, and first to the former.

  • If the true doctrine of faith in all particular points, must be fore­knowne, as a marke to know the true Church by: then is not the autoritie of the true Church a necessary meanes to know the true doctrine of faith by.
  • But the authoritie of the true Church is a necessary meanes to know the true faith by.
  • Therefore the true doctrine of faith must not be foreknowne in all particular points, as a marke to know the true Church by.

Your conclusion is no more then we grant; the consequence To the Syllo­gisme. [Page 248] of your maior, about which you take some paines, needs not your helpe for the proofe of it. Your minor is false. That which you brought before to prooue it, before was an­swered.

A. D. §. 6.

Fiftly, if before we giue absolute and vndoubted credit to the true Church, we must examine and iudge whether euery particular point of doctrine which it holdeth, be the truth, with authoritie to accept that onely which we like, or which seemeth in our conceit right and conformable to Scripture, and to reiect whatsoeuer we mislike, or which in our priuate iudgement seemeth not so right and conformable: then we make our selues examiners and iudges ouer the church; and consequently we preferre our liking or disliking, our iudgement and censure of the interpretation and sense of Scripture, before the iudgement and censure of the Church of God. But it is absurd both in reason and religion, to preferre the iudgement of any priuate man (be he neuer so wittie and learned, or neuer so strongly perswaded in his owne minde, that he is taught by the Spirit) be­fore the iudgement and definitiue sentence of the Church of God; the which is a companie of men, many of which, both are, and alwayes haue bene, vertuous, wise and learned, and (which is chiefe) is such a companie, as according to the absolute and infallible promises of our Sauiour, hath vndoubtedly the holy spirit among them, guiding them and teaching them all truth, and not permitting them to erre, as before hath bin proued.

A. W.

There is the same fault in this fift argument which was in the former, that it is brought to proue a proposition, which we denie not.

  • If before we giue absolute credit to the Church, we must iudge whether euery particular point it holdeth be true or no, then we may make our selues iudges ouer the true Church.
  • But we may not make our selues iudges ouer the true Church.
  • Therefore we must not iudge whether euery particular point the Church holdeth, be true or no, before we giue absolute credit to the Church.

This conclusion supposeth that which can neuer be proued, To the syllo­gisme. that we are, first or last, to giue absolute credit to the Church: whereof in this Chapter there is no question. The point [Page 249] you vndertake to disproue, is, that the true doctrine of faith, in euery particular point, is a good marke of a true Church. This ther­fore you should haue concluded, though indeed it make no­thing against our opinion, who require not for a marke of the true Church, truth of doctrine in euery point, but in all points fun­damentall.

Your proposition is deceitfully propounded, as if we gran­ted Of the syllo­gisme. a companie to be the true Church, and yet would take vpon vs to receiue and reiect what we list: whereas we hold that we cannot acknowledge any true Church, but we must withall yeeld, that it maintaineth all substantiall points of Religion, from which we may not vary. Secondly, for a man to make him­selfe iudge ouer the Church, is to take authoritie vpon him to censure, reproue and condemne the Church: wheras all that we desire, is, that it may be free for vs to discerne that the doctrine held by this or that Church, is agreeable to the Scriptures, be­fore we acknowledge it to be a true Church.

It is meere absurd and vnreasonable, to prefer any priuate To the As­sumption. mans iudgement before the definitiue sentence of the church of God. But it is agreeable both to reason and Religion, that euery priuate man, whose saluation lieth vpon his true or false beleeuing, should consider whether that which he is enioyned by men to beleeue, be warrantable by the word of God or no. Mat. 15. 14. The Scribes and Pharises were the leaders of the people in the matters of Religion, yet were they blinde guides: and the blind people, by depending vpon their iudgement, were caried headlong into the same pit of destruction with them. Were not the men of Beroea commended Act. 17. 11. by the holy Ghost, for sear­ching the Scriptures, that they might see whether the doctrine deliuered by Paul were agreeable thereto or no? And yet shall it be a fault in vs to enquire of the same Scripture, concerning the doctrine of your Apostaticall synagogue? I say farther, it is against reason and Religion, to prefer any one mans iudge­ment before the definitiue sentence of many wise, vertuous and learned men; such as the Church hath vsually some amongst the members thereof. But it is most reasonable and religi­ous, to prefer the truth of God manifested by one simple man, [Page 250] before the contrary determination of all that euer haue bin, or shal be of the Church, though neuer so wise, vertuous and lear­ned. This is that which we teach concerning this matter: First, that no man is bound to take any thing for a matter of faith, but that which is proued to him by the Scriptures, the rule of faith. Secondly, that no man is to condemne any thing held by the Church, vnlesse he haue euident proofe on his side out of the Scriptures. Thirdly, that euery man, in matters not determina­ble by Scripture (none of which are necessarie to saluation) should yeeld to the iudgement of the Church, whereof he is a member; and euery Church to the iudgement of the Christian Churches other where, vnlesse there be some good reason to the contrary. It is very possible for wise, vertuous and learned men to erre (for your priuiledge of not erring hath bin found to be counterfait) who oftentimes follow the opinion of some one man, whose learning and pietie they cannot chuse but ad­mire. Sotus de nat. & grat. lib. 3. cap. 4. Domingo à Soto affoords vs an example of this matter, where hauing alledged a sentence out of Austin, he addeth these words: By reason of this saying of Austin (quoth Soto) all the Fathers afterward, and the whole multitude of Diuines haue by good right deliuered it as a truth, that the glorious Ʋirgin neuer committed any actuall sinne; though Chrysostome, auncienter then he, were of another opinion. Let it be then vnlawfull, as it is, for a priuate man to prefer his owne opinion before the iudgement of a whole Church; and in this sense I graunt your minor: yet is it not vnlawfull for him to examine what any or all Churches teach, or to dissent from it, if he haue the Scripture for his war­rant.

A. D. §. 7.

But you may perhaps say, that in Scripture we are willed, not to 1. Iohn. 4. beleeue euery priuate spirit, but to trie spirits, whether they be of God or no: and that therefore we must examine and trie the spirit of the Church, by looking into euery particular point of doctrine which it teacheth.

I answer: that in that place of Scripture, it is not meant, that it belongeth to euery particular man to trie all spirits; but in generall the Scripture giueth the Church warning, not to accept euery one that boasteth himselfe to haue the Spirit, and willeth that they [Page 251] should trie those spirits: not that euery simple or priuate man should take vpon him to trie them, but that those of the Church, to whom the office of trying spirits doth appertaine, to wit, the Doctors and Pastors, which Almightie God hath put in his Church of purpose, Vt non circumferamur omni vento doctrinae, that we may not Ephes. 4. be caried away with euery wind of doctrine: and Vt non simus par­uuli fluctuantes, that we may not be little ones, wauering with eue­rie blast of those that boast themselues to be singularly taught by the spirit. So that this trying of spirits, is onely meant of those spirits, of which men may well doubt, whether they be of God or no: and then also this triall belongeth to the Pastors of the true church. But when it is certaine that the spirit is of God, we neither neede, nor ought doubtfully to examine, or presumptuously to iudge of it, but submitting obediently the iudgement of our owne sense and reason, we must beleeue the teaching of it in euery point. Now it is most certaine, that the spirit of the true visible Church, is of God, as out of holy Scripture hath bene most euidently prooued. And therefore our onely care should be to seeke out those markes, by which all men may know, which particular companie of men is the true Church of Christ: whose doctrine, we neither need, nor lawfully may examine and trie in doubtfull manner, but must obediently and vndoubtfully in all points beleeue, as the onely assured and infallible truth.

A. W.

For the better strengthening of your minor, you assay to make, and answer an argument, which our Diuines vse to alledge a­gainst it: and this it is.

  • They that are willed in Scripture not to beleeue euery spirit, but to trie the spirits, whether they be of God or no, may iudge whether euery particular point the Church holdeth, be true or no.
  • But euery Christian is willed in Scripture not to beleeue eue­rie spirit, but to trie the spirits, whether they be of God or no.
  • Therefore euery Christian may iudge whether euery particular point the Church holdeth, be true or no.

The Assumption of this Syllogisme, we proue by 1. Ioh. 4. 1. that place of Iohn, Dearly beloued, beleeue not euery spirit, but trie the spirits [Page 252] whether they are of God. To this our proofe, you answer two wayes: First concerning the spirits to be tried; then concer­ning them that are to make triall. Of the former, your answer is, that this trying of spirits is onely meant of those spirits, of which men may well doubt whether they be of God or no. First, this an­swer cannot be warranted by the text, which is generall: Trie the spirits, that is, all spirits that come to preach vnto you, if we ap­ply it to the teachers, rather then to the doctrine they deli­uer. And surely if the Apostle had meant as you expound him, he would not haue said, Trie the spirits, but trie some of them. Beleeue not euery spirit, but trie those of which you may well doubt: but he saith generally the spirits. Secondly, what may we ima­gine to be a cause of doubting? If want of lawfull sending, which is the great point you alwayes vrge; either we must know the spirits we may doubt of, to be vnlawfully sent, and then (by your doctrine) we must vtterly reiect them without any farther triall: or else the triall we are to make, if we doubt, is whether they be lawfully sent or no: for till that appeare, we may not heare them. But our Apostle appointeth vs to make triall by their doctrine. Thirdly, the reason and end of this exhor­tation, is, that we might take heede of false Prophets and false Apostles, which were crept into the Church. Many false Pro­phets were stirred vp by the diuell, faining that they had Apo­stolicall doctrine to deliuer. Therefore (saith Didym. Alex. ad 1. Ioan. 4. Didymus) the gift of discerning spirits is necessary. Now these false apostles were not such as came without any calling; for the diuell must needs haue knowne, if he had bene then acquainted with your doctrine, that it was not possible for him to preuaile by men not authori­sed by the Church; but as the Apostle teacheth vs, they were such, as had gone frō amongst the true Christiās, not by schisme, in refusing communion with them, so much as by heresie, in departing from the truth of doctrine, in maine points of re­ligion. Fourthly, false teachers do so nearely resemble true, and Mat. 7. 15. come (many times) with such shew of holinesse, that a man cannot tell whom he should trust or suspect, but as he findes his doctrine to be sutable, or contrarie to the word of God. Therefore Ferus a writer of your owne, and one of no [Page 253] meane account, vnderstandeth by spirit, doctrine. The Apostle warnes vs (saith Ferus ad 1. Ioan 4. 1. Ferus) that we beleeue not euery spirit, that is, e­uery doctrine and perswasion. To which purpose he alledgeth also that of Saint Paul, 1. Thess 5. 21 Trie all things, hold fast that which is good: alledged by Thomas ad 1. Ioan. 4. Thomas, in the same matter. To make this your answer the more likely, you tell vs, that when it is certaine that the spirit is of God, we neither need, nor ought doubtful­ly to examine, or presumptuously to iudge of it: as if we thought any such doubtfull or presumptuous course lawfull. Yet in this case there is a difference to be obserued: If we know the preacher to be sent of God, in such sort, as the Apostles were, that he cannot erre, then euery least doubt of that which he deliuereth, is presumption and sinne. But otherwise, though it appeare to vs, that he be authorised by God, we may safely take liberty to examine whatsoeuer he teacheth, without any presumption to iudge, or needlesse doubting of that he deli­uereth. In a word, if we heare such a man, it is our dutie not to suspect his doctrine, but where we haue some good apparence of Scripture for our suspicion. In which case we are to search the word of God, and to open our doubts to him, that we may be satisfied. If the matter be such, as we cannot clearely prooue to be false by Scripture, we are with all reuerence and humili­tie, to suspect our owne iudgement, rather then his, whom God hath appointed and authorised to be our teacher: so farre must we be from presumption.

Your second exception is against them, that are to trie the spi­rits, who are not (say you) euerie simple or priuate man, but the Pastors of the Church, to whom the office of trying spirits doth ap­pertaine; as being put by God in his Church of purpose, that we may not be carried away with euerie winde of doctrine. That this ex­hortation belongeth to all Christians, it may appeare by these reasons. First, we haue the like generall admonitions in other places of Scripture to all Christians, not onely to Pastors and Doctors. Mat. 7. 15. Beware of false Prophets (saith our Sauiour to all men) which come to you in sheeps cloathing. Trie all things (saith 1. Thess. 5. 21 the Apostle) and hold fast that which is good: which lat­ter place, as before I noted, is brought by Vhi supra. Thomas of Aquin [Page 254] and Ferus, to expound this text of Saint Iohn. Secondly, the whole Epistle is written to all in generall, without any particu­lar instruction, or exhortation to this or that kinde of Christi­ans, as teachers, learners, masters, seruants, or such like. Thirdly, it is 1. Pet. 2. 18. & 3. 1. 7 Ephes. 5. 22. 25 Col. 3. 18. 19. the course of the Apostles, where they descend from ge­nerals to particulars, to giue some speciall notice of that change by naming seuerally the estates, to which they speake, and not continuing onely the common titles of beloued or brethren, as the Apostle in this place doth. Fourthly, himselfe professeth, that his Epistle is written in generall to all men, yea euen to young men and babes in Christ. Neither doth he, in this exhor­tation, restraine his words to them, that are teachers. Fiftly, if it be not lawfull for priuate men to trie the spirits, then are they to receiue whatsoeuer is taught by any particular Doctor or Pa­stor; and so be bound to beleeue meere contradictions, if it fall out, as sometimes it doth, that one man preach contrarie to that, which an other hath taught. Sixtly, the Lord hath im­parted the scriptures, and enioyned the search of them, as well to priuate men, as to Pastors and Doctors. Seuenthly, and last, blinde people shall perish euerlastingly, with their blinde guides: and therefore it cannot be, but that God hath giuen Holkot. in 2. q. 4. ad r. arg. princip. them libertie to trie the spirits, that they that will not, may haue no excuse for their erring, but be iustly damned.

The place you bring out of the epistle to the Ephes. 4. 14. Ephesians, doth not prooue that Pastors & Doctors only are to examine spirits, though this belong in speciall sort to them, Act. 20. 28. whom the holy Ghost hath made ouerseers of the flocke of Christ. Gods end, in appointing them, is, that we should not be carried away with euery blast of doctrine: but we must needs be so carried, if we receiue without choise, whatsoeuer is deliuered. They are hel­pers of our faith, not Lords ouer it. Their dutie it is, to teach vs, how to discerne of true doctrine, and to perswade vs to em­brace it, not to enforce vs to giue credit to all they say. Thus haue I answered all those arguments, that you thought good to propound: all which notwithstanding, our conclusion standeth sound and firme, that true doctrine in points fundamen­tall, is a certaine, and necessarie marke of a true Church of Christ.

A. D.

CHAP. XV. That these foure, Vna, Sancta, Catholica, Apostolica, that is to say, One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke, are good markes, by which men may know, which is the true Church.

A. W.

The second maine part of your whole treatise is this, that they which professe the Romane faith, are the true Church. Your proofe is, that To them onely, the certaine markes, whereby the Church is to be knowne, belong. Which that you might make cleare vnto vs, you reason in this sort.

  • They onely, who are One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke Church, are they to whom the markes, by which the true Church may be knowne, belong.
  • But they onely that professe the Romane Religion, are they who are One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke Church.
  • Therefore they onely, that professe the Romane Religion, are they to whom the markes, by which the true Church is to be knowne, belong.

The Maior of this syllogisme you seeke to prooue, in this Chapter by shewing, that these properties are good markes to know the true Church by. Now properties, if we shall speake properly according to Logicke, are Accidents or Adiuncts agreeing to euery particular of that kinde, wherof they are pro­perties, and that alwaies: neuer at any time, to any thing of any other kind. Therefore the properties of a true Church, must be such, as agree to euerie true Church at all times, & at no time to any other Church or thing, but to a true Church only. These the Logicians call Propria adiuncta, or propria quarto modo. Whether these foure alledged by you be such or no, taking thē according to your sense, we shal see in examining your proofe. That in some sense they are certaine markes of a true Church, we make no question.

A. D. §. 1.

Sith our Sauiour Christ hath thought good to plant a visible Church vpon earth, which he would haue to continue, vntill the worlds end, for this speciall intent and purpose, that all men in all ages, by meanes of it, may learne the doctrine of the true faith: the [Page 256] true worship of God: the right vse of the Sacraments: the wholsome lawes of good life: and generally all good things that appertaine to the glorie of God, and the saluation of our soules; we haue not any reason to doubt, but that the same our Sauiour (for the ex­ceeding loue, which, of his part, without exception or respect of persons, he beareth to all mankind) hath ordained some markes or notes, by which all sorts, and consequently euen simple men may suffi­ciently discerne which companie (among many which challenge to themselues the title of the true Church) is indeed the true Church. For sith, he would haue euerie one to heare, and learne things neces­sarie to saluation, onely of the true Church: we must needs thinke his wisedome and goodnesse to haue marked this his Church with such manifest signes and properties, that all men may easily know it, and discerne it from others, whom he knew would take vpon them (though falsely) the title and profession of the true Church.

This seemeth to haue bene expresly foretold by the prophet Isaias, when he saith: Scietur in gentibus semē eorum, & germen eorum in medio populorū. Omnes qui viderint eos, cognoscentillos, Isay. cap. 61. quia isti sunt semen, cui benedixit Dominus. Their seed shall be knowne in the nations, and their of spring in the midst of the people; all that shall see thē shall know them, because these are that seed, which our Lord hath blessed. Which is as much, as if he should say, that the Church shall haue such manifest markes, that it shall be easie for euerie one to know them to be the true Church.

Some of these markes are set downe by Saint Austin, who calleth them bands or chaines, which do hold a faithfull man in the Catho­licke lib. con. Ep. Fund. cap. 4. Church; although for the slownesse of his wit, or for some o­ther cause, he doth not euidently see the truth of the doctrine in it selfe.

A. W.

Ere you come to prooue that which you haue propounded, you fall into an vnnecessary discourse, about the marks of the Church: wherein first you prooue, as you can, that our Sauiour hath left certaine markes, whereby all men in all ages may know the true Church. Secondly you set downe some names of these markes, giuen them according to the effects they worke in men.

The proofe of your former point lieth thus.

  • [Page 257] If our Sauior haue planted a visible Church vpon earth, to the end that all mē in all ages, might learne of it only all good things ap­pertaining to the glory of God, & their own saluatiō, thē he hath ordained marks, by which euery mā may know the true Church.
  • But our Sauiour hath to that end, planted a visible Church.
  • Therfore he hath giuē marks, by which euery mā may know &c.

Though there be nothing in this proofe, which hath not bene answered already yet I mull be faine to say something to it. I To the Mi­nor. denie the Minor, hauing shewed in answer to Chap. 5. the fift chapter, that it neuer was Gods purpose to haue euery particular man partaker of saluatiō by Iesus Christ. Now it is needlesse to adde that our Sauiour being Mat. 3. 17. Ioan. 5. 30. & 6. 38. sent by God, with perfect knowledge of his purpose, would not intend any thing contrarie to the will of his Father, or otherwise then he was directed by his commis­sion. Ioan. 17. 9. I pray not for the world, but for them, that thou hast giuen me out of the world. Rom. 11. 5. All this present time there is a remnant, accor­ding to the election of grace. Therefore visible Churches (for to dreame of any one vniuersall visible Church is against reason, not only against Scripture) were ordained properly (as the mi­nistery of the word, & Heb. 2. 14. the seruice of Angels) for their sakes that are to be saued, according to the election of God. Secondly, and as it were accidentally, for the hardening of them, that will not beleeue, to leaue them without excuse. To make your matter the more likely, you tell vs of our Sauiours loue to mankind, which in your diuinity is without exception, or respect of persons. How then can it sute with the purpose of God his Father, Rom. 9. 11. l Tit. 2. 4. who hath chosen some to glory, & refused other, meerly of his owne iust will, without respect of difference in the parties so chosen & refused? As for I that loue of mankind, wherupon some men conclude, that either all, or the greatest part of men are lo­ued by God to eternal life, it is not to be vnderstood by compa­rison of men to men, but partly of men to the Angels that fell; in which respect the Apostle amplifies the mercy of God to vs, Heb. 2. 16. He tooke not the Angels, but he tooke the seed of Abraham: partly of men, to all other creatures; none of which, besides man, is vouchsafed the honour to be ioyned in vnity of person with the Sonne of God, and so to be made heire of euerlasting glory.

[Page 258] It is needlesse to repeat what I answered before to this place of Isay, onely I will say thus much of your exposition, that though all, that see the Church, may know it: yet it doth not follow, that therefore all men may see it: which you make the end of planting a visible Church, that euerie man may learne how to be saued. We denie not, that the markes of the Church, are such as that any man, who hath the meanes, and will vse them with conscience and diligence, may come (by the grace of God) to the acknowledging of it, and by the ministerie of it, to saluation. Such is the truth of doctrine, wherein euerie man may be instructed, who will submit his reason to the eui­dence of truth conteined in the holy Scriptures, and not wil­fully resist, or carelesly neglect the worke of the spirit in the mi­nisterie of the word.

The bands and chaines, August. cont. epist. Fundam. cap. 4. Austin speaketh of, are not said to draw a man out of the world vnto the Church, but to hold him in it, that is in already. And surely he were vnreasonably absurd, that being borne in the profession of Christianitie, or by any o­ther occasion, brought to ioyne himselfe vnto this or that Church, would not cōtinue his beleefe vpon those groūds, that Austin there mentions, as long as there could be no sufficiēt rea­son brought to the contrarie, yea though he could not discerne the truth of many points, which he held as he had bene taught. But Austin in the same place professeth, that the markes, he names, and all other whatsoeuer, whereby he is held in the Catho­licke Church, are nothing worth in comparison of truth manifestly prooued out of the Scripture. But of this matter I shall haue oc­casion to speake againe hereafter, where you propound some of Austins words more at large.

A. D. §. 2.

Of these markes, diuers authors haue written at large. I (for breuitie sake) haue chosen out onely these foure: Vna, Sancta, Ca­tholica, Apostolica: One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke: because I hope these will be sufficient, and because I finde these es­pecially, set forth in Scriptures: commended by Councels: and ge­nerally admitted, of all sorts, both Catholickes and Protestants, as now I am to declare.

First, for the generall admittance of these properties of the true [Page 259] Church, I need no other proofe, but that both Catholicks and Pro­testants allow of the Nicene, and Constantinopolitane Creed, wherein we professe to beleeue the true Church, the which Church, is there described with those onely foure properties which before I named, as though by those onely, euery man might sufficiently know that Church, which in euerie point, they are bound to beleeue. Now if besides this proofe, out of the generally receiued Counsels, some precise man would haue me prooue these properties to agree to the true Church, out of the Scripture it selfe, this also I may ea­sily doe.

A. W.

So many and diuers are the markes of the Church, propoun­ded by Bellar. de not. Eccles. li. 4. cap. 3. your Popish writers, that you had good cause, to giue some reason, why you cull these foure out of all the rest. First you alledge breuitie: wherof if you had beene so desirous, you would not so often haue repeated the same matters. You adde the sufficiencie of these, their being mentioned in the Scripture, com­mended by Councels, and generally admitted by all sorts, both Ca­tholickes and Protestants. All which, taking them in your sense, are generally false, as shall appeare in the particular handling of them. But indeed the true cause is, though you will not be knowne of it, that Bellarmine out of whom you haue patched vp your whole discourse, though he bring fifteene: yet con­fesseth that they may all after a sort, be reduced to these foure.

There are two faults in this proofe, whereby you labour to perswade vs, that these properties are generally admitted, both by Protestants and Papists. First, though both admit them, yet in diuers senses; we according to the true meaning of those Councels; you according to those phantasies you haue deuised, for the establishing of your Apostaticall Synagogue. Second­ly, we admit them not all as markes of the, or a visible Church, but as hidden properties of the Catholicke Church, the mysti­call bodie of Iesus Christ, which are not to be discerned by the eye of the bodie, but by the light of faith, as all other ar­ticles in the same Creed are. What though there be no more properties, but those foure there set downe? will it follow thence, that therefore they are named, as though by those onely; [Page 260] euerie man might sufficiently know the Church? Is that the vse of those points which are deliuered concerning the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost? Or rather, are they not set before vs, as principall matters to be beleeued, of them? So are also these properties of the Church.

If any man be so simple, as to take your former proofe for good, whereas it faileth in the chiefe point you would, prooue by it, as I haue shewed; he is fitter to be pittied then instructed. But, is it a note of precisenesse, to desire proofe, for matters of faith out of the scripture? Doubtlesse it was then no lesse pre­cisenesse, to appoint the scripture for a rule of our faith; and as great, for our Sauiour Christ and the Apostles to confirme their doctrine out of the scripture. For this course of theirs makes vs the bolder to require the like of you, whose authoritie we more doubt of: whereas if they had stood vpon their priui­ledge, and neuer troubled themselues with proouing that they deliuered, or leauing their doctrine in writing, we should easily haue perswaded our selues to rest vpon mens authoritie, and not to looke for any proofe by scripture. But giue me leaue a little to consider of this course of yours. The question is, whe­ther the true Church be with you or with vs. You tell vs we shall know that, by seeing whether you or we haue the markes of the true Church: we accept of this triall. How shall we informe our selues what these markes are? Tush (say you) for that matter you must be ruled by the Councels. Why? but the Councels, as you would make vs beleeue, were wholly for you, and consisted of Popish Bishops: what reason haue we then to stand to their iudgment, in a controuersie betwixt you & vs? You will answer that we say, they were not Popish. We say so indeed, and haue prooued it in diuers points, as occasion hath bene offered. But we adde further, that these Councels might erre, you denie it. How will you perswade vs the contrarie? When all is done, we must come to triall by the Scriptures, or else take your word for it. And is it for all this, precisenesse to require proofe out of the Scriptures, of those marks you would prooue your Church by? I haue shewed before, that there is no means to know certainly there is any Church of Christ, or any Christ, but by the Scrip­tures. [Page 261] Are not the Scriptures then the fittest meanes to teach vs by what marks this Church may be knowne? The Councels tell vs, what they are. Who told them? the holy Ghost. Let it be so. But how did he tell them? by some reuelation, vtterly beside the Scriptures, or by truth in the Scriptures? If the former; we aske how we may be so perswaded? The church tels you so. Yet again the church? How knows the church that they had such reuelatiō? What help now, but about again to the scriptures? Thinke not much then, if in this questiō cōcerning the marks of the church, we desire to be taught by the Scriptures what those markes are; especially since (as you professe) you may do it so easily: but I am afraid you will do it with more ease then truth.

A. D. §. 3.

The true Church is signified to be one, by those words of the Canticles, Vna est columba mea; if we will beleeue the exposition The first mark Vna prooued out of Scrip­ture. Cant 6. Cypr. l. de vnit. Ecclisiae. August. l. 6. in Ioan. Iob. c. 10. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 10. Ioh. 17. of Saint Cyprian and S. Austin. Also we may gather the same out of those words of our Sauiour, in which he calleth his Church vnum ouile, one sheepfold. Also by those places of S. Paul, where he termeth the Church vnum corpus, one bodie. Moreouer, Christ our Sauiour praying for his Church, did specially intreate, and with­out doubt obtained, vt omnes vnum sint, that all the members thereof should be one thing, to wit, that at the least they should all professe one and the same faith, all partake of one and the same bap­tisme, and other sacraments, all liue vnder one and the same Lord, in due subordination and subiection to that vniforme and orderly go­uernment of lawful pastors, ordained and appointed in the Church by him. The true Church of Christ therefore is one.

Contrary, the conuenticles of hereticks are destitute of this marke of vnitie, according as Tertullian affirmeth, saying, Denique peni­tus inspectae haereses omnes, in multis deprehenduntur cum au­ctoribus Lib. de Praescr. suis dissentientes: Finally all heresies, if they be wel looked into, are found to differ in many things from their first founders. And the reason of this disagreement among heretickes, the same Tertul­lian assigneth very well in the same place, saying, Variant inter se Ibidem. haeretici, dum vnusquisque pro suo arbitrio modulatur quod ac­cepit, quemadmodum ea pro arbitrio composuit ille qui tra­didit. Heretickes do differ (in points of doctrine) among themselues, while as euery one taketh vpon him to fashion the faith which he re­ceiued, [Page 262] according to his owne liking or fancie: like as he that first de­liuered it vnto them, did inuent it according to his owne will and pleasure.

A. W.

We are now come to the very point, for proofe of your ma­ior, that they onely who are one, holy, Catholick, Apostolick Church, are they to whom the markes, by which the true Church is to be knowne, belong.

To make this proofe good, you dispute in this manner.

  • If One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke, be good marks to know the true Church by, then they onely who are One, Holy, Ca­tholicke, Apostolicke Church, are they to whom the markes by which the true Church may be knowne, belong.
  • But those foure properties, One, Holy, Catholick, Apostolick, are good markes by which the true Church may be knowne.
  • Therefore they onely who are One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke Church, are they to whom the markes, by which the true Church may be knowne, belong.

The consequence of your maior is but weake. For these To the pro­position. foure properties may be good markes to know the true church by: that wheresouer we see them, we may be sure there is a true church: and yet there may also be some true church, where they are not. I dispute not, whether the true Church may be with­out these; but denie, that because these, where they are, are good markes, therefore there is no true Church where these are wan­ting. This proposition, though your proofe be lame without it, you wholy omit, and so propound vs a reason which we need not yeeld to, though you were able to proue the minor neuer so sufficiently.

Your minor, as before I answered, is true, if we rightly vnder­stand To the As­sumption. the meaning of those seuerall properties. But the proofe you bring is scarce warrantable.

  • All properties of the Church, belonging onely thereto, and appa­rent
    This syllo­gisme is ga­thered out of the conclusiō of this Chapt. sect. 7.
    to be seene where they are, are good markes to know the Church by.
  • But these foure properties are such.
  • Therefore these foure are good markes to know the Church by.

There is a third thing omitted by you, necessarily required To the pro­position. [Page 263] to make any propertie a good marke, viz. that it be such as al­wayes agrees to the Church. For otherwise it can serue, as I an­swered to your former proposition, but only for the halfe dutie of a marke, because at some times I may see the Church, and not know it for all this marke. If I find these properties, I may as­sure my selfe that I haue found the true Church, because these neuer are but in the true Church; yet if the true Church may at any time be without these, as it may, for ought contained in your maior, then missing my marke, I shal be vnable to discerne of the true Church.

This minor, for the first part of it, is true, in such sense as I To the as­sumption. granted the former: these properties rightly vnderstood, belong onely to the true Church. If the latter part also be true, that they are apparent to be seene, doubtlesse truth of doctrine, which ma­keth the Church one, must needs be a certaine marke of the true Church, though you denie it that prerogatiue. Let vs now see how you proue the parts of your minor, with this prouiso, that though you do proue them, yet you are little the nearer, because diuers former propositions, vpon which this depends, remaine still vnproued by you.

  • It is a propertie belonging only to the true Church to professe one
    Proofe of the Assumption. Part. 1.
    and the same faith, &c.
  • But to be one, is to professe one and the same faith, &c.
  • Therefore to be one, is a propertie belonging onely to the true Church.

I denie your maior: professing one and the same faith, is not To the pro­position. proper onely to the Church; but common to it, with some false Churches which haue for a long time continued in one and the same heresie, as the Mahometans aboue a thousand yeares, the Arians aboue 1200. Secondly, if this marke be proper to the Church onely, then as long as heretickes continue in one and the same heresie, I may conclude that they are a true Church. But to make your proposition true, you must say instead of one and the same faith, one and the same true faith, which is the marke we set vp, to know the true Church by: and the reason why the Church is said to be one. There are (saith Theodoret. ad Psal. 47. Theodoret) infinite and innumerable Churches in the Isles and in the Continent: but ge­nerally [Page 264] all of them are made one by their agreement in true doctrine. The Church is said to be one (saith Ferus ad Ioa. 10. 16. Ferus) because of the vnitie of faith, hope and charitie.

Your minor also is false, vnlesse you adde true, to professe one and the same true faith: as the place wherō you ground your large To the As­sumption. exposition, might haue taught you. For our Sauiour did not pray that his Church might professe one and the same faith at aduen­ture, as if he had not cared what it professed, so it alwayes pro­fessed the same faith; but that it might alwayes professe the true faith, which he deliuered to his Apostles, and taught by his spirit.

But indeed Iohn. 17. 20. that prayer of our Sauiour was not made for any companie of outward professors, but onely for those, and par­ticularly for euery one of them that attaine to true faith in him. As for the prophane and reprobate, what is it lesse then blasphemie, to say that our Sauiour prayed that they might be one with him and his Father, as they are one? especially since in the same chapter hee denieth that he prayeth for the world; vers. 9. vers. 20. and namely restraineth his prayer to them who by the ministery of the word beleeue in him, that is, rest wholy and onely vpon him, not onely make profession of beleeuing the Gospell, which is enough without any inward grace, to make any man a member of your true Church. Thus haue I spoken of this marke, as you should haue propounded your argumēt, according to the course of your disputation. Now that I may leaue nothing of any mo­ment vnanswered, I will speake to it as it is set downe by your selfe. The matter you assay to proue, is, that the Church is signified to be one, or is one. To proue this, you alledge foure seuerall pla­ces of Scripture. The first is this, Cantic. 6. 8. My Doue is one. Where by Doue, you vnderstand the Church: by being one, professing one faith, &c. To this I answer, first, that it is no good course of dis­puting, to proue a matter in controuersie by a place that is fi­guratiue and allegoricall: because such texts (as Thom. in Bo­et. q. 2. Thomas saith) affoord no certaine arguments: yea (as August. epist. 48 ad Vincen. Austin saith) it is impuden­cie for a man to expound any allegory to his purpose, vnlesse he haue manifest testimonies for the clearing of that which is doubtfull. Se­condly, this interpretation of yours, is directly contrarie [Page 265] to Cardinall Bellar. de ec­cles. milit. lib. 3 cap. 7. Bellarmine, and by him refuted, who makes this Doue to be the soule of a Christian in the state of perfectiō, and de­liuers it as a certaine ground, that those things in the Canticles which are spoken of the Spouse, are not necessary to be vnderstood of the Church, but may also be expounded Psellus apud Theod. in Cant. of the Ʋirgin Marie, or of euery perfect soule. Thirdly, if we take it to be spoken of the Church, as it is generally, and (as I am perswaded) truly ex­pounded; yet doth it not signifie any outward companie, but the true Church of Christ, the companie of the elect, called to the knowledge and profession of the Gospell: euery one of which is in his place and measure, that perfect soule whom the spouse of Christ so commendeth. Know (saith Origen. in Cant. hom. 1. Origen) that the Bride­groome is Christ, the Bride the Church, without spot or wrinkle; of which it is written, that Ephos. 5. 27. he might make it glorious, &c. And Hieron. pro­oem. in Cantic. Ie­rome, who translated that commentary of Origen, saith, that the church spoken of in the Canticles, cleaueth and is ioyned to Christ aboue the heauens, as being made one spirit with him. So doth Epiph. haer. 33 E­piphanius vnderstand the place, affirming that the Church is perfect, because she hath receiued from God grace and knowledge of our Sauiour Christ by the holy Ghost. Bernard. in Cant. ser. 98. Bernard, no enemy to your Church, saith in plaine termes, that the spouse is the Church of the elect: which is said to be one: because all together are the spouse of Iesus Christ, one chast virgin. Ioan. 10. 16. The sheepfold our Sauiour speaketh of, is the same spouse, in respect of the spirituall fee­ding, which the sheepe haue in this life from him: or to speake more directly, it seemes to be that state of grace, into which the shepheard Christ leadeth his sheepe, that they may be folded vp, and safe frō all spirituall dangers, which might destroy them. Once, that he meanes not an outward profession, common to sheepe with goates, it may appeare by the whole course of the Chapter before, wherein all the sheep of that fold, are not only said to be Christs sheepe, but also to heare his voyce, yea so to heare it, that they will not hearken to a stranger. His sheepe heare vers. 4. 5. 8. his voyce (saith August. in Ioan. tract. 45. Austin) and he cals them by name: for he hath their names writen in the booke of life. Hereupon saith 2. Tim. 2. 19. the Apostle, The Lord knoweth who are his. This sheepfold then is that estate into which Christ the true Shepheard bringeth his elect, by the [Page 266] profession of his truth in the visible Church. If any man had ra­ther apply this text to the outward estate of the Churches, I will not striue with him, so that withall he remember, first that in these outward Churches the elect onely are the sheepe, one with Christ their shepheard, as members of his mystical bodie. Secondly, that this one sheepfold is not to be considered in re­gard of the Churches being one in profession, but in respect of the Gentiles admitted to haue place in Christs mysticall body, as well as the Iewes, all difference betwixt people and people being taken away. In Rom. 12. 5. 1. Cor. 10. 17. the next two places the church is cōpared to a bodie (note that the comparison is chiefly of particular Churches, in respect of the seuerall members thereof) because of the mutuall coniunction and helpe which each part hath with other, and is to affoord to other. So doth Lomb. Gloss. interlin. Lyra, ad Rom. 10. & Catharin. ibi. Lombard truly expound it, so you Glosse, so Lyra. If we stretch it farther, the chiefe cause why the church is one bodie, is assigned by Cardinal Caietan. ibi. Caietan to be the spirit of Christ. For Christ (saith he) is as the soule, giuing life, by the holy Ghost, to his whole mysticall bodie. But the holy Ghost quickens onely the elect, not the reprobate too. 1. Cor. 10. 17. In the latter of the two places, Caietan. vbi supra. the same Cardinall expounds that being one, in respect of charitie: and Catharin. vbi supra. Catharin a learned Popish Bishop, vnderstands this bodie to be the holy Church consisting of them that are predestinate and called, and iustified, and glorified, holy and faithfull. Of the last place I spake sufficiently Ioan. 17. 20. before. Agreement in the truth, is the marke we looke at.

This you adde to proue, that to professe one and the same faith, that is, to be one, is proper to the true church. Your proofe is, that Tertul de praescr. cap. 42. Tertulliā saith, that all heresies, if they be wel looked into, are found to differ in many things from their first founders. Tertullian might truly say so, of al heresies then known; & yet there may haue bin some since his time, perhaps that haue kept alwayes the same errors, without any change, worth the speaking of. But (as I noted before) since all heresies for a time hold their first errors, continuance in the same profession, can be no good marke of the true church, vnles you can set downe a certaine number of yeares, during which they must continue in one and the same faith, or else be held for hereticks because of their changing.

[Page 267] Now in conclusion of this first marke, I must obserue a few points for the Readers instruction. First I desire it may be no­ted, that whereas vnitie is made a principal marke by your wri­ters; they vnderstand as well vnitie of loue as of faith: you re­quire but the one of them, and so giue vs but halfe a marke. Se­condly, let it be obserued, that this marke is either no marke at all, or all one with ours; so that whereas you trouble vs with more then this, you make it much harder then we do, to find out the true Church. In the third place it would be considered what you meane by one and the same faith: I presse you with your owne argument, Chap. 14. Continuing in one and the same faith, in regard of some points only, is no good marke, because heretickes continue in some points of truth. Continuing in all points can be no good mark: for it is not only hard, but vnpossible for a simple vnlear­ned man to be assured that any church hath alwayes continued in profession of one and the same faith, in euery point: yea this is infinitely harder, then to discerne of all truth, because the one is to be learned out of the Scriptures: the other cannot be known, but by searching the records of the church from time to time. Of the one there is certaine knowledge to be had, because the Scriptures are the word of God: of the other, the best assu­rance we can haue, is but the testimonie of men, that might erre by ignorance or partialitie. Whatsoeuer doubts or difficulties you can imagine concerning the false translation or misunder­standing of the Scriptures, the same wil accompanie all the wri­tings of men, touching the doctrine of the Church in all ages. Then let any reasonable man iudge, whether you or we shew them a better marke to know the true Church by.

A. D. §. 4.

The true Church is also proued to be holy, by that of S. Paul: The second mark, sancta. 1. Cor. 3. Templum Dei sanctum est, quod estis vos: The temple of God is holy, which temple you are. By which place notwithstanding S. Paul did not meane to signifie, that euery one of this companie was holy. For a little after in the same Epistle, he saith to the same companie: Omnino auditur inter vos fornicatio, & talis fornicatio, qualis 1. Cor. 5. nec inter gentes: There is plainly heard fornication among you, and such fornication, as the like is not among the heathen. He doth not therefore (I say) meane that euery one of the Church is holy, but [Page 268] that the whole companie is to be termed holy, because the profession thereof doth of it selfe wholy tend to holinesse: the doctrine being such as withdraweth from all vice, and instructeth and moueth men to vertue: the Sacraments also do not onely signifie, but in the vertue which they haue from Christ his passion, they also worke in vs (as in­strumentall causes) true and inward sanctitie. Wherefore although euery one that is in the Church, be not holy, yet no doubt, alwayes some are: the which their holinesse, it pleaseth Almightie God to te­stifie and make knowne sometime by miracle; and ordinarily he vseth to make it apparent enough by the light of their vertuous actions, which at all times in many members of the true Church, do so shine before men, that by it men are moued to glorifie God, and sometimes to imitate in their owne life that, which in others they admire. And whatsoeuer member of the Church faileth from this holinesse of life, it is euident that the fault is onely in himself, who liueth not accor­ding to the prescript of his professiō, nor vseth in due sort those means which it hath of the holy Sacraments, which (as I said before) are effectuall instruments of sanctification.

Contrariwise, no sect of hereticks is truly holy; neither was there euer any person that did inuent, or obstinatly adhere vnto any sect of heresie, which had in him true sanctitie. And no maruel, because the very profession and doctrine it selfe of euery heresie, is opposite to the very rootes of true sanctitie; the which rootes be true Christian faith and humilitie. For how can he be truly holy and iust, who being pos­sessed with the spirit of heresie, must needs be depriued of true faith, without which the iust man cannot liue? according to that saying of S. Paul: Iustus ex fide viuit. Or how can he be holy, that doth not only Hebr. 10. Mat. 18. 1. Pet. 2. not humble himselfe like a little one, submitting himselfe to euery humane creature, for Gods sake: but doth proudly oppose himselfe against the vniuersall Church it selfe, whom God hath willed and commanded vs to heare, no otherwise then himselfe? For wanting Luk. 10. this humilitie, and consequently the grace of God, which is denied to the proud, and giuen to the humble, there is no doubt but that how­soeuer Jam. 4. such a man seemeth in his outward behauiour, he can haue no true sanctitie within him: the which true sanctitie failing inwardly, it is hard for him to beare himselfe so, but that sometime or other, by one occasion or other, he shall euen outwardly manifest this his [Page 269] inward want; as in these our daies, heretickes commonly do, in such apparent manner, that it is no hard matter to discerne, that they be not (as some of them would haue the Church defined) a compa­nie of Saints.

A. W.

Hauing shewed before, that this discourse proceedeth not orderly, as it should, to the proofe of that which is propounded by you, and denied by vs; I will not stand to lay out the fault, in euery particular, but content my selfe with hauing done it once for all. It is your purpose in this place to prooue that the Church is holy. A labour that might well haue bene spared: for who euer denied it, or doubted of it? But let me againe put you in minde, that when you haue prooued the Church to be holy, you haue got nothing: because euerie qualitie of the Church is not by and by a marke▪ whereby it may be knowne. It may be proper to the Church, so that it can neuer be found but in the Church, and yet not be alwaies there to be found. It may also be true alwaies, and yet not be alwaies visible. But let vs see your proofe.

  • The Temple of God is holy.
  • The Church is the Temple of God.
  • Therefore the Church is holy.

The holinesse you meane, as you expound your selfe, is true and inward sanctitie, which you say is wrought by the Sacra­ments. And this indeed is the holinesse, which onely can make a man a Christian. For ( Thomas opus. 6. in expos. symboli. sect. Sanctam Ec­clesiam. Thomas truly saith) He that is not annointed with the grace of the holy Ghost, is not a Christian. Here­upon, before I answer to your Syllogisme, I will make it mani­fest, by your owne argument, that holinesse is no good marke to know the Church by.

  • Euerie good marke of the Church must be easier to be knowne, then the Church it selfe.
  • True inward sanctity is not easier to be known, thē the Ch. it selfe.
  • Therefore true inward sanctitie is no good marke of the Church.

The Maior is yours, in plaine words generally deliuered: Chap. 13. The second thing required in a good marke is, that it be more ap­parent, and easie to be knowne, then the thing is. The Minor is prooued by these words of yours in the same place. The secret [Page 270] disposition of a mans heart is harder to be knowne, then the man himselfe: how then shall true inward sanctitie be easier to dis­cerne, then the men in whom it is?

If by Temple you vnderstand the whole company, as you plainly To the pro­position. s1. Cor. 3. 17. auouch, and by holinesse true inward sanctity, I denie your Maior. Because the whole companie makes not one person or subsi­stence, wherein onely there is place for such habits or qualities. True inward holinesse is a qualitie no where resident, but in some speciall substance, and therefore if the whole companie of the Church, haue not a generall soule as Auerrois dreamed of the world, it is vnpossible it should haue true inward ho­linesse. It should seeme also you saw as much your selfe, and therefore giue vs an other exposition of the place, that the whole companie is to be termed holy. In this sense you must conclude thus.

  • The Temple of God is to be termed holy.
  • The Church is the Temple of God.
  • Therefore the Church is to be termed holy.

But this prooueth not, that the Church is holy. Do you thinke, that the Nicene Councell, when it deliuered it as an ar­ticle of faith, that we are to beleeue One holy Church, meant no­thing, but that the Church was to be termed holy? Yes: they meant to teach vs, that the true Church is truly holy, being purged from the guilt of sinne, by the sacrifice of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, and indued with true habituall righteousnesse by the spirit of sanctification. It is a poore marke to know the Church by, to tell vs, it is a companie that is to be termed ho­ly. What then is the Apostles meaning, when he saith the Tem­ple of God is holy?

Chrysost. ad 1. Cor. homil. 9. & ibi Ambros. &. Theophyl. Many interpreters take this whole passage of the Apostle, frō the beginning of the 16. verse, to be a reproofe particularly of the incestuous person, and generally of all vncleane liuers: and they by Temple vnderstand seuerall Christians, sanctified by the Spirit of God, who dwelleth in them, and maketh them holy. Thus do Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 4 Cyrill, Irenae. lib. 5. cap. 6. Irenaeus, and Cypr. testim. ad Quirin. lib. 3. sect 27. Cyprian apply the place. Lombard. Thom. Lyra. Caietan. Catha­rin. ad hunc locum. Other, whose iudgement in this text I rather follow, thinke that the Apostle in these verses continueth his former [Page 271] discourse, concerning the ministerie of the word, diuersly vsed by diuers teachers: some building vpon the foundation gold, siluer, and pretious stones; other laying on it timber, hay, or stubble. A third kind destroying the foundation by false doc­trine, of whom the Apostle here speaketh, threatning them de­struction, because they destroy the Temple of God. The rea­son whereof Catharin. ibi. one of them giues in these words, The Temple of God is holy. To defile that which is holy (saith Catharin) de­serueth destruction euen among the heathen. For if any man hurt the walles of the Citie, which the heathen accounted holy, he was to die for it. Now if this law were executed for the prophaning of walles, and temples made with hands, how much more ought the destroying of Christians, who by faith and loue haue receiued the Lord Iesus, be so seuerely punished? Euen so much more (saith Lyra. ibi. Lyra) as spirituall things are to be preferred before corporall. By the Temple of God then, the Apostle meaneth the congre­gations or Churches of professed Christians, such as that of Corinth was. These (he saith) are holy: that is, either consecra­ted to the worship of God, which is the professed end of Chri­stian assemblies: or truly holy, in regard that they make profes­sion, and so in charitie are to be taken (but where the contra­ry euidently appeareth) of being iustified and sanctified by the death and resurrection of Iesus Christ. You giue two other reasons of their being termed holy; the one that the profession of religion, of itselfe, wholy tendeth to holinesse. How can this be a good mark to know the true Church by, when euery company wil say, their doctrine hath the same end, and he that will beleeue it of any company, must know and be able to iudge of euery point they maintaine? Your se­cond is, that the Sacraments worke in vs (as instrumentall cau­ses) true and inward sanctitie. I will not enter into the que­stion about the Sacraments, what or how they worke: it is no­thing to the purpose. But to the point: what hereticall Church will not, or may not say the like? whether truly or falsely it skils not: because that will aske a new examination, such as euerie one that must know the Church, cannot make. Therefore this marke of holinesse is not a good marke, to know the true [Page 272] Church by, being inward and claimed by all companies of Christians.

Not onely some, but all the members of the true Church of Christ, are inwardly and outwardly holy, being purged by his bloud and spirit. And this their holinesse is so manifest ordi­narily, that there need none of your counterfeit miracles for the countenancing thereof: especially since God neuer tooke that course in his Church, to approoue any mans holinesse, by the gift of miracles, the vse whereof is to confirme doctrine, when need requireth: neither can any man from miracles con­clude, that he which worketh them, is inwardly truly sanctified. Mat. 10. 8. Was not Iudas one of them, to whom power was giuen euen ouer the diuels? Yet was he Ioan. 12. 6. a thiefe, Luc. 22. 48. a traitor, and Ioan. 6. 70. a diuell. Many wil say vnto me in that day (saith Mat. 7. 22. 23 our Sauiour) Lord, haue we not by thy name prophecied, and by thy name cast out diuels, and by thy name done many great workes? And then will I professe to them, I neuer knew you, depart from me, ye that worke iniquitie.

But it is strange that you should make true inward sanctitie, the marke of the true Church, and so confidently affirme, that no doubt in the Church there are alwaies some holy: when as you maintaine, that Bellar. de Eccles. mil. lib. 3. cap. 10. it is enough to make a man a true mem­ber of the true Church, that he professe outwardly, though he haue no one vertue within him at all. If all the members of the Church may be void of holinesse, how is holinesse a good marke of the Church? Certainly it is (at the most) but acciden­tall, and such as the Church may haue, or lacke, without be­ing, or ceasing to be a Church thereby. He is well holpe vp no doubt, that must learne how to know the true Church, of such teachers.

You haue prooued after your fashion, that the Church is ho­ly; now you will prooue, that no companie, but the Church is holy.

  • No sect of heretickes is truly holy.
  • All companies of Christians (besides that of the true Church) are sects of hereticks.
  • Therefore no companie of Christians (besides that of the true Church) is truly holy.

[Page 273] If by hereticks you vnderstand onely those, that erre in some To the pro­position. fundamentall points of religion: I grant your Maior, and Mi­nor. As for the conclusion, I am resolued of the truth thereof, without any proofe from you. But if you acount all hereticks, who in the error of their iudgement, dissent from other Chur­ches of Christ, in matters not fundamentall, though true, I de­nie your said Maior: and affirme, that diuers Churches may differ in opinion one from another, and continue in that diffe­rence, & maintaine it confidently, so they do it not against their knowledge and conscience; and yet all of them be true Chur­ches of Christ, and truly holy. For as long as the opinions a man holds, do not cut him off, from being a true member of the mysticall bodie of Iesus Christ, they make him not cease to be a true Christian, truly iustified and sanctified. But he that be­leeueth truly in Iesus Christ, and holds no fundamentall error, continues by faith a member of our Sauiours mysticall bodie. For as the iust liues by faith, so wheresoeuer there is true faith, there is life also: but, there is no life out of the bodie of Christ, because the spirit of Christ is not to be had, but in his bodie. And therefore he that by faith remaineth a member of Christs bodie, is a true Christian, truly iustified and sanctified, though not perfectly holy.

Here we haue the proofe of your Maior, such as it is.

  • If the doctrine it selfe of euerie heresie be opposite to true Chri­stian
    Proofe of the proposition.
    faith, and humilitie, the rootes of true sanctitie; then no sect of heresies is truly holy.
  • But the doctrine it selfe of euerie heresie is opposite to true Chri­stian faith and humilitie, the roots of true sanctitie.
  • Therefore no sect of hereticks is truly holy.

If by true Christian faith, you meane any particular truth (as To the pro­position. a Christian ought to beleeue euerie truth of God, though not so, as that ignorance, or misbeleeuing of euerie point can make him cease to be a true Christian) I denie the consequence of your Maior.

I denie your Minor: Not euerie heresie, but that which is against the foundation onely, is opposite to true Christian faith & humility, To the As­sumption. vnderstanding by Christian faith, such a faith as is necessarily [Page 274] required, that a man may be a true Christian, by which onely he liues: not by beleeuing euerie truth, though that be requi­red of him, as a dutie of sanctification. And so your proofe also is answered. A man may haue that faith, by which a Chri­stian must liue, though he be ignorant, or misinstructed in di­uers points of doctrine.

I haue seuered this part concerning humilitie from the for­mer, because it seemeth you tooke it to be of more impor­tance, and therefore labour more in the proofe of it.

  • He that doth not humble himselfe to euerie humane creature for Gods sake, but proudly opposeth himselfe against the vni­uersall Church, cannot be holy.
  • But no hereticke doth so humble himselfe, and euerie hereticke so oppose.
  • Therefore no hereticke can be holy.

I shewed before, that there is no such vniuersall Church, as you often name, but neuer prooue: and therefore this argument To the pro­position. grounded vpon opposing against that which is not, in regard of such a commaundement, as God neuer gaue, is idle and vaine. More particularly I answer concerning your Maior: that although pride be alwaies a sinne, yet it may sometimes be found in in a man truly sanctified, & that in opposition against men in a matter of doctrine. But your proposition in regard of the former part of it, as you vnderstand it, is vtterly false. For it is (no way) against holinesse, for a man not to beleeue euery doctrine that men will propound. Gal. 18. If I or an Angell from Heauen preach any otherwise to you, then we haue preached, let him be accursed. 1. Ioan. 4. 1. Trie the spirits, whether they be of God or no. As for that place of the Apostle which you alledge, your owne interpreters expound it, not of the Church, but of the ciuill Ma­gistrate. He cals the office of a King, a humane creature (saith Caietan. ad 1. Pet. 2. 13. 14 Caietan) because a King is created by the voices, or consent of men: and he addeth euery, that he might take away all distincti­on betwixt Heathen and Christian kings, in respect of obedience to them. Rhem. Test. ad 1. Pet. 2. 13. 14. The Rhemists are yet more against you. So he calleth the temporall magistrate (say they) elected by the people, or holding their soueraigntie by birth and carnall propagation, ordained for the [Page 275] Worldly wealth, power, and prosperitie of the subiect, to put a diffe­rence (directly against your interpretation) betwixt the humane superioritie, and the spirituall Rulers, and regiment, guiding and gouerning the people to a higher end. But what need we any o­ther expositor, since 1. Pet. 2. 13 14. the Apostle in the next words, directeth vs how to vnderstand it? Whether it be vnto the King, as vnto the superiour, or vnto gouernours, as vnto them that are sent of him, Rom. 13. 3. 4. for the punishment of euill doers, and for the praise of them that do well. But let vs take it as generally as you will, if it be against humilitie, not to be subiect to the Church, it is also against it, not to be subiect to the King. Yet I hope no man is so mad, as to say, that he refuseth to be subiect to him, that doth not ab­solutely obey him in all things. How then can this place proue, that it is against true Christian humilitie, not to beleeue the Church, whatsoeuer she propound to be beleeued?

None but hereticks do so humble themselues; and many To the as­sumption. dissenting from their brethren in diuers opinions, neither de­serue to be counted hereticks, though they cannot be reclai­med from their errors, nor to be held for schismaticks, as long Thomas. 2. 2. q. 39. art. 1. as they breake not off communion with thē, which yet may be done by ignorance, without pride.

If many heathen men haue so demeaned themselues, as that they could hardly, or not at all be charged with any grosse out­ward fault, doubtlesse it is possible for hereticks to do the like. At the least, what a gay marke of the Church is this holinesse, which (for a long time) may be, for ought men can discerne, in an hereticke: who, all that while, may be taken for a true Christian? Besides, if truth of religion be to be iudged of by holinesse of conuersation, as a certaine marke (for that within cannot otherwise be seene) why may not a man change his conceit of anie religion, when he seeth any notable profes­sor thereof fall into any grieuous sinne, as 2. Sam. 12. 9. Dauid, and Mat. 26. 70. Pe­ter did?

As for vs, whom you terme hereticks at your pleasure, if our worst Protestants be not farre past in villanie by your Papists, for treasons, murthers, and generally all kinde of vncleannesse; I will confesse, that you liue better then the grounds of your [Page 276] religion require, and we worse then ours. But I leaue this point till I come to examine your Assumption, concerning the holi­nesse of your Church of Rome.

A. D. §. 5.

The true Church is prooued also to be Catholicke, that is to The third marke. Catholica. Isay. cap. 59. say, vniuersall; first, in time, by most plaine prophecies and promises of the Scripture, as I haue alreadie shewed in the eleuenth chap­ter; vnto which here I will onely adde those words of Isaias: Hoc foedus meum cum eis dicit Dominus: Spiritus meus qui est in te, & verba, quae posui in ore tuo; non recedent de ore tuo, & de ore seminis tui, & de ore seminis seminis tui, dicit Dominus amodò vsque in sempiternum: This is my couenant with them, saith our Lord: my Spirit which is in thee, and my words which I haue put in thy mouth, shall not depart from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy seed, and from the mouth of the seed of thy seed, saith our Lord, from henceforth for euer.

It may also be easily prooued to be vniuersall in respect of place, by these plaine testimonies of holy Scripture. Conuertentur ad Dominum vniuersi fines terrae, all the bounds of the earth shall be Psalm. 21. Psalm. 71. conuerted to our Lord. Dominabitur à mari vs (que) ad mare, & à flu­mine vs (que) ad terminos orbis terrarum. He (to wit Christ) shall rule and haue dominion from sea to sea, and from the flood, vntil the furthermost limits of the earth. Omnes gentes seruient ei. All na­tions shall serue him. Vpon all which places and some other, see Saint Ibidem. Austin in his exposition of the Psalmes; and among other things, which he speaketh to the purpose, note his interpretation of those words à flumine vsque ad terminos orbis terrarū. Which words (saith he) do signifie, that the dominion of Christ began à flumine Iordano, from the floud of lordan, where he, being baptised, was made manifest, by the descending of the holy Ghost, & the sound of his Fathers voice: from whence he began to chuse his Disciples: & from Aug. in Psa. 71 hence (saith he) Doctrina eius incipiens dilatatur vs (que) ad termi­nos orbis terrae, cū praedicatur Euāgeliū regni in vniuerso orbe, in testimoniū omnibus gentibus, & tunc veniet finis. His doctrine beginning is dilated or spread abroad, vnto the furthest parts of the earth, when the Gospell of the kingdome is preached ouer the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, after which done, the end (of the world) shall come. See also the same S. Austin in his booke de vnitate [Page 277] Ecclesiae, especially in the ninth & tenth chapters, where he eiteth & vrgeth that place of S. Luke, where our Sauiour saith, Necesse est Luc. 24. impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege, Prophetis & Psalmis de me, &c. quoniā sic scriptum est, & sic oportebat Christum pati & resurgere à mortuis, & praedicari in nomine eius poenitentiā & remissionem peccatorū in omnes gentes, incipientibus ab Iero­solyma: It is needfull that all things should be fulfilled which are written of me in the Law, the Prophets and Psalmes, &c. for so it is writtē, and so it was needfull that Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day, and that penance and remission of sinnes should be preached in his name throughout all nations, beginning frō Ierusalem. By which place, and diuers others, he sheweth plainly, that the true Church of Christ cannot be contained in a corner of the world, but must be vniuersall, that is, diffused and spread throughout the whole world: as the same S. Austin, beside his other proofes, ga­thered out of the very name Catholica, the which name (saith he) was imposed on the Church by our forefathers, vt ex ipso nomine Aug. l de vnit. Ecclesie. ostenderent quia per totum est, secundum totum enim Catho­lon Graecè dicitur: that by the very name they might shew that the Church is throughout the whole world. For (saith he) the word Ca­tholon in Greeke (wherupon Catholik is deriued) signifieth a thing which is generall or agreeing to the while.

But we must note here, that when we say the true Church is Ca­tholick or diffused throughout the whole world, it is meant, that at least by succession of time it hath bene, or shall be dilated more and more in euery nation, till it haue gone throughout the whole world. Moreouer it is termed Catholicke, not onely because it shal be spred ouer the whole world in processe of time, but also because euen in e­uery age it hath bin, and shall be alwayes in very many nations: and indeed in euery natiō, where any Christiā religiō is; which is in a sort to be spread ouer the whole world. This doth S. Austin in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae, most diligently proue out of the Scriptures themselues. The effect of his argument is this: The Church must be such as it is described in Scripture. But in Scripture it is described to begin at Ierusalem, and to proceed into all Iewrie, and to go for­ward Act. 1. into Samaria: and to stretch it selfe further and further, vs­que ad vltimum terrae, euen vnto the vttermost of the earth. [Page 278] And (saith he) the seed of the Gospell once sowne in the field of the world, fructificat & crescit, doth (not vniuersally or for the most part Coloss. 1. perish, but) fructifie and grow or increase, in omni mundo, in the whole world, and doth continue to grow or increase, vsque ad messē, vntill the haruest of the consummation of the world, as our Sauiour Math. 13. signifieth: the which consummation will be when this seed is come to the full growth: praedicabitur Euangelium in vniuerso mundo, Math. 24. in testimonium omnibus gentibus, (saith our Sauiour) & tune veniet consummatio, the Gospell shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimonie to all nations, and then the consummation shal come. This is S. Austins discourse, by which he proueth that the true Church of Christ is not contained in a corner of the world, but must be dilated and spread in a sort ouer the whole world.

On the contrary side, the congregation of hereticks is not Catho­licke, neither in time nor place. And first for time, it is euident, be­cause true doctrine was first preached and beleeued, as the good seed was first sowne in the field, and afterward the cockle, that is false do­ctrine, was ouer sowed. Saint Paul did for three yeares space teach the Ephesians the true doctrine of faith, and had conuersed among them like a lambe, seruiens Domino cum omni humilitate, ser­uing our Lord with all humilitie: but after his departure, he said, Act. 20. he knew that rauenous wolues would enter in among them, not spa­ring the flocke; and that euen out of their owne company, there would arise viriloquentes peruersa, vt abducant discipulos post se, men speaking peruerse things, that they may leade away disciples after Ibidem. themselues. And as this happened at Ephesus, so doubtlesse in all other places, where there hath bin any alteration of Christian do­ctrine; first the true faith was planted by some Apostle or Apostolicke man, and afterward the contrary was brought in by some speaking peruerse things, thereby leading away disciples after themselues. So that it is certaine, that no heresie is so auncient as the true faith: nei­ther is any one of them of so long continuance for the time to come, as S. Paul signified, when hauing described heretickes of the latter dayes, he addeth, sed vltra non proficient, insipientia enim eorū manifesta erit omnibus: but they shall prosper no further, for their 2. Tim. 3. folly shall be manifest to all. The same doth S. Austin aptly expresse, expounding those words of the Psalme: Ad nihilum deuenient tan­quam Aug. in psal. 57 [Page 279] aqua decurrens. Non vos terreant fratres (saith he) qui­dam fluuij qui dicuntur torrentes; hyemalibus aquis implentur, nolite timere, post paululum transit, decurrit aqua, ad tempus perstrepit, mox cessabit, diu stare non possunt. Multae haereses, iam emortuae sunt, &c. My brethren, let not certaine floods called land-brookes terrifie you; they are filled with winter waters, feare them not, after a while the water doth passe and runne downe, for a time it maketh a noise, but it will cease by and by, those flouds can­not stand long. Many heresies are now already dead, &c. Now if we will haue respect of place, it is certaine that no heresie is by processe of time to spread it selfe absolutely ouer the whole world, as I haue pro­ued that the true Church shall do, and the reason hereof may be as­signed, because as S. Austin saith, diu stare non possunt, they can­not continue so long, as were needfull to get them so vniuersally spred ouer the whole world; especially considering that as S. Paul saith, when they haue continued a while, Insipientia earum manifesta fit 2. Tim. 3. omnibus, their foolishnesse is made manifest to all, and so no maruel, si vltra non proficiant, if they prosper not, nor make no further pro­gresse. Neither ordinarily in any one age is heresie so vniuersall in place as the true Catholick religiō, but for the most part it is cōtained in one or two countries, as it were in a corner of the world. So that of hereticks we may wel say, as S. Austin doth, that they are those which say, Ecce hic est Christus, ecce illic, Behold Christ is here, behold Aug. l. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. he is there, (that is to say, the true doctrine of Christ is onely truly preached in this countrey or that countrey) of which kind of people our Sauiour giueth vs warning, and biddeth vs, saying, nolite cre­dere, Mat. 24. beleeue them not. We may wel say also of these, as the same S. Austin doth, Quaecunque congregatio cuiuslibet haeresis in an­gulis August. l. de. Symb. cap. 10. sedet, concubina est, non matrona: Whatsoeuer congregation of what heresie soeuer sitteth in corners (that is to say, is but in few prouinces, and in the rest of the Christian world, either is not at al, or at the least is not manifestly knowne to be) is a concubine, not a ma­tron, to wit it is not the spouse of Christ, nor the lawfull mother of the children of God. Wherefore sith there is this difference betwixt heresie and true Christian religion, that as the same Saint Austin saith, Singulae haereses in multis gentibus vbi Ecclesia est, non inueniuntur: Ecclesia autem, quae vbique est, etiam vbi illae sunt, Aug. l. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. [Page 280] inuenitur: Heresies are not found in many nations where the church is: but the Church, which is euery where, is found in those nations where heresies are. This difference (I say) being betwixt heresie and the true religion, we need not doubt, but that to be Catholicke, or vniuersally receiued in the Christian world, especially at all times, is a note of the truth: And that therfore the companie which professeth the faith, which at all times, and in a sort, in all places, hath bin recei­ued of Christians, is vndoubtedly the true Church of Christ.

A. W.

What if the true Church be proued to be Catholicke, will it follow therupon, that therfore it is alwayes Catholick: so that a man cannot know which is the true Church, but by knowing which Church is Catholick? For such must euery good mark be, proper to, and al times present with that wherof it is a mark. But let vs see a little better, what Catholicknesse this is, which you deliuer for a marke of the Church.

If you meane by the name Catholicke, as if that were the true Church, which cals it selfe the Catholicke Church, what is more easie then for any false church to take vnto it selfe that name? Did not Theudas and Iudas professe themselues Act. 5. 36. 37. to be the Mes­siah? Hath not Mat. 24. 24. our Sauiour forewarned vs, that there should arise false Christs and false Prophets? Yea the Donatists, who shut vp the church in a corner of Africa, were not ashamed to call themselues the Catholicke Church. And (as Aug. epist. 48. ad Vincent. & contr. epist. fun­dam. cap. 4. Austin saith) All hereticks would be called Catholicks.

If you vrge the thing signified by the name: first, not one of your Papists among a thousand, vnderstands what this word Catholicke meanes; but onely that it is the name of euery one that holdeth of the Church of Rome. Secondly, if by Ca­tholick Church, you meane such a church as hath bin euer since the comming of our Sauiour Christ, and shall be at all times, and ouer all the world (as you expound your selfe:) how can it be a good marke of the true Church, when as it is an impossibi­litie, that euery man should be able to search and know, which church hath alwayes bin, which hath not: which hath bin euery where, which onely in some places? and much more vnpossible is it (if there be degrees of impossibilitie) that euery either lear­ned or vnlearned man shold certainly know, which church shal [Page 281] alwayes continue, till the end of the world. A man may finde in the Scriptures, that the true Church of Christ shal neuer faile: but which outward companie of men is this true Church, no man by this marke of future continuance can by any meanes dis­cerne. Wherupon I conclude, that your Catholicknesse is neither for the name, nor for the thing, any good marke of any true Church whatsoeuer.

That by Catholicknesse vniuersalitie of time should be signi­fied, you presume, but proue not: and yet I am perswaded, you are not able to alledge any one ancient author but late Papists, that by the Catholicke Church vnderstands a companie that hath bin alwayes since the beginning of the Christian Church, and shall alwayes continue till the second comming of our Sa­uiour Christ. I doubt not that the true Church spoken of in the Scripture, and the creed, hath so bin, and shall be: but I say that no man conceiues this propertie to be signified by the word Catholicke. The ground of my opinion is, that hauing found di­uers reasons alledged by the Fathers, why the Church is said to be Catholicke, I could neuer light vpon that, concerning the time. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. cap 1. E­pist. 170. ad Se­uer in. Austin ordinarily restraines Catholicknes to place: as also Optat. contra Parmen. lib. 2. Optatus doth. Pacian. ad Sympr. epist. 1. Pacianus where he purposely enquires the rea­son of the name, neuer once mentions it: no more doth Cyril. Hiero. catech. 18. Cyril, who yet assignes sixe seuerall respects, in which the Church may be said to be Catholicke. And surely, if by Catholicknesse, vniuer­salitie of time be signified, I see no reason, neither (I thinke) can you shew me any, why it should not as well include the time before our Sauiours comming, and so the Church of God that then was, as that which hath bin since his comming, and shall continue till the end of the world. So doth Thomas vnderstand Thom. in expos. Symb. §. Sanct. Eccles. the Catholicknesse of the Church, stretching it from Abels time to the end of the world. But your great maister Bellar. de Ec­cles milit. li. 3. cap. 16. Bellarmine vt­terly denies that the Church before our Sauiours comming was Catholicke, restraining this Catholicknesse to the Church of the Christians. But because I acknowledge the truth of the do­ctrine, I will not striue about the word, though you should haue prooued the sense of the word, and not haue giuen too much credit to Bellarmine, who brings a place of August. de v­nit. Eccles. c. 6. apud Bellar. de Eccl. milit. li. 4 cap. 7 §. Sunt autom. Austin to prooue [Page 282] that vniuersalitie of time is required to make the Church Ca­tholicke; whereas there is not a syllable or a letter touching that matter in the place alledged. No more is there in that other place of Bede, (which also he brings) but rather we may proue thence, that Catholicke belongeth to place. It is therefore Beda exposit. in Cant. lib. 5. ad cap. 6. called Catholicke (saith Bede) because it is edified in one and the same faith, ouer all parts of the world. In the sentence next before, he speaketh thus: Whence the Church is called Catholicke, hee teacheth, saying, All the Churches through all Iewry, Galilee and Samaria had peace. So doth your Canon expound Catholicke: Dist. 11. cap. Catholica. Durand. in rat. diuin. offic. li. 1 cap. 1. nu. 2. so Durand, though he adde also two other reasons of the name: but not that you bring,

As for Isa. 59. 21. the place you quote to prooue a needlesse question, what doth it concerne the visible Church, being spoken (as Hieron. ad I­say. li. 16. c. 59. Ierome sheweth at large, and prooueth out of Rom. 11. 26. the Apostle) of the Church of the elect Iewes, or (at the most) of the elect in generall.

Before I examine that which you haue here deliuered, tou­ching the Catholicknes of the Church in respect of place, I hold it very needfull to consider what was intended by the name Ca­tholicke, and how it hath bin vnderstood of auncient writers. And because this latter point may be a meanes to giue vs some light for the discerning of the former, I will begin with it in the first place. Whether the word were in vse in the time of the A­postles or no, so that any man was called a Catholicke, Pacian. ad Sympro. epist. 1: de Cathol. nom. Pacia­nus seems to stand in some doubt; yet he lets it passe as granted, that no man was then so called. Once it is out of all doubt, that it is no where in the Scriptures applied to any church, or to any man, or at all vsed. As for the title Catholicke giuen to the Epi­stles of Iames, Peter, the first of Iohn, and Iude, it came not from the holy Ghost the inditer of those Epistles, but was added af­terwards by some man, when the bookes of the new Testament were gathered together into one volume: which may better appeare by the titles of the other Epistles also, [...], &c. of Saint or holy Paul: which inscription questionlesse neuer was of the Apostles owne setting downe. That which I would haue obserued, is, that this name Catholicke was deuised and ap­plied [Page 283] to the Church not by God in the Scriptures, but by man: and therefore it is of lesse importance, and more vncertaintie; yet no doubt, not giuen at aduenture, but vpon good ground, and to good purpose. For the original of it, it is Greeke, [...] of [...], through the whole, or all: which we commonly call by two Latin names, vniuersall or generall: so that the Catholicke Church, and the generall or vniuersall Church are all one. To auow the antiquitie of this title giuen to the church, the con­fession of faith, which is commonly called the Apostles creede, may be alledged; wherin we professe that we beleeue the holy Ca­tholick Church. That this creed is very ancient, it is out of que­stion; but that it was penned or indited by the Apostles them­selues, we haue no certaine proofe. But to leaue this point, and to returne again to the meaning of the words Catholick Church: the auncientest authors in whom I finde them (for they are not in Dionysius, Ignatius, Martialis, Polycarpus, nor in Iustine, Ire­naeus, Tertullian, Origen, or any man within the first 200. years) are Clem. Alexan Strō. li. 7. anno 200. Clemens Alexandr. about the yeare 200. and Anno 250. Cyprian about the yeare 250. After them it grew very common, espe­cially in the Latin Church. Cyprian himselfe hath not (that I know of) any where deliuered the reason of that title Catholick. But Pacian. de Cathol. nom. vbi. supra. Anno 380. Pacianus Bishop of Barcelona in Spaine, purposely dispu­teth the question against Symproniā a Nouatian heretick, assig­ning two reasons of the name, in this sort: If (saith he) I must giue a reason of the word Catholicke, and expresse the Greeke in Latine, Catholicke is euery where one; or (as the learneder thinke) obedi­ence to all Gods commmandements: so that by his interpretation the Catholicke Church must be the company of them who in all places, here and there, professe one faith, and liue in obedi­ence to all the commandements of God. This vnitie of true faith Cod. de sum. Trin. c [...]nctos populos. Anno 372. the Emperors respected, Valentinian, Gratian and Theo­dosius, when they commanded that all they should be called Ca­tholicks, who follow the faith that S. Peter deliuered to the Church of Rome. To this purpose is that of Cyril. Hier. catech. 18. Cyril, where he saith: The Church is called Catholicke, because it teacheth all things necessary to be knowne. This interpretation of the word, and reason of the title, August. ad Ʋincen. epi. 48. Breuic. collat. 3 diei. cap. 2. the Donatists gaue, saying that the Church was not termed [Page 284] Catholicke, because of the communion that one Church hath with another, throughout the whole world, but because it obserueth all the commandements and sacraments of God. To make short, the reason of the title Catholicke attributed to the Church, in the iudgement both of Greek and Latin writers, is, first the vniuer­sall dispersion of the church through all part, of the world. The Church (saith Cyril. Hiero. catech. 18. Cyril of Ierusalem) is Catholick, because it is spred all ouer the world. It is called Catholicke (saith August. ad Se uerin. epist. 170. Austin) because it is dispersed through the whole world. See brethren (quoth Aug. ad Psal. 65. the same Austin in another place) how the vniuersality of the Church spred ouer the whole world is commended. The Church (saith August. de Gene. ad lit. cap. 1. he) is called Catholick, because it is vniuersally perfect, and failes in no­thing, and is spred ouer the whole world. Where, though he seeme to acknowledge the Donatists interpretation, yet he addes the other as more principall. And in Augus. Breuic. collat. 3. diei. cap. 2. the conference betwixt the Catholiks and Donatists, the true Christians proued themselues to be Catholicks, and so rightly called, because they held commu­nion with the Church spred ouer the face of the earth. This is that vnitie which accordingly was implied in the title of the Catho­lick Church, signifying an agreement in matters of faith, which was betwixt the seueral true Churches in all places. Hitherto may we reasonably refer that of Pacianus, who saith that Pacian. vbi. supra. Ca­tholicke is euery where one. The vnitie is signified, in that so many seuerall congregations make but one church, in regard of that one faith which is cōmon to all: the vniuersalnesse of this church in the particular assemblies, is noted to vs by the word Catholik. The Fathers in the Nicene councell thought good to expresse that vnitie by professing to beleeue one Church, to which they added also Catholicke. So saith Alexander in ep. ad Alexand. Constant. episc. apud Theodor. hist. eccl. l. 1 c. 4. Alexander Patriarch of Alexan­dria, who was in the time of that Councell: We acknowledge one onely Catholicke and Apostolicke Church. So Theod. ad Psal. 47. Theodoret after­ward: There is one Church scattered ouer sea and land, wherefore we pray, saying, For the holy and onely Catholicke and Apostolicke Church. And in another place: Paul (saith Theod. in Cant. lib. 3. ad cap. 6. he) nameth many churches, not by any diuision of spirit, but seuered by distance of place. It appeareth then, that by Catholicknes, the vniuersalnesse of the Churches being in all places is signified. But what was the reason [Page 285] why this title was added to the church? In all likelihood it was first deuised and applied to the Church, to signifie the breach of the partition wall, which sometimes stood betwixt the Iewes and Gentils, till by our Sauiours death it was cast downe. This I speake vpon this supposition, that the word Catholicke was as ancient in the Church, as the time of the Apostles. But if it were brought in afterward (as I could easily perswade my self, but for reuerence of other mens iudgments) we may verie wel assent to Pacian. vbi supra. Pacianus, who writes of it in this maner. When after the Apostles times, heresies sprung vp, and men wēt about to pul in peeces the doue of God, that same Queen the Church, by diuersity of names (as euery seueral heresie had a proper name:) did not the Apostolicke people (they that followed the doctrine of the Apostles) require a sir­name for themselues, whereby they might make difference of such as remained vncorrupted (with heresie,) lest the error of some should rent in peeces the vnspotted virgin of God? Was it not meet that the principall head (the true Church) should haue a proper name to be knowne by? It appeareth by these words, that the reason of the name Catholick was, at the first, that there might be a title, to di­stinguish sound Christians, and true Churches, from hereticks, & hereticall assemblies. To which purpose, that he might auow the vse of this name, he signifieth, that it had before bene vsed by Cyprian. And afterward he affirmeth directly, that the true Christian people are diuided from the hereticall, when they are cal­led Catholicke. But you will perhaps demaund, why Catholicke should be applied to make this distinction. The reason there­of (as I thinke) is this. The Gospell by the preaching of the Apostles, was spred farre & neere ouer the face of the earth, & accordingly diuers Churches in diuers places established: all which agreed in the vnitie of the same faith and doctrine. But Sathan, Mat. 13. 25. who is alwaies watching to sow cockle, and darnell among the wheat, stirred vp here and there Act. 20. 30. certaine peruerse and trouble some men, who set abroach errors to corrupt the truth of Doctrine. Now these teachers being discouered, that there might be a difference of name betwixt true Christians and them (for the name of christian was common to both) so that euerie man might learne, by the verie name to auoid the [Page 286] heretickes; it was thought meete by the learned and carefull gouernours of the seuerall Churches, that hereticks should be called by some speciall name, either of their author, or of some point of error, which they held: and the true professors should haue the title of Catholicks, because they maintained the truth of that doctrine, which was generally professed by the Chur­ches of God. In this sense Pacian. vbi supra. Pacianus saith, that Christian was his name, and Catholicke his sirname. Hee that shall aduisedly consider the vse of the word in Cyprian. ad Cornel. Epist. 41. Epist. 45. Sect. 10. Epist. 71. ad Quin­tum. Cyprian, shall perceiue that Catholicke is opposed by him to schisme and heresie; and that said by him, to be done against the Catholicke Church, which is done contrarie to the practise of the seuerall Churches in all countries. So Clemens A­lexandr. Stro­mat. lib. 7. Clemens saith, that heresies labour to rend the Church in peeces: and he calleth the Church Catholicke, because of the vnitie of one faith, generally receiued, as may be gathe­red out of him: though indeed the chiefe thing, which he re­specteth in the vnitie of the Church, is, that All the elect are made partakers of one and the same saluation, according to the co­uenant of God, which in all ages hath bene one and the same. Wher­in he seemes to apply the terme Catholicke to time: but the rea­son of the name by the generall and constant iudgement of the ancient writers, is rather the generality of the Church, profes­sing the same doctrine in all places. Therefore your great Bi­shop Canus loc. Theol. lib. 4. cap. postre. Melchior Canus, expounding this title, saith that the Church is called Catholicke, because in euery country, people, and nation, sexe and condition, it is spred farre and neere. And by this difference (saith he afterward) it is distinguished, not onely from the Synagogue (or Iewish Church) but also from the conuenticles of hereticks. So doth your Catechis. Concil. Trident. in expos. symb. catechisme of Trent, set out by Pi­us Quintus, vnderstand Catholicke. The Church is called Catho­licke, because it is spred, in the light of one faith, from the East to the West, receiuing men of all sorts, be they Soythians, or Barbari­ans, bond or free, male or female. Then followeth, the vniuersa­litie of time, containing all the faithfull, which haue bene from A­dam euen till this day, or shall be hereafter till the end of the world, professing the true faith, and being built vpon Christ, vpon the foun­dation of the Prophets and Apostles. If then we restraine the [Page 287] Catholicknesse of the Church, to vniuersalitie of place, wherein (as we haue seene) persons are also contained, The Catholicke Church is nothing else, but the companie of the elect, taken now or­dinarily not onely out of the Iewes, as heretofore till the comming of our Sauiour, but also out of all nations and people whatsoeuer. If we stretch it farther to vniuersalitie of time also, which can hardly be prooued out of the ancient writers, it comprehen­deth all the elect that haue bene, are, and shall be, from the begin­ning of the world, to the end thereof. And thus much of the Ca­tholicke Church, concerning the meaning; and reason of the word.

Now to your proofe, as it lieth, not by way of refutation, but of explication. We grant (as I haue said often) that the Church is common to all people, and places, not shut vp any longer within the land of Iewry, nor appropriated to the Iews; and we condemne them of error, who teach (as sometimes the Donatists & Rogatians did) that it is enclosed in Affrick or Eu­rope, or Asia, or America, or any of these, and not common to euerie one of them, aswell as to any of them. But this is not so to be vnderstood, as if the Church of Christ must needs be in all these, or many of these at once in any one time. It is enough that we acknowledge the vniuersality of it de iure, thogh we denie it to be here, or there de facto: To speake plaine, it belōgeth to the nature of the Church of Christ, to haue all places open to it, & it is no more tied to Rome or Ierusalem, then it is to London or Paris, yea it hath spred it selfe ouer the face of the whole earth, and hath bene, or shall be in euerie particular countrie: but this largenesse, hath not bene, nor perhaps shall be, at any one time, but by succession, as it hath pleased God to affoord the meanes of the Gospell, and giue a blessing to it, sometimes in one place, sometimes in an other, as your selfe presently acknowledge. But this doth not prooue, that it is a marke to know the Church by.

This reason of the name Catholicke, is a mere deuise of your owne, and without warrant of antiquitie. I say more, it is false too, vnderstanding it as you do, not of the Church of the elect, but of a companie of men making knowne profession of the true [Page 288] faith. For in Act. 2. 1. 2. the beginning, when the Church of Christ was as pure and as glorious, as euer it was since, it stretched not it selfe beyond the borders of Iewrie, but was for a time shut vp within the walles of Ierusalem: Act. 8. 4. till the Lord by Herods per­secution, made way for it to passe into all the world. From that time forward it grew mightily, and setled it selfe in many countries, yea it ceased not to multiply till the reuealing of An­tichrist, who by little and little, corrupted the truth of doctrine, euen in the fundamentall points, and so destroyed the Church of God out of these parts of the world; where it had florished some hundreds of yeares. Yet was not the world left without a true Church, no not in these westerne countries: but such was the state of it, as that it remained in a few chosen seruants of God, who were hidden, 1. Reg. 18. 13. like those fifties in Israel, from the eies of your rauenous wolues, the bloudthirsty Cleargy of your Romish Synagogue.

Saint Austin in that booke, you alledge, had to do with the Donatists, who insolently and wickedly rent themselues from the vnion of all the christian Churches then in the world, al­lowing no other Church of Christ, but that faction of their owne in a part of Africa. Aug. de vnit. Eccle. cap. 12. They neither could, nor did charge the Churches, which they condemned, with any grosse error in doctrine: but confidently affirmed without all ground of truth, or likelihood of reason, that the Churches planted by the A­postles, were vanished out of the world: for supply whereof, I know not by what miracle, their Church forsooth sprung vp vpon a sodaine in that corner of Africa. This ridiculous conceit of theirs Austin refuteth, by shewing that the Church is to be sought and found in the Scriptures, and not in the deuises and dreames of men. Let vs not heare (saith Vbi supra. cap. 3. Austin) this I say, this you say, but let vs heare, this saith the Lord: The Lords bookes are to be had, to the authoritie whereof both of vs consent, both giue cre­dit, both of vs obey. There let vs seeke the Church, there let vs trie our cause. And a little after, I will not haue the Church shewed me by mens deuises, but by the Oracles of God. And againe after­ward, when the hereticks expound the performance of the pro­mise made to Abraham. Gen. 15. 5. Thy seed shall be as the sand of the sea, [Page 289] and as the Starres of heauen; as if it had bene fulfilled in Do­natus and his companie, Vbi supra. cap. 6. Austin answereth: Reade vs this, out of the Law, out of the Prophets, out of the Psalmes, out of the Gospell it selfe, out of the Apostles writings; reade it, and we beleeue it. This foundation being laid in the fiue first chapters, Austin proceedeth to prooue the vniuersalnesse of continuance of the Church, out of the Scriptures; out of the old Testament, Out of the Law. cap. 6. Out of the Prophets. c. 7 Out of the Psalmes. c. 8. in the three next chapters, out of the new in the test. So that the argument you speake of, beginneth at the sixt chapter, the Ma­ior or propositiō is in the first chapters to the sixt, the Assumpti­on or Minor in the other that follow. But because you leaue those three chapters, that shew what the Church should be out of the old Testament, I will follow your course, and begin at the ninth: where Austin sheweth that the Church was to be­gin at Ierusalem, and so to passe into Samaria, and from thence to spread it selfe through the whole world. To this he bringeth in the Donatists thus answering. These things (say they) we beleeue, and confesse that they are fulfilled: but afterward the world fell away, and onely Donatus companie remained. VVhat doth Austin replie? Let them reade this to vs (saith Chap. 12. Austin) as they reade of Enoch, of Noe, & of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob, and of the Tribes which remained, the rest rending themselues away, and of the twelue Apostles, who continued faithfull, when all other fell a­way. These examples the Donatists had brought to countenāce their schisme. Austin willeth them to prooue their stedfast­nesse, when all other Churches failed, by the same Scrip­tures, which were to beare witnesse of those, whom they al­ledged. He goeth forward to refute other arguments of theirs in the chapter following, still pressing them with this, that they should shew out of the Scriptures, that the Church founded by the Apostles was to vanish away, and their facti­on onely to remaine sincere. This was his course, and indeed, what other course could he haue taken? The hereticks, as be­fore I haue noted, did not accuse the Catholicks of any error, against the foundation, whereby they might prooue, they had ceased to be of the Church: but onely vrged verie absurdly a dreame of their owne, that all, but they of Donatus part, were [Page 290] fallen away. What is this to the question betwixt you and vs? We shew euidence of Scripture, to prooue that 2. Thess. 2. 3. See D Abbot and D. Dow­nam of An­tichrist. there was to be a defection, that Antichrist, the head of that defection, is to be the chiefe gouernour of the Ecclesiasticall state, that his seat is to be at Rome: yea we manifestly conuince your Apostati­call Church of many and grosse heresies: some of them direct­ly ouerthrowing the foundation of our Sauiour Christs media­torship, for the whole punishment of all our sinnes, and the loue of God in choosing vs to euerlasting life, without respect of any thing on our part, wherby we, & not he, make difference of our selues from other: that is, we prooue that the doctrine of your Church is vtterly false, in the maine points of predestinati­on, & iustification, without the true beleefe whereof, there can hardly be any true religion: because the greatest part of Gods glory, which is the end of all religion, is ouerthrowne, or hid­den by such errors, as your Church maintaines in these matters of iustification and predestination. But to the matter. This generall ground of Austins disputation we acknowledge to be good and sound: as for that which he addeth, and you especi­ally vrge, I answer with Austins good leaue, that the place he brings, prooues not a continuall increase of the Church, from Anselmus ad Col. 1. 6. time to time, but onely, that when the Apostle writ, there had bene a good growth of the seed of the Gospell, as among Col. 1. 6. the Colossians, so in the whole world. And whereas he doth as­say to prooue, that there must be an increase of the Gospell, till the end of the world, because our Sauiour in the Parable saith, that Mat. 13. 30 the good seed must grow till that time: we craue leaue to dissent from him, till it be prooued, that the Parable is so to be vnderstood, and that the Apostle so intended that speech of his. For Parables, Austin himselfe hath taught vs, in this verie que­stion against the Donatists, Aug. ad Vin­cent. epist. 48. that no man may apply any thing out of a Parable, to prooue his purpose by, vnlesse he can shew euident and cleare reason for his interpretation. But this euidence seemes to be wanting in this exposition of the Parable. For the scope of the Parable is not to prooue, that the Church shall conti­nually increase till the end of the world: but to shew that in the outward congregations, good and bad shall be alwaies [Page 291] mingled together, and so doth Aug. contr. epist. Parm. lib. 1. cap. 7. & lib. 2. cap. 2. Contr. lit. Petil. lib. 3. cap. 2 Contr. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 35 Contr. Donat. post. Collat. cap. 6. 8 Austin himselfe euery where expound the place. And surely if from hence we may prooue such a continuall growth of the Church, may we not from the same place conclude the like of heresies? Mat. 13. 38 Let them both grow together vntill the haruest, saith the text. But what should I make many words about this Parable? Our Sauiour himselfe expounds it vers. 37 afterward, and makes no such collection of the Churches increase, til the worlds end. And Hieron. ad Math. 13 Ierome willeth vs not to be ouer hastie to gesse at the meaning of the Parable, be­cause the expositiō of it in the text, is deferred from the 13. verse to the 37. but to wait til our Sauiour giue vs the interpretatiō; who hath giuen vs to vnderstand, that the good seed are the children of the kingdome, not as in the Apostle, the Gospel: how then are they all one? Beside, the Parable speaketh not of the outward Church, that is, of all professors, all which are mēbers of your Church, if they hold of your Pope; but of the true Church indeed, the elect of God, called vers. 43 the children of the kingdome: all the good seed (saith our Sauiour) are iust men, and shall shine as the Sunne in the kingdome of their Father: So shall not all your Church do, many of your number, by your owne confession, being wicked and reprobate, neither iust, nor to haue any place in heauen. But the decay of your owne Po­pish Church (me thinketh) should sufficiently refute this con­ceit.

Math. 24. 14 The other place alledged to prooue that the propagation of the Gospell must increase till the end of the world, is neither rightly vnderstood, nor of any force to the matter in question. To speake of the latter point in a word. Let vs grant, that by the end, the end of the world is signified. What of that? Our Sauiour doth not say, that the Church shall grow greater and greater till the end of the world, but that the Gospell shall be preached in all places, before the world haue an end: so may it be, though after it is once preached for some few yeares, it be out of the world for many yeares together, and afterward be againe begun: and this may befall it oftentimes for all that prophecie. Let vs further yeeld, that it shall alwaies continue in the world, (as doubtlesse it shall;) yet is there not hereupon [Page 292] any such necessitie of this growth to be inferred. For it may be preached in all places, and yet lose more in one countrie, then it getteth in three, passing along with a small retinew, from one land to another. Now for the other point, it is ap­parent that our Sauiour, at the least in that former part of the Chapter, prophecieth of the destruction of Ierusalem; before which (saith he) the Gospell shall be preached through the whole world. The end (saith Chrysost. ad Mat. hom. 76. Chrysostome) namely the end of Ieru­salem. And he prooueth that the Gospell was so preached by Rom. 10. 18. Col. 1. 6. two places of Scripture, the one whereof is, that out of the Epistle to the Colossians. Of the same opinion is Thophyl. ad Mat. 24. & ibi Gloss. ordin. & Lyra. Theo­phylact, and your ordinarie Glosse, and Lyra, who vnderta­keth to shew, that the Gospell had bene preached in the three knowne parts of the world, Africa, Asia, and Europe, before Ierusalem was destroyed by Titus and Vespasian. Iansen. harm. cap. 22. Ian­senius Bishop of Gaunt disputeth the point, and concludeth, for all Austins authoritie, and reasons, that it seemeth we are rather to hold with Chrysostome, that our Sauiour speaketh of the end of Ierusalem. Which (saith he) is euidently gathered from this, that after our Lord had said; Then commeth the end, he presently addeth: when therefore you shall see the abhomi­nation of desolation, &c. For, the bringing in of this signifieth, that he obserueth the order of things to come, and teacheth, what was to be done, when the end whereof he spake, should come.

All this part of your discourse, to prooue that heresies are not Catholicke, either from time or place, might verie well haue bene spared. For who ever imagined, that error was be­fore truth, when as it is nothing else but a straying from the truth? Yet haue some heresies bene of long continuance, as Arianisme for a great while; which was also so vniuersall for a time, that (as Hieron. dia­log. contr. Lu­ [...]fcrian. Ierome saith) the world wondred at it selfe, that it was become an Arian. But what should I waste time and la­bour about these things, wherein we are of one minde? Let it be enough for me againe to put you in minde, that this Ca­tholicknesse can be no good marke to discerne the Church by, from heretiks, because it wanteth your secōd propertie of plain­nesse [Page 293] and easinesse to be knowne: yea there is a meere impossibilitie that any man should know, that any heresie shall haue an end before the end of the world: or that it shall not spread far and neare ouer the world: yea it passeth the reach of ordinary men to know certainly, that any heresie hath not bene since the be­ginning of the Gospell, because this matter requireth some speciall knowledge of storie, whereof most men are igno­rant.

The Church in August. lib. 4. de Symb. c. 10. Saint Austins time, by the blessing of God was so inlarged, that it had possession of many parts of the world; and in comparison of it, heresies (yea the Arian heresie) was but in corners. In this goodly estate continued it for the most part, till (as before I obserued) Antichrist brake out, and ouerthrew the very foundation of faith. But if any man will so far presse Austins authoritie, as to make vniuersalitie a certaine marke of the church; how will he credit the holy Ghost affir­ming by 2. Thess. 2. 4. Saint Paul, that there must be a generall falling away; and by Apoc. 12. 6. Saint Iohn, that the church must flie into the wilder­nesse, and there lie hidden a long time?

The August. de v­nit. eccl. cap. 3. other testimonie out of Austin, you translate falsly, to make it serue your turne the better. For Austin saith not, that Heresies are not found in many nations, but that euery seuerall he­resie is not found in many nations where the Church is. But admit there were some churches without any heresie for a time, and neuer any heresie but where there is also a true church; yet g Singulae hae­reses. doth not Augustine say, that euery man may easily discerne the true church from hereticall assemblies: because it may fall out, as it hath done, that heresie, as Arianisme, shall be more gene­rall then true Religion. Let vs father grant, that whatsoeuer hath vniuersally bin receiued in the Christian world, especially at all times, is true: yet cannot this Catholicknesse be a good note of the church, because (if I shall make bold to repeate the same again) it is hardly possible for any man to vnderstand what points haue bin so receiued. But you forget your selfe very much: for by this rule you appoint them that will iudge which is the church, to enter into such a maze, as they shall neuer get out of, if they shall not acknowledge any church for true, but that [Page 294] which holdeth all things that haue euer generally bene held in the Christian world. But of Catholicknesse this may suf­fice.

A. D. §. 6.

Lastly, the true Church is also Apostolicke, that is to say, such as hath her foundation from the Apostles, according to that saying of the Apostle S. Paul: Non estis hospites & aduenae, sed estis Ephes. 2. ciues sanctorum & domestici Dei, superae dificati supra funda­mentum Apostolorum & Prophetarum, ipso summo angulari lapide Christo Iesu: You are not strangers and forreiners, but you are citizens of the saints and the domesticals of God, built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Iesus Christ himselfe being the highest corner stone. This we may gather out of that which is already said. For if the Apostles were they which were appointed by our Sauior, to be vnder him the founders of his church, which by their preaching began at Ierusalem, and from thence by Act. 1. Act. 2. Aug. l. de Pa­stor. cap. 8. them, and those that receiued authoritie from them, tanquam vitis crescendo vbique diffusa est, (as S. Austin speaketh) like a vine by growing was spred abroade euery where: and being thus first planted and spred abroad, was afterwards by the ministery of law­fully succeeding Pastors and Doctors continued without interruption till now, and shall be also continued till the worlds end: there is no doubt but that this companie (descending thus lineally from the A­postles, and depending of them as their lawfull progenitors, and be­ing built vpon them, as (after Christ himselfe) vpon principall foundations) may well be called Apostolicke, that is to say, such as deriue their pedegree from no other author or founder, later then the Apostles themselues. All this doth Tertullian briefly, but pithily comprehend in this short sentence: Apostoli apud vnamquamque ciuitatem Ecclesias condiderunt; ab his autem ciuitatibus seu Lib. de praescrip Ecclesijs ab Apostolis constitutis, traducem fidei, & semina do­ctrinae, caeterae exinde Ecclesiae mutuatae sunt, & quotidie mutu­antur vt Ecclesiae fiāt, ac per hoc & ipsae Apostolicae deputabun­tur, vt soboles Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum: The Apostles (to wit, either immediatly by themselues, or by meanes of others) founded Churches at euery citie: from which cities or Churches being thus founded by the Apostles, other Churches afterward did borrow, and do daily borrow the ofspring of faith, and the seeds of doctrine, that [Page 295] they may be made Churches, and by this meanes these also shall be accounted Apostolicke, as being the issue of the Apostolicall Chur­ches.

Contrariwise, no conuenticle of heretickes can be Apostolicke, by reason that heresie (being an vpstart noueltie, contrarie to the former receiued faith of the Church) cannot haue any Apostle or Apostolick man for author and founder, but is forced to acknowledge some other, of whom as it receiued the first being, so most commonly either the doctrine or the men that follow it, or both, receiue also their name, as of Arius came Arianisme and the Arians, of Mon­tanus came the Montanists and Montanisme; and there was neuer yet hereticke, which could deriue the pedegree of his congregation by vninterrupted succession from the Apostles: which maketh Ter­tullian to vrge them so earnestly, saying: Edant haeretici origines Lib. de praescrip Ecclesiarum suarum, euoluant ordinem Episcoporum, ita per successiones decurrentes, vt primus ille Episcopus, aliquem ex Apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum Apostolis perseuerauerit, au­thorem habuerit & antecessorem: Let the heretickes shew the be­ginning of their Churches (or, as they had rather say, of their con­gregations) let them vnfold the order of their Bishops or superin­tendents, so running downe by successions, that the first of them shall haue for his author in doctrine, and predecessors in place, any Apo­stolicke man, who did perseuere, and did not forsake the Apostles. Thus did Tertullian vrge them, because he knew well that they could neuer make this proper note of the true Church to agree to their companie.

A. W.

This last part of your discourse, should proue the fourth point of your former assumption, that, to be Apostolicke, is a propertie belonging onely to the true Church, and not hard to be discerned in any companie wheresoeuer it is. If all this were proued, yet were your syllogisme nothing worth, because I iustly excepted against the consequence of your proposition, which remains stil with­out any confirmation. But to let that passe: how idle is this proof of yours, wherein the latter part of that you should proue, is quite omittted, that it is no hard matter for any simple man to dis­cerne which Church is Apostolicke, which is not? If you make not this cleare, you proue nothing: and yet euery man may see, that [Page 296] it is a matter of no small studie, nor short time, to examine what Churches were first founded by the Apostles, and haue had an orderly succession without interruption from time to time: yea when a man hath made the best search he can, what hath he to rest himselfe vpon, but the report of men, who might deceiue, and be deceiued? And yet this ado euery poore soule must haue before he can tell to what Church he may ioyne himselfe for his spirituall instruction in matters concerning euerlasting life. You will aske, what course we take for a mans direction in this case? Surely the very same which the Scriptures testify we ought to follow. We propound out of the Scriptures the meanes of saluation: we giue our people libertie to examine that we deli­uer, by the touchstone of truth, the same Scriptures of God: we desire not to haue any credit giuen to that we teach (as a mat­ter of faith) but so far forth as we can proue it manifestly by the word of God. Thus we begin with men, thus we continue; lea­uing the successe of our poore ministery to the blessing of Gods Spirit, in the hearts of them that vouchsafe vs the hearing. But for better direction in the triall of our doctrine, wee giue this rule, that true religion first respects the glory of God, and then the present comfort and euerlasting saluation of them that professe it. Whether course, yours or ours be more reasonable, and more agreeable to Scripture, I leaue it to the consideration of al men whom it doth concerne, and returne to the examining of your proofe: whereof there are these two parts, that the true Church is Apostolicke, that no conuenticle of heretickes can be Apo­stolicke.

Of the former thus you dispute:

  • If euery true Church must haue such a foundation as the Church of the Ephesians had, and she had her foundation from the Apostles; then euery true Church must haue her foundation from the Apostles.
  • But euery true Church must haue such a foundation as the Church of the Ephesians had, and she had her foundation from the Apostles.
  • Therefore euery true Church must haue her foundation from the Apostles.

[Page 297] I would make no question of any part of your Syllogisme, if To the As­sumption. by foundation from the Apostles, you vnderstood nothing but A­postolicall doctrine, which is indeed the maine foundation of all true Churches: but you afterward expound your meaning, and acknowledge no foundation from the Apostles, but by the ministery of such as can deriue their succession from the Apo­stles, without any interruption. In this sense therefore I denie your minor, because the former part of it is false. For euery true Church hath not, nor need haue, to make it a true Church, such foundation as the Church of the Ephesians had. Yea though we doubt not, but that the Ephesiās were conuerted to the faith by some of the Apostles, and perhaps by the Act. 18. 19. Eph. 2. 12. Apostle Paul: yet we doe not beleeue that the Apostle, in the place alledged by you, speakes of any such foundation, but of the truth of doctrine taught by the Apostles. This may appeare, because the Apostle makes the Prophets their foundation, as wel as the Apostles. But certaine it is, that neither the Prophets, nor any by succession from them, laid the foundation of the Gospell amongst the E­phesians. He meanes (saith Theodo. ad E­phes. 2. Tertull. contra Marciō. lib. 5. cap. 17. Ambros. ad E­phes. 2. Theodoret) the Prophets of the old Testament, not of the new: lest you should cauill about the name Prophets. Besides, the foundation of the Apostles must be con­ceiued, as our Sauiour Christ is the corner stone to the Ephesi­ans: not because he preached to them, but for that they rested vpon him as a corner stone, the doctrine of the Apostles being the foundation. And if we will tie this to the persons that deli­uer Thomas in ex­posit. Symb. §. Sanct. Eccle. the doctrine, then to be the foundation is so proper to the A­postles, as that it cannot agree to any other man whatsoeuer, how Apostolicke soeuer he may be imagined to be. For Apoc. 21. 14. this was their speciall honor aboue all other Christians. Thus doe the best interpreters expound the place: Ʋpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, that is (saith Ambros. ad Eph. 2. Ambrose) vpon the new and old Testament. For that which the Apostles preached, the Pro­phets foretold. As for the Prophets of the new Testament, They (saith Ambros. ad Eph. 2. 20. Ambrose) are for the ordering of the Church founded, and not for the founding of it. Ʋpon Christ (saith your Gloss. interl. ad Eph. 2. 20. Glosse) or vpon the doctrine of the Apostles. So Lyra. ibi. Lyra, Ʋpon the doctrine of the new and old Testament. With whom Lombard. ibi. Lombard agreeth, though [Page 298] he expound it also of Christ. So doth Thomas ibi. Thomas: Ʋpon their do­ctrine. So doth Caietan. ibi. Caietan vnderstand it; that a man may wonder at your ignorance or boldnesse, in going against the streame of your owne Doctors, without any shew of reason for it.

Wherefore if your minor intend no more, but that euery true Church is builded vpon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, in respect of their doctrine, no exception could be taken against it. For 1. Cor 3. 11. other foundation no man can lay but Iesus Christ: according to the preaching and prophesying of the A­postles and Prophets. This foundation had the Church of E­phesus, Ansel. ad Eph. 2. and in this must euery true Church agree with it. But you apply this to I know not what dependance of succession, which hath no kinde of warrant from that place of the A­postle.

To supply your want of proofe from the Scriptures, that e­uery true Church must haue her foundation from some Apostle, or some man who can fetch his pedegree, without interruption, from the Apostles: you seeke to draw in Tertullian for a witnesse of your error. Let vs heare his depositiō. The Apostles (saith Tertul. de prae­scrip. cap. 20. Tertullian) founded Churches in euery citie. Here to helpe your selfe, you adde this glosse: To wit, either immediatly by themselues, or by meanes of other. What reason is there, that he that is a partie in the suite, should haue the expoūding of the witnesses meaning? Tertullian saith, the Apostles founded Churches: you tell vs, he meanes they did so by themselues or by others. How shall we know, that you are so priuy to his meaning? If you ground your exposition vpon those words (in euery citie,) whereas the A­postles came not in diuers cities that were then in the world: I pray remember that there were at that time many cities, into which we are not sure that the Gospell had before Tertullians time bin receiued. The learned man may speake in generall, and yet with speciall relation to those places which were then knowne to be Churches founded by the Apostles, as Ierusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, &c. He addes farther, that From these Churches founded by the Apostles, other Churches afterward had borrowed, and (in his time) dayly did borrow the Traducem. propagation of faith, and seeds of doctrine. I make bold to alter [Page 299] your translation: let the skilfull Reader iudge whether I haue cause or no. But what of all these? Tertullian doth not say, that no Church is to be accounted Apostolicke, but that which can without interruption shew her descent from the Apostles; nor that euery Church is true, that can make such proofe of her o­riginal. But Cap. 13. whereas the hereticks, against whom he there dea­leth, reiected and receiued Scripture at their choise and would neuer leaue wrangling; Tertullian appeales to the iudgement of those Churches which were knowne to be founded by the Apostles, and in which the truth was most likely to be found. As for your argument of succession, you shall heare Tertullians iudgment of it. Let hereticks (saith Tertull. de praescr. cap. 32. Tertullian in the same book) faine a succession from the Apostles: they shall get nothing by it. For their doctrine compared with that the Apostles taught, by the diuer­sitie and contrarietie thereof will declare, that it came not from any Apostle or Apostolicke man: because as the Apostles would not teach contrary one to another: so Apostolick men would not deliuer doctrine contrary to the Apostles, vnlesse they were such as were fallen away from the Apostles, to preach otherwise then they did. So then the chiefe triall of a true Church, is by the doctrine of the Apostles and their successors in the truth, because it is possible for he­reticks to shew their descent from the Apostles, or some Chur­ches which had their beginning from the Apostles or Aposto­licke men. Yea Scor. hist. l. 1. cap. 3. Augu. de haer [...]s. cap. 91. 92. 51. it is manifest, that the greatest heresies (as the foure maine ones condemned in the foure first generall Coun­cels) had their beginning of them who could shew their pede­gree step by step from the Apostles, in respect of outward suc­cession.

We haue soone how weakly you haue proued that personall succession is a thing belonging to the true Church: it remaines that you proue it to be proper to the church, and not common to it with heretickes. To which purpose you thus reason:

  • No vpstart noueltie contrary to the former faith of the Church, can haue any Apostle or Apostolicke man for founder thereof.
  • Euery heresie is an vpstart noueltie, contrary to the former faith of the Church.
  • [Page 300] Therefore no heresie can haue any Apostle or Apostolicke man for the founder thereof.

How much more truly and reasonably spake Tertullian of To the pro­position. the like matter, when he said, that Tertull. de praescr. cap. 32. no Apostolicke man taught contrary to the Apostles, vnlesse he were such a one as was fallen from the Apostles? He saw and acknowledged, that it was possible for a man instructed by the Apostles themselues, to forsake the truth of doctrine, and become an author or maintainer of he­resie. Doth not 1. Ioā. 2. 18. 19 Saint Iohn speake of some, who being bred vp in the church, by heresie departed from it? What should I name 1. Tim. 1. 20. Hymenaeus, Alexāder, 2. Tim. 1. 15. Phygellus, Hermogenes, Apoc. 2. 6. Nicolas, and such like? Hardly can you name me any heresie that euer tooke rooting, but the first plant of it sprung vp in the nursery of the Church. Therefore your maior is altogether vntrue, being vn­derstood as it is, of Apostolicke men, in respect of personall suc­cession, not of succeeding the Apostles in truth of do­ctrine.

But you thinke to make good your proposition by Tertul­lians Tertull. de praescr. cap. 32. authoritie, who challengeth the heretickes to shew the be­ginning of their Churches from some Apostolicke men. Is it possible you should either write or reade that sentence of Tertullian, and not perceiue that it cuts the very throate of your cause? Doth not Tertullian in the sentence alledged by you, directly confirme our opinion, and ouerthrow yours? Let them shew vs their beginning (saith Tertullian) from some Apostolicke man. Is that enough? I: if we beleeue you, who define Apostolicknes by personal succeeding the Apostles. But what saith Tertullian? He in plaine termes requires such an Apostolicke man as perseue­red with the Apostles, and forsooke them not. Now that by this perseuering with the Apostles, and not forsaking them, he meanes agreement in doctrine; I proue it euidently by that which followeth in the same Chapter. First, Tertullian shewes that it is in vaine for them to pleade succession in place, if their doctrine be found contrary to that which the Apostles deliue­red: I set downe the sentence before. Secondly, he doubts not to say, that by the hereticks disagreeing from the Apostles in do­ctrine, those Churches which cannot proue themselues to be [Page 301] Apostolicke, by naming any Apostle, or Apostolicke man, as the first founder of them, may yet conuince them not to be Apostolicke; and are themselues to be counted Apostolicke, because of their consent in doctrine, with the Apostles. This is the summe of Tertullians words: the words themselues run thus. To this triall (namely by doctrine, as the next sentence before sheweth) shall the hereticks be called by those Churches; which though they cannot alledge any Apostle or Apostolicke man for their founder, as being of late, and now daily planted: yet a­greeing in the same doctrine are neuerthelesse counted Apostolicke, by reason of their Consanguini­tate doctrinae. agreement in doctrine. Do you not see, that Tertullian disputeth for vs, against your pretended succession? That he confesseth, heretickes may alledge personall succes­sion? That he acknowledgeth those Churches for true, which cannot deriue their pedegree from the Apostles, or any Apo­stolicke man? That he maketh the truth of doctrine agreeing with the Apostles, a certaine and necessarie marke of the true Church? And are you not ashamed, for all this, to bring Ter­tullian for an author of so grosse an error? VVere you so blinde that you discerned not this your selfe, or did you so despise your Readers, that you presumed, they would neuer haue the wit to see your ignorance or craft? It is now discouered suffi­ciently, and yet this one point more must be added: that Ter­tullian requireth this shew of their Churches beginning, not of all heretickes, as you deceitfully alledge him (if you read him your selfe, and tooke him not vpon credit, at some other mans hands) but onely of those, who pleade their continuance from the time of the Apostles. If any heresies (saith Tertullian) dare fetch their continuance from the Apostles time, that therefore they may seeme Apostolicke, because they were, while the Apo­stles liued; we may say, let them shew the beginning of their Churches, let them vnfould the succession of their Bishops, &c. With such learning and conscience doe you Papists alledge the Fathers, that he must needes be honester, and wiser then you, that will not beleeue you, vpon your bare word. VVe see then, that to be Apostolicke, in your sense, is no good marke of a true Church: because Hereticall [Page 302] Churches may so be Apostolicke, and true Churches not A­postolicke; and contrariwise, that to be Apostolicke in doc­trine, as we expound it, is a most certaine note, whereby a true Church may be knowne, and the same, that we onely allow of.

A. D. §. 7.

It appeareth therefore plaine enough, that these foure properties, One, Holy, Catholicke and Apostolicke agree onely to the true Church; and sith it is no hard matter for any to see or know, which companie of Christians hath these properties (as in the next Chap­ter I shall declare,) it is also plaine, that these foure, One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke, (being proper to the true Church: and apparent enough) are good notes or markes, by which men may discerne, which companie of those, which haue the name of Christians, and which professe (as euerie companie professeth themselues) to teach the true doctrine of Christ, is indeed the true Church, which doubtlesse teacheth in all points, the true doctrine of Christ.

A. W.

Nay rather it hath euidently appeared, that neuer an one of these, nor all of them together, as you vnderstand them, are any good markes of the true Church: because euerie one of them is such, as that either a true Church may be without them, or at the least, that no ordinarie man is able to iudge, which Church hath these properties in it, and which hath not. Whereupon I may safely conclude, that your grand syllogisme in this Chap­ter, which any man may gather out of this last part of it, is nei­ther rightly applied to that, which you were to prooue, as I shewed in the beginning; nor true it selfe, either for the Maior, or Minor, as by my answer to it, hath bin prooued. And wheras you adde in the end, that the true Church, doubtlesse, teacheth in all points the true doctrine of Christ: we haue had too much tri­all of your weaknesse in iudging, and boldnesse in affirming, to beleeue this Cuckowes song of yours, though you chaunt it o­uer neuer so often.

A. D.

CHAP. XVI. That the Romane Church is One, Holy, Catholicke, A­postolicke, and therefore the true Church.

A. W.

Although the Romane Church were One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke, in such sense as you vnderstand these titles, yet were it not therefore the true Church: because there is neuer an one of these properties, except it be holinesse, (which can be a marke of the Church to no man, because no man can iudge of it) but may, for the nature of it, agree to some hereti­call assembly.

A. D. §. 1.

Thus farre my discourse hath gone along all in generalities, in shewing the necessitie of true faith: and that this faith is to be learned of the true Church: and that this Church continueth al­waies, and is visible, as being a visible company of men professing the true faith of Christ: partaking his Sacraments: and liuing vnder the gouernment of lawfull Pastors his substitutes: and that, (whereas diuers companies of men take vpon them the title of this Church, whereby same do stand in doubt, which companie is the true Church) there be certaine markes, by which the true Church may be certainly knowne, and discerned from all other companies or congregations: and finally, that these markes be those foure, One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke, which are certain­ly knowne to be the properties of the true Church, both by the Ni­cene Creed, and also by plaine testimonies of Scriptures and Fa­thers.

A. W.

This generall discourse of yours hath bene generally so weak, and so little to purpose, that you are now as new to begin, as you were at the first. Shall I runne ouer these particulars here mentioned? Chap. 1. True faith is necessarie to saluation. But not such a faith, as you require, which must be Chap. 4. entire, whole, and sound in all points, so that the misbeleeuing of any one should be damnable. 2. This faith is to be learned (ordinarily) of the mi­nisters of the true Church: but not to be taken vpon their credit, without any examination of that they deliuer, by the word of God. 3. Chap. 5. There is no such Church, and much lesse any such Chap. 11. & 12. continuance and visibilitie of it, as you imagine, though it may be said, there is one Church: because all true Churches agree in the same doctrine of the Gospell, as farre as is necessarie to saluation, so that none of them ouerthroweth the foundation. Chap. 13. There are also certaine markes, by which true Churches may [Page 304] be discerned from false: but Chap. 15. those you name, as you vnderstand them, neither are to be found in euerie true Church, and (to the vttermost of mans iudgemēt) may be in heretical Churches. Now whereas you say, that those foure One, Holy, Catholicke, Apostolicke, are certainely knowne to be the properties of the true Church; there is no certaine knowledge which are good markes, either by the Nicene Creed, or by the Fathers, but one­ly by the Scriptures: and neither that Creed, nor the Fathers do approoue of these for markes of a true Church, in such sense as you vrge them.

A. D. §. 2.

Now it will be good to see, if we can by these generall grounds conclude, which particular company of men is the true Church of Christ: a conclusion of exceeding great consequence, as touching all matters in controuersie concerning the doctrine of faith, as may appeare, by the drift of all my former discourse. For the framing of which conclusion, we shall not need to bring in comparison, all the companies or sects of diuers religions, that haue bene and are in the world: because euerie one can easily discerne of themselues, and espe­cially by the helpe of that which hath bene said, that neither Turks, nor Iewes, nor whatsoeuer other infidels, can be the true Church of Christ; because these neither haue the name of Christians, neither do they professe to haue the name of Christ. Neither am I now to meddle with heretickes and schismatickes of former ages, the which as they haue bin condēned, by the generall consent of the Church, so in continuance of time, they haue bin worne out by the same Church, in so much, that euen the memorie of them (God be thanked) see­meth to be perished with them.

A. W.

Out of all doubt, if your generall grounds be true, it is pos­sible to conclude by them, which particular companie, or ra­ther companies, are true Churches of Christ. For neither can the markes of a true Church agree to a false: neither are they such, as cannot be discerned where they are.

Of Iewes and Turkes indeed there can be no question: but what say you to the Greeke Churches, and their Patriarckes, who pleade all these points for themselues, as well as you do, and are able to make as good proofe of their Vnitie, Holinesse, Catholicknesse, and Apostolicknesse? Yet are you farre from ac­knowledging [Page 305] these to be true Churches of Christ, because for­sooth they will not come vnder the slauish yoake of your Ro­mish Antichrist. Concerning the heretickes, and schismaticks of former ages, I would to God Christian Churches were as free of them, as we desire. But Sathan, who in the beginning of the Gospell laboured p to choake the good seed with his cockle and darnell, though for a time he continued in securitie, and like a strong man armed at all points, possessed his house in peace, hauing procured a generall subiection to his eldest sonne Antichrist your Pope; yet when in this, as it were second birth of the Gospell, he saw his kingdome againe in hazard, he be­tooke himselfe to his former shifts, and spread abroad the poy­son of heresie in diuers countries; that he might giue you his vassals occasion to slaunder the doctrine of the Gospell, as if from it these heresies had risen. This is one of his delusions, wherby he deceiues and misleades many to damnation, though the children of God perceiue his subtilty, and rest vpon the ma­nifest truth of the Scripture, for all Sathans practises to discre­dit it by this and such other inconueniences, with which he en­deauours to haue the preaching of the Gospell accompanied, for the disgrace thereof. This course also he tooke in the first beginning of the Gospell, as it is manifest by the multitude and grossenesse of those heresies, which brake out within the first 400 yeares, and were neuer since equalled, for number or hay­nousnesse, in twice so long a time: that the likenesse of Sathans dealing may be an argument of the like truth, he now laboreth to ouerthrow or discredit.

A. D. §. 3.

My chiefe question and comparison therefore shall be betwixt the Romane Church (that is to say, that companie which commu­nicateth, & agreeth in profession of faith, with the Church of Rome, and liueth vnder the obedience (as touching spirituall matters) of the Bishop of Rome, and other Bishops and Pastours vnder him,) and the Protestants (that is to say, that companie, which from Lu­ther his time hitherward, haue opposed themselues against the Ro­mane Church) either all or any one sect of them; my question (I say) or comparison shal be, to which of those two, the foure forenamed marks agree, and consequently, which of them is the true Church.

A. W.

Here you propound the matter, and argument of this chapter, which you call a comparison: as if the question were, whether of the Churches be beautified with those foure properties, & con­sequently, whether of them is the true Church. But to speak pro­perly, there is no comparison intended therein. For our que­stion is not, whether your Synagogue, or our congregations, come nearer the state of true Churches (which seemeth to be implied in making a comparison betwixt them) but whether of them are indeed true Churches? If I should compare your Church of Rome, with the Synagogues of the Iewes, the profession of the Mahometans, or the companies of Anabaptists, or other Hereticks, I might finde that your doctrine came nearer to the truth, in many points, and so were more likely to shew me the true Church, or that these foure properties agreed better to you then to them. But this comparison would not settle me in the knowledge of a true Church. The point is, as before I shewed, the proofe of your Minor, that the Church of Rome is she, to whom those properties belong. For the further confirmation whereof, you vndertake to prooue, that our congregations haue no interest to these titles, and this you do, not by way of comparison, but by an argument of contraries. But let vs take it, as it is, and fall to the examination of your proofes, yet still with this prouiso, that the Church of Rome, cannot be concluded to be the true Church, nor our congregations false Churches, though you had, and we wanted all these markes, as you vnderstand them.

A. D. §. 4.

§. SECT. I. That the Romane Church onely is one.

First I finde that the Protestants Church is not perfectly One, or vniforme in dogmaticall points of faith, but variable, according to the varietie of times and persons, now holding one thing, then an other; and that the learned men thereof, are so much at iarre among themselues, in matters of faith, that it is hard to finde three, in all points, of one opinion, and (which is chiefely to be pondered, as prin­cipally appertaining to the marke of Vnitie) they haue no meanes to end their controuersies, so to returne to Vnitie, and to continue therein. For while as they admit no rule of faith, but only Scripture: which scriptures diuers men expoūd diuersly, according to the diuers [Page 307] humours and affections, opinions and phantasies of euerie one, neuer one admitting any one head or chiefe ruler, infallibly guided by the holy Ghost in his doctrine to whose censure in matters of faith, eue­rie one should of necessitie submit themselues, Vt capite constituto, schismatis tollatur occasio: that, (as Saint Ierome speaketh) a Lib. 2. cont. Io­uin. head or chiefe ruler being ordained, occasion of schisme or diuision may be taken away. Whilest they do thus (as they all doe thus, all proclaiming to be ruled by onely Scripture, and yet almost in euerie one, in one point or other, expounding Scripture diuersly, and one contrarie to an other, according to the diuers seeming of euerie ones sense; and neuer one admitting any one superiour, infallibly guided by the holy Ghost, to whose definitiue sentence he and the rest will be bound to submit their doctrine and expositions): whilest (I say) they doe thus, it is vnpossible that they should In fidei occurrere vnita­tem, S. Hier. in cap. 4. ad Ephes. meet (as Saint Hierome counselleth) in the vnitie of faith. The which vnitie in profession of faith notwithstanding, is one prin­cipall thing pertaining to the vnitie of the Church: and vnitie of the Church, is one chiefe marke, by which we must discerne which is the true Church.

Contrariwise the Romane Church is alwaies one and vniforme in faith, neuer varying, or holding any dogmaticall point contrarie to that, which in former times, from the beginning it did hold. The learned men thereof, though sometimes differing in opinion, in mat­ters not defined by the Church, yet inmatters of faith all conspire in one. And no marueile, because they haue a most conuenient meanes to keepe vnitie in profession of faith, sith they do acknowledge one chiefe Pastor appointed ouer them (to wit the successour of Saint Peter) to whose definitiue censure in matters concerning religion, they wholly submit themselues, knowing that to Saint Peter (and Matth. 16. his successours) Christ our Sauiour promised the keyes of the king­dome of Heauen: and that he would vpon him (and his succes­sours) as vpon a sure rocke, build his Church. Knowing also that the same our Sauiour did specially pray for Saint Peter (and eue­rie Luke. 22. one his lawfull successour) that this faith should not faile (at least so farre, as to teach the Church a false faith) to the intent, that he might be alwaies able to confirme his brethren, if at any time, they should faile in the doctrine of faith. Knowing lastly, that to [Page 308] Saint Peter and his successours (which word I adde, not without suf­ficient Chrysost. lib. 2. de Sacerdotio. S. Leo Ser. 2. de anniuers. as­sumpt. suae ad Pontif. Ioan. 21. authoritie and reason) Christ our Lord gaue most ample po­wer ouer his vniuersall Church, saying, Pasce oues meas, feed my sheepe: that is to say, Rule or gouerne as chiefe Pastour vnder me, my sheepe; that is, all those that pertaine to the sheepfold, which is the Church; giuing him and his successours charge to feed them, with the food of true doctrine of faith: and consequently binding these his sheepe, to receiue obediently this food of true doctrine of faith at their hands: and consequently tying himselfe so to assist him, and his successours, with the guiding of the holy Ghost, that they should al­waies propose vnto the flock of Christ (which is his vniuersal Church) the food of true faith, and that they should neuer teach (ex Cathe­dra) any thing contrarie to true faith: sith if he should not thus as­sist, but should permit them to teach the Church errors in faith, then the Church, which Luke. 10. Matth. 23. Matth. 16. Iohn. 16. he hath bound to heare this Pastor in all points, might contrarie to his purpose, erre, nay should by him be bound to erre, which without blasphemie cannot be said. All Catholicke lear­nedmen therefore knowing this, do acknowledge that the definitiue sentence of this chiefe Pastour (either alone, or at least with a gene­rall Councell) must needs be alwaies an vnfallible & vndoubted truth; and that therefore they may safely, yea they must necessarily submit all their iudgements and opinions, either in interpreting scripture, or otherwise in matters concerning religion, to the censure of this Apostolicke seat. The which while they do, (as they must alwaies do, if they will be accounted Catholicke men, and will not cast out themselues, or be cast out of the companie of Catholickes) how is it possible that one should dissent from another in matters of faith, or at least obstinately (as hereticks do) erre in anie point of Faith?

So that this difference may be assigned betwixt any sect of here­tickes and the Romane Church, that heretickes are a companie not vnited among themselues by any linke, which is able to containe and continue them in vnitie of faith: whereas the Romane Church is Plebs sacerdoti adunata, & grex Pastori suo adhaerens, as S. Cy­prian saith, a Church should be a people ioyned to their Priest, and a flocke cleauing to their Pastor, whom whilst it heareth, as it is alwaie Cypr. lib. 4. Epist. 9. bound to do, it is vnpossible, but that it should retaine the vnitie [Page 309] of faith: like as on the contrary side, according to the saying of Saint Cyprian: Non aliunde haereses obortae sunt, aut nata schismata, Lib. 1. Epist. 3. quàm inde quòd sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur; nec vnus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, nec vnus iudex vice Christi cogitatur: Not from any other roote haue heresies and schismes sprung vp but from this, that men do not obey the Priest of God, nei­ther do they consider how that in the Church there is one Priest and one Iudge, for the time, in steed of Christ.

A. W.

In propounding these matters against vs (of your proofe I will speake afterward) there are a few things worthy obser­uation, that your dealing may be manifest to all men. First, you talke of the Protestants Church, as if we (like you) fancied to our selues some one church, beside which there should be none in the whole world: whereas we acknowledge seuerall Chur­ches in diuers countries to be entire in themselues, without de­pendance of any one vpon any other. Yet do we not denie, that there is a certaine communion betwixt and among all true Churches, which consists in their agreement in doctrine, about all matters of the foundation, and the mutuall helpes of prayer, and of other Christians duties to be performed by one congre­gation to and for another. In this respect there is one Church of Protestants; and whatsoeuer company holdeth not the foun­dation, is no true Church, nor to be counted a member of the Protestants Church.

Secondly, I would know why you require that our Church should be perfectly one: since you mentioned no such matter, in setting downe & expounding the first propertie of the Church. If you answer, that to be one, and to be perfectly one, is all one: I pray you remember, that this terme perfectly should either haue bin put in before, or bin left out now. Otherwise, seeing you neuer tell vs, that it is all one, whether a Church be one, or per­fectly one, why shold we not make our aduantage of your words, and presume that our Church is held by you to be one, though it want somwhat of I know not what perfectiō imagined by you: which yet you forget, when you come to shew that your church is one.

Thirdly, how doth this strange speech, vniforme in dogmati­call [Page 310] points of faith, agree with that plainnesse which you pro­fesse, for instructing of the simple? But in good ear­nest, what meane you by dogmaticall points? It had bin very fit you should haue vsed other termes, or atleast haue expounded these for the vnderstāding of the ignorant. But this dark speech makes more for you, because it may perhaps affoord you some starting hole, if you be hard driuen. Yet a man may gesse at your meaning, because when you come to proue that the Church of Rome is one, you seeme to interprete dogmaticall points to be matters of faith defined by the Church. If we take it in this sense, I maruel how you can charge our Churches with variablenesse in this respect? What one point was euer defined by the gene­rall consent of our Churches, which hath bin since altered by like consent? If you can shew none, as I may well presume you cannot; till you do, then are our Churches in dogmatical points of faith, as perfectly one, as yours so much bragged of.

Now to your argument, which is thus to be concluded:

  • That Church which is variable, according to the varietie of times and persons, &c. the learned men whereof are at iarre among themselues in matters of faith, &c. and haue no means to end their controuersies, is not one.
  • But such is the Protestants Church.
  • Therefore the Protestants Church is not one.

I denie your maior: varietie of opinions, differences of learned To the pro­position. men, without meanes to end their controuersies, do not proue any Church, not to be one, vnlesse the matters, about which they dif­fer, be of the foundation: so that the ignorance of them, or error in them, be in it selfe damnable. To make my answer plaine, I wil handle as shortly as I can, the seuerall points of your pro­position. The Apostles, disciples and other beleeuers, in our Sa­uiours time were (doubtlesse) the true Church, and so alwayes continued in generall, though some of them haply fell away: being the true Church, they were also one by your owne con­fession; yet did they not always hold the same dogmaticall points of faith, but varied in matters of very great moment. For a time, yea all the time of our Sauiours Christs life, Act. 1. 6. till his ascension, they beleeued that his kingdome was not onely spiritual, but also [Page 311] of this world. Mark. 16. 11. They were ignorant of that high point concer­ning his resurrection, Rom. 4. 25. 1. Cor. 15. 14. 17 without which there is no iustification. Yea after the descending of the holy Ghost vpon them, Act. 10. 15. they held it vnlawfull to impart the Gospell to the Gentiles. Put case now, that some of those who followed our Sauiour, had continued in these opinions, and that you had bin to giue sen­tence, whether they & their companie had bin the true church, or the Apostles and people that claue to them: surely you must needs, according to this first part of your reason, haue condem­ned the innocent, and iustified the wicked. For the Apostles Church was not one, because it had varied from some opinions formerly held by it, which the other companie still retained. As for your odious manner of propounding the point, according to the varietie of times and persons, it is but a froth of words, and might in regard of the change, haue bin charged in like sort vpon the Apostles.

As for the dissent of learned men one from another, neither was the Church euer so happie as to be without it, and you ac­knowledge it among your owne writers, though not in matters of faith; the contrary whereof I will shew when I come to that place. But if by matters of faith, you meant such points as are fundamental, I could somewhat the rather hearken to you. And yet what shall it hinder a Church from being one, that the lear­ned men of it make question of such maine matters, as long as the Church is not tainted with their priuate errors? Did the Churches of Corinth or Galatia cease to be true Churches, be­cause some among them (and as it should seeme no small num­ber) 1. Cor. 15. 11 in the former denied the resurrection of the flesh; Gal. 3. 4. 5. in the other ioyned the workes of the law with faith to iustification? yet were both these fundamētall errors, the continuance wherin without repentance, must needs bring certaine damnation. But your matters of faith are all points, though neuer so friuolous or false, that your Church hath determined by her lawlesse ty­rannie: whereas many matters of farre greater importance, not so decreed, are left free for euery man to erre in, or to be ignorant of, without any danger of damnation, or breach of vnitie.

[Page 312] This last point (as you say) is the principall matter appertai­ning to vnitie, that there be meanes in the Church to end contro­uersies. But why, or how should this be so principall, when as the Church may agree in the same points of doctrine, though priuate men dissent from each other? Indeed to the procuring of an outward peace, it is very requisite that particular men be not suffered to preach or write one against another. But nei­ther is this peace so much worth, as that for it the Church should be corrupted with errors: and the chiefe power for the remedying of this inconuenience, is in the hands of the chiefe Magistrate, whose dutie it is to prouide that his subiects 1. Tim. 2. 2. may leade a quiet and a peaceable life, in all godlinesse and honestie. Therefore neither doth this disagreement among the lear­ned, make the Church cease to be one, though there be no meanes to end it; which yet are not wanting in the true Churches.

Your minor also is false in euery part of it. Ʋariablenesse in points of faith according to the variety of times and persons, is when To the As­sumption. (in regard of these two) the doctrine of the Church is altered. Now who is so shamelesse as to charge vs with hauing altered, and dayly altering our iudgements in respect of either of these? What necessitie or occasion can varietie of time bring for the change of doctrine? But for persons, what sect, profession, church or companie in the world, euer was or could be freer from de­pending on any mans person, then we are, who absolutely dis­claime all mens authority ouer our faith? Are not you they, that 12. Art. Part. 1. art. 2. charge vs with leauing the interpretation of Scripture, and consequently the beliefe of euerie man to his owne priuate humour? And yet you are not ashamed, to accuse vs for varia­blenesse in our doctrine, according to the varietie of persons. If ma­lice were not blind, it were vnpossible you should slaunder vs, with so manifest contrarieties. You are the men, whose faith dependeth vpon the persons of your Popes, whom you follow blindfold, whither soeuer any of them leadeth you. We attri­bute to our teachers no impossibilitie of erring, though we haue a reuerend opinion of their knowledge and faithfulnesse; in regard whereof we do not lightly reiect any doctrine, or ex­position [Page 313] deliuered by them, vnlesse it be apparently false. Yet doe we not tie our selues to take whatsoeuer they teach, as a matter of faith, though we are readie to yeeld to any thing which is plainly prooued to vs out of the word of God, how contrary soeuer it be to our former opinions. For we know, that men are subiect to error, and that God doth not miraculously reueale all truth at once to any man; but as it seemes good to his gracious wisedom, peece by peece enlighteneth the vnderstan­ding of his seruants with the knowledge of his will and word, according to their sinceritie in depending on him, faith in cal­ling vpon him, & diligence in searching the Scriptures, the only sufficient meanes of instruction. The second part of your slan­der is, that our learned men so iarre in matters of faith, that it is hard to find three in all points of one opinion. Remember what you call matters of faith, points of doctrine defined by the Church: and forbeare blushing if you can, when you reade this your accu­sation against vs. What other refutation shal I need to vse, then the bare naming of the harmonie of our confessions, wherein the most partial Reader of your side may discerne your shame­lesse hyperbole, that I may giue it a cleanlier terme then it deser­ueth. To requite your kindnesse, I challenge you to name me (if you can) any one of your schoole-men, that hath not refuted some of his owne fellowes in some points, or bene refuted by them. I confesse there are many of them, that I haue not read: but I am so well acquainted with their courses, and contradi­cting of one another, that I may venture without aduenture, to make this challenge.

Last of all your minor affirmes, that See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 1. art. 5. our learned men haue no meanes to end their controuersies. If you speake of the euent, that our meanes are not sufficient de facto, to make them that striue, to agree in one opinion, or to make all men to be of one mind: I graunt that you say to be true; but I adde withall, that we may haue, when we will, as good meanes to this purpose, as your Church hath. For it is no more but to appoint some man, to whose iudgement we will stand in all matters of controuer­sie. What hereticall Church may not haue the same meanes of vnitie, if it please? But if you denie that, de iure, wee haue [Page 314] meanes sufficient for the ending of all questions: I say your minor is vtterly false, because we haue the Scriptures appoin­ted and blessed to that end by God himselfe. Now as the mi­nisterie of the word is most sufficient for the begetting of faith, and sauing of men, though it haue not this excellent effect in all: so the Scriptures are of absolute sufficiencie to cut off all controuersies, howsoeuer men will not alwayes be ruled by them.

Your minor (as we haue seene) containes a grieuous accu­sation of vs in three points of no small importance. To which we pleade not guiltie, and looke to heare what euidence com­meth against vs, to proue the enditement. But you, rather like the foreman of the grand enquest, then the plaintiffe that en­dites vs, instead of prouing, come in with I find that the Pro­testants Church is not perfectly one. This will not serue the turne: we must know how you finde it, or at least be assured that you haue found it. Who would not laugh at such an euidence? But though you leaue the two former points to the credulousnesse of your Popish followers, yet you attempt the proofe of the last by this Syllogisme.

  • They that admit no rule of faith but onely Scriptures, and allow no infallible interpreter thereof, to whose iudgement they will stand, haue no meanes to end their controuersies, and re­turne to vnitie.
  • But the Protestant Churches admit no rule of faith, but onely Scriptures, and allow no infallible interpreter thereof, to whose iudgement they will stand.
  • Therefore the Protestant Churches haue no meanes to end their controuersies, and returne to vnitie.

I denie your maior: for the Scripture alone containes all truth necessarie to be beleeued, and that so plainly, that without any To the pro­position. such soueraigne iudgement of any man, it is possible for a reaso­nable man to discerne truth from falshood. But if any man will be contentious, we haue the sword of the magistrate, and the censure of excommunication to bring him into order, or to cut him off if he be incurable, that the vnitie of our Churches be not dissolued either by heresic or schisme.

[Page 315] But to confirme your proposition: you alledge Hieron. adu. Iouin. lib. 1. Ieromes au­thoritie, that there must be a head or chiefe ruler, that occasion of schisme may be taken away. The danger of schisme that Ierome speakes of in his first booke against Iouinian (not as your Prin­ter quotes it, in the second) was not in respect of doctrine, but of outward peace. Neither was this course held from the be­ginning (as Ierome saith) but in discretion appointed vpon oc­casion. Before that, by the malice of the diuell (saith Hieron. ad Tit. cap. 1. Ierome) the Church was deuided into factions, and one man held of Paul, another of Apollo, another of Cephas, Churches were gouerned by common consent of the Presbyters; but after that euery man be­gan to thinke, that those which hee had baptized were his and not Christs: it was decreed ouer all the world, that one chosen from a­mong the Presbyters, should be set ouer the rest, to whom the whole care of the Church should appertaine, and that the seeds of schismes might be taken away. Out of which sentence of Ierome, we may obserue these points: First, that this meanes of procuring vni­tie, belongeth not (necessarily) to the nature of the Church: for then it must needs haue bene as auncient as the Church. But Ierome telleth vs, that there was a time when the Church was without it, and that in her best estate while the Apostles li­ued. By little and little (saith Hieron. vbi supra. Ierome afterward) that the plants of dissention might be plucked vp, the whole care was layed vpon one. Secondly, whereas in the place alledged by you, Ie­rome acknowledgeth such a superioritie in Peter aboue the other Apostles, in respect of age, for which (as he saith) he was preferred before Iohn: yet there is more heede to be taken to his iudgement in this place, where he disputes the question with­out all passion, then to that which hee speakes in the heate of disputation against Iouinian. But what neede we any better proofe of this point, then Saint Paul affoords vs? He blameth the Corinthians, because some held of Paul, some of Apollos, some of Cephas. Cephas or Peter is the last: why not the first rather, if he were (as you say) the head? Or why should the Corinthians be reproued for cleauing to him especially, if he were appointed to be the chiefe? It might be a fault to depend on Paule or on Apollos, who were (in your iudgement) vnder­lings: [Page 316] but it was a great vertue to hang vpon Cephas the head. How forgetfull was the Apostle Paul both of his dutie to Peter his head, and of so readie a meanes to end that schisme, that would not tell them that Peter was appointed head, to the end all occasion of schisme might be taken away? Thirdly, we are not so to vnderstand Ierome, as if he had said, that there was one head appointed ouer the whole world, but that in all places where there were multitudes of Presbyters, order was taken that some one chosen from among the rest, should be chiefe and principall in that Diocesse, as I may speake, and ouer all them which were in some sort accounted to be but one bodie. This agreeth with the practise of those times, and with that of Cypr. ad Corn. epist. 55. §. 6. Vide ibi Gou­lact. ad annot. 17. Cy­prian: Here of spring heresies, and schismes arise, that the Priest of the Lord is not obeyed. Which Cyprian speakes of euery seuerall Bishop in his Diocesse. Whereunto also belongs that of Hieron. ad Rusticum. Ie­rome: There be seuerall Bishops of Churches, seuerall Archbishops, and seuerall Archdeacons, and all the Ecclesiasticall order is stayed by the gouernours. Whereby (saith Gloss. ad 7. q. 2. c. in apib [...]s the Glosse) Ierome proueth that there may not be two or more Bishops in one Church: but that there must be a seuerall Bishop in euery seuerall Church. To which purpose I may farther alledge another place of Ierome: Ʋnlesse (saith Hieron. contra Luciferian. Ierome) the Bishop haue a speciall power aboue other, there will be as many schismes in the Church as there be Priests. This course then of authorizing some one of the Presbyters a­boue the rest, was for the preseruing of order, and keeping out of schisme, not for the determining of controuersies in Reli­gion, as if all must haue stood to one mans iudgement in que­stions of Diuinitie: which either may be ended by the autho­ritie of the Scriptures, if they be necessary to be determined, or if they be not, may be forbidden to be proceeded in, without any danger to the Churches libertie. So that the Protestant Churches fully agree in matters of substance, and want not meanes to settle peace in questions of lesse importance: or if they did, might easily haue as good meanes as your Church, by appointing a Pope ouer themselues, as in policie you haue done. But as yet they finde no such need, especially where the remedie is worse then the disease, as it must needs be in so law­lesse [Page 317] a tyrannie. Is it not more for the glory of God, & good of the Church, as I haue said Answer to 12. Art part. 1. art. 5. otherwhere, that there should be continuall disagreement in some matters of Religion, then that all should beleeue & maintain false doctrine? Were not our Sa­uiour Christ better haue a troubled church, thē none at all? Ho­norable war is to be preferred before dishonorable peace, in the iudgement of any wise states-man. And can it be more glorious to God, to haue outward quietnesse in the Church with heresy, yea with Antichristianisme, then truth with contention? True Christian vnitie consists principally in truth of religion, without which the greatest agreement is but a conspiracy against God.

We are now come to the principall point of your Minor, wherein it stands you vpon to play the man, and to make good those foure properties on the behalfe of your Church of Rome. I must needs say, it would grieue a man to take so much paines to so little purpose; because if you prooue all that now you vn­dertake, all that is as good as nothing, till your Maior and your former syllogismes be better confirmed. But yet if you quit your selfe well in this, your Church shall be more beholding to you, then it was euer yet to any of your fellowes, in this question. To begin withall, you propound the question somwhat fauorably, that the Romane Church holds not any dogmaticall points contrary to that, which in former times, frō the beginning it did hold. It were much indeed, your Church should teach contrarie doctrines to those it hath heretofore taught, & I think you can hardly name me any heresy so grosse, as to fall frō one contrary to an other. Your schoolmen haue set vp a mint, wherin they coine vs euery day new distinctions, to colour matters in such sort, that your new opinions shall neuer appeare to be cōtrary to your old do­ctrine. Hauing thus pitcht the state of the question, it seemeth you thought there needed no proofe therof; once it is apparent you offer not (directly) to bring any in this whole discourse: but rather endeuour to shew vs the reason of this their agreement, because forsooth they acknowledge, that the definitiue sentence of the Pope, (either alone, or at least with a generall Councell) must needs be alwaies an vnfallible vndoubted truth. Of which in due place. But to take your matter as it lies.

  • [Page 318] That Church (say you) which holdeth no dogmaticall point con­trarie to that, which informer times from the beginning it did hold, is alwaies one.
  • But the Church of Rome holdeth no dogmaticall point con­trarie to that, which informer times, from the begin­ning, it did hold.
  • Therefore the Church of Rome is alwaies one.

The question is not, which Church is alwaies one, in regard of To the pro­position. not varying from that, which first it held, but which is alwaies one, according to the meaning of the Nicene Creed, that is, which Church continueth in the truth of the Gospell. For o­therwise an hereticall Church might be acknowledged to be one, and so a true Church, because it remaineth obstinate in that heresie, which at first it embraced. Therefore your Ma­ior is not true simply, but onely vpon this supposition, that your Church at the first held the truth. But because we gladly ac­knowledge, that the Church of Rome was at the first sound in faith, I will leaue your Proposition, and come to your As­sumption.

Your Minor is excepted against by vs (as you cannot choose but knowe) in verie many points, and some of them concer­ning To the As­sumption. the foundation of Christian Religion. For triall whereof we appeale to the Epistle to the Romanes, about matters of Faith, Grace, Iustification, Free will, Predestination, and other that necessarilie depend vpon these. Here are you as dumbe as a fish, and like a man that had neither eares nor eies, passe by this exception, without taking any knowledge of it. Is this a direct way (according to your promise in your title) to settle mens minds in all doubts, questions and controuersies, concerning matters of faith? You might as well without all this ado, haue told them in one word, that the Church of Rome is the true Church, and cannot erre. For in effect what do you else, when after many circumstances, the question is brought to this issue, whether the Church of Rome hold the same doctrine, which in the Apostles time she professed? You tell vs she doth, with­out any proofe of that you say, or answer to our manifold ex­ceptions. I will not enter into particulars, as well because I see [Page 319] my answer growes greater then I intended or like of, as also for that the seuerall controuersies betwixt you and vs, are so many seuerall exceptions against this Assumption.

For verie pure shame, you are driuen to confesse, that there are differences of opinion, among the learned of your side. But to helpe the matter withall, you qualifie it with sometimes. Sometimes say you? Either your reading must be verie little, or your boldnesse exceeding great, that you mince the matter in this sort, with sometimes. Answer my former challenge, if you can, concerning the warres among your schoolemen; or doe but look into Cardinall Bellarmines controuersies, and then tell me, whether these differences be but sometimes, or no. What learned writer almost is there of any fame on your part, whom Bellarmine doth not dissent from, in one point or other? I might giue many instances, but there is no man that reads him, ignorant of that I say, and you haue found a shift for this matter, by interpreting dogmaticall points of Faith, to be mat­ters defined by the Church. Wherein we are first to consider how absurdly you limit matters of faith: Secondly to shew, that euē in these matters so limited, there is not alwaies agree­ment amongst your writers.

The vse and office of faith (as it is onely an assent) is to giue vndoubted credit to the whole truth of God, by acknowled­ging it both to be from God, and to be true. For proofe of this, if any man desire it, I referre him, Chap. 3. & 4. to the third and forth Chapters of this treatise, where you speake of the infalliblenesse and entirenesse of faith. But though this be the dutie of faith, it hath pleased God to deale graciously with men, touching the meanes of their saluation, and not to exact vpon absolute necessitie, an acknowledging, or knowledge of euery parti­cular point of his truth. Some things are such, as I shewed before, as that without them there is no possibilitie of salua­tion, but that whosoeuer is ignorant of them, Ignorantia. Pr [...]uatiua. Negatiua. either by neg­lecting the meanes of knowledge, or by hauing no possibility to attaine vnto it, he is vtterly shut out (for ought we know) from the kingdome of heauen. Other points there are, which euerie man must labour to know, and beleeue, because they [Page 320] are to that end reuealed by God; but yet the simple ignorance of them, so it be without contempt or carelesnesse, doth not depriue a man of saluation by Christ. The former of these two kindes are more properly matters of faith, being absolute­ly necessarie to saluation. You speake of matters of faith, as though not the points in thēselues, but the determination of the Church should make a necessitie of them to saluation. So that the not beleeuing of the least matter of ceremonie enioyned by the Church, shall be more damnable then the ignorance of the greatest point of Diuinitie, being not so determined. But I would faine know of you, how I shall vnderstand what is to be accounted determined by the Church? You confesse after­ward, that it is questionable whether the chiefe Pastor, that is the Pope alone, or he with a generall Councel, be the Church which can­not erre. Doubtlesse, if it be (as you Chap. 4. taught vs before) of ne­cessitie to saluation, that we beleeue entirely all points of faith, without misbeleeuing any one; what hope of saluation shall be left to any Papist, who cannot by any meanes know what is de­termined by the Church, and what is not? Or if he may be sure that matters defined by the Pope and a Councell, are decided by the Church; yet since it is not so determined, whether the Pope alone be sufficient to determine of points in controuersie, he may refuse to obey some constitutions of the Pope, or to be­leeue some questions decided by him; and thereby shut him­selfe out of heauen, for not giuing credit to the determination of the Church, if that authoritie of determining be in the Pope, and he commaund men so to beleeue. But if this determina­tion of the Church be ioyntly in the Pope and Councels, and that nothing is a matter of faith, but that which is so determi­ned to be, then was there almost no matter of faith at all in the Church, till within these last 800 yeares. For it is more then euident to any man, that will not be wilfully contentious, that the Pope neuer bare any extraordinarie sway in Councels, till he had proclaimed himselfe vniuersall Bishop, which was by the grant of the murtherer Phocas, six hundred yeares after the beginning of the Gospell. What shall we thinke of the Churches in the Apostles times, and so forward, [Page 321] Anno. 325. till the Councell of Nice, in which the Popes supremacie was not heard of? Had Christians then no matters of faith to be­leeue? How should they, if all depend vpon the Pope and a ge­neral Councel? Let me grant that those Councels in Act. 15. 29. the Acts were generall: what was there determined, but that the Gen­tiles were to abstaine from things offered to Idols, and bloud, and that which is strangled, and from fornication? VVas nothing a matter of faith, but these few points: which also till this time were not matters of faith? Either shew some good reason, why matters of faith were not, at this time of the Apostles liuing, to be tied to generall Councels and the Pope, & yet now must be; or confesse the truth to the glorie of God, that matters of faith haue their authoritie, to be matters of faith, from the word of God, and not from the determination of Pope or Councell, or both. Neither thinke to shift of the matter, by saying they are indeed matters of faith in themselues, but not to vs. For so it will come to passe, that we shall say, the first Christians had no points that were matters of faith to them, because they had none determined by the Church in a Councell, which opinion is I know not whether of more absurditie or im­pietie.

Now that you agreement in matters of faith, after the de­termination of the Church, is not so great, as you would make the world beleeue; it may appeare by the verie ground of religion, the Canon of the Scripture: which was determined of (by your iudgement) in Concil. Car­thag. can. 47. the Councell of Carthage: where­in the Apocryphall bookes (say you) were allowed for Cano­nical: yet (saith Bellarm. de verbo Dei lib. 1. cap. 7. Sect. Hactenus. Bellarmine) Nicholas Lyra, Denys the Carthusiā, Hugo de sancto victore, & Cardinalis Caietan. Thomas de Vio, both these (at least the last) Cardinals, follow Ierom in reiecting thē, as Apocryphal. But if this Councel may be excepted against, sure (in your iudg­ment) the Councell of Trent may not, Concil. Tri­dent. Sess 4. which hath receiued those books into the canō of the scripture. Yet for all that, Sixtus Senē ­sis. biblioth. sanctae. lib. 1. & 8. Six­tus Senensis keeper of the Popes library, maketh bold to deny thē such authority, euen since that Coūcel, as Bellar. vbi supra. Bellarmine him­self confesseth. And Arias Mōta­nus praef ad biblia interlin. Arias Montanus, since that time, doubteth not to say, that the Orthodoxe or true Church, following the Canon [Page 322] of the Hebrewes, accounteth those bookes of the old Testament, writ­ten in Greeke, to be Apocryphal. What say you to your Bishop Ca­tharin, who being one of the Councell of Trent, after the deter­mination of the Councell, against assurance of saluation, Sotus in A­polog. contra Catharin. defen­deth that such assurance, (notwithstanding that decree of the Councell) may ordinarily be had by them that beleeue? You would perswade vs, that it is a ruled case of your Church, long ago, that the Scriptures are not sufficient without tradition. What saith Scotus prolog. in 1. senten. q. 2. Scotus in this case? Whatsoeuer pertaineth to heauenly and supernaturall knowledge, and is necessarie to be knowne of men in this life, is sufficiently deliuered in the holy scriptures. The holy scrip­ture (saith Ioan. Gerson. serm. in die cir­cumcis. cōsid. 1. Gerson) is sufficient for the gouernment of the Church: or else was Christ an vnperfect Lawgiuer. I might runne on in the like course, touching other points, but these shal serue for a tast: and so I passe ouer to your proofe, that the learned on your side, cannot possibly dissent one from another.

  • They which acknowledge, that the definitiue sentence of the Pope is to be rested vpon, as an vndoubted truth, cannot possibly dissent in matters of faith.
  • But all Catholick learned men acknowledge, that the Popes sen­tence is such.
  • Therefore no Catholicke learned men can possibly dissent in mat­ters of faith.

All you conclude is, that in matters determined by the Pope and a Councell, your learned men cannot disagree, To the syllo­gisme. because they hold, that such a determination is certainly true: yet for all this (as I haue shewed) your Church may be rent in peeces with contrarie opinions in matters of as great moment, as most are in religion: & if, for all this, it cease not to be a true Church, why should not the Protestants haue the like priui­ledge, who haue the same opinion of the Scriptures, that you haue of the Pope? Be not so iniurious to reason, or blasphe­mous against God, as to auouch that no controuersie can be ended by the word, because diuers men will expound it diuers­ly. For it is contrarie both to religion and sense, to imagine that the Lord would giue his people such a Scripture as cannot be certainely vnderstood in all points necessarie to saluation, [Page 323] but by I know not what reuelation to some one man.

More particularly I denie your Maior. They that acknow­ledge To the pro­position. such an authoritie in the Pope, may yet differ in opinion about matters of faith. I bring you example in that point of as­surance, wherein Catharin disputed against that doctrine, which Sotus and your writers generally since the Councell of Trent, affirme to haue bene the certaine decree of the Councell. Yet were they both present in the Councell, and none of the mea­nest there assembed. The reason of that their dissent, and the possibilitie of the like betwixt other men, ariseth from this, that decrees of Councels and Popes, being set downe in writing, may be diuersly interpreted, and so the meaning of them mista­ken, as Catharin. tract. 2. Catharin saith, that he foresaw some men would misun­derstand the Councell of Trent in that point. This is all the incon­ueniences, you can alledge in admitting the Scripture for Iudge, and this followeth the decrees of Councels and Popes at the least, as much as the writings of the holy Ghost: who was as able, and as carefull to speake so, that all whom it concer­ned, might vnderstand him, as the holiest of your Councels or Popes.

I can hardly perswade my selfe, that any man of learning, let To the As­sumption. him be neuer so Catholicke, as you tearme him, can beleeue, that the Pope alone, or the Pope, and a Councell cannot erre. But it is an opinion deuised and retained in politicke discreti­on, to keepe things in an outward quietnesse, & to aduance the estate of your Cleargie. I may not enter into the discussing of this priuiledge you claime: for it would aske much time, and a long discourse, but I wil touch it, as farre as you giue me necessa­rie occasion, and so proceed to that which followeth. And first concerning the Popes owne person; which seemeth to be your best plea, being alledged in the first place, and almost wholly stood vpon: you cannot be so ignorant, as not to know that diuers learned men on your side, confesse and maintaine, that the Pope may erre. Many Popes (saith Lyra. ad Mat. 16. Lyra) haue bene found to haue bene Apostataes from the faith. The Pope (saith Ambros. Ca­tharin. ad Ga­lat. 2. conclus. 1 Catha­rin) may erre, and fall vtterly from the faith. And although in Conclus. 2. his second conclusion he tels vs, that the Pope, as Pope, that is [Page 324] sitting (you call it ex Cathedra, out of his chaire) and lawfully, (according to the rite of vsing the key of knowledge particularly committed to him) determining a matter of faith, cannot erre; so that he shall define any thing against faith: yet he addeth afterward that the Pope may decree, by way of a commaundement, or Law, some false, or vniust thing: so that (saith he) there are many decrees of Popes found to be diuers, and contrarie one to another. And can euerie learned man, thinke you, iudge, which decrees the Pope made, as Pope, and which as a man? What idle and vncertaine fooleries are these distinctions? I do not beleeue (saith Alfons à Castro. contr. haeres. lib. 1. cap. 4. Christoph. de ca. font. de necess. cor. theol. schol. fol. 53. b. Alfousus) that the Pope hath any flatterer so impudent, to grant him this prerogatiue, that he can neuer erre, nor be deceiued in ex­pounding Scripture. I haue learned of the schoole Doctors (saith a late Archbishop of yours) that any Pope may erre as a Doctor, or as a man, but not as a Iudge. And this he speaketh of a decree of Pope Eugenius the fourth, which many Diuines (as himselfe confesseth) take to be a decree of the Councell of Florence. Yet Bishop Catharin boldly affirmeth, that there are many things, in the said decree, which if they be strictly taken, and accor­ding Apud Christoph. vbi supra. to the proper meaning of the words, wil be found to be false, and therefore (as he saith) need a fauourable interpretation. Yea the same Archbishop is not afraid to refute (as he pretendeth by the authoritie of the Councell of Trent) the iudgement and de­termination of three Popes, Eugenius the fourth, Clemens the Eugen. in decr. Clew. & Pius. in praefat. ad. Missa. Roman. eight, and Pius the fift: the two last hauing set out their Missals since the Councell of Trent, and yet (as he thinketh) resoluing concerning the words of consecration, contrarie to the iudge­ment of the Councell. It may appeare also by his Epistle de­dicatorie, that a fourth Pope Sixtus the fift, to whom he writeth that Treatise, was of the same opinion in that matter, with those his predeceslors, from whom the Archbishop maketh bold to dissent, as he doth from Thomas of Aquine and all his fol­lowers. But what name I priuate men, although excellently learned? Let vs heare a whole generall Councell speake. We condemne and depose (saith Concil. Basil. sess. 34. the Councell of Basil,) Pope Eugenius a despiser of the holy Canons, a disturber of the peace, and vnitie of the Church of God, a man notoriously scandalous [Page 325] to the vniuersall Church, a Symoniack, a for sworne man, incorrigi­ble, aschismaticke, fallen from the faith, and an obstinate heretick. And for the auowing of this their act, they speake thus Concil. Basil. inter epist. Syn. in ano­ther place: We haue heard and read, that many Popes haue fallen into error and heresie: it is certaine that the Pope may erre. The Councell hath often condemned and deposed the Pope, both for his heresie in faith, and his leudnesse in life. I might adde hereunto the authoritie of the Concil. Const. sess. 4. Councel of Constance, which bindes the Pope to be obedient to the decrees of Councels. But that which I haue said, may suffice to shew, that all learned Papists do not know, the Pope cannot erre. But you vndertake to proue they do know it, because of certaine places of Scripture, wherein our Sauiour makes a promise of not erring to Peter and his succes­sors. To all which I answer in generall, that those learned men and Councels before alledged, did know that these places were brought to proue the Popes priuiledge of not erring, and not­withstanding held it for an vndoubted truth, that he might erre: you may beare with vs then, though we make question of it.

In particular I answer to the places alledged, concerning Saint Peters priuiledge. Math. 16. 19. The keyes signifie nothing but power to open and shut heauen, to bind and loose, by retaining or remitting the sins of men. The plaine sense of those words (saith Bellar. de Rom. Pont. li. 1. cap. 12. §. Verū. Bellarmine) is this, that first the authoritie is promised, or the power noted out by the keyes; then the actions and office are expounded by those words, to bind and loose. And in the verse before, he finds fault with Caiet. de insti. & autor. Rom. Pont. cap 5. Ca­ietan for endeuouring to stretch that grant, to I know not what farther matter. I forbeare to set downe any proofe of this ex­position, because it is cleare enough of it selfe, if we compare this promise with the performance of it in Iohns Gospell: Ioa. 21. 22. 23 Re­ceiue the holy Ghost (saith our Sauiour) whose sinnes soeuer ye re­mit, they are remitted vnto them: and whose sinnes soeuer ye retaine, they are retained. Secondly I say, that Bellar. vbi supra. §. Dices. this power was not pe­culiar to Peter, but common to him with all the Apostles, yea with all ministers, who are their successors in preaching the Gospell, shutting and opening, binding and loosing. Wee affirme (saith Bell. vbi supr. §. His igitur. Bellarmine) that in those words, Math. 18. (which are of the same nature with the other, Math. 16.) nothing is graunted, [Page 326] but onely it is there declared and foretold, what power the Apostles and their successors were to haue. Those things (saith Maldonat. ad Math. 18. Maldonatus) that are here promised to Peter, agree not onely to him, but to all Apostles, Bishops, and Priests. Whereupon Theophyl. ad Mat. 18. Theophylact saith, that although it was said to Peter onely, I will giue thee the keyes: yet the keyes were granted to all the Apostles: when? when he said, whose sins you forgiue. Therefore this promise of giuing the keyes, con­ueyes no other priuiledge to Peter then to all the Apostles, yea to all true ministers of the Gospell, by the iudgement of your owne Iesuits.

But Luc. 22. 32. Christ prayed especially for Peter, that his faith might not faile. And good reason, not without need: for he knew that Satan would tempt him shreudly, and giue him a fouler foyle then euer he gaue any of his other Apostles. Yet August. de verb. Dom. se­cund. Lucam. serm. 36. Austin brings in our Sauiour speaking in generall: I haue prayed the Father for you all, that your faith might not faile. As for your Glosse, that our Sauiour prayed for him, that his faith should not faile, (at least so far, as to teach the Church a false faith:) what one word is there in the text, to anow any such conceit? Beside it is apparent, that our Sauiour spake not Luc Brugens. ad Luc. 22. of his Apostleship, but of his faith, as he was a Christian, wherein he had failed finally, if our Sauiour had not mightily vpheld him: and in this faith was he fit to con­firme his brethren, as Heb. 4. 15. & 2. 17. hauing had so extraordinary experience of Satans temptation. But if this prayer were made for Peter, that he might not teach false doctrine, belike either he was more subiect to that danger then the rest of the Apostles, or they were left by our Sauiour in a continuall danger of erring: which opinion is a very neare neighbour to blasphemie. But what a pitifull consequence is this, Our Sauiour prayed that Pe­ters faith might not faile; therefore the Pope cannot erre? All the hold you haue left, is in the charge giuen to Peter, Ioan. 21. 15. to feede Christs sheepe: that is, to be painfull and faithfull in preaching of the Gospell. And this interpretation is agreeable to reason, that our Sauiour requiring a proofe of Peters loue, should charge him to make it manifest, by taking paines to feede his sheepe. But your exposition is absurd, whereby you would haue liuery and seisin of soueraigne authoritie in the Church giuen [Page 327] to him by these words: If thou loue me (saith our Sauiour, accor­ding to your exposition) take vpon thee the soueraigne gouerne­ment of the Church. This were a poore proofe of Peters loue, which is there demaunded. You will say, the charge of feeding was common to all the Apostles; but here the Lord speaketh particularly to Peter. He doth indeed. And do you not see the reason of it? Peter, because of his grieuous fall, had need of such a charge, both for his better autorizing, and his greater care. He speakes chiefly to Peter (saith your frier Ioan. Ferus ad Ioan. 21. 19 Ferus) and to him esce­cially commends his sheepe, that he might vtterly abolish the remem­brance of his deniall. For because he had fallen more grieuously then the other, and had more obstinately denied Christ, he stood in need of peculiar charge, lest by the remembrance of his deniall, he might suspect that the common charge of the Apostleship belonged not to hm. He remedies his denying thrice, by his confessing thrice, saith Theoph. ibi. Theophylact: the like hath Aug. in. Ioan. tract. 123. Hieron. in epit. Fabiola. Austin. Peter blatted out his three denial. (saith Ierome) by his three confessions. So then all that you haue said of Peters not erring in matter of doctrine, is nothing worth: yet do we thankfully acknowledge that Pe­ter could not erre in matter of faith: but we say, that this was no priuiledge peculiar to him, but common also to the other Apostles, by vertue of their Apostleship. Wherein if no man succeed them, as questionlesse there are now no Apostles, no man can claime a priuiledge of not erring by any right from them, or any promise made to them.

It is needlesse therefore to make many words concerning any successor of S. Peter: onely I will signifie how vncertaine your Religion must needs be, that depends vpon such points as these. You tell vs the Pope cannot erre. We beleeue you not, because we know he is (at the best) but a learned man, often­times not so much, sometimes Alfons. á Ca­stro. scarce able to vnderstand his grammer. You proue he cannot erre, because he is Peters suc­cessor. We deny the consequence. Because he may succeed Pe­ter in place, and yet not in office of Apostleship, whereby Peter had that priuiledge. But principally we deny your antecedent, that the Pope is Peters successor. Now we looke for some certain & euident proofe. But alas there is none to be had. We therfore [Page 328] thus except against this imagined succession: First we say, there is no word of scripture to proue that euer Peter came at Rome. How then can it be a matter of faith, to hold that he was Bi­shop of Rome? Do not say, you must beleeue the Church: for the question is, whether you be the true Church or no. Se­condly, we say farther, that it is somewhat vncertaine, euen in humane stories, whether euer Peter were at Rome or no: and if it were certaine, yet it were nor a certaintie of faith, but of opinion. But that the force of your argument, and the truth of my answer may the better appeare, I wil propound your rea­son in forme, and my exceptions against it.

  • Peters successor cannot erre.
  • The Pope is Peters successor.
  • Therefore the Pope cannot erre.

To the Maior I answer, that he which succeeds Saint Peter To the Pro­position. in his whole right, or in all his priuiledges, and namely that of his Apostleship, cannot erre; but any other successor of his may erre, because his priuiledge of not erring is a propertie of his Apostleship. The proofe of your Maior is thus to be fra­med: Proofe of the Proposition.

  • He to whom the keyes are promised, for whom Christ prayed, that his faith might not faile, whom he charged to feed his sheepe cannot erre.
  • But to Peters successor Christ promised the keyes, for him he prayed that his faith might not faile, him he charged to feed his sheepe.
  • Therefore Peters successor cannot erre.

I denie the Maior, if you take it in such sense, as though the To the pro­position. power of not erring had bene conueyed to Peter, by reason of this promise, prayer and charge: otherwise notwithstanding by him, Peter, I grant that he to whom this promise was made, that is Peter, could not erre; yet was he not free from errour by vertue of this promise, prayer or charge, as I shewed be­fore.

The Minor is vtterly false: the promise was made in generall to all the Apostles; the prayer and charge were peculiar To the As­sumption. [Page 329] to Peters persō, for such especial reason as I shewed before, con­cerning his temptation to denie Christ, and his deniall of him. But you tell vs, that you doe not apply that charge of feeding the sheepe to Saint Peters successors, without sufficient autho­ritie and reason. Then questionlesse you must be able to shew vs some warrant for your doing out of the Scriptures. For the te­stimonie or opinion of man, is too weake a ground to build a matter of faith vpon. And yet you bring vs nothing but the word of a man to perswade vs, and scarce that too. For whereas you alledge Chrysost. li. 2. de Sacerdot. Chrysostome to countenance the matter, it is but a copie of your countenance, rather to feare then hurt vs. Chry­sostome saith, that our Sauiour shed his bloud to purchase those sheepe, the care whereof he committed to Peter and his successors. But who are these successors? All ministers, or (at the least) all Bishops. If you haue read the place, I need not proue it to you. Chrysostome had caused Basil to be preferred to a Bishopricke against his will. Hereupon Basil complaines of vnkind dealing. The other to excuse himselfe, vndertakes to shew that he had not onely not hurt him, but also done him a pleasure, because he had thereby giuen him occasion and oportunitie to manifest his loue to Christ, by feeding of his flocke, which he had com­mitted to Peter and his successors. Now if Basil (in Chry­sostoms iudgement) had not bene one of Peters successors, this had bene a poore reason to perswade him that Chrysostome had not done him wrong. For then had he not receiued that charge, nor discharged that dutie, to testifie his loue to Christ, since the loue was to be testified by feeding the flocke commit­ted, according to that charge of our Sauiour.

Leo serm. 1. de anniuers. assump. sua ad Pontif. Leo indeed makes the Bishop of Rome Peters successour. But he is too partiall a man to be iudge in his owne cause. I de­nie not, but that he was auncient and learned, and I am perswa­ded, a holy man too; but yet there appeare in him euery where apparent marks of ambition, for the aduancing of his owne sea: which may perhaps be excused by humane frailtie, but cannot serue to proue a matter of so great importance.

Your principall minor is false also, that the Pope is Peters suc­cessor. To the principal assumptiō It was true of the first Bishops of Rome, that they were [Page 330] Peters successors in the ministery of the Gospell, wherein they laboured faithfully and carefully. But this point of succession died long since, with the care to discharge that dutie. For these last 800 yeares and vpward, the Popes (generally) haue suc­ceeded the first reuealed Antichrist, Boniface the third, in pride, tyrannie, idlenes, riot, and all kind of excesse, no way resembling Saint Peter, either in truth of doctrine, or painfulnesse in prea­ching.

That which you adde, of I wot not what necessitie lying vpō God, to teach the Church all truth, and preserue it from erring, because he hath enioyned all men to heare it, without excep­ting or doubting, is an idle fancy of your own, without any like­lihood of truth; as hath appeared in my former answers.

But howsoeuer the Pope alone may erre, yet in a generall Councell he cannot. I heare you say so, but I see no proofe of it, not indeed any shew of reason for it. Whence ariseth this im­possibilitie of erring? Not from the Pope: For no man will flatter him so shamefully (saith Alfons. à Ca­stro. lib. 1. ca. 4. Alfonsus) as to make him beleeue he can­not erre. Perhaps then it resteth in the Councell. That cannot be neither. For Bellar. de Cō ­cil. lib. 2. ca. 11. Bellarmine tels vs, that Councels, be they neuer so generall, and neuer so lawfully assembled; may erre, but onely so farre as they follow instructions giuen them by the Pope. But the Pope may erre in giuing instructions: and how can freedome from erring ensue vpon his instructions, if he himselfe were not cer­tainly freed from erring in giuing them? And that this power of not erring, is wholy from the Pope, no way from the Councell, it is euident by this, that Bellar. de Cō ­cil. lib. 2. cap. 5. particular Councels are as free from error as generall, if they follow the Popes direction, or be con­firmed by him. But this will be yet more euident, if we consider the course that is to be held in Popish Councels. First, the Pope sends his Legates (saith Bellar. vbi su­pra. cap. 11. §. Quod vt me­lius. Bellarmine) instructed concerning the iudgement of the Apostolicke sea (that is, with knowledge of his mind, in all points that shal be handled) and that vpon condition, that if the Councell iumpe in opinion with the Pope, then they may proceed to make decrees; if it do not, then no decree may be made vntill the Popes pleasure be further knowne. Secondly, Confirm. Con­cil. Trident. Vide Concil. Tria. Sess. 25. c. illustrissim. when the Councell is ended, certaine of the Cardinals bring the [Page 331] decrees thereof to the Pope, and intreate him, that it wil please his Holinesse to confirme them; which, if he like them, he doth; if not, they are vtterly dasht. This being the course, how can it be imagined, that the Pope should be any more exemp­ted from erring with a Councell, then without one? I graunt he hath better helpes to discerne of the truth, if matters be or­derly and throughly debated; but we looke for an impossibi­litie of erring, which cannot be conueyed from the Councell to the Pope, because it is not in the Councell, but so far as they follow the Popes instructions: neither can it be imparted to the Councell by the Pope, because he hath it not in himselfe alone: neither lastly can it be in Councell and Pope together, because then neither can be aboue other; but all Papists are of opinion, that there must needs be a superioritie in the one, though they cannot agrtee in whether, howsoeuer Bellar. de Concil. lib. 2. ca. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Bellarmine takes vpon him to determine it. I say then, it is meerly impossible, that any Papist, learned or vnlearned, should know that the Pope with a Councell or without a Councell cannot erre, as well because the thing in it selfe is false, as also for that there is no agreement about the point amongst them: and therefore the Papists haue no certaine meanes to keepe them in any true vnitie.

If you will assigne a difference betwixt sects of hereticks and the Romane Church, you must say, betwixt other sects of heretiks and the Romane Church, which is of all other, indeed, the most hereticall. But your difference is nothing worth. For many sects of heresies haue at least for a time bin a flocke cleauing to their pastor, and holding certaine grounds true or false, whereby their Church was to be determined. As for vs, whom you strike at, we haue the most sure bond that may be, to tie vs all toge­ther, euen the truth of God, and are in our seuerall Churches people cleauing to our pastors: and such must euery true church be, where there is a true Pastor: without whom how far a com­pany may haue the name of a Church, and in what respect, I shewed before.

The testimonies alledged out of Cypr. ad Pu­pian. epist. 68. sect. 7. Cyprian, are not deliuered by him, concerning your Romane Church, but spoken of him­selfe and his flocke, and so generally to be applied to all other [Page 332] Churches in like sort. Pupianus, to whom he writes that epistle, charged Cyprian with dispersing the flocke of Christ, by his o­uer great seueritie against them, that had fallen into idolatry in time of persecution. Cyprian answers in his owne defence, that though some stubburne and disobedient people, refusing to shew themselues truly penitent for so grieuous a sinne, left his communion and congregation: yet the true Church was not thereby scattered, but continued stedfastly, cleauing to their pastor, namely himselfe. The chaffe onely (as Cypr. ad Cor­nel. epist. 55. sect. 6. he said before) not the wheate, can be seuered from the Church, for saking their lawfull Pastor, without any iust cause. The other place also is of particular Bishopricks, not of your imagined vniuersall Church, as before.

A. D. §. 5.

§. II. That the Romane Church onely is holy.

Secondly, I finde that the Protestants congregation is not holy: because not onely most of their men be euidently more wicked then men, which both in old time and in latter yeares liued in the Ro­mane Church; as those can tell which haue seene both, and is con­fessed by Luther himselfe, who saith thus: Sunt nunc homines ma­gis In postilla super Euang. Dom. primae aduētus vindictae cupidi, magis auari, magis ab omni misericordia remoti, magis immodesti & indisciplinati, multoue deteriores quàm fuerunt in Papatu: Men are now more reuengefull, more couetous, more vnmercifull, more vnmodest and vnruly, and much worse then when they were Papists. The like testimonie you may find giuen by another of their Doctors, called Smidelinus, which for bre­uitie Conc. 4. super cap. 21. Luc. sake I omit. But chiefly their company is not holy, because there was neuer yet Saint or holy man of it: neither is their doctrine such as may of it selfe leade the most precise obseruers of it to holinesse, but doth (by diuers points which haue bin taught) rather incline men to libertie and loosnesse of life. As for example, it inclineth them to breake fasting dayes, and to cast away secret confession of sinnes to a Priest: both which are knowne to be soueraigne remedies against sinne. Also it inclineth them to neglect good workes, for they hold them either not to be necessary, or not meritorious of life euerlasting, which must needs make men lesse esteeme the practise of them. [Page 333] Also it maketh men carelesse in keeping Gods commaundements, because diuers Protestants (if not all) hold them vnpossible to be obserued; and (as it is said) impossibilium non est electio. No man chooseth or laboureth to atchieue that which he thinketh to be altogether vnpossible. It maketh men also not to feare, or not to be carefull to auoid sin, because it is held among them that whatsoeuer we do is sinne, and that we cannot chuse but continually sinne, and that all sinnes are of themselues mortall: which whosoeuer thinketh, how can he be afraid to sinne, sith stultum est timere, quod vitari non potest, it is foolishnesse to feare that which no way can be auoi­ded? Finally their doctrine of predestination is able to make men carelesse or desperate in all actions and consultations, sith some of them hold all things so to proceeds of Gods eternall pre­destination, that man (in matters of Religion at the least) hath no free-will to do well, or to auoid ill, but that God him­selfe is author, and moueth them effectually and forcibly, not on­ly to good works, but in the same sort vnto the act of sinne. Lo whi­ther this doctrine leadeth a man, which giueth grounds, which of themselues incline a man, to neglect all indeuour, in the studie and practise of vertue, and to cast away care of auoiding sinne and vice: and consider whether this can be a good tree, which of Mat. 7. it owne nature bringeth foorth so badde fruite. And see whe­ther this companie, which teacheth and beleeueth such pointes of vnholie doctrine, can possiblie be a Holy Church.

In the Romane Church, I confesse there be some sinfull folke, all in it are not good. For the Church is called nigra & formosa, Cant. 1. blacke and faire: in it are mixed good and bad, as out of diuers pa­rables of our Sauiour I prooued before. But there are two differen­ces betwixt the sinfull, which are in the Romane Church, and those which are among Sectaries.

The first difference is, that among hereticks there are none, which we may call truly holy, of which, as of the better or more wor­thie part, their congregation may be termed Holy: as the Romane Church may. It may be perhaps, that one may finde diuers of them, who abstaine from grosse outward sinnes, as stealing, swearing, &c. And that some of them do many workes morally good, as to giue almes to the needie, and that they liue at least in outward shew, in [Page 334] vpright & moderate sort. But alasse, these be not sufficient or certain signes of sanctitie; all this, and perhaps farre more, we may reade of heathen Philosophers. These outward actions may proceed of natu­rall, and sometime of sinfull motiues: and consequently, they may be verie farre from true holinesse, which must be grounded in true cha­ritie; for as Saint Paule saith, to distribute all that one hath to feed the poore, or to giue ones bodie to burne, doth nothing auaile with­out 1. Cor. 13. charitie: which charitie must proceed de corde puro, & con­scientia bona, & fide non ficta, out of a pure heart, and a good 1. Tim. 1. conscience, and an vnfained faith. The which things being most in­ward; and consequently hidden in secret, cannot sufficiently be she­wed to others, by those outward actions, which may come from other causes as soone as from these. Nay, they cannot be knowen certaine­ly of the partie himselfe. For nescit homo vtrùm odio vel amo­re dignus sit, a man knoweth not whether he be worthie of hate or Eccles 9. loue: and quis potest dicere, mundum est cor meum? Who can say, my heart is cleane? but these things are reserued to him onely, Prou. 20. qui scrutatur corda, who searcheth the hearts, to with Almightie God, and it cannot be perfectly knowne of men, who haue them tru­ly, and consequently who be truly Saints, vnlesse it please him to re­ueale it by miracle, or some other certaine way vnto vs. But hitherto See Staphil. in absolut. respōs. Cochlae. in actis Lutheri. it was neuer heard that Almightie God did by miracle, or any such certaine way, giue testimony that either Luther or Caluin, or any of their fellowes or followers had in thē this true holinesse, or that they were saints: but rather while as they presumptuously attēpted to work Anno. 1523. Bolsec. in vita Caluin. cap. 13. miracles, it hath pleased God, by giuing either none, or euill successe, to testifie that they were not Saints. Whereas on the contrarie side, it hath pleased God to giue testimonie by miracles of the faith and holinesse of life of diuers, which professed the Romane faith; of which sort I might bring in many examples, but I will at this time onely name Saint Bernard, Saint Dominicke, Saint Francis, who on the one side, were certainly knowne to haue bene professors of that religion, which was then, and is now professed at Rome; as may ap­peare, both by that which is left written of their liues, and also by this, that they were chiefe fathers and founders of certaine Religi­ous orders of Monkes and Friers, which yet continue there: and on the other side, they are certainly knowne to be holy men, partly by [Page 335] their sober, chast, and vertuous life, partly by the gift of miracles, in so much, that euen Luther himselfe, and other of our aduersaries confesse them to haue bene Saints. The which being confessed of Luther. lib. de capt. Bab. Philip in A­pol. art. 5. & 17 these, must needs inferre the like confession of the sanctitie of mante other, who were also professors of the same Romane faith, whose names we may finde registred in the Calender, euen in bookes set out by Protestants, and whose vertuous life, holie death, and mira­culous deeds, we may finde in good Authors. See Saint Athanas. in vita S. Antonij apud Surium. S. Bernard. in vita S. Malachiae. S. Antoninus 3. parte hist. titulo 23. & 24. Surius throughout his large volumes of the liues of Saints, and others. Now this being con­fessed, that diuers whom we know to haue bene members of the Ro­mane Church, are Saints: we may well inferre that at least, some part of this Church is holy, and that therefore of this part (per sy­necdochen) the whole may be tearmed Holy: especiallie conside­ring that the faith of this part, (which was a principall roote, out of which their holinesse did spring) is all one in substance with the faith which we all professe: and therefore we may say that our faith and profession inclineth & leadeth to the same holinesse of life that theirs did. And therefore though manie, through their owne fault, faile in the practise of vertue and holinesse, yet our profession (being all one with the profession of these holy men) is to be tearmed holy, as theirs was. Of which holy profession in some sort, all our whole com­panie may be called Holy, as of the art of painting or anie other art, all that professe them are commonlie tearmed by a name proper to their profession, though it happen that diuers of them, be not verie skilfull, nor do not much exercise his art.

And from hence riseth the second difference betwixt Protestants and vs, to wit, that the verie doctrine it selfe, which Prote­stants teach, doth (as I shewed before) induce men to libertie, and consequently to lewde life: whereas the Romane faith, which we professe, both expreslie for biddeth all vice, & prescribeth lawes con­trarie to libertie and loosenesse of life; and containeth most soueraigne meanes, to incite and mooue a man to all perfect vertue, and holinesse of life. As for example. It teacheth, that notwithstanding the pre­science or predestination of Almighty God, man hath free will, wher­with (being aided by Gods grace, which grace, through the merit of [Page 336] Christs Passion, is readie for all, that with humble, deuout and per­seuerant praier will aske, and by frequenting in due sort the holy Sa­craments, will seeke for it) he may auoid sinne, and embrace vertue, the which taketh away despaire of shunning euill, and doing well, which easily followeth of the contrarie opinion. It teacheth also that Gods commaundements be not vnpossible to be obserued; nay nor hard (through helpe of grace, which is alwaies at hand) to be ob­serued of one, which hath but a good will; according as Saint Iohn 1. Ioh. 5. saith, Mandata eius grauia non sunt, his commaundements be not heauie; yea that they may by the same grace, be easily obserued, ac­cording to that of our Sauiour, Iugum meum suaue, & onus me­um Mat. 11. leue, my yoake is sweet, and my burthen light. The which mo­ueth a man to conceiue great hope of eschewing euill and liuing well, which hope, (and consequently heart) to do well, a man cannot haue, who perswadeth himselfe, that Gods commaundements be vnpossible to be obserued, as I shewed before. Againe it teacheth, that as a man may by grace auoid sinne, and easily keepe Gods commaunde­ments, and by doing good works, liue well: so this good life is plea­sing and acceptable vnto God, and these good workes (as proceeding from grace, and receiuing vertue from the merits of Christ, of which this grace doth depend) are meritorious, & such, for reward wher­of, God will giue to them that perseuerantly do them, euerlasting blisse in the kingdome of heauen. The which doctrine will, doubt­lesse if it be duly considered, breed in a mans mind great loue and de­light to do well; as the contrarie must needs breed, at least a coldnesse in deuotion, if not a contempt and loathing of good deeds, and spe­cially of those good deeds, which haue any difficultie annexed to them. It teacheth also that for sinners are prepared exceeding great pu­nishments in the next life; and that though there be meanes in the Church to get remission of sinne, and pardon of the paine, yet it tea­cheth that a man cannot ordinarily be absolutely certaine, that he hath so vsed those meanes, as that he hath thereby gotten that remis­sion or pardon; which is a great motiue to make men warie not to fall into sinne, and to mooue them, Cum metu & tremore operari salutem, with feare & trembling to worke their saluation: where­as Philip. cap 2. Protestants vpon supposed certaintie of saluation cast away this wholesome feare, and so may easily become carelesse of auoiding any [Page 337] sinne. Furthermore it prescribeth wholesome lawes and customes of fasting and praier, and of other exercises of vertue and pietie, whereby the flesh may be subiect to the spirit, and the spirit to God. It maintaineth also secret confession of sinnes to a Priest; as being a thing necessarie, and commaunded by our Sauiour himselfe, the which both is a great bridle to hold men backe from sinne (as expe­rience teacheth) and is a speciall meanes, whereby the Pastours of the Church, knowing the inward conscience of their flock, may better apply fit remedies to their spirituall diseases, and prescribe to euery one fit exercises, for their practise and progresse in vertue. Finally the profession of this Church is such, that euen simple Protestants, when they see any Catholicke do a thing amisse, will ordinarily say, You should not do thus, or, a man of your profession should do otherwise. So that those which be sinfull in the Roman Church, can­not in any sort, ascribe their sinnes to any defect, or peruersitie of the doctrine of the Church, but must needs acknowledge them to proceed from their owne frailtie or malice, contrarie to the teaching of the Church, and sometimes euen contrarie to their owne conscience, and actuall knowledge.

Wherefore I may conclude, that although there be some sinfull men in the Romane Church, yet it may well be called Holy; because the doctrine which it beleeueth and professeth, of it owne nature, in­clineth and directeth a man to the true holinesse, and consequently is of it selfe Holy: and also because there be many holy persons in it, some of which are certainely knowne in particular to be such, by proofe of miracle. Others are onely knowne by this probable reason, to wit, that they hold the same faith, which was holden by those, who haue bene certainly knowne be holy men; and holding the same faith (which must needs be the true faith, sith none are truely holy, or can possibly please God, without the right faith, which is but one,) they haue in them a roote, out of which true holinesse is apt to spring. And therefore, when we see no apparent euill fruit, whereby we may discouer some euill roote, but onely good, which is apt to spring of this good roote; and especially when we see the fruite of their good works, to be conformable, and like to the works of those, which are knowne Saints; we haue great cause to iudge, that they also are iust men, and in some sorte holy, if not perfectly Saintes. [Page 338] Sith therefore many men which haue bene and are members of the Romane Church, haue bene & are knowne, either by absolute proofe of miracle, or at least in this other manner to be holy; of these as of the better, more worthie and principall part, the whole may be (as I said before) tearmed Holy; as a tree that hauing a roote apt to giue life to the branches, some of which being dead, others haue life, is absolutely said to be aliue; which if we should see to haue a corrup­ted roote, and could not perceiue it to haue any liuing branches, we should haue cause to affirme absolutely, that it were dead, and not aliue.

A. W.

He that doth not finde that you are a shamelesse slaunderer, lookes verie sleightly into your report of the Protestants con­gregation. You finde it is not holy. No doubt you are a man of great intelligence, and haue made diligent inquirie after the matter. But it well becommeth the Pharisaicall pride of your Romish Synagogue, to boast of your owne righteousnesse, and in comparison of your selues, to despise all men.

Let vs see what euidence you bring to prooue so greeuous an accusation. Most of our men (you say) are euidently more wicked then men which liued both in old time, and in later yeares in the Romane Church. How euident you make this, we will consider by and by. For the present, I say no more, but that you speake craftily to deceiue vs, in comparing most of our men, with I know not what men, that haue liued in the Roman Church. There is no question, but that (generally) the most are the worst, euerie where: because all men are naturally euill, and none good, but by the especiall grace of God working in them. But if you would haue dealt plainely, you should haue shewed, that most men in our Churches are more wicked, then most men that haue liued in your Romish Church, since it be­came the bodie of Antichrist reuealed. For we acknowledge, that the Church of Rome was somtimes a true Church of Christ, yeelding many worthie martyrs, confessors, and other holy men and women, to the honour of the Gospell of Iesus Christ; yea we denie not, but that euen at this day, there are some true Christians in your Churches: and that the generall sort of Protestants, are inferiour to some amongest you, in [Page 339] regard of outward holinesse: as for true inward sanctitie, nei­ther the one, nor the other, haue any part of it; I meane neither ordinarie Protestants, nor the best of your side, who continue in the whole doctrine of your Church.

To prooue that you say against our Church, you bring vs in two kinde of witnesses: first generally those men, that haue seene the conuersation of your Papists, and our Protestants, then particularly Luther & Smidelin: In the former, consider how vaine a florish it was for you to compare our men now with Papists that liued in old time, and to appeale for proofe to them that haue seene both: as if you were able to shew vs some men of 700, or 800. yeares old, or of 300. or 400, who haue knowne and considered the behauiour of your men and ours. As for them, that by trafficke or trauaile otherwise, haue had sight and experience of both, I dare stand to their iudge­ment, in comparing our liues with yours, for all parts of out­ward cariage. In which matter, I haue bene credibly infor­med by them, whose credit I haue no cause to suspect, that the abhomination of your Clergies, and peoples liues, hath part­ly bred, & setled in them a resolute abhorring of your religion, to which otherwise they were indifferently affected.

But you presse vs with Luther and Smidelin, who in their earnest exhortations and reproofes, accuse our men for increase of sinne, after the preaching of the Gospell. Is this strange? Doth not Rom. 6. 1. 14: the holye Apostle tell vs, that the Gospell in his time, was abused to wantonnesse, prophane men (which yet made profession of religion) taking aduantage of Gods gra­cious mercie preached in the Gospell, to prouoke themselues to sinne? Besides, the greatest part at the renewing of the Gos­pell, claue vnto Luther, rather in a detestation of your reli­gion, the falsenesse whereof was most euident to them, then in a certaine knowledge of the truth of that, which he taught them. But of whom spake Luther and Smidelin? Of all Protestant Churches? How can that be, when they knew not the one halfe of them? Is it a good reason then to con­demne all Protestant Churches, or the Protestants Church in generall, because Luther and Smidelin complaine against [Page 340] the congregations, in which they taught? And yet, what say they more then the Apostle Paule doth, who chargeth 1. Cor. 1. 1. & 15. 12. & the Co­rinthians with many grosse errors, & grieuous sinnes, yea 5. 1. & 6. 1. 5. with such fornication, as was not to be heard of among the Gen­tiles? What say you to that sore accusation euen against the ministers of the Gospell; Phil. 2. 21. All seeke their owne, and not that which is Iesus Christs? A man of your humour and wisedome would by and by conclude hereupon, that the Church of God in the Apostles time, was an vnholy congregation. If you Ie­suits & Priests (what you are in particular, I neither know nor care) bestowed as much paines in preaching, as you do in plot­ting treason, and hearing consessions, such speeches would not seeme any thing strange vnto you. But that you may the better perceiue the weakenesse of this your reason, hear­ken a little, what is said of your Church. What one can you name me (saith Bernard. in Cant. ser. 77. Bernard) among all those, that are (spiri­tuall) rulers, that doth not take greater care, how he may emp­tie the peoples purses, then how he may roote out their sinnes? You say the most of our men are wicked. Bernard, to quit you for it, pronounceth, that there is not one of your Cleargie, that maketh any conscience of discharging his duetie. Haue you forgotten what a Bishop of yours said in the late Councell of Trent, (least any should thinke that you are better now, then you were in Bernardes time?) The people (saith Cornelius. Bi­tonti. Episc. in Concil Tridet. the Bishop) are fallen away from Christ to Antichrist, from God to Epicurisme; and the Priestes haue bene their ringleaders, to all kinde of lewdnesse. Yea Adrianus in instruc. ad Cler. Pope Adrian the sixt, (I am sure you will beleeue him) speaking of your Prelates, saith, that All of them (he putteth in himselfe too) Declinaui­mus. were declined, cuerie one to his owne waies: And that there had bene none of them, a great while, that had done any good, Non fuit vs­que ad vnum. no not one of them. If such were, and be the state of your Cleargie, gesse you, what the common people be. Compare your witnesses and mine, and tell me whether we ouermatch you or no, both in number and weight.

Neuer any Saint of our Church? Why do you not refute that [Page 341] which we alledge for our selues against this slander? We pleade that Adam, Abel, Enoch, Abraham, and all the holy men named in the Scriptures, with the Martyrs and confessors, since our Sa­uiour Christs comming in the flesh, that all the Apostles (ex­cept Iudas, whom we leaue to your Simoniacall congregation) yea that many Bishops of Rome were of our Church. To al this you reply not so much as one word; but tell them that will be­leeue you, that there neuer was any Saint or holy man of our Church. I cannot greatly blame you, though you bind your fol­lowers to giue credit to you, without looking for proofe of that you deliuer. For if you should be put to that, all were marred. But I wil render you a reason, why we lay challenge to all those men, as members of our Church, and not of yours. They agree (say we, disproue vs if you can) with vs in the substance of do­ctrine, concerning saluation by Iesus Christ, and other points of the foundation. If you were able to shew the like (which is vnpossible) yet would it not follow that they were of your Church: because no man is, in your account a member of your Church, but he that agrees with you in all matters defined by your Church; wherein I confidently anow (and am readie to iustifie it) there is no auncient writer in the first thousand years, that is of your opiniō; though in some one point or other they may agree with your doctrin. But indeed we haue no saints canonized by our Church, and made mediators betwixt God and vs, to rob Iesus Christ of his office, and God the Father a See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 1. art. 4. of thanks due to him for granting our requests. And if this want make our Church vnholy, the Church in the time of our Saui­our himselfe and of his Apostles was most vnholy, in which there neuer was any such practise or doctrine. Indeed this is the maine holinesse, whereby Bellar. de no­tis Eccles. lib. 4 cap. 11. the learned of your side seeke to proue the truth of your Church, and not that other of particu­lar mens conuersation.

And what say you against our doctrine in this behalfe? Forsooth, that it cannot of it selfe leade the most precise ob­seruers of it to holinesse. The particulars of our doctrine ac­cused by you, shall be defended in their seuerall places: now a word or two onely in generall. How doth any doctrine leade [Page 342] to holinesse, but by propounding the rules of true obedience to God, wherein all holinesse consists? How doe the arts of Grammer, Logicke, Arithmeticke and Geometry leade a man to speake, reason, number, and measure well, but by deliuering the true rules to these purposes, which in themselues direct to perfection in euery one of these professions? And can our do­ctrine be said to be insufficient, which acknowledgeth the scrip­tures of God to be the rule of all righteousnesse, and all men bound to liue in obedience to the will of God, contained and reuealed in them? Do not we teach men, that vpon paine of damnation they must labour to keepe all Gods commaunde­ments whatsoeuer? Are not our expositions of the commaunde­ments as large in duties prescribed, and sins forbidden, as yours are? Do we, or you, perswade men that there are some veniall sinnes, small breaches of Gods law, not to be regarded: whereas we shew that euery least transgression of the law is damnable? But because you charge vs with particular points, which incline men (as you say) to libertie and loosenesse of life, I will come to the examination of them seuerally, yet but shortly, for that I haue answered them all in Answer to 12. Art part. 2. art. 4. another treatife against certaine ar­ticles propounded by one of your Popish faction.

It is vtterly vntrue, that our doctrine inclines any man to breake fasting dayes: nay rather we enioyne all men to obserue dayes lawfully set apart for fasting, with all care and good con­science, both for preparation to, and cariage in the action. As for your dayes of abstaining from flesh, we hold the institution of them to be voyd of Religion, and vnlawfull, as making them in themselues a part of Gods seruice: whereas a man, for all your fasting, may glut and gorge himselfe with wine and all dain­ties, so he eate no flesh, and yet keepe your Popish fast, without danger of any censure for transgressing your law of fasting.

Confession of sinnes to a minister, we neither commaund as a ne­cessarie dutie, nor forbid as a sinne, but leaue it free to euery mans conscience, as he findeth need of instruction or comfort. It is so far from being a remedie of sinne, as it is vsed by your church, that it rather prouokes men to sinne, because they haue so readie and easie a meanes to disburden their consciences (as [Page 343] they thinke) when they haue sinned. A worthy gentleman that hath seene the experience of this matter, doubteth not to auouch as much as I say: that Relation of religion in these Western parts. sect. 7. your people sinne, that they may haue somewhat to confesse: and confesse, that they may returne to sin: yea I can name, and if need be, bring forth one, who hath bene faine in confession to accuse himselfe of sinnes which he neuer committed, because his ghostly father would not be perswaded but that being a young man, and liuing in one of your Popish countries, he must needs be defiled with the corruptions of the place and age.

There is no one point, wherein you more bewray your selues to be seruants, and not sons of God, then this confession against your owne soules, that you would neglect the doing of good workes, but that you looke to merite euerlasting life by them. This motiue to good workes is so base, that no man of a free nature would yeeld vnto it. The very Philosophers could teach you, that vertue is to be loued for vertue, and not for any outward respect or consequent that may follow thereupon: and God is more dishonored by your opinion of meriting, then honored by any your supposed good workes whatsoeuer. If you had euer felt, what a sharpe spurre to holinesse of life the assurance of forgiuenesse of sinnes is, you would neuer thinke that the pra­ctise of good workes is lightly esteemed, where the mercie of God hath brought peace to the damned conscience. And yet we want not that other helpe, expectation of reward, which we are sure shal be giuen to the least of our good works, though not vpon their desert, but of the meere mercie of God in Iesus Christ. That wicked opinion of merit, either before or after grace, doth puffe vp the pride of mans nature, and diminish the glorie of Gods mercie in Iesus Christ. Wages vpon desert, is the hire of seruants; reward bestowed in loue, is the gift of a kind father to a gracious sonne, who hath shewed himself wil­ling to performe duties of obedience.

What men doth it make carelesse, but those proud Pharises that stand at the staues end with God, and thinke scorne to la­bour in keeping the commandements, vnlesse they may so keep them, as to claime heauen vpon desert by keeping of them? [Page 344] Is it not enough to stir vp any poore Christian soule to obedi­ence, that God will accept of his weake endeuours, being per­formed in truth and singlenesse of heart, and reward them with an vnspeakable measure of glorie? There is no man, vnlesse he be more desirous of his owne glorie then Gods, but wil be con­tent and glad to confesse his vnabilitie to performe the whole will of God perfectly, and yet striue from time to time to doe as much as his corruption will giue way to. It seemes, that not diuinitie onely, but also common reason failes you. Shall I be carelesse in bearing my horse head, and holding him vp from falling, because I am sure he treads neuer a sure step, but will stumble or trip continually, do the best I can? Put case we said, as you slaunder vs, that whatsoeuer we do is sin: are there there­fore no degrees in sinne? or is it all one, to sin by infirmitie and wilfulnesse? What if a sicke man cannot by any meanes recouer his perfect health againe? shall he therefore refuse to keepe a good diet, and grow to as much strength as for his weaknesse he can attaine to? But what Protestant euer said, that whatso­euer we do is sinne? It is one thing to say (as we do) Answer to 12. art. part 2. art. 2. that sinne by our corruption cleaues fast to our best works, another thing to auouch (as you falsly charge vs) that all we do is sinne. Nei­ther is it foolishnesse to feare that which cannot be auoided, if by our feare we can make it lesse hurtfull to vs. Yea it is a point of great discretion, to labour all we can against sinne, though we cannot wholly rid our selues of it, because by this meanes our actions shall be free from the imputation of those sins, and receiue an vndeserued reward at the hands of God, our merci­full Father in Iesus Christ.

You vndertooke to proue, that the doctrines of our Church are vnholy: now you tell vs that some Protestants hold this and that. Is this to make good that you propounded? But what Pro­testants can you name, that euer taught that God moueth men effectually and forcibly, not onely to good workes, but in the same sort See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 2. art. 5. to the act of sinne? Is it your ignorance or your malice, that ma­keth you charge vs with that which we alwayes denie and re­fute? We say, there is no force or coaction either in good or euil actions, and distinguish betwixt necessitie and constraint. [Page 345] All things come to passe necessarily, in regard of the euent, ac­cording Vide Durandīs in 2. dist. 25. q. 4. n. 7. & ibi Lomb. et Thom. in 1. dist. 38 q. 1. et Capreol. in 1. dist. 38. q. 1. art. 2. ad 2. pro 4. conclu. to the prouidence and predestination of God. But this hinders not the working of secundary causes, according to their seuerall natures. Besides, though we hold that there is a necessitie of infallibilitie, as well in good actions as in sinnes, so that whatsoeuer God hath decreed (and he hath decreed all things that come to passe) shall certainly fall out according to his decree: yet we make a great difference betwixt good and e­uill actions, by teaching that the one are done by the worke of Gods spirit in our hearts, the other by the corruption of our nature, without any warrant or motion in vs from God. Fur­ther, in those good actions which we performe, the Lord doth not onely worke by vs, as by instruments without sense or rea­son, but according to our nature, enlightening our vnderstan­ding, and sweetly inclining our affection, without any force against our nature, to the approuing of that which he would haue vs do, and following vs by the perswasion of his spirit, till he haue brought vs ineuitably to the performance of that which he hath decreed. So that wee doe nothing, but willingly: but to good we are made willing by God, both for the power and act: to euill we need no assistance, but the corruption of our owne hearts, and the temptations of the diuell.

Lo whither the malice of Antichrists vassals driues them: both to auouch that for truth against the Church of God, which is vtterly false; and to gather leud consequences of true doctrin: and consider whether they haue cause to brag of holinesse, who will do nothing that is good, but for hope of hire, and aduance their owne deseruings aboue Gods bountie; and then tell me, if you can perswade your conscience, that such a companie of Pharisaicall merit-mongers are likely to be the true Church of God.

You confesse there be some sinfull folke in the Romane Church: but your confessions (if a man might haue the hearing of them) would testifie that there are none but sinfull folk amongst you. It is rehearsed by the secretary of Sixtus 5. for a singular com­mendation of Pius the fift, that the Cardinall of Theano, and Girol. de Ca­tena in vita de Pio 5. pag. 33. the Bishop of Bagnarea, who had bin his confessors many yeres, [Page 346] affirmed, that he neuer accused himselfe in confession of any mortall sinne. And do you come out with There are some sinfull folke, and all in it are not good? Call to minde what I alledged before out of Bernard, against your whole Cleargie, that is, as you count, your whole Church. Or let that passe, and heare him speake more generally: From the head to the foote (saith Bernar. de conuer. Pauli. ser. 1. Ber­nard of your Church) there is no part whole. And againe: The whole multitude of Christian people hath conspired against Christ. In In Can. ser. 33 another place he saith, that a filthy contagion had spred it selfe ouer the whole Church. The law (saith Breidenb. in hist. peregr. suae. Breiden bachius) is depar­ted from the Priests, iustice from the Princes, counsell from the aun­cient, faith from the people, loue from parents, reuerence from sub­iects, charitie from prelates, religion from Monks, good order from yong men. Neither was it thus onely in places farre di­stant from your holy Fathers sight, but in his court, vnder his nose, in his bed chamber and studie. There (saith Bern. de con­sid. ad Eugē. l. 4 Bernard of your Popes palace) the wicked grow forward, the godly grow back­ward. Whatsoeuer perfidiousnesse and deceit (saith Petrarc. epist. 19. See Petrarkes sonet. 92. 107. 108. Petrarke, who liued in Rome perhaps, secretary to the Pope) whatsoeuer vn­mercifulnesse and pride, whatsoeuer impietie and leudnesse of be­hauiour the world hath, or hath had scattered here and there, all that you may see and find heaped vp together in the citie of Rome. Giouan. Boc­cac. nouel. 2. Iohn Boccace, who liued at the same time, complaineth, that not onely the courtiers, but also the Pope, Cardinals and Prelates liued most filthily, and sinned not onely by naturall lust, but by that too, which is against nature, without bridle, remorse of conscience, or shame. I forbeare to set downe any particulars, whereof Platina and other that write the liues of your Popes, are full: because I take no pleasure in laying open your shame, and it is alreadie performed Iohn Bale Eng. votaries. D. Downam of Antich. lib. 1. cap. 6. in diuers of our writers. Only I must needs say, that I cannot sufficiently wonder at your boldnes, who talke to En­glishmen of your holinesse, when there is no man of our nation so yong, or so ignorant, but is able to conuince the Pope him­selfe, and his Priests and Iesuites of horrible rebellions and trea­sons against our late Queene of blessed memory, and our whole estate. But what shall I need to seeke far off? Was there euer the like monstrous and vnnatural example of treason & murder [Page 347] (among the most sauage of the heathen) to that incredible at­tempt of your holy ones, for the destruction of King, Queene, Prince, Nobilitie, Counsell, Iudges, Gentrie and Commons, all at one blow? Sueton. in Neron. Barbarous and bloudie Nero is abhorred by all men, be­cause he did wish that all the Senators of Rome had but one necke, that he might cut them all off at once. But your sauage­nesse iustifies his crueltie: he was but a pidler to your Iesuites and Papists, who with one cracke would haue taken away both Senate and people. There is more cause of feare, that posteritie will neuer beleeue the true report of this execrable attempt (it is so like rather to a deuise of a Poet, then a discourse of an hi­storie writer) then that they will condemne your whole con­gregation of more then Turkish, or any other heathenish bar­barousnesse. And do you, with a shamelesse brazen forehead, come vpon the stage to brag of holinesse? Despise not so much the long suffering of God, as to make a shew of religion, after so many abhominable treasons and murders, arising (directly) from the principles of your profession, and agreeing exactly with the ordinarie plots and courses of your holy Father: See Girol. de Caten. in vita di Pio 5. pag. 112. 113. who in the raigne of our late gracious Soueraigne, practised diuers treasons by his wicked instruments. For proofe of that I say, let them which vnderstand Italian, reade the report of his Secre­tarie, who propounds diuers of them to the commendation of his maisters zeale, for labouring to reduce to the Church, them that were fallen from the obedience thereunto. But the memo­rie, and in a manner the feeling of that horrible treason, No­uemb. 5. 1605. is yet so fresh and greene, that he deserues not to be held either for a Christian, a true hearted Englishman, or a reasonable man, that lookes for fruites of holinesse from trees planted in the Popes orchard.

Alas, this proofe might well haue bene spared. For there is no doubt but your Church of Rome hath store of wicked men: and that you bring out of the Canticles, neither belongs to your Church, nor concernes the vngodly. The Church spoken of in that excellent song, is the spouse of Christ, one flesh with his holy maiestie: the companie of the elect, called to true faith in the Son of God. Among these there is not one prophane Esau [Page 348] or bloudie Cain; such as See Platina in Syluest. diuers of your Popes haue bene, not onely your ordinarie Papists. But this blacknesse and beautie, how contrary soeuer they seeme (as Bern. in Can. Ser. 25. Bernard truly saith) belong to one and the same person. Wilt thou haue mee shew thee a soule (saith he) that is both blacke and beautifull? 2. Cor. 10. 10. His epistles, say they, are of some worth, but his bodily presence is weake, and his speech contemptible. The blacknesse is outward in mens sight, the beau­tie in ward, seene of God. Therefore he addeth Bern. ubi supr. Origen. in Can. homil. 2. a litle after, that A true Christian soule is blacke in the iudgement of the world, but faire in the sight of God and of his Angels. The spouse (saith Bern. in de­clam. Ecce nos reliqu. omnia. Ber­nard in another place) is blacke, but beautifull. The Apostles are men full of sorrow, yet alwayes reioycing. Christ himselfe if you looke vpon him with such eyes as the Iewes did, had neither forme nor beautie. Other refer this to the estate of men, before and af­ter their calling: before they are blacke, afterward faire. Other ( Theod. in cāt. Tres patres a­pud Theod. for allegories affoord varietie of interpretation) apply it to the Church, mixt of Iewes and Gentiles: which is blacke be­cause of the Gentiles, who before knew not God. Psellus a pud Theod. Psellus maketh the blacknesse to arise from our estate in Adam, the beautie from our righteousnesse in Christ. Gloss. ord. ibi. Bern. in Canti. Ser. 25. Thom. in Cant. cap. 1. lect. 3. Gloss. interlin. Many vnderstand by blacknesse, the outward affliction of the Church. None that I haue seene, but Lyra in Cant. Lyra, expound it of the wicked; and yet he also rather liketh of that other interpretation, which maketh this blacknesse to be according to the conceipt of the world. But I will not greatly striue about the true sense, which is so doubtfull: onely I take that exposition which you bring, to be the worst, because it cannot agree to the true Church of Christ, the companie of the elect called; among whom there are none blacke, that is, wholy wicked, though all be blacke in regard of their nature, and faire in their head Christ.

You haue laboured to shew that the Protestants Church is not holy, because it hath no holy men in it. From that point you posted ouer to proue your owne Church to be holy. Here you returne againe to the disgracing of our Church, as if your holinesse were so darke in it selfe, that it needed ours to be layd vnder it for a foyle, that it might shew the better. But let vs [Page 349] examine your proofe in this comparison.

  • If that Church be holy, some members whereof haue bene holy; that vnholy, no members whereof haue bene holy: and some members of the Roman Church haue bene holy, none of the Protestants Church; then the Romane Church is holy, the Protestants Church vnholy.
  • But that Church some members whereof haue bene holy, is ho­ly: that vnholy, no members whereof haue bene holy: and some members of the Romane Church haue bene holy, none of the Protestants Church.
  • Therefore the Romane Church is holy, the Protestants Church vnholy.

Your Minor is false, in both parts of it. For the former, if by To the As­sumption. holinesse, you vnderstand true inward holinesse, Chap. 15. according to your former exposition, no companie may be counted truely holy, because some few among them are holy. For true holi­nesse is a qualitie proper to them, in whom it is, and such as cannot be communicated to any multitude ioyntly considered, nor affirmed of it, vnlesse the greater part be truly holy. If any man will presse me with the Apostles authoritie, who calleth, 1. Cor. 1. 2. & 2. Cor. 1. 1. the Corinthians, and all Christians in Achaia Saints: I an­swer, that the reason of his so calling them, is not because some among them were truely holy, but because they all made pro­fession of true faith in Christ, which is alwaies accompanied with sanctification. According to this profession of theirs, the Apostle charitably iudgeth of them, and tearmes them 1. Cor. 1. 2. Saints by calling; as if he should say, that they are Saints, because they professe themselues called to holinesse of life. This appeareth the rather, because Ephes. 1. 1. Coloss. 1. 2. otherwhere, to be Saints, and to be faith­full is all one: where faithfulnesse is ascribed to whole con­gregations, professing the faith of the Gospell. Therefore the holinesse of some few, maketh not all the Church truely ho­ly, no more then Eliah, and those seuen thousand reserued by God, made the whole Church of Israell holy in the sight of God; which was an idolatrous congregation, and vnholy, for all these holy men were in some respect outwardly members thereof.

[Page 350] But let vs grant, that the holinesse of fome few may priui­ledge all for this title of holinesse: yet in the second place, we may iustly except against the stretching of this priuiledge to all that euer shall be, by succession, of that companie. Were it not ridiculous trow you, for you Romanes that now are, to claime the reputation of valour, or the Iewes the opinion of ho­linesse, because the estate of Rome, and the Church of the Iewes had many valiant & holy men some hundreds of yeares since? How then can it be true, that a Church is holy, because it hath had, I know not how long ago, some holy men mem­bers of it?

The other part of your Minor I acknowledge to be true, that no Church is holy, which hath not some holy men members of it. But I see not how this can stand with your doctrine, Bellar. de Eccles. milit. lib. 3. cap. 10. that it is e­nough to make a man a true member of the holy Catholicke Apostolick Church, that he make outward profession of belee­uing the Gospell, and obeying the Pope, though he haue not Christian vertue in him, no not so much as that faith, he ma­keth shew of. For if this serue to giue vs the right of being true members, the Church may well be quite without inward holinesse, as a matter not appertaining to the essence, or nature of it.

The last part of your Minor is false the, Protestants Chur­ches haue had many thousand holy men, euen all that euer held the truth of the Gospell, according to the Scriptures: and your Church neuer had, nor shall haue any one truly sanctified, that was wholly a member thereof, after your account, that is, which agreed, or agreeth with you in all points of Antichristianisme. But I will follow you in your courses, and of this say more af­terward. First you prooue the latter part, and dispute against our Church in this sort.

  • That Church which hath had no members of it reuealed to be holie by miracle, or anie other certaine waie from God, hath had no members of it holy.
  • But the Protestants Church hath had no members of it re­uealed to be holy, by miracle, or any other certain way from God.
  • [Page 351] Therefore the Protestants Church hath had no members of it holy.

I denie your Maior, because it will follow vpon granting it, To the pro­position. that no man is truly to be counted holy, but he that is declared to be so, by miracle or some other certaine way from God. For your whole discourse sheweth, that this is your meaning, where you tell vs, that No man can be knowne to be holy, but by Gods testimonie of his holinesse by miracle, or some other certaine way: Of miracles by and by: In the meane while I would faine know, what these other certaine waies are, which God vseth, to giue vs assurance of this, or that mans holinesse: will you tell vs a tale of I know not what reuelations, out of your Legends and bookes of examples, which are full of such fained appari­tions? Legend. aurea, & speculum exemplar. pas­sim. Put case those lewde lies were true tales, and that the miracles deuised by some of your complices, were worthie of credit: surely the number of them that haue bene truely holy, Gabriel. Biel. in Can. miss. lect. 49. hath bene verie small, if no more haue bene holy, then can pleade such miracles or reuelatiōs for proofe of their holinesse. As for those, that haue testimony of their holinesse from God in the Scriptures, both they are verie few, in comparison, for so many thousand yeares: and that meanes of shewing who are holy, ceassed aboue one thousand foure hundred yeares since.

Now concerning Miracles, why should we in these daies, Mat. 16. 3. 4. gape after them, like the vnbeleeuing Iewes, for the confirma­tion of any mans holinesse, since we haue no warrant, nor ex­ample of Scripture, to apply them to any such purpose? Bring me one example, if you can, out of the whole Scripture, of any miracle wrought, to prooue any man to be holy. The vse of miracles is the confirmation of doctrine, or rather the auowing of mens calling from God, that their doctrine may be recei­ued. If I do not the works of my Father (saith Ioan. 20. 37. 38. our Sauiour) beleeue me not: but if I do, then though ye beleeue not me, yet be­leeue the works, that ye may know, and beleeue that the Father is in me, and I in him. Ioan. 20. 31. These things are written, that ye might beleeue that Iesus is that Christ the sonne of God. To that end did our Sauiour furnish his Apostles with power to worke miracles: [Page 352] Mat. 10. 7. 8 As ye go, preach, saying, the kingdome of God is at hand. Heale the sicke, cleanse the leaprous, raise vp the dead. Therefore doth Pacian. ad Sympro. Epi. 3. Pacianus require miracles of the Nouatians, because they brought in a new Gospell. And why (I pray you) do Mat. 24. 24. false Prophets that arise, shew many great signes and wonders? To prooue themselues to be holy? No surely: if they desire an opi­nion of holinesse, it is that their doctrine might the rather be receiued.

But to proceed yet further; if no man be holy, that hath not miracles, to testifie his holinesse, I doubt much, whether any man may be thought holy or no. For it is out of question, that wicked men haue wrought miracles, either truely, or at least (which I rather beleeue) in shew, so that men could not dis­cerne the contrarie. Shall I need to name Exod. 7. 21. 22. & 7. 8. Pharaoes sorcerers? Doth not Mat. 24. 24. the Scripture tell vs, that false Christs, and false Prophets shall shew signes and wonders? Doth not 2. Thess. 2. 9. the A­postle forewarne vs, that Antichrist shal come with signes, and lying wonders? Your owne schooleman, Gabr. Biel. in Can. Missae. lect. 29. Gabriel Biel tel­leth vs, that miracles are wrought often times, by the operation of diuels. And Lyra. in Dan. cap. 14. Lyra is not afraid to say, that Now and then there is great deceit vsed in the Church, by miracles fained by the Priests, or some that are about them, for their worldly commoditie. Your Church affoordeth vs examples of notorious lies in this kinde. I will name two of your principall Saints. Tom. 2. opusc. tract. de con­cept. virg, ca. 5. Saint Bridget a­uoucheth that it was reuealed to her, that the Virgin Marie was preserued from Originall sinne: Kather. ser. 5. Saint Katharin of Syena had a quite contrarie reuelation. From whom rrow you came these miracles? Many miracles (saith Theophyl. in Luc. 9. Theophylact) haue bene done by the diuell. And August. de unit. Eccles. cap. 16. Austin speaking of such wonders alledged by the followers of Donatus, reiecteth all such, as deui­ses of lying men, or illusions of deceitfull spirits. Let vs heare your great Master Bellarmines iudgement of this matter, where he maintaineth miracles, as a marke of the Church. Till the Church hath approoued those things that are done, for miracles, (saith Bellar. de no­tis. Eccles. lib. 4 cap. 14. sect. Est autem. Bellarmine) it is not euident or certaine, by assurance of faith, of any miracle, that it is a true miracle: His reason followeth. That it is not euident, it appeareth, because then faith should be [Page 353] euident. That it is not certaine by assurance of faith, it is manifest, because it is not cleare to vs by such assurance as cannot be false, that the thing done is not an illusion of the diuell. For though the di­uell cannot worke any true miracle, yet can he in shew do any thing neuer so wonderfull. If then there be no meanes to iudge any man holy, but by miracles, nor any certaintie but by the testimony of the Church, to know which are true miracles; doubtlesse you can neuer prooue, that your Church is holy, because there haue bene holy men members of it, till you haue first prooued it to be the true Church. But of your proofe e­nough.

To your Minor I answer, that Bellarmine, out of whom you To the As­sumption. tooke all this, maketh the holinesse of your men, and their mi­racles two seuerall proofes, though vnder the note of holi­nesse I Bellar. de notis Eccles. lib. 4. ca. 13. 14. of life. Out of him I say farther, that the Patriarks, Pro­phets, and Apostles, yea all that euer were holy, were mem­bers of the same Church with vs, holding the same doctrine that we do, for the substance of it. You bid me prooue it. But by your leaue the duetie of prouing lies vpon the replier, whose place you haue taken, not vpon the answerer, whose person in this case, I sustaine. Besides I bring you the same proofe, that Bellarmine bringeth for himselfe, that is, I say they were all of our Church. If it be absurd to do so, let your Cardinall learne to dispute better. It were long to enter into particulars, yet if I had brought the argument, I would for shame haue said some what in proofe of it: but let it passe as it comes for this once. Against whom make you all this discourse, to prooue that it is not possible to know certainly, who are holy, and who are not? Surely not against the Protestants, who confesse as much. If hereupon you conclude, that our Church hath had none ho­ly, because it hath had none certainly knowne to be holy, the Maior of your syllogisme will be false, as before: viz. That Church which hath had no members of it reuealed to be holy by miracle, or anie other certaine way from God, hath had no members of it holy: and I will answer to your Minor, as I did, that the Pa­triarkes, Prophets and Apostles were members of our Church, certainly knowne to be holy by reuelation from God.

[Page 354] But whereas you say, that no man can tell, whether himselfe be truely sanctified or no, you affoord me proofe of that, which before I affirmed, that the Apostles were of our Church. Prooue your selues (saith 2. Cor. 13. 5. the Apostle Paule) whether you be in the faith: examine your selues: know ye not your owne selues, that Iesus Christ is in you, except you be reprobates? And how doth Rom. 8. 16. the spirit of God, beare witnesse to our spirit, that we are the chil­dren of God, if it be not possible to discerne his voice, from the delusion of Sathan? God hath giuen (saith Bernard. serm. 1. in septuag. Bernard) cer­taine manifest signes and tokens of saluation, that it cannot be doub­ted, but that he is in the number of the elect, in whom those signes continue. And Bernard. Ju­per. Cant. ser. 8. in an other place, whatsoeuer soule among you (sath the same man) hath at any time felt in the secret of his con­science the spirit of the Sonne, crying Abba Father: let that soule presume, that he is loued with a fatherly affection, which feeleth himselfe indued with the same spirit, which the Sonne had. Be con­fident, whosoeuer thou art, be confident, nothing doubting. By the spirit of the Sonne, know thou art the daughter of the Father, the spouse and sister of the Sonne. Do you name Bernard for a prin­cipall Saint of your Church, and go so directly against his do­ctrine? As for that place of Eccles. 9. 1. Ecclesiastes, what prooueth it, but onely, that See defence of the refor­med Catho­licke. Pag. no man can truly iudge, whether he be in Gods fauour or no, by the outward things of this life, or at the most, that an ordinarie naturall man can giue no true iudgement of the matter? This place (saith Alfons. Sal­mero. in 2. cor. 12. disp. 14. Alfonsus Salmero, no meane Ie­suite) doth not prooue that, which some men draw from it, that a man knoweth not the loue of God toward him: because it followeth in the text, he knoweth not whether he be worthie of hatred. But the wicked know that they are most worthie of Gods hatred, by reason of their grieuous sins: The other place, that Prou. 20. 9. No man can say his heart is cleane, maketh nothing against the point, you would disprooue. For what though euerie man be tainted with naturall corruption, which hath euen the nature of sinne in it, may be not haue, withall, assurance, according to his measure of Gods loue in Christ? Yet if want of a pure heart, be all the hindrance, your doctrine teacheth vs, that the Concil. Tri­dent. sess. 5. cap. 5 partie baptised, before he fall into some deadly sinne, [Page 355] is wholly cleane, originall sinne hauing lost in him the nature of sinne. But the knowledge of the fauour of God depen­deth not vpon the measure of our holinesse, but vpon the truth of it. Wheresoeuer Rom. 8. 9. 10 the spirit of God hath begotten true faith, there he hath begun true sanctification, which according to his diuine power and pleasure, be will in time bring to full perfection.

As if our Church had bene begun with Luther, and not Thom. in ex­pos. Symb. sect. sanctā Eccles. rather with Adam, and the world; continued in the Patri­arches and Prophets, and at last shewed most gloriously in the Apostles and Disciples of our Sauiour Christ? As long as God hath giuen testimonie of the holinesse of these worthies, our Church cannot be said to haue had none certainly knowne to be holy. But though we builde not vpon any such ground, tel me what it wanted of amiracle, that a poore Frier should set himselfe against the Pope, and the whole state of your Church: and for all the malice & persecution of the Pope, the Emperor, and generally all the estates of these westerne parts, as well ci­uill, as Ecclesiasticall, except a Prince or two in Germany con­uerted by him, continue and grow so many yeares, and leaue behind him, (after a peaceable and godly death) so many heires of his doctrine, daily increasing and multiplying? It is enough that the word of God beareth witnesse to the truth of his doctrine, though we haue neither miracle, nor reuelation of his holinesse. But you would make the world beleeue, that he and Caluin attempted to worke miracles. If it had bene so, it was not to breed an opinion of their holinesse, but to auow the truth of their doctrine. But to whom can it seeme like­ly, that they which denied, that any miracles were to be loo­ked for, and taught that Antichrist should come with signes and wonders, would go about such a needlesse, and doubt­full peece of worke? What tell you vs of the Apostata Bolsec, or Staphylus, who solde themselues to lie for the Popes aduantage? At the least name some likely men, though partiall, and not such knowne enemies and Syco­phants.

I maruell you prooue not this point of holinesse by the ex­amples [Page 356] of your Popes, in whose persons holinesse is inuested, and from them deriued to all other, as honour is in, and from temporall Princes. If the Popes holinesse, be not extraordina­rily holy, what should a man looke for of inferiour Papists? Who would not rather name the Sunne, then any starre of the first magnitude, or the Moone her selfe, to prooue that there is light in the skie? But you knew how filthie that fountaine of your holinesse is. Well, let them go as they are: you haue na­med vs three: the ancientest of whom is not yet six hundred yeares old. What say you of them? First, that they were cer­tainly knowne to haue bene professors of that same Religion, which was then, and is now professed at Rome. To whom is this certainly knowne? How many of our men haue shewed that the Religion of the Church of Rome is altered in diuers points, since Bernards time? The Councell of Trent is the pit, out of which the religiō of your present Church is digged. I re­ferre the Reader, for this point, Doct. Field of the Church lib 3. cap. 7. to a Treatise lately written by a learned Diuine, wherein many particulars to this purpose are deliuered. Bernard was indeed a member of the Church of Rome, as then it was: yet either he dissented from the doc­trine of that Church, in the fundamentall points of iustificati­on, or rather your Church now is fallen away from the truth, in that matter. Thou (saith Bernard. in Cant. ser. 61. Bernard to our Sauiour Christ) art made vnto me of God righteousnesse: shal I feare lest that one be not sufficient for vs both? It is not a shore cloake that cannot couer, it will couer both thee and me largely, being both a large & eternall Iustice. As for our righteousnes, Bernard altogether (as we do) acknow­ledgeth it, to be true but vnperfect: Bernard. in ser. 5. de verb. Esaiae. Our humble righteousnesse, if there be any, is true perhaps (saith he) but not pure, vnlesse per­chance we thinke our selues better, then our forefathers, who said no lesse truely, then humbly, all our righteousnesse is as the clouts of a menstruous woman. For how can there be pure righteousnesse, wher­as yet there cannot be fault wanting? VVe will not striue greatly with you for Francis or Dominicke, though many absurd doc­trines, which your Church now holds, were not in their daies, nor before them, defined by any Councell, nor acknowledged by many of your Diuines.

[Page 357] To proue that these three were of your Church, as it is now, you alledge that which is left written of their liues, and the re­ligious orders of Monkes and Friers founded by them. What is written of them, and by whom? Doth any man in penning their liues, affirme, that they held the same things in all points that your Church now holds? I trow not. But if he do, who told him so? If he liued in their times, he was no prophet to foresee what would be maintained in your Church some hundreds of yeares after his death. If he be a late writer, what reason haue we to giue credit to him in such a matter, farther then he is able to make good that he saith, by shewing such an agreement be­twixt their doctrine, and that which now you teach? That they haue left certaine orders behind them, we denie not; which may serue to proue, that they thought it needfull to haue people in­structed in the knowledge of the Gospell by preaching, and some trained vp of purpose to performe that dutie, which was the first end of monasteries. But it is no easie matter to shew that your Monkes and Friers are now gouerned according to the rules appointed by them, nor any inconuenience for vs to graunt that they were of your opinion touching Frieries and monasteries, which are matters far from the foundation of Re­ligion, as long as there is no opinion of merit or perfection an­nexed thereunto.

The second thing you affirme of them, is, that they were holy men, certainly knowne to be so. We are willing in charitie to thinke the best we may, and therefore are not hastie to con­demne them we know not. But this our iudgment is not of cer­taintie, vnlesse we may haue better proofe for it then this you bring. Their liues (you say) and miracles testifie as much. But first, who shall assure vs that they liued so holily, and wrought such miracles? Wee must haue certaine knowledge that they were holy men, who writ and reported these things, ere we can vpon their credit beleeue, that they so behaued themselues. Se­condly, put case that their liues were as they are said to haue bene: haue you forgotten what you writ a little before? It can­not be perfitly knowne of men (say you) who haue truly a good con­science, and an vnfained faith, and consequently who be truly saints, [Page 358] vnlesse it please God to reueale it by miracle, or some other certaine way vnto vs. Thirdly, if you thinke to strike it dead by the report of their miracles, Biel. in Can. Misslect. 29. Biel hath taught vs, that they are oftentimes wrought by the diuell, or shew made of them by Priests, as Lyra in Dan. cap. 14. Lyra saith. And Bellar. de no­tis eccles. lib. 4. cap. 10. Bellarmine resolues, that we cannot be assured which be true miracles, which false, but by the iudgement of the Church. Then are we very far from certaine knowledge that these men were holy: I meane such knowledge as you speake of, that may be a ground of faith, to teach vs infallibly which is the true Church, by the holinesse of the members thereof.

But Luther and other of our men confessed them to haue bene saints. It had bene plaine dealing to haue said holy men: whereas you craftily say saints, as if Luther had giuen some ap­probation of your saints canonized. But do Luther and Me­lanckthon hold them for saints, because of their miracles, or as a thing certainly knowne to them? How could they vnderstand what they were, but by report? They iudged charitably of them, according to the opinion that was of them in the world. And for my part, I am perswaded of Bernard, that he was a man of a sincere heart, and true sanctification. But for Francis, if the re­port of his fiue wounds be true, I will not doubt to affirme, that he was either a wretched hypocrite in faining that miracle, or a silly ideot to be so abused by the diuell. The tale lies thus: that this same Saint Francis forsooth should haue in his side, hands and feete, such wounds as our Sauiour had, which continued always green, and were made in his bodie by I know not what streames that issued from the Crucifixe, from the side, hands and feete thereof, to his side, hands and feete. This matter being cunningly caried by this Pope-holy saint, a woman saint, one Katharine of Sene counterfetted the like, and with like suc­cesse. Afterward Relacion de la santidad yllagas de la &c en Seuilla 1589. euen of late yeares there was the like pra­ctise by one Marie a Prioresse in Portugall, of Saint Dominicks order: who caried the matter very cleanly for a time, till it plea­sed God to discouer her cousinage by meanes of certaine of the Nunnes, who thought scorne that she should be a saint ra­ther then they; and therefore watched her so narrowly, and [Page 359] gaue out such suspicious speeches of her, that at last the whole packe of her dissembling was opened, and she enioyned fauou­rable penance of fasting and praying, &c. There is extant a most abhominable treatise of Saint Francis conformitie to Christ, Barthol dePists conform. S. Francisci. wherein hee is at the least equalled, if not preferred before him. But because this was none of Francis owne doing, let it be as it is, the blasphemous sinne of your Church. Domi­nicke was little better then his fellow Francis, as his Legend sheweth.

Vpon these premisses thus weakly proued, you bring in two conclusions: the former, that this holinesse being confessed of those three, must needs inferre the like confession of the sanctitie of many other, who were also professors of the same Romane faith. If their profession had bene the cause of their holinesse, then you had not gathered much amisse. But their holinesse (if the two latter had any) arose from their true faith in Christ, wrought in them by the holy Ghost, the author of that faith. But there were ma­ny in their times, as resolute maintainers of the Romish Re­ligion as they, who neuer attained to any such opinion of holi­nesse: and the faith you Romanists now professe, is in maine points of iustification and free-will, other then that which Ber­nard taught. For though I haue followed you in saying their ho­linesse, yet I acknowledge none of the three to haue bene holy, but onely Bernard. Neither are our Kalenders any euidence to proue the holines of the rest of your Saints, though their names are continued by Almanacke writers; because many old deeds and euidences are dated by their names, and not by the dayes of the moneth. The Saints Athanasius and Bernard write of, were none of your Church, and yet (by your iudgement) both of them might be deceiued in determining who were Saints. As for Antoninus and Surius, two of your Popes vassailes, their testimonie is little worth, in any indifferent mans opi­nion.

Your latter conclusion is, that some part of your Church is holy, and that therefore the whole may be termed holy. But, as I haue said, whatsoeuer holinesse was in any of the professed members of your Church, it sprung from another roote then growes [Page 360] in your church. Neither is there any reason to terme your whole companie holy, because a few among them are holy; who in re­gard of their holinesse, are indeed none of your company. That which they haue common with the rest of you, makes them not holy, but rather vnholy; namely their profession of subiection to your sea of Rome, and their erring with you in diuers points of doctrine: their holinesse growes from a true acknowledge­ment of saluation by faith onely, and a resting vpon Iesus Christ accordingly, without any opinion of merit in their owne acti­ons, either before or after grace; together with a beleefe and feeling, that not they themselues by their free will enlightened, but God by his mercy and grace made difference betwixt them and other, vouchsafing them the gift of faith, and not bestow­ing it vpon other. Your similitude of painting, painteth out the fondnesse of your conceit. For being a Christian, answers to being a painter, in this similitude, and being holy, to being skilfull. Now as euery man that is free of that Companie, is by his free­dome a painter, but not thereby skilfull: so all that professe Christian Religion, are thereby Christians, but not therefore holy. Neither if one or two, or a few of these painters were skil­ful, would any discreet man say, that the whole company might be termed skilfull, because all make profession of the same art of painting, wherein some of them are skilfull.

How falsly our doctrine was slaundered by you, with indu­cing men to libertie, I shewed in my answer to your accusation: now let vs see wherein yours is better. First you propound two general points, that it forbids expresly all vice, and prescribes lawes contrary to libertie. And are you able to charge vs with the con­trary? Doe we not more strictly interprete the lawes of God then you do? Are we not further from idolatry, allowing no re­ligious Homily a­gainst perill of idolatrie. par. 3. pag. 94. vse of any image? Do we not more abhorre swearing, and expound the third commandement against your prophane othes of Masse, Marie, Ladie, and all your Saints, which you account matters of smal moment? Who teach men to keepe the whole Sabbath, you or we? Who make a maine point of Gods law, the loue of our enemies, a counsell, and not a commaunde­ment; we or you? Who maintaine aequiuocation & officious lies, [Page 361] but you? Are not you they that hold murdering of Princes, yea euen of your owne Soueraignes, to be meritorious workes? What should I name particulars? You are the men that make the corruption of our nature to be nothing else but the want of righteousnesse, that ought to be in vs. You are the men who teach vs, that originall sinne in the regenerate, is not properly sinne; that vncleane, vnnaturall, vnruly, ambitious, couetous, murderous, and such like thoughts and motions are no sinnes, vnlesse we yeeld to them, or delight in them. Doe not you perswade men, that many sinnes are not mortall, but ve­niall; and so make men rush into them, without feare or shame?

Your second point is, that your religion containes most soue­raigne meanes to incite men to perfit vertue and holinesse of life. What, more soueraigne, then God hath appointed in his word? You will not dare to say so, for very shame of the world. It re­maines then, that you shew what meanes we neglect of al them that God hath commaunded vs to vse. Do we not minister the sacraments to our people? Do we not offer vp prayers, suppli­cations, and intercessions to God for them? But, that I may not runne through all particulars at once: let vs see what you bring peece by peece.

This first point giueth a tast of that maine difference, which may be obserued betwixt your Religion and ours. You so carie the matter, that you alwayes prouide for the freedome of mans will, whatsoeuer become of the glorie of God. We make it our chiefe care to aduance Gods glorie, though thereby we take somewhat from the pride of man. Let vs make this ma­nifest in the particular question we haue in hand. Wherein first wee graunt as much as you affirme: that Gods predesti­nation doth not take away mans free will. But herein lies the difference betwixt you and vs: you teach that God doth onely giue a man abilitie to beleeue, and doe good workes, leauing it to himselfe, to beleeue or not to beleeue, to do good, or not to do good. We contrariwise auouch, that God, besides this abilitie, doth also incline our hearts to beleeue, and do, according to his owne holy pur­pose: yet doe we not any way imagine, that a man is forced [Page 362] to beleeue; but onely teach, that whereas any man beleeueth it was fore appointed by God, that hee should beleeue: nei­ther could it in the euent otherwise fall out, though he did be­leeue willingly, and by his owne choise. See my an­swer to 12. art part. 2. art. 4. Your doctrine ma­keth a man more beholding to himselfe then to God, for his faith and good workes: because God did no more for him, then he doth ordinarily for many other men, who are yet vt­terly cast away. God indeede gaue him abilitie to beleeue, if he would; but for all that, he might haue refused to beleeue, and so haue bene damned. Therefore whereas he doth be­leeue, and is saued, he may thanke himselfe, and not God. Thus you prouide for mans free will, with the impeachment of Gods glorie. We on the other side acknowledge, that as we haue power to beleeue, from the grace of God, so it is he that wor­keth our hearts to beleeue, and certainly and necessarily in re­gard of the euent, though freely in respect of our will, brings vs to beleeue in Iesus Christ. So that you by this opinion, giue man the glorie of his saluation: wee leaue it wholly to God.

Now for the despaire of shunning euill, and doing well, which (in your conceit) ensueth vpon our opinion: there is no such matter. Who shall be in despaire of shunning sinne, by this doctrine? No man that hath grace. For with him the spirit of God is alwayes present, to prouoke and incline him to well doing. And this must needs encourage him thereto much more, because he is the abler to performe any good a­ction. As for him that is still in his naturall estate, I hope you graunt, that there is no good to be looked for at his hands: I meane such good, as may further him to euerlasting life. But (say you) he can haue no hope to obtaine faith and grace, because it is not within the compasse of mans free will to make choise of it, when it is offered. What though it be not? Do not we teach withall, that euerie man, to whom God affoordeth the meanes of faith, that is the ministerie of the word, may and ought to assure himselfe, that the spirit of God will be get faith in him, if he will shew himselfe willing to be instructed and inclined, as he may doe, if he will aduisedly consider what his estate is [Page 363] by nature, and what offer is made him by God? onely he can­not feede his naturall pride with a conceipt of being the chiefe procurer of his owne felicitie.

It is not vnpossible to obserue the law, but to keepe it per­fectly, so that a man cannot be charged with the breach of it in any point. Why doth Psal. 143. 2. Dauid crie out, Enter not into iudge­ment with thy seruant, O Lord: for in thy sight shall none that liueth be iustified? Why doth Dan. 9. 20. Daniel confesse his sinnes to God? See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 2. art. 4. It is verie like, that many of your Friers are able to performe that, in which these worthies of the Church failed. The commaun­dements of God indeed are not grieuous to anie man regene­rate by Gods spirit, because (as Rom. 7. 21. the Apostle saith) he deligh­teth in the law of God: and by reason of his loue to God, thin­keth nothing too heauie or too hard: as Oecum. ad 1. Ioan. 5. 3. Oecumenius expoun­deth the place of Iohn. But it doth not follow thereupon, that therefore the whole law may be perfectly kept. Yea Hieron. ad Math. 11. 30. Ierome vpon that place of Mathew, directly affirmes, that many things are commaunded in the law, which (saith he) the Apostle most fully teacheth vs, cannot be fulfilled. Beda. ibi. Bede maketh this burden and yoke, not the commandements of the law, but the doctrine of the Gospell.

What? cannot a man haue any heart to do well, vnlesse hee puffe vp himselfe with a proud conceit of being able perfectly to fulfill the whole law? How did Dauid and Daniel? These are the Pharisaicall thoughts of you Papists, who thinke scorne to be beholding to God for his mercie, in forgiuing your sinnes after baptisme, without your owne satisfaction: and who will haue all of desert, in the rigour of iustice. Is it not enough for a poore soule, who is priuie to his owne grieuous infirmi­ties, many slips and great corruptions, that the Lord vouch­safeth to accept of his weake endeuours, and will crowne them with reward of glorie, for all their imperfections; but that he must also presume of his power to keepe the whole law? You are the men that valew the pride of your corrupt nature, at an higher rate, then the glorious riches of Gods mercy in Iesus Christ.

Here you manifestly bewray the pride of your hearts, [Page 364] and o See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 2. art. 7. your seruile nature, who will do nothing in thankfulnesse to God, but vpon perswasion of meriting by that you do. We acknowledge, that our vnperfect obedience is acceptable to God, and that he will certainly reward euery least good worke of any of his children, with a great measure of glorie in heauen. Only the doctrine of the scriptures, the knowledge of our owne imperfections, and our desire to giue all glory to God, makes vs to renounce all opiniō of merit, & to appeale to Gods gracious promise onely for our reward. If these respects be not of suffici­ent force with any man (as with none of you that are grounded Papists, they are) but that he can contemne or loathe doing of good, for all them; what should I say, but that he shewes himself to be a seruant, and not a son: and therefore can haue no claime to the kingdome of heauen, which is the inheritance of chil­dren? Luc, 12. 32.

VVhereas, to deceiue your owne hearts with an opinion of desert, you ascribe the merite of your workes to the merits of Christ, and teach that they are meritorious, by being dipped in his bloud: you shew either your ignorance or your dallying. If you thinke as you speake, you bewray your ignorance: if other­wise, you dally with our Sauiour and his bloud. Are you able indeed to keepe the commaundements perfectly? what need haue you then of Christs bloud, to dip your workes in? For the perfect obseruation of the law, brings of it selfe euerlasting life, without any merit of Christ. Let it be from his merits, that you haue this abilitie to performe the law. Vpon the perfor­mance of it, the hire of eternall happines is absolutely due vnto you. VVhy do you then trifle thus with our Sauiour, as if you would make him beleeue, that you thinke your selues more be­holding to him, then indeed you can do? If you need Christs bloud, your works are vnperfit: if they be perfit, you need it not. Leaue this halting betwixt Christ and your selues, lest he be auenged of your dallying.

To what purpose do you mention this your teaching, that exceeding punishment is due to sinne in the next life? Doe not we teach this more effectually then you? We make the least sinne liable to euerlasting condemnation: you teach, [Page 365] that Bellar. de a­miss. grat. lib. 1. cap. 3. there are many veniall sinnes, which Vbi supra. cap 13. Bonauent. in centiloq. cap. 6. Thom. in 4. dist. 85. art. 3. Rhem. Test. ad Math. 10 v. 12 Extra. de paenit. & remiss. cap. omnis vtrius­que in Glossa. deserue little or no punishment: in so much, that a knocke on the breast, or a sigh, or the saying of one Aue-Marie, maketh satisfaction to God for it. But the point is, that you perswade men, there is no assurance to be had of any forgiuenesse of sinnes committed after baptisme. We teach the contrarie, that as many, as in the sight of their sinnes, with true sorrow for them, cast themselues vpon Christ by faith to be iustified by him, both obtaine pardon of all their transgressions, and also receiue euerie one in their measure, and time, assurance that they are pardoned.

Your doctrine (you say) maketh men warie, not to fall into sinne. It restraineth mortall sinne onely. For veniall sinne cannot be punished but in Purgatorie, vnlesse a man be guiltie of mortall also: and if a man can make friends to the Pope, as it is no hard matter to do, especially if he be well monied, he may easily auoid all those exceeding great punishments. Or if he can but haue a Priest to sing masse for him euerie Vide speculum exemplar. pas­sim. day (and masses are not verie high rated) he shall be sure to be deliuered, within a short space. If the worst come to the worst, Purgatorie cannot out last the world, and then he goeth vp to heauen, without any more ado. But yet men are kept in awe from committing of deadly sinnes. Neuer a whit. For it is generally preached by your Friers and Priestes, that confession purgeth all sins: and your people (ordinarily) are not so skilfull (no not one among a thousand) as to distin­guish betwixt sinnes in this sort: but they beleeue, that vp­on their confession, and absolution (if they doe the pen­naunce appoynted by their ghostly Father) they are as free from all their sinnes, as when they were newly bap­tised.

Now concerning our doctrine, though we teach men, that assurance is to be had; yet we withall instruct them, that it is neuer in this life absolutely without doubting, at all times: and s See my an­swer to 12. Art. part. 1. art. 5. that no man can be assured that his sinnes are forgiuen, but he that with feare and trembling maketh conscience of falling in­to sinne; which are especiall meanes prouided by God to keepe [Page 366] men from sinning; and without which, sinne will so ouer­take vs, and the sense of Gods wrath so follow, & vexe vs, See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 2 art. 1 that a man were better frie a yeare in your Purgatory, knowing that he shall one day get out of it, then lie one moneth vnder the heauie hand of God, pressing him with the remembrance of his sinne, and for the time hiding his gracious countenance from him. If you neuer fealt this, offer not to iudge of the ex­tremitie thereof, for you will neuer come to giue any reasonable gesse of the terriblenesse of it.

To prescribe lawes of fasting, and praier as you do, that A man refraine, vpon such and such daies from flesh, or patter ouer a number of Paternosters, Aues, and Creeds, is so farre from tea­ching men to auoid sinne, that it thrusts them necessarily into it. For both the opinion and doing of it as a seruice of God, is a grieuous sinne, as if the Lord hated flesh more then fish, or ca­red Durand. ratiō. lib. 6. cap. 7. n. 22. for such vaine lip-labour; and also the verie conceit that men haue, of doing such extraordinarie seruice, maketh them presume, that God will beare with them, though they chance to sinne against him. The like I say of confession, but of these two I spake before in defence of our doctrine. See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 2. art. 4. With what fitnesse your remedies are applied, or rather penance is inioyned, the veriest child may see; when for the most part they are such, as I named ere while, abstaining from flesh, mumbling vp a cer­taine number of praiers, going on pilgrimage to some shrine, or such like. As for true comfort in affliction of conscience, or good direction in time of temptation, or wise instruction for a mans spirituall behauiour, few of your ordinarie Priestes, Sir Iohns Lacke-Latine, haue any knowledge or care of them.

This last point concerneth you, no more then vs. For who knoweth not, that we continually teach, that God hath called Christians to holinesse, whereof they make profession, and wherein, if they do not daily exercise themselues, they can haue no sufficient assurance, nor reasonable perswasion, that they are iustified by the bloud of Christ. Because as many as haue any part of redemption by him, Gal. 4. 4. 5. haue receiued his spirit, and Rom. 8. 9. 11 If the spirit of him that raised vp Iesus from the dead, dwell in vs, [Page 367] our mortall bodies shall be quickened by the spirit dwelling in vs. Onely it may seeme, that your disgrace, and danger should be the more, if you liue not holily: because you brag, that you are able perfectly to keepe the Law, and your Plea for heauen, is the desert of your good works, together with the inward grace of faith, hope, and charitie.

Because there is nothing in this glorious conclusion, but a heaping vp of those false assertions, which I haue alreadie con­futed, I will neuer make the Reader more worke then needs, by repeating of that which hath bene formerly deliuered.

A. D. §. 6.

§ III. That the Romane Church onely is Catholicke.

Thirdly I finde that the Protestants companie is not Catholicke, that is to say vniuersall, neither in time, nor in place; for it came vp of late, and is but in few places of Christendome: neither in points of doctrine; for their doctrine consisteth chiefely of negatiues, that is to say in denying diuers points, which haue bene generally held in former ages: as appeareth by the Chronicles of the Magdebur­genses their owne Doctors, who confesse that the ancient Fathers held this and that, which they now denie. And there is no learned Protestant (vnlesse he be too too impudent) but he will confesse, that there cannot be assigned a visible companie of men (professing the same faith, which they do) euer since Christ his time, continuing without interruption till now. And therefore, will he, nill he, he must confesse, that the Protestants Church is not vniuersall, and therefore not Catholicke, as out of Scripture, I shewed Christs true Church must be.

But the Romane Church is Catholicke. For first, it hath bene continually without ceasing since Christ and his Apostles time, still visibly (though sometimes in persecution) professing the same faith which is receiued from the Apostles, without change till this day. It is therefore Catholicke or vniuersall in time. It hath also had, and hath at this day, some in euerie countrey, where there are any Chri­stians, (which is almost, if not absolutely euerie where) that com­municateth and agreeth with it, in profession of faith. Therefore [Page 368] it is also Catholicke or vniuersall in place. It teacheth also an vni­uersall and most ample vniforme doctrine of God, of Angels, of all other creatures, and specially of man, of mans first framing, of his fi­nall end, of things pertaining to his nature, of his fall by sinne, of his reparation by grace, of lawes prescribed vnto him, of vertues which he ought to embrace, of vices which he ought to eschew, of Christ our Redeemer, his Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and comming againe to iudgement, of Sacraments, and all other things, that any way pertaine to Christian religion. Neither doth it at this day denie any one point of doctrine of faith, which in former times was vniuersally receiued, for a veritie of the Catholicke Church. The which if any man will take vpon him to gainesay, let him shew and prooue if he can, what point of doctrine the Ro­mane Church doth denie, or holde contrarie to that, which by the Church was vniuersally held before: as we can shew diuers points that the Protestants so hold or denie. Let him (I say) shew and prooue by setting downe the point of doctrine, the author, the time, the place, and what companie did oppose themselues against it, and who they were that did continue (as the true Church must still continue) in the profession of the former faith, lineally, without in­terruption, till these our daies: as we can shew and prooue against them. Let him also shew what countrey there is, or hath bene, where Christian faith either was first planted, or afterwards continued, where some, at least haue not holden the Romane faith: as we can shew euen at this day, diuers places where their religion is scarce heard of, especially in the Indian, Iaponian, and China countries, which were not long since, first conuerted to the Christian faith, one­ly by those, who were members of the Romane Church, and chiefly by Iesuites sent thither by the authoritie of the Pope. And to go no further then our deare countrie England: we shall finde in the Chronicles that it was conuerted by Augustine a Monke, sent by Saint Gregorie the Pope, and that it cōtinued in that faith, without knowledge of the Protestants religion, which then, and for diuers See the Histo­rie of Saint Bede, lib. 1. cap. 23. hundred yeares after, was neuer heard off, as being then vnhatched. The like record of other countries conuerted by meanes of those one­ly, who either were directly sent by the Pope or Bishop of Rome, or at least, communicated and agreed in profession of faith, with him, [Page 369] we may finde in other Histories. Lastly let him shew some space of time, in which the Romane Church was not since Christ and his Apostles time, or in which it was not visible & knowne: as we can shew them many hundred yeares, in which theirs was not at all. Let him (I say) therefore shew and prooue, (which neuer any yet did or can prooue) that euer the Romane Church did either faile to be, or to be visible: or being still visible, when the profession of the anci­ent faith, which it receiued from the Apostles, did faile in it, and when, and by whom the profession of a new faith began in it. As we can shew whē, where, & by whom, this new (no) faith of theirs began.

Certaine it is that once the Romane Church had the true faith, and was a true Church, to wit, when Saint Paule wrote to the Ro­manes saying, Vestra fides annunciatur in vniuerso orbe, your Rom. 1. In ration. red­ditis academ. ra. 7. faith is renowned in the whole world. When therefore, I pray you, (as the learned and renowned Master Campian vrgeth) when (I say) did Rome change the beleefe and profession of faith which once it had? Quo tempore? quo Pontifice? qua via? qua vi? quibus incrementis vrbem & orbem religio peruasit aliena? Quas voces? quas turbas, quae lamenta ea res progenuit: Om­nes orbe reliquo so piti sunt, dum Roma, Roma inquam, noua Sacramenta, nouum sacrificium nouum religionis dogma pro­cuderet? Nullus extitit Historicus, neque Latinus, neque Grae­cus, neque remotus, neque citimus, quirem tantam vel obscurè iaceret in commentarios? At what time? vnder what Pope? what way? with what violence or force? with what augmentatiō or increase did a strange religion ouerflow the Citie and the whole world? What speaches or rumors? what tumults or troubles? what lamentations (at least) did it breed? Was all the rest of the world asleepe, when Rome (the Imperial and mother Citie, whose matters for the most part are open to the view of the whole world) when Rome I say, did coine new Sacraments, a new sacrifice, a new doctrine of faith & religion? Was there neuer one Historiographer, neither Latin nor Greeke, neither farre off nor neere, who would at least obscurely cast into his commentaries, such a notable matter as this is?

Certainly it is not possible, if such a thing as this had happened, but that it should haue bene resisted, or at least recorded by some. For suppose it were true, (which the Protestantes imagine) [Page 370] that some points of the faith and religion which Rome professeth at this day, were as contrarie to that which was in it, when Saint Paule commended the Romane faith, as black to white, darknesse to light; or so absurd, as were now Iudaisme, or Paganisme (as one of their Holinshead in the descrip­tion of Brita­nie. Fol 11. Historiographers accounteth it worse, saying, that indeed Augu­stine the Monke conuerted the Saxons from Paganisme, but as the prouer be saith (saith he) bringing them out of Gods blessing in­to the warme Sunne:) Suppose, I say, this were true. Then I would demaund, if it were possible, that any Prince in any Christian Citie, and much more that the Pope in Rome the mother Citie, could at this day bring in any notable absurd rite of Iewish or Paganish reli­gion; for example, to offer vp an Oxe in sacrifice, or to worship a Cow as God: and not onely to practise it priuately in his owne Chap­pell, but to get it publickely practised and preached in all Churches, not onely of that Citie, but also in all the rest of the Christian world: and that none should in Christian zeale, continually oppose them­selues, that no Bishop should preach, no Doctor write against this horrible innouation of faith, and the author thereof; that none should haue constancie to suffer martyrdome, which Christians haue bene alwaies most readie to endure, rather then to yeeld to a profession and practise, so contrarie to their ancient faith; that there should be no true hearted Christians, who would speake of it, or at least la­ment it, nor no Historiographer that would so much as make ob­scure mention of it. Could all be so asleepe, that they could not note, or so cold and negligent in matters concerning their soules good, as ge­nerally, without any care to yeeld vnto it? No certainly, though there were no promise of Christ his owne continual presence; no assurance of the infallible assistāce of his holy spirit: yet it is not possible that such a grosse error should arise among Christiās, & ouerwhelme the whole world, without some resistance. The Bishops and Pastors could not be so simple, or so vnmindfull of their duetie, but they would first note such an euident contrarietie, to the ancient and vniuersally receiued faith; and noting it, they would, doubtlesse with common consent, resist, contradict, and finally, according to Saint Paule his Gal. 1. rule, accurse it. If therefore this could not happen now, nor euer heretofore was heard, that any such absurd errour or heresie did or could arise, without noting or resisting; what reason can any man [Page 371] haue, to say, that this hath happened at Rome? Not being able to alledge any writer, that did note the thing, the person, the time, and what opposition was made and continued against it, as in all he­resies that haue sprung vp of new, we can do. If there could not a little ceremonie be added to the Masse, but that it was set downe in historie, when and by whom; how could the whole substance of the Masse, (which consisteth in consecration, oblation, and con­sumption of the sacred Hoast) be newly inuented, and no menti­on made, when or by whom, or that euer there was was any such new inuention at all? If also Historiographers were not afraid to note personall and priuate vices of the Popes themselues; which they might well thinke Popes would not willingly haue made open to the world: why should they haue feared to haue recorded any al­teration in religion? Which if it had bene, had bene a thing done publikely in the view of the whole world; or if there were any feare or flatterie, which might tie the tongues and pennes of those, that li­led neare hand, that they durst not or would not mention such a matter: yet doubtlesse others, which liued in places further off, should not haue had those causes, and consequently would not haue kept secret such an open and important a thing as this. If lastly the histories which make mention of these priuate vices of Popes, and other Christian Princes, could not onely first come out, but also con­tinue without touch, till these latter times: what reason can any haue to doubt or dreame, but that the like would haue bene set out about the alteration of religion, if it had happened? And that, if a­ny such Historie reporting any true accident of alteration or change of religion, had come out; it should partly by Gods prouidence, part­ly by humane diligence, haue bene preserued till these our daies: especially considering, that such records had bene so requisite, for discerning the ancient, vnchanged, true Christian Religion, from vpstart noueltie, which must needs be false.

So that we may well conclude; that if Christian Religion had, since the Apostles time, altered in Rome; it would haue bene recorded in histories, as other things, and especially such notable alterations are recorded: and those histories would haue bene preserued till this day, as other Christian monuments haue bene preserued, euen in time of persecution, yea euen then, when the persecutors made [Page 372] particular enquirie for Christian bookes, to burne or consume them. But in those ancient Histories, there is no mention made of any such alteration of Religion in Rome. Wherefore it fol­loweth that there was no such alteration or change at all. No such alteration being made, it is euident that the same faith and Religion, which was in Saint Paules time, hath alwaies con­tinued, and is there now. That which was there then, was the true faith and Religion, as appeareth by that high commendati­on, which Saint Paule hath left written of it. Therefore that which is there now, must needs be the onely true holy and Ca­tholicke faith; and that companie which professeth it, must needs be the Onely true Holy and Catholicke Church.

Neither can I see what answere can, with any probabilitie, be forged against this reason. For to say, that the errours of the Church of Rome crept in by little and little, and so, for the little­nesse of the thing, or for negligence of the Pastours, were not espied; is an idle fiction alreadie refuted. For first those matters, which the Protestants call errours in the Romane Church, be not so little matters, but that lesse, euen in the like kinde, are ordinarily recor­ded in stories. Nay, some of them are in the Protestants conceits, (and consequently if men of old time had bene Protestants, they would haue bene also in their conceits) as grosse superstition as Pa­ganisme it selfe, namely to adore Christ our Sauiour, as being really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament; the which Sa­crament Protestants hold to be, (really and substantially) but a bare peece of bread. Also the Protestants account the vse of the Images to be Idolatrie, and say (verie ignorantly or maliciously) that we adore stockes and stones, as the Paynims did. The which things could not so haue crept in by little and little, but they must needs be espied: Neither could the Pastours of the Church, at any time, be so simple and ignorant, so sleepie and negligent, but they must needes haue seene: and seeing must needes in some sort haue resisted, as before I haue said. For to imagine all the Pa­stours, of any one age, to haue bene in such a deepe Lethargicall and deadly sleepe, that they could not onely not perceiue, when the enemie should ouer sow Cockle in the hearts of some; but also when this Cockle of false beleefe should grow to outward [Page 373] action, and especially to publicke practise, the which could not be but most apparent: to imagine (I say) all the Pastors to be so simple and sleepie, not then to marke, or not to resist, is rather the dreame of a proud man in his sleepe, who is apt to thinke all men fooles beside himselfe, then a iudictall conceit of a waking man of any vnderstan­ding; who ought to thinke of things past, either according to the ve­ritie recorded in stories, or when this faileth, by comparing the like­lihood of that which hee thinketh was done by men of that time, with that which most men of their qualitie would do in like case. Finally, if these things were so, & that the church did by this means, for so long space, in such important matters, vniuersally erre, Neg­lexerit Lib. de praescrip officium Spiritus sanctus (as Tertullian speaketh, refuting the like cauill of heretickes) the holy Ghost should haue neglected his office: which is (as I haue proued before out of Scripture) not to permit the vniuersall Church to fall into error, but to suggest vnto it all things that Christ said vnto it, and to teach it all Iohn 14. Iohn 16. truth.

A. W.

Catholicknesse especially as you vnderstand it, is not such a propertie of the Church, but the Church may be without it: as it is plaine by that Church which was in our Sauiour Christs time, onely in the land of Iewrie; and after his death, Act. 8. 4. till the Church was scattered abroade in the world.

Yet let vs see what you bring to prooue, that our Church is not Catholicke.

  • If there cannot be assigned a visible companie of men professing the same faith which the Protestants do, euer since Christs time, continuing without interruption till now: then the Pro­tesiants Church is not Catholicke.
  • But there cannot be such a companie assigned.
  • Therefore the Protestants Church is not Catholicke.

I denie the consequence of the maior: First, because that To the pro­position. may be Catholicke, which is not visible: as the Church of the elect is dispersed in all places, and yet no where to be seene. Secondly, because Catholicknesse belongs neither to time nor doctrine, but to place and persons. Thirdly, because it is not re­quired, that the same faith in all points should be professed, (which you meane by the same faith) but onely the same [Page 374] in matters fundamentall.

I grant your minor, that we cannot assigne you any such com­panie, Of the As­sumption. though we doubt not but that there was alwayes such a companie greater or lesse, as appeares by them which from time to time haue by their writings or sufferings maintained the sub­stance of that doctrine which we now professe.

To proue that our doctrine is not vniuersal, you say, See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 2. art. 4. it chiefly consisteth of negatiues: whereas you cannot be ignorant that we hold all the articles of the creed, and that in the same sense as you do, saue onely in some few differences, about the vnder­standing of beleefe, what it is to beleeue in the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost; and what it is to beleeue the Church, and in what respect the Church is called holy and Catholicke, and what the Church is that we beleeue. But we denie some things that some auncient writers haue held. Doe you follow them in all points? You will not say so for very shame. But our Church is truly Catholicke, because it is not tied to the Iewes or Ierusalem, no nor to any other place or persons, but common to all that will beleeue in Iesus Christ.

VVhat get you if you proue your Church to be Catholicke: since that alone, without the two former points alreadie dis­proued, cannot make any companie a true Church? But neither can you proue your Church to be Catholicke: let your argument speake.

  • That Church which is vniuersall in time, place and doctrine of the Aposiles, without change, is Catholicke.
  • The Romane Church is vniuersall in time, place and doctrine of the Apostles, without change.
  • Therefore the Romane Church is Catholicke.

If to make a Church Catholicke, it be required that she con­tinue Of the pro­position. in the doctrine of the Apostles, how did you before denie that the doctrine of the Apostles is a necessary and certaine marke of the true Church? But if you leaue this out, and affirme that Church to be Catholicke which is vniuersall in doctrine, and thinke it not needfull, that the doctrine professed be the A­postles: I denie your maior. The reasons of my deniall, I de­liuered in the former Chapter, when I shewed, that truth [Page 375] of doctrine was the most proper and true marke of the Church.

But whatsoeuer your maior be, your minor is euidently false To the As­sumption. in euery part of it. The very foundations of the doctrine of the Apostles, are ouerthrowne by your Church, in the heresies you hold concerning predestination, iustification, free will, the insuffi­ciencie of the Scriptures, and the headship of Antichrist your Pope. Neither do you onely faile in the doctrine of the Apostles, but in your vniuersalitie of time. For how can that doctrine be said to haue bin always, which was not taught by our Sauiour and his Apostles? As for vniuersalitie in regard of the ample vnifor­mitie of your doctrine; if you speake of your Churches deter­mination, many points of great moment are not as yet defined by it: for example take those maine questions, whether the Pope be aboue the Councell or no: whether he haue without a Councell priuiledge of not erring or no: whether there be any merit of con­gruitie or no, and such like. Yea your Church denieth the chiefe point of all, which in the Apostles time was held by all true Christians, that iustification is by faith, without the workes of the law. I forbeare to shew the reasons of that I affirme, because any man may setch them out of my former answer in this and the last Chapter.

I looked for proofe of your minor: but you were too wise to vndertake a matter so vnpossible: and therefore in stead of that, you challenge vs to shew and proue the contrarie, forget­ting that it is the repliers part to proue, and not the answe­rers. But I pray you tell me in earnest, did you neuer heare of any particulars, whereby we except against your doctrine as none of the Apostles? What a vaine flourish is this then, to demaund new proofes of vs, and neuer once assay to answer those we haue alreadie brought? But I haue made answer to your chal­lenge in my refutation of your proofe, that your Church is one. Yea our mens bookes are full of these points and proofes, both out of Scriptures and Fathers. As for your brag, of being able to shew diuers points that we hold or denie, otherwise then the true Church did in the time of the Apostles: it is well knowne, that in most controuersies betwixt vs, you are faine to flie from the [Page 376] Scriptures of God, to the writings of men, and deuise interpre­tations to serue your turne. In some points we denie not, but that we dissent from the opinion of some writers of former a­ges; but that we go against the iudgement of the whole Church before it became Antichristian, neither we graunt, nor you can proue. And euen for those times of error, we want not the testi­monie of learned men to auouch our doctrine against your he­resies. But you call vpon vs to set downe the point of doctrine, the author, the time, the place, what companie did oppose themselues a­gainst it, and who they were that did continue in the profession of the former faith. What needs all this ado? Wil it not serue the turne, if we make it manifest, that your doctrine is contrary to that the Apostles taught, vnlesse we can shew you when euery one of your errors was first hatched? What if the Scribes and Pha­rises had demaunded the like questions of our Sauiour Christ, touching their errors reproued by him? There is no doubt, but that as he was God, he could haue declared euery one of these particulars; but do you thinke he would haue fed their foolish humor in this case, and not haue contented himselfe with shew­ing that it was not so from the beginning? D. Abbot a­gainst D. B. P. Some of our Mi­nisters haue truly and wittily refuted this conceit of yours, by shewing how absurd it is for a man that is sicke of the plague, a surfet, or any such disease, to denie that he is so diseased, be­cause the Physition cannot tell him at what time, and in what place, vpon what occasion, in what companie he first tooke the infection, or distempered his bodie by ill diet. Is it a good plea against plaine and sound euidence, whereby I proue that such a Lordship ought to be mine, that I cannot shew when and how I lost the possession of euery seuerall close and meadow, farme and cottage? But to take away all iust excuse from you, our writers haue shewed the first beginnings of many of your errors, and might haue done of more, if al were extant that hath bin written; and your inquisitors and censurers had not (as you call it) purged, indeed corrupted and maimed the writings of former ages, wheresoeuer they made against you, if you could light on them before they were too well knowne in the world.

[Page 377] This challenge hath as much reason as the former. We must proue that there haue not bene some in euery countrey, where the Gospell hath bene professed, that haue held your Romane faith. Or rather must not you proue your Catholicknesse by such induc­tion? But we confesse it to be likely, that the diuell hath from time to time sowed some of your tares amongst the Lords wheate. But that your whole faith, as now you hold it, was e­uer maintained any where, till the last Councell of Trent, we challenge you to proue if you can. Surely the Greeke Church euen till this day, dissenteth from you in many, and some no small matters, as your Popes supremacie; that I may not name those Christians who are in precious Iohns countrey, in Arme­nia, Jean. Belul. and other parts of the world: to whom your doctrine is as little knowne in a manner, as ours is to those Indians you spake of. Amongst whom, for ought you can proue or know to the contrary, there may be, and in all liklihood are some, to whom the Lord hath giuen grace to rest wholly vpon Iesus Christ for pardon of their sinnes, without any mingling of their owne workes with Christs, to procure them the inheritance of hea­uen. All such we challenge to be of our Church, though they agree with you in many of your errors, through their ignorāce of the Scriptures. As for our countrey of England, which 1. Reg. 3. 26. like that harlot, you call deare, as oft as you conceiue hope of bringing it into subiection to the Pope, but otherwise wish it wholly destroyed, as shee did the child; it neither was conuer­ted by your proud Monke Austine, but peruerted rather: and long before he was borne, had many congregations in it, who held the same faith that we now do. You confesse they were not of your Church: for then what needed, or how could they haue bene conuerted by Austine? That the Gospell was here long before that time, euen in a manner from the first preaching of it, Poly. Virgil. hist. Angl. lib. 2 Polydor Virgill no Protestant may teach you out of Gil­das a Brittish writer, ancienter then Bede: Gildas witnesseth (saith Polydor) that the Brittans receiued the Gospell presently vpon the first publishing of it abrode in the world. Yea Beda hist. gēt. Angl. lib. 2. c. 2. Bede, your owne au­thor auoucheth, that seuen Bishops of the Brittans, and many ve­rie learned men refused to receiue Austine for their Archbishop. [Page 378] And Galsr. Mon. lib. 8. cap. 4. Geffrey of Monmouth testifieth, that Ethelbat king of Kent caused 1200. monkes of Bangor to be slaine in one day, because they would not yeeld to Austins Archbishopricke: of whom that writer saith, that they decked with martyrdome, entred the kingdome of heauen. Mark you what he saith? They were mar­tyrs, that chose to die rather then to yeeld to your Popish Archbi­shop. The like conuersion we may find in the Indies, especially the West, where your Catholicke nation the Spaniards haue destroyed in few yeares, more soules, then all sent by the Pope, or agreeing in faith with him, euer conuerted in fiue times so many. Although, what tell you vs of men communicating with the Pope in the same faith? How durst they attempt any such matter, without speciall commission from him? Is his authoritie no more amongst you?

The Romane Church hath indeed alwayes bene visible: but it hath not alwayes bene the same Church. For many hundred yeares it was ours, and not yours, though the diuell laboured to sow the tares, you now sell for corne, among the wheate, and preuailed by little and little. It is therefore ridiculous for you to challenge vs, that we should shew when the faith, receiued by the Church of Rome from the Apostles, began to faile in it. It was done ( Mat. 13. 25. as our Sauiour speakes in the like case) while men slept: and so slily, peece by peece, that the corne was ouergrowne ere the tares were perceiued: most men tooke them for wheate: they that saw some difference, thought them too deeply rooted for them to plucke vp: and if any man offered to touch them with his weeding hooke, Satan had taken order by your Pope and his Cleargie, that the hooke should be wrung out of his hands; and if he held hard, his head be wrung off his shoulders. Thus one man being taught by anothers calamitie, as in hun­ting with the Lion, the Foxe was by the Asses misery, euery one thought it best to sleepe in a whole skin, and to beare with that they could not helpe. Yet are there many examples of those, who from time to time haue withstood the tyrannie of your Pope, and your heresies in Religion: and many more we should haue heard of, if your Popish Cleargie had not bin chiefe com­maunders through all Europe.

[Page 379] What is all this painted discourse, but a flourishing repe­tition of that which hath bene often answered, like coleworts twice sod, and strewed ouer with sugar? Onely to grace the ser­uice you send in the dish by one, who in your eyes is a proper man. But do you not know, that as wel his owne treason, as the continuall practises of his companions, and aboue all, the late diuellish fire worke of your superiour Garnets approbation, haue made Campions authoritie light, and the name of a Ie­suite odious to all true hearted Englishmen? Let vs take the Traitor at the best, and giue him some commendation of wit, and of a quicke cornicall stile. If once his writings be stript of their rhetoricall habit, and set naked before the light of true lo­gicke, it will appeare to all the world (I will say no more then I am able to manifest) that neuer any man so doted vpon by them that would seeme to be great clearkes, writ more weakly or vnsoundly. You tell vs, that the Romane Church was once a true Church. We acknowledge it with thankes to God, and due commendation thereof: and are loth to say any thing, whereby the best opinion of it might be diminished; but that you driue vs to it, by building vpon that high commendation, which S. Paul (say you) hath left written of it: as if it had once bene so extraor­dinarily rooted, that no blast could shake it. But how vaine a conceit this is, it will easily be seene, if we consider that other Churches, which haue had as great commendations, are now no Churches at all. What is become of that famous Church at Corinth, of which the Apostle testifieth, that Cor. 1. 5. In all things it was made rich in Christ, in all kind of speech, and in all knowledge: so that they were not destitute of any gift? yea the Apostle addeth, that vers. 7. Iesus Christ shall also confirme them, vnto the end, that they may be blamelesse in the day of our Lord Iesus. This passeth that he saith of the Romanes. The like he saith of Phil. 1. 3. 5. 6 the Philippians, I thanke my God, because of the fellowship which you haue in the Gospell, from the first day vntill now: and I am perswaded of the same thing, that he, which hath begun this good worke in you, will performe it, vntill the day of Iesus Christ. How (would you haue triumphed) if the Apostle had said as much of your Church? But what say you to the Church of Thessalonica? From you (saith 1. Thess. 1. 8. the Apostle of [Page 380] the Thessalonians) sounded out the word of the Lord, not in Ma­cedonia and Achaia onely: but your faith also, which is toward God, is spread abroade in all quarters. Are not these commendations as great as those that are left written of the Romanes? Yea, what if that which the Apostle speakes of them, be not to com­mend their faith, but to shew the reason of his ioy, and thankes to God for their conuersion? As if he should haue said, that he did thanke God for them, because of their beleeuing: and the report thereof through the world, was like to proue an occasion of spreading the Gospell, and drawing many other by their ex­ample to the profession of Christian Religion, and confirming them that did beleeue. He declares (saith Caietan. ad Rom. 1. 8. Caietan) that the cause of his thanksgiuing was, that the fame of their beleeuing was profitable to all the world. For Rome at that time was the head of the world: and therefore the report of the Christian faith being at Rome, was spread abroade into all places, and was profitable to all, as being a meanes to prouoke them to beleeue. Of the confirming of others Lombard. ibi. & Ambros. Lombard saith, that they which beleeued were streng­thened in faith, seeing that their rulers were made their brethren in faith. So do Origen. Origen, Theodoret. Theodoret, Gloss. ordin. interl. your Glosses, Lyra. Lyra, Thomas. Tho­mas, Catharin. Catharin, and other, vnderstand the Apostle. Ambros. ibi. Ambrose is not afraid to say plainly, that the Apostle reioyceth for their good beginning, knowing that they might go forward to perfection. For as yet (saith Thomas ibi. Thomas) they had not perfect faith, because some of them were by false Apostles seduced, so that they thought the cermonies of the law were to be ioyned with the Gospell. He doth not (saith Gloss. interl. your interlinear Glosse) commend their faith as perfect, but their rea­dinesse and desire to embrace Christ. All which notwithstanding, we willingly graunt, that the Romane Church was at that time, and long after, a true Church: what gather you of this graunt? I hope you will not say, that therefore it must needs be a true church still. But we shal better vnderstand your meaning by that which followeth.

There is nothing you Papists are more afraid of, then to be drawne to iustifie your doctrine by Scripture. Therefore you alwayes keepe aloofe, and tell vs of the Church, the Church, as the Iewes did Ier. 7. 5. Ieremie of the Temple. The Romane Church [Page 381] (say you) was once a true Church. Who denieth it? Therefore is it so still? I (say you) that it is, vnlesse you can shew, at what time it departed from the true faith. Did you neuer know any man, who in his youth had blacke haire, and now being old is all white headed? Put case I would stand verie stifly vpon your argument, and say that his head is blacke still, and vrge you to tell me, when the first haire changed white. Would you answer me, or laugh at me for my folly? But such changes in faith (say you) would haue bene resisted, or at least recorded by some, and you prooue it thus.

  • If no heresie as contrarie to truth, as blacke is to white, was euer heard of; to haue arisen, without noting, or resisting, nor any such could now possibly so arise; then no such thing is to be beleeued of the Romane Church.
  • But no such heresie was euer heard of to haue arisen, nor can so arise, without noting or resisting.
  • Therefore no such thing is to be beleeued of the Romane Church.

That I may answer directly to your Syllogisme, remember To the syllo­gisme. (which I also noted before) that you take it, as granted, that there was neuer any noting or resisting of errours, but there is yet record remaining of it. Whereas we gessing reasonably of that which is past, by that we see euerie day, perswade our selues, that your Popish inquisitors and censurers haue raced and destroyed many records, wherein the arising of your errors, and the resistance made against them haue bene noted. I would speake more of this matter, but that almost euerie childe knoweth, how shamefully, and lewdly you deale euerie day, with your owne mens writings, who forced by the euidence of truth, here and there giue witnesse to our doctrine in their bookes. We see not then, why we may not yeeld this conclu­sion, for ought that it can aduantage you, or hurt vs. All such errours doubtlesse haue bene noted, and resisted; though the records thereof be perished, defaced, or destroyed by your An­tichristian Prelates. Secondly, though it were granted to be true, that No heresie as contrarie to the truth as blacke is to white, [Page 382] euer could arise without being noted or recorded: yet might your Popish errours haue stollen in, for the most part, vnpercei­ued. Because they were not apparently contrary to the knowne truth, as the absurd examples you bring of sacrificing an Oxe, or worshipping a Cow, are. Poperie (as the 2. Thess. 2. 7. Apostle saith of it, vnder the title of Antichristianisme) is a mysterie of iniquitie, which began to worke in his daies, and by little and little, with co­lourable pretences, wrought it selfe into the Church, till it came to that height, in which all the world now seeth it. I might exemplifie this matter, in that great point, of your Popes licentious and vnlimited authority; how it began, by reason of the place, Rome being the chiefe seat of the Empire: how it grew by the fauour of the Emperours, and the worthinesse of some Bishops of that sea, and so crept on, till it had gotten See Doctor Reynolds confer. with Master Hart pag. 313. &c. strength to trample the Emperours themselues vnder foote. It is said by way of prouerbe, that Rome was not built in one day. The speach is as true of your Popes Romish gouernment, as of Romulus first founding the Citie. The occasions and preten­ces of your Popes greatnesse were reasonable faire to shew, and seemed to promise, I know not what securitie to religion, and peace to Christendome: but the euenthath shewed, that the one by it was, for a time, quite ouerthrowne, & the other part­lie destroyed, and altogether brought into great hazard. But I may not enlarge my answer to farre. Hollinshead discription of Britan. fol. 11 Our Histori­ographer whom you finde fault with, no doubt spake in that iust indignation he conceiued against the intollerable pride of the Romish Monke Austin, & in pittie of that blood­shed, which insued vpon his finding fauour with the Saxon kings: whom he caused to imbrew their hands in the bloud of many thousand poore Christians: because forsooth they would not submit themselues to his insolencie. If his speech sound vnpleasantly in your eares, how would you haue liked Mat. 23. 15. that of our Sauiour in the Gospell? VVo be to you Scribes and Pharisies, Hypocrites. For ye compasse sea and land to make one of your pro­fession: and when he is made, you make him two fold the childe of hell more then your selues. For (saith Hieron. ad Mat. 23. Ierome) he that before did but simply erre in his ignorance, by your lewd conuersation, is [Page 383] driuen from his profession backe againe to Gentilisme. Surely they that before were heathen, and might by Gods blessing haue bene wonne to the truth of the Gospell, through the prea­ching of the Britans, and their humble conuersation, by this Austin lost the opportunitie, and became persecutors of true Christians, for your pride and superstition, with which after­ward the whole nation was miserably ouerwhelmed, and at last almost perished vnder the Normans. But to giue you some better satisfaction touching this point, heare I pray you in a few words, what one of your owne writers saith: It is a thing full of horror (saith Bucchinger. hist. Eccles. pag. 217. Bucchingerus) either to reade or remember, that the Popes of Rome practised such tyranny, one against another. O how are they degenerated from their Ance­stors? It could not be, that in the time of such cruelty, there should be any regard had of Christian pietie. Let no man then maruaile if some abuses, and peruerse opinions crept into the Church. There was great ignorance of the Scripture, and loue of superstition, 2. Thess. 2. 11. The Lord sending men strong delusions, that they should beleeue lies, because they had not receiued the loue of the truth.

You presse vs here, (as you thinke) with some probabilitie, that if there had bene any alteration of religion, it would cer­tainly haue bene recorded. But how should it haue bene re­corded, when it was not seene? You dreame of a sodain change: where as the alteration grew from good to bad, yet with shew of some goodnesse; and from bad to worse, so nicely, that few or none could discerne it. Your probabilities are two. The former in this manner.

If there could not a little ceremonie be added to the Masse, but that it was set downe in historie; how could the whole substance of the Masse be newly inuented, and no mention made of it?

This consequence is weake. For those additions to the Masse were matters enioyned by your Popes, and recorded by your writers of Histories, not as errours, but as vertues, to the commendation of the Authors thereof, the world growing e­uerie day more and more superstitious, and yet there are some ceremonies, & other patches of your Masse, about the Author [Page 384] wherof there is no great agreement to be found in your writers of histories. But the substance of your Masse was long comming in, and the words themselues in it, hauing bene deuised to no ill purpose, were at at last occasion of errour vpon errour; as it is worthily declared, by Lord Plessy of the Masse. the Lord Plessy in his booke of the Masse, to which I referre all men, that desire to be satisfied in this matter, and where (I dare vndertake) they may finde good satisfaction. The learned know of themselues, how to haue it also otherwhere, in the writings of our diuines, D. Sutliu. de Missa. Doctor Sut­cliffe, and diuers other.

Your latter obiection carrieth some more shew of likelihood with it, in this sort.

If Historiographers were not afraid to note personall and pri­uate vices of the Popes themselues, why should they feare to record any alteration in religion?

Do you not know why? Or can you not discerne the diffe­rence in this case? Of whom should they be afraid? Your Popes for the most part, were so notoriously lewd, that all, your Histo­riographers write of them, was well knowne to the world, be­fore they writ, so that they could not for shame, but say in a manner, as much as they did. But the chiefe matter was, that the latter Popes had quarrels to their predecessors, which was verie ordinarie: and then it was not onely safe, but as it were meritorious, to display their villany to the world; or at the least, they might imagine that the vices of their predecessors would serue for a foile to their vertues. Sometimes also it fell out, that the Pope in verie ciuill honestie, had a detestation of such bad courses as other before him had taken; & that gaue men some liberty to write more freely. But your change of doctrine nei­ther could easily, nor might at all be discouered, because it was a priuitie of your estate, and a principle of your religion, with Arcanum rei­publicae. your Pope and Prelates, that Saint Peters vicar could not erre in doctrine. As for thē in other countries, who knoweth not, how few monuments of antiquitie remaine? Or who suspecteth not iustly, that they haue come through hucksters handling, as in diuers it is more then apparent? Yet are there also diuers re­cords in the writings of learned men, wherein any man may see [Page 385] direct opposition to many points, held at this day in your Ro­mish Church.

After many idle repetitions, turnings and windings, at the last you are lighted vpon a part of our answer, that those errors and abuses, crept in by little and little vnperceiued. For replie whereto you say, it is an idle fiction already refuted. How idle then is this new discourse of yours, against a point, which you haue ouerthrowne before? But you knew well enough, for all your saying, that it asked further help, thē you could yet affoord it. Well, what say you at the last? iust nothing at all to purpose. For what though the matters be of great moment, and lesse points noted by some writers? We speake not of that, but of the smal difference from the truth, which at the first appeared in the bringing in, and beginning of your heresies. A matter of small importance, being apparently contrary to that, which is gene­rally held to be true, shall find more to note and resist it, then an errour in the very foundation of religiō, so closely carried that it cānot at the first be perceiued. You giue vs two exāples of very important matters, the Masse and Images. But you offer not to shew, that they brake out all at once, to the height of impietie: No, no, they came in by degrees, vnder a colour of reuerence, and helpe to further men in deuotion. I wittingly for beare to enter into discourse of these points, because I should be too long, and the matter is already performed very excellently by that honorable personage the Lord Plessy: Plessy of the Masse. lib. 1. chap. 6. 7. 8. for the Masse in his first booke, Lib. 2. cap. 2. 3. 4. and for Images in his second. See our Ho­milies of the perill of Ido­latry.

But I may not forget to answer the imputations you charge vs withal. First concerning the Sacrament, you confidently auouch that we hold it to be (really and substantially) but a bare peece of bread. Wherein you shew that, wherewith afterward you charge vs about Images, either your ignorance, or your malice. By Sacrament we vnderstand, according to the truth, the whole action of blessing, giuing, receiuing the bread and wine. The bread which you call the Sacrament, is but part of the matter of the Sacrament. But what? Do we make this bread, to be really and substantially bare bread? Surely, for the nature of it, we say and are sure, that it neuer ceaseth to be bread, till [Page 386] it be digested in the stomacke. But for the vse, we acknowledge it, so farre as it is vsed, to be holy bread, and not bare bread, bread appointed, blessed, and made effectuall by God, to seale vp in our hearts the assurance of his loue, in giuing his sonne for our re­demption, and the forgiuenesse of our sinnes, resting vpon him by faith for pardon. Indeed we do not, as you do, blasphemous­ly call the bread our Creator, or God; vpon a conceit, that (forsooth) the substance of the bread, is either vanished a­way, or else turned into the bodie of Iesus Christ, to be torne in peeces with our teeth, or swallowed downe into our bellies, and from thence bestowed in a worse place. This sense­lesse, and monstrous opinion hath bene, and is amongst you, the cause of the most grosse and barbarous idolatrie, that euer was committed in the world.

It is neither ignorantly nor malitiously done of vs, to charge you, for adoring stocks and stones, as the Paynims did. Com­pare the things, and the worship, and then shew me a true diffe­rence. Are not your Images of wood, gold, stone, as the Gen­tiles were? Haue they not the shape and proportion of men and women, as theirs had? Do not you worship them, as diuers of the Heathen were wont to do? You Baruc. cap. 6 vers. 3. vers. 12. vers. 18. 20. couer them with cloa­thing of purpose, and wipe their faces, because of the dust of the Temple. You light vp candles before them: you make their faces blacke through the smoake of your incense, you beare them in pro­cession vpon your shoulders, you set gifts before them: your Priests haue their heads and beards shauen: you call vpon them for helpe: you present the blinde, the halt, and sicke before them to be healed. vers. 25. 26. vers. 30. vers. 31. 40. But what meane I to reckon vp so many particulars? Who sees not the agreement betwixt the heathen and the Papists, for the matter, forme, and worship of their Images? Your idle distin­ctions of Idoll, and Image, of seruice and worship, of religi­ous and ciuill worship, I haue Defence of the Reformed Catholicke. Pag. 544. 545. otherwhere examined and re­futed. If you say, that you worship not the Image; it is too ma­nifestly apparent, as a ruled case amongst you, that Thom. 3. q. 25. art. 3. the Image must haue the same worship, See my de­fence of the Reformed Catholicke. Pag. 569. that belongeth to the thing, whose I­mage it is. But you do not take the Images to be Gods. If you speake of all your ignorant people, I scarce beleeue you. But [Page 387] this maketh no difference in worship. The heathen, at least the learned and wiser sort of them, did not hold their Idols to be Gods, but representations of their Gods. And you Papists, in making them mediators of intercession, and so acknowledging but one God, do little better then the Pagans: for they had but one soueraigne God Iupiter, who commaunded all the rest. Not onely Dij minorum gentium, their Gods of the third and fourth forme, but also those of the second and first, as Hercules, Apollo, Venus, yea and Virgil Ae­neid. lib. 12. Iuno her selfe too, who was both wife and sister to Iupiter, depended vpon him, and were glad to be mediators of intercession to him for their fauorites: as is eue­rie where to be seene in Homer, and Ʋirgil. All the difference of any moment, that I perceiue, is, that some of the heathen Gods, were imagined to be such by nature; and all your Diui or Saints, pety-gods, haue both their places and offices by fa­uour. But I am wearie of these abhominations and fooleries of yours.

The Pastors of the Church being imployed in withstanding manifest and dangerous heresies, neither did nor could, though they slept not, perceiue and reprooue euery errour; yea it is more then likely, that they were content to beare with many things, as long as the maine points were held soundly: least by striuing for matters of lesse weight, greater things should be neglected, and they that erred in small things, vpon resistance, quite fall away to ioyne with the heretickes. This in the be­ginning, for some fiue hundred yeares, was the estate of the Church. And afterward plentie bred pride and idlenesse: the chalices were turned into gold, and Priests into wood or lead, that partly ignorāce, & partly slothfulnesse gaue the diuell op­portunitie to sow what errours he would in the middest of the Church. If any man of more learning or grace, thē the ordinary sort perceiued and reprooued the errours of his time, he was by one means or other suppressed or disgraced: all mē & their wri­tings, especially Anno. 609. after the reuealing of Antichrist, being at the deuotion of your persecuting Cleargie. Yet did not Almighty God leaue his truth without witnes, as it appeareth Illyricus in Catal. testium. veritatis. by record of them who from time to time, misliked and withstood your [Page 388] Antichristian doctrines. These are no dreames of a proud man in his sleepe, but likely coniectures, or rather apparent truthes, as any indifferent man may discerne, and will con­fesse.

To shut vp the matter, you be take your selfe to your gene­rall Rendez-vous of the Church, which forsooth, if those former imputations were true, should haue erred; and so the holy Ghost haue neglected his office, which your Pope hath assig­ned him, to keepe the vniuersall Church from erring. It had bene well, your Antichrist would haue contented himselfe, with his saucinesse toward his Leo. Epist. 50. Lord Saint Peter, in appointing him to the Portership of heauen gates, and not haue pre­sumed to enioyne the holy Ghost also such an office, as our Sa­uiour neuer committed to him. The charge our Sauiour left with that his glorious Lieutenant, specified in that part of his Ioan. 14. 17. & 16. 15. Patent, which you glance at, was not concerning the vniuersall Church, a thing (in your sense) not once signified in the Scrip­tures: but touching the Apostles absolutely, and all true Chri­stians in generall and particular, for matters necessarie to salua­tion. This accordingly hath alwaies bene performed, no man that euer truly beleeued in Iesus Christ, hauing fallen into any such errour, as might vtterly seuer him from the bodie of the true Church, that is, the company of the elect beleeuers, wher­of our Sauiour Christ is the head: as I haue shewed in my spe­ciall answer to these places before.

But Tertullian saith, that the holy Ghost had neglected his dutie, if the Church, had vniuersally erred. in such impor­tant matters. Tertul. de praescript. cap. 28. Tertullian speaketh not of any vniuersall Church, but of seuerall particular Churches: which you grant may erre, and yet the holy Ghost not faile in his com­mission. Besides, Tertul. de praenit. cap. 10. Tertullian himselfe saith otherwhere, that the Church may be preserued in one or two: and therefore your Catholicke Church of Rome might well fall into such grosse heresies, without any disgrace to the Spirit of God.

A. D. §. 7.

§. IIII. That the Romane Church onely is Apostolicke.

Fourthly, I find that the Protestants Church is not Apostolick, because they cannot deriue the pedegree of their Preachers lineally, without interruption, from the Apostles: but are forced to acknow­ledge some other, as Luther or Caluin, or some such, for their first founders in this their new faith; from whom they may perhaps shew some succession of the preachers of their faith: but they can neuer shew, that Luther or Caluin themselues (who liued within these hun­dred yeares) did either lawfully succeed, or was lawfully sent to teach this new faith, by any Apostolicke Bishop or Pastor. Nay Luther himselfe doth not onely confesse, but also brag, that he was the first preacher of this new found faith, Christum à nobis primò vulga­tum Epist. ad Argēt­an Dom. 1525. audemus gloriari, (saith he) We dare boast that Christ was first published by vs. For which his glorious boasting, me thinkes he deserueth well that title which Optatus giueth vnto Ʋictor the Lib cont. parm. first bishop of the Donatists, to wit, to be called filius sine patre, disci­pulus sine magistro, a sonne without a father, a disciple without a maister.

On the contrary side, the Romane Church can shew a lineall suc­cession of their Bishops, without interruption, euen from the Apostle Saint Peter, vnto Clement the eight the Bishop of Rome, which li­ueth at this day, The which succession from the Apostles, which we haue, and the Protestants want, the auncient Fathers did much e­steeme, and vsed it as an argument, partly to confound the hereticks, partly to confirme themselues in the vnitie of the Catholick Church. So doth Irenaeus, who saith, Traditionem ab Apostolis, & annun­ciatam Lib. 3. cap. 3. hominibus fidem, per successiones Episcoporum perue­nientem vsque ad nos, indicantes, confundimus omnes illos qui quoquo modo, vel per sui placentiam malam, vel per va­nam gloriam, vel per caecitatem & malam sententiam, praeter­quàm oportet colligunt: Shewing the tradition from the Apostles, and the faith comming vnto vs by succession of Bishops, we confound all them, who any way through euill complacence of themselues, or vaine glorie, or through peruerse opinion do collect (and conclude) otherwise then they ought. So also doth S. Austin, who saith, Tenet Cōt. epist. Fun­dam. cap. 4. [Page 390] me in Ecclesia Catholica, ab ipsa sede Petri Apostoli, cui pas­cendas oues suas Dominus commendauit, vsque ad praesentem Episcopum, successio Sacerdotum: The succession of Priests from the very seate of Peter the Apostle, to whom our Lord commended his sheep to be fed, vntill this present Bishop, doth hold me in the Ca­tholicke Church. See the same S. Austin, Epist. 150. Optatus li. 2. cont. Parmen. S. Epiphani. haeres. 275. S. Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 6. S. Athanas. Orat. 2. cont. Arianos, who pronounceth them to be he­reticks, qui aliunde quàm à tota successione Cathedrae Eccle­siasticae Athanas. orat. 2. cont. Arian. originem fidei suae deducunt, who deriue the beginning of their faith from any other ground, then from the whole succession of Ecclesiasticall chaire. And this (saith he) is eximium & admira­bile argumentum ad haereticam sectam explorandam, an excel­lent and admirable argument, wherby we may espie out and discerne an hereticall sect. The which argument these Fathers would neuer haue vrged and extolled so much, if they had not thought that this succession was an vndoubted good marke of the Church, and that with this lawfull, vninterrupted, Apostolicall succession of Doctours and Pastors, the true Apostolicke faith and doctrine was always con­ioyned. The which to be conioyned, we may easily proue out of S. Paul himselfe, who saith: Dedit Pastores & Doctores ad consummati­onem sanctorum, in opus ministerij, in aedificationem corporis Ephes. 4. Christi, donec occurramus omnes in vnitatem fidei, & agnitio­nis Filij Dei, in virum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitu­dinis Christi: Signifying that Christ our Sauiour hath appointed these outward functions of Pastors and Doctors in the Church, to continue vntill the worlds end, for the edification and perfection thereof, and especially for this purpose, vt non simus paruuli fluctu­antes, & circumferamur omni vento doctrinae: that we may not Ibidem. be litle ones wauering, and caried about with euery wind of doctrine: Wherefore that this ordinance and appointment of Pastors and Do­ctors in the Church, made by our Sauiour Christ, may not be fru­strate of the effect intended by him: we must needs say, that he hath decreed so to assist and direct these Pastors in teaching the doctrine of faith, that the people (their flocke) may alwayes by their meanes be preserued from wauering in the auncient faith, and from being ca­ried about with euery wind of new doctrine. The which cannot be, [Page 391] vnlesse with succession of Pastors be alwayes conioyned succession in true doctrine, at least in such sort, that all the Pastors cannot at any time vniuersally erre, or faile to teach the auncient and Apostolicke faith. For if they should thus vniuersally erre, then all the people (who do, and ought like sheepe, follow the voice of their Pastor) should also generally erre, and so the whole Church, which (according to S. Gregorie Nazianzen) consisteth of sheepe and pastors, should con­trary Orat. de mode­ratione in dis­put. habenda. to diuers promises of our Sauiour, vniuersally erre. So that we may be sure, that the ordinary Pastors shal neuer be so forsaken of the promised Spirit of truth, that all shall generally erre, and teach errors in faith: or that there shall not be at all times some sufficient compa­nie of lawfull succeding Pastors, adhering to the succession of S. Pe­ter (who was by our Sauiour appointed chiefe Pastor) of whom we Iohn 21. may learne the truth, and by whom we may alwayes be confirmed and continued in the true auncient faith, and preserued from being caried about with the wind of vpstart error. The which being so, it followeth that the true Apostolicke doctrine is inseperably conioyned with the succession of lawfull Pastors, especially of the Apostolick sea of Rome.

Wherefore we may against all heretickes of our time (as the an­cient fathers did against heretickes of their time) vrge this argu­ment of succession, especially of the Apostolicall succession of the Bishops of Rome. We may say to them as S. Augustine saith to the Donatists: Numerate sacerdotes ab ipsa sede Petri, & in illo or­dine Patrum, quis, cui successit, videte: Number the Priests from August. in Psal cont. partem Donat. the seate it selfe of Peter, and in that order or row of Fathers, see which succeeded which. We may say with Irenaeus, Hac ordinatione & successione Episcoporum, traditio Apostolorum ad nos per­uenit; Iren. lib. 3. c. 3. & est plenissima ostensio vnam & eandem fidem esse, quae ab Apostolis vsque nunc confirmata est: By this orderly succes­sion of Bishops, the tradition of the Apostles hath come vnto vs; and it is a most full demonstration, that the faith which from the Apostles is confirmed euen vntill now, is one and the same. We may tell them with Tertullian, Nos communicamus cum Ecclesijs Aposto­licis, Lib. de praescrip quod nulla aduersa doctrina facit; & hoc est testimonium veritatis: We do communicate with the Apostolick Churches, which no contrary doctrine doth, and this is a testimony of the truth.

A. W.

That Apostolicknesse, which is a marke of the true Church, is as I shewed Chap. 15. an agreement and sucession in doctrine, with and to the Apostles; not as you would haue it, a personall descent from them. And therfore your reason against our Chur­ches, is naught.

  • Euery Apostolicke Church (say you) can deriue the pedegree of their preachers lineally, without interruption, from the Apostles.
  • The Protestant Churches cannot so deriue their pedegree.
  • Therefore the Protestant Churches are not Apostolicke.

Your maior is euidently false, because otherwise some church To the pro­position. professing the true faith, and not keeping record of the succes­sion of their teachers, might be held not to be Apostolicall. But Tertul. de praescrip. ca. 32. Tertullian affirmeth the contrary directly, that those Churches which agree with the Apostles in faith, though they can alledge no Apostle or Apostolicke man for their first founder, yet are neuer the lesse to be counted Apostolicall, because of their consent in doctrine. And indeed it is both impious and absurd, to denie any Church to be Apostolicall, that holdeth that faith, by the preaching whereof the Apostles planted Churches.

Your minor also is vntrue: because it is wel known, that if you haue any such succession amongst you, we haue it too. For Lu­ther, To the As­sumption. Caluin, and some other of our Diuines, were ordered by bi­shops of your church. Concerning Luther, what reasonable mā can be so absurd, as to think that Luther wold make any mā be­leeue, that the Gospel was first preached by himself: whereas he continually appeals for the proof of his doctrine to the writings of the Prophets and the Apostles? But Luther might truly say, that he was the first which had in those times published Christ; espe­cially in the chiefe point of the Gospell, which is, iustification by faith in Christ. And in this respect it is an honor to Luther, to haue bin a son without a father, and a disciple without a master: and no more glory to your Popish Bishops and Priests, to haue had so long a succession in error and heresie, then for the Arians to haue bene able to reckon vp so many Bishops of their faction. Vincentius acknowledgeth a succession, continued though se­cretly, Vincen. Lyrin. from Simon Magus to Priscilian.

[Page 393] Let vs see' now whether you bring any better reason for your selues, then you haue done against vs: They are euen much a­bout one.

  • That Church which can shew a line all succession of her Bishops, without interruption, from the Apostle Peter to Cloment now liuing, is Apostolicke.
  • But the Church of Rome can shew such a succession, without in­terruption.
  • Therefore the Church of Rome is Apostolicke.

Tertul. de praesc. cap. 32. Tertullian thought it sufficient to proue the hereticks not to To the Pro­position. be Apostolicke, that their doctrine agreed not with the Apostles. And Ambros. de paenit. cap. 6. Ambrose truly affirmed, that they haue not the inheritance of Peter, which haue not the faith of Peter. He (saith Greg. Naziā. de laudib. A­thanas. Nazianzen) that professeth the same doctrine of faith, is partaker of the same throne. But he that embraceth contrary doctrine, must be thought an aduersary, euen in the throne. He may haue the name, but the other hath the truth of succession. Therefore Iren. lib. 4. cap. 43. Irenaeus saith plainly, that those Bishops onely are to be obeyed, who together with succession haue the truth. But of this I spake before, Chap. 15.

Where there is no beginning, what continuance or successiō To the As­sumption. can there be? Is not the question, whether Peter were euer at Rome or no, full of doubt? Are you able in any sort to resolue it by Scripture? vnlesse perhaps we may say, that he neuer came there, because it is no where plainly set downe, nor probably to be gathered from thēce, that euer Saint Peter was at Rome. But it is more vnlikely, that euer he was Bishop of Rome. I might go forward, to aske you who was his successor, Linus or Cle­ment: which is a point not agreed vpon by auncient writers. Since that time, you haue had 32. schismes in your Church, sometimes two, sometimes three Popes at once, that your suc­cession cannot be so cleare as you would make it.

To proue your minor, you tell vs, that the auncient Fathers did much esteeme succession from the Apostles, and vsed it as an ar­gument to confound the hereticks, and to confirme themselues in the vnitie of the Catholicke Church. Who denieth that succession is to be esteemed, and that it hath some force to confute and confirme? But what succession is it, that is of such price & force? [Page 394] Personall succession alone without truth? VVe heard ere while, what Tertullian, Irenaeus, Nazianzen and Ambrose say concer­ning succession, that without truth it deserueth no credit. Yea Bellar. de Ec­cle. mil. l. 4. c. 8 §. Dicosecundò some of your owne writers confesse, that an argument from suc­cession doth not hold affirmatiuely, as if there were a true Church, wheresoeuer there is succession.

VVherby doth Irenaeus confound heresies? by shewing a per­sonall succession of Bishops from the Apostles? VVhat could that helpe the matter, vnlesse he be also able to proue that the doctrine he maintaines, hath come successiuely from the Apo­stles by them? He speaks plaine enough, Iren. li. 3. c. 3 We confound all errors by the doctrine of the Apostles, and the faith preached to men by thē. Let not the word tradition trouble any man. Lib. 3. cap. 1 Irenaeus for that expounds himselfe where he saith, that the Apostles first preached the Gospell, and afterward by the will of God Tradiderunt deliuered it to vs in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith. The con­tinuance of this doctrine, by succession, is vsed by Irenaeus as a motiue to perswade men to the liking of that truth which had receiued so good acceptation, and was warranted by so good authority, as the teaching of the Apostles themselues. In a word Irenaeus saith, that heresies might then be refuted, by shewing that they who had bene ordained Bb. by the Apostles and their successors, continued in the doctrine receiued, without any approbation of such hereticall fancies.

August. contr. epist. Fundam. cap. 4 Austin (you say) was held in the Church (as himselfe profes­seth) by the succession of Priests from the verie seat of Peter. And why should he not be held by that, rather thē leaue the Church for the dreames of the Manichees? VVe say, as Austin did, that such a succession is a better proof of the Church, then their bare promise of truth; especially since (as the same August. bre­uic. collat. Austin sheweth otherwhere) they wold haue their word to be takē, as you now would haue yours, for sufficient proofe. But Austin in the verie same place you alledge, addeth withall, that if they could shew that the truth was on their side, he would preferre it before succes­sion; and whatsoeuer other reason, that made him continue a mem­ber of the Church. In this sense did those other ancient writers esteeme and vrge succession, whose names you muster to small [Page 395] purpose, but onely for shew of authoritie.

Concerning that speech of Athan. contra Arian. orat. 2 Athanasius, be not so iniurious either to him or your selues, as to presse his testimony to so leud a purpose. Would you haue men thinke that he which refuted and confounded Arius and his complices by so many and so worthy proofes out of the holy Scriptures, would condemne not onely other men, but himselfe also for deriuing his faith in that point from the Scriptures? But though you care not what become of all the Fathers, so your Popery may flourish: yet like a reasonable man, consider what a terrible blow you giue your owne cause. Is there no other marke of the Church but succes­sion? Then, by Bellar. de ec­cle. mil. l. 4. c. 8 Bellarmines iudgement, there is none at all; who allowes it not, as a certaine light, to shew vs the Church. But what wants it of blasphemy, to pronounce men to be hereticks for making the Scriptures the foundation of their faith: to which purpose Iren. li. 3. c. 1 Irenaeus saith that they were left? And I pray you, an­swer me directly, why it should not be as lawful for me to groūd my faith vpon the beginning of this succession in the Apostles, as vpon the continuance of it in other men. Yet might Athana­sius well say, concerning that point of our Sauiour Christs God­head, that he was to be counted an hereticke, that should deriue the beginning of his faith from any other ground then the whole succes­sion: wherein the Apostles were comprehended, and whose do­ctrine the Churches of Christ till that time, in that matter had followed. But how will you proue out of this place of Athana­sius, that this should be a mark to discerne hereticks by alwaies? It was then an excellent and admirable argument in that point, not of it owne nature, but because the truth had successiuely bene held till those times.

How will you answer Bellarm. vbi supra. Bellarmine, who affirmes confidently and truly, that truth goes not alwaies with succession? For if it did, why should not succession be a certaine mark of a true Church? But Bellarmine saith, it is not. You tell vs, that otherwise the or­dinance of Pastors made by our Sauiour Christ, shall be frustrate of the effect intended by him.

What? vnlesse there be truth wheresoeuer there is succession? Then can it not come to passe, that any Pastor hauing lawfull [Page 396] ordination, can erre. For if one may, for all the priuiledge of suc­cession, doubtles succession doth not by the nature of it, free a man from erring. But they cannot all vniuersally erre. What is that to purpose, vnlesse this impossibilitie of erring proceed from suc­cession? Let vs draw your reason into forme, that we may the better see the force or weaknesse of it.

  • If our Sauiour haue appointed a succession of Pastors, that the Church may not be caried away with euery blast of doctrine, then succession and truth go together.
  • But our Sauiour hath appointed Pastors to that purpose.
  • Therefore succession and truth go together.

Now the weaknesse of your reason easily bewrayes it selfe: To the pro­position. the consequence of your maior is so feeble. See my an­swer to 12. art. part. 1. art. 5. Shall I shew it you euidently in a like matter?

  • If God appointed Dauid and his successors to rule his people ac­cording to his wil and word, that they might truly serue him: then whosoeuer succeeded Dauid, did so rule, and the people so serued God.
  • But God did appoint Dauid and his successors to that end.
  • Therefore whosoeuer succeeded Dauid, did so rule, and the people so serued God.

I shall not neede to make any further answer to your maior, vnlesse perhaps I may bring the like reason from Gods appoin­ting a succession of Priests and Leuites in the Church of the Iewes, to the very same end, that the people might know and do his will: which intent of his notwithstanding was often made voyde both by Priests and people. Yet do not we say, that the world hath at any time bene without true Pastors, and their flockes in some one place or other, in a greater or lesse number, who haue taught and beleeued the true faith of Iesus Christ in all points fundamentall: without distinct beleefe whereof, no man can be saued. But we denie, that either all or any Pa­stor hath this priuiledge, because of his succession: yea D. Sutcliffe against D. Kellisons suruey: pag 5. we af­firme, that a Christian congregation, where the ordinarie meanes cannot be had, may chuse and authorize any man able and fit to teach, for their Minister; and the truth of God may be in such companies preserued, without any plea of not erring, [Page 397] by reason of succession established, by vertue of our Sauiours appointment.

To Greg Nazian. de cōpos. disse­rēd rat. orat. 7. In Ecclesiis. that of Nazianzen I answered before: he speaketh not of the vniuersall Church, as you falsly auouch, but of seuerall congregations, as his very words shew: Order (saith he) hath decreed in Churches (not in the vniuersall Church) that the flocke and the Pastor should be diuers, the flocke one thing, the Pastor another: or that some should be the flocke, othersome the shep­heards.

You may say what you will, and be neuer a whit the nea­rer, if you bring no better proofe then yet you haue done. August. in Psal. contra partem Donat. Saint Augustine biddeth the Donatists number the Priests, and see who haue succeeded one another in the Bishopricke of Rome. What conclude you from thence? That the Church of Rome was at that time Apostolicke, in regard of personall succes­sion. Who denieth it? But it followeth not hereupon, ei­ther that it is still in that sort Apostolicke, about which we will not striue; or (which is the principall matter) that it hath therefore such Apostolicknesse as is required to make a true Church: namely truth of doctrine; which must needs be meant by Augustine, in the words that immediatly fol­low: That is the rocke, against which the proud gates of hell preuaile not. For it is more then absurd, to make personall suc­cession the rocke, on which the Church is builded, and against which hell gates cannot preuaile. It was a likely argument against the Donatists, that in so long a succession there had bene neuer a Do­natist: which Saint Augustine himselfe in another place conclu­deth, after he hath reckoned vp all the Romane Bishops, from Linus to Anastasius then liuing. In the ranke of this succession (saith August. epist. 165. Augustine) there is not one Bishop found that was a Do­natist.

This testimonie of Irenaeus was neuer of your owne reading in him, as the corrupt alledging of it perswadeth me. I will set it downe as it is Iren. l. 3. ca. 3. in the author himselfe. Ordinatione & successione. By this ordination and succession (saith Irenaeus) the tradition of the Apostles hath come to vs: And Haec ostensio. this is a most full demonstration, that Fidem esse. it is one and the same quickning faith, Conseruata & tradita in veritate. which hath bene preserued and truly [Page 398] taught in the Church, from the Apostles till now. What one word or letter is there in this sentence, to prooue, that your Church of Rome, at this day, is Apostolicke, or that bare personall succession is enough, to make a Church Apostolicke? Rome, in Irenaeus time was an Apostolicall Church, because it had preserued, and tru­ly taught successiuely, Bishop after Bishop, the doctrine which was deliuered by the Apostles. Is it therefore Apostolicke now, when it hath ouerthrowne the verie foundation of the Apostles doctrine?

I maruell what Apostolicke Churches they are, with which you communicate, whereas you say, that there is no Church, that hath succession from the Apostles but yours? Profess. fidei per Monach. Burdegal. art. 60. Your Monks of Burdeaux draw the vniuersall Church to the communion of the Romish Church. It was indeed a testimonie of the truth, to com­municate with the Apostolicke Churches, Tertul. de praescript. c. 21 in Tertullians time, while the truth was, for the substance of it, preserued amongst them. But let vs apply this to our purpose: what would you prooue by it? that the Church of Rome is Apostolicke? Here is no mention, nor thought of your Church in particular. But Tertullian saith, it is a testimonie of truth, for a man to commu­nicate with the Apostolicke Churches. It was then a testimo­nie, but now those Churches are decayed: or if some of them remaine amongst the Grecians, wil you grant that all they hold is true? How will you prooue, that Tertullians generall speech belongeth more to your Church, then to those of the Greeks? Tertul. de praescript. cap. 32. Tertullian telleth you afterward, that contrarietie to the Apo­stles doctrine, may conuince Churches not to be Apostolicke, though they alledge succession from the Apostles. But his opinion may suf­ficiently appeare by that, which hath bene formerly alledged out of him: and the truth of this whole question, by your dis­course, and my answer to it.

A. D.

CHAP. XVII. The Conclusion of the whole discourse.

A. W.

The conclusion of your whole discourse (as your selfe ex­pound it in your preface) is this, that the faith which the autho­ritie [Page 399] of the Romane Church commendeth to vs, ought without doubt to be holden for the true faith. But this Chapter is such, as that you might rather terme it a recapitulation, then a conclusion of your discourse. For the greatest part of it by farre, is spent in a needlesse repetition of that, which was before deliuered, and that which should be indeed your conclusion, is scarce signi­fied in it.

A. D. §. 1.

Now to make an end, considering all this which I haue said and prooued, to wit, that there is but one, infallible, entire faith, the which is necessarie to saluation, to all sorts of men: the which faith euerie one must learne by some knowne, infallible, and vniuersall rule, accommodate to the capacitie of euerie one: the which rule cannot be any other but the doctrine and teaching of the true Church: the which Church is alwaies to continue visible vntill the worlds end, and is to be knowne by these foure markes, Vna, San­cta, Catholica, Apostolica, One, Holy, Catholicke, Aposto­licke: the which markes agree onely to the Romane Church, (that is to say, to that companie, which doth communicate, and agree in profession of faith, with the Church of Rome:) whereupon follow­eth, that this Church or companie is the onely true Church, of which euerie one must learne that faith which is necessarie to saluation. Considering (I say) all this, I would demaund of the Protestants, how they can perswade themselues, to haue that faith, which is ne­cessarie to saluation, sith they will not admit the authoritie and do­ctrine of the Church, of which onely they ought to learne this faith? Or how they can (as some of them do) challenge to themselues the title of the true Church, sith their companie hath neuer one of the foure markes, which by common consent of all, must nedes be ac­knowledged for the true markes of the Church? How can their con­gregation be the true Church, which neither is One, because it hath no meanes to keepe vnitie? nor Holy, because neither was there euer any man of it, which by miracle or any other euident testimony, can be prooued to haue bene truly holy: neither is their doctrine such as those that most purely obserue it, do without faile, thereby be­come holy: nor Catholicke, because it teacheth not all truths, that haue bene held by the vniuersall Church in former times, but deni­eth many of them; neither is it spred ouer all the Christian world, [Page 400] but being diuided into diuers sectes, euerie particular sect is contai­ned in some corner of the world. Neither hath it bene in all times e­uer since Christ, but sprong vp of late, the first founder being Martin Luther an Apostata, a man after his Apostasie from his professed See Prateolus verbo Luthe­rani. religious order, knowne both by his writings, words, deeds, and man­ner of death, to haue bene a notable ill liuer. Nor Apostolicke, be­cause the preachers thereof cannot deriue their Pedegree, lineally, without interruption, from any Apostle, but are forced to beginne their line, if they will haue any, from Luther, Caluin, or some latter. How can they then brag that they haue the true, holy, Catholicke, and Apostolicke faith; sith this is not found in any companie, that differeth in doctrine, from the onely true, holy, Catholicke, and Apo­stolicke Church? For if it be true (which Saint Austin saith) that in ventre Ecclesiae veritas manet, the truth remaineth in the bel­lie In Psal. 53. of the Church: it is impossible that those who are disioyned by dif­ference of beleefe from that companie, which is knowne to be the true Church, should haue the true faith. For true faith (as before hath bene prooued) is but one; wherefore he that differeth in beleefe from them which haue the true faith, either he must haue a false faith, or no faith at all. Againe, one cannot haue true faith, vnlesse he first heare it, according to the ordinarie rule of Saint Paule, say­ing, Fides ex auditu, faith commeth of hearing: but how can one Rom. 10. heare true doctrine of faith sine praedicante, without one to preach truly vnto him? And how should one preach truly, at least in all points, nisi mittatur, vnlesse he be sent, and consequently assisted by the spi­rit of God? Now, how should we know that Luther or Caluin, or any other that will leap out of the Church, & leaue that company wher­in is vndoubted succession, and by succession lawfull mission, or sen­ding from God; how should we (I say) know that these men teaching a new, and contrarie doctrine, were indeed sent of God? Nay certain­ly we may be most sure, that they were not sent of God. For sith Al­mightie God hath, by his Sonne, planted a Church vpon earth, which Church he would haue alwaies continue vntill the worlds end, and hath placed in it a visible succession of lawfull ordinarie Pastours, whom he will, with the assistance of himselfe, and his holy Spirit so guide, that they shall neuer vniuersally faile, to teach the true faith, and to preserue the people from errours; we are not now [Page 401] to expect any to be sent from God, to instruct the people, but such one­ly as come in this ordinarie manner by lawfull succession, order, and calling, according as S. Paule saith: Nec quisquam sumit sibi ho­norem, sed qui vocatur à Deo, tanquam Aaron. Neither doth any Heb. cap. 5. man take to himselfe the honour, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was: to wit, visibly, and with peculiar consecration, as we reade in Leuiticus. cap. 8. To which accordeth that which we reade 2. Paralip. 26. where Azarias said to king Ozias: Non est tui of­ficij, Ozia, vt adoleas incensum Domino, sed Sacerdotum, hoc 2. Paral. ca. 26 est filiorum Aaron, qui consecrati sunt ad huiusmodi ministe­rium: egredere de sanctuario, &c. It is not thy office, O Ozias, to offer incense to our Lord, but it is the office of Priests, to wit, of the sonnes of Aaron, who are consecrated to this function or ministe­rie: go out of the Sanctuarie. Which bidding when Ozias contem­ned and would not obey, he was presently stricken with a leprosie, and then being terrified, feeling the punishment inflicted by our Lord, he hastened away, as in the same place is declared. By which places we may learne that it doth not belong to any one to do priestly functi­ons, (as to offer incense or sacrifice to God, or take vpon them the au­thoritie to preach and instruct the people) but onely to Priests called visibly, and consecrated for this peculiar purpose, as Aaron and his children were. For though the priesthood of the Pastors of the new law be not Aaronicall; yet it agreeth with the Priesthood of Aaron, (according to S. Paul his saying in the foresaid place) in this, that those that come to it, must not take the honor of themselues, but must be called vnto it of God, as Aaron was, to wit, visibly, and by peculiar consecration. In which ordinarie maner whosoeuer cometh, he may be truly called Pastor ouium, a Pastor of Christs flocke: because Ioh. 10. Ibidem. intrat per ostium, he entereth in by the doore, to wit, by Christ himselfe, who first visibly called, consecrated, and sent immedi­ately the Apostles: and the Apostles by authoritie receiued 2. Tim. 4. from him, did visiblie by imposition of hands, call, consecrate, and send others: and those in like manner, others from time to time, without interruption, vntill these present men, who now are Priests of the Catholicke Romane Church. These therefore enter in by Christ, who is the doore, and therefore these be true Pastours: and whosoeuer entereth not thus in at the doore, but [Page 402] commeth in another way, our Sauiour telleth vs, how we should ac­count Ioh. 10. of him, when he saith. Qui non intrat per ostium in ouile ouium, sed ascendit aliunde, ille fur est & latro. He that entreth not in by the doore, into the sheepfold, but ascendeth by some other way, he is a theefe and a robber; who commeth not to feed the sheepe, but to steale, kill, and destroy them. So that we haue not (I say) to ex­pect any to be sent of God to feed vs, with the food of true doctrine of faith, but such onely, as come in this ordinarie manner; (as it is cer­taine that Luther and Caluin, when they left their former profession, and tooke vpon them to preach this new faith, did not come visibly, called, consecreated and sent, for this purpose, by any lawful authority, according to the ordinary manner:) or if it should please God to send any one in extraordinary manner, it appertaineth to his proui­dence, to furnish him with the gift of miracles, as he did his Sonne our Sauiour Christ; or with a miraculous conceptiō, & with strange and extraordinary sanctity of life, as was seene in S. Iohn Baptist: or finally with some euident token, that it may be plainly knowne, that he is assuredly sent of God. Otherwise the people should not be bound to beleeue him, but might without sinne, reiect his doctrine: according as our Sauiour said of himselfe, Si non facio opera patris mei, no­lite Iohn. 10. credere mihi. If I do not the works of my Father, do not beleeue me. And againe, Si opera non secissem in eis, quae nemo alius fe­cit, Iohn. 15. peccatum non haberent. If I had not done works among them, that no other hath done, they should not haue sinned, to wit, in not be­leeuing. Nay, the people should now, (an ordinary course being, by our Sauiour set downe, to continue till the worlds end, as before hath bene prooued) the people (I say) should now sinne, in beleeuing any one, that shall come, and tell them that he is extraordinarily sent of God, if he teach contrarie to that doctrine, which by ordinarie Do­ctors and Pastors of the Catholicke Church is vniuersally taught. For although it should happen, that the liues of these Pastors should not be so commendable, or be sometimes euidently bad: yet their do­ctrine must alwaies be regarded and obserued, according to that say­ing of our Sauiour, Super Cathedram Moysisederunt Scribae & Mat. 23. Pharisaei: omnia ergo quae cunque dixerint vobis, seruate & fa­cite: secundū verò opera eorum nolite facere. Ʋpon the chaire of Moses the Scribes and Pharisees haue sitten: all things therefore [Page 403] whatsoeuer they say to you, obserue ye and do; but according to their workes do ye not. By which saying we are assured that notwithstan­ding the Pastors of the Catholicke Church should at any time in their liues be like Scribes and Pharisies: yet we may alwaies safely, yea we must necessarily follow their doctrine, and must not in any wise admit any that shall offer to teach vs a contrarie doctrine, according as we are willed by Saint Paule, who saith: Si quis vobis euange­liz auerit Gal. 1. praeter id quod accepistis, anathema sit. If any shall e­uangelize or preach vnto you, beside (or contrarie to) that which you haue alreadie receiued, be he anathema. So that sith the people did once receiue from the ordinarie Pastors that doctrine, which hath descended from hand to hand, from Christ and his Apostles themselues, (according to that of Saint Austin: Quod inuenerunt in Ecclesia, tenuerunt: quod didicerunt, docuerunt: quod à pa­tribus 2 Contra Iulia. acceperunt, hoc filijs tradiderunt: That which they found in the Church, they held: that which they learned, they taught: that which they receiued from their fathers, that they deliuered to their children) whosoeuer he be, that shall euan­gelize any thing opposite to this receiued doctrine, whether he seeme to be an Apostle, or an Angell: and much more if he be another, to wit one of these new masters, who faile very much (to say no more) from Apostolicall perfection, and Angelicall puritie of life, according to Saint Paule, anathema sit, be he anathema. Yea such a one that doth not onely not bring this Catholicke or generally receiued doctrine, but bringeth in a new and contrary doctrine, we should not (according to Saint Iohn) salute him (vnlesse vpon some Epist. 1. need or some good respect) or say Aue vnto him: and much lesse should we giue credit to his words, or vse him as a rule of our faith, or preferre his teaching before the teaching of the Catholicke Church.

And surely me thinkes, though there were none of these e­uident proofes, which I haue brought out of Scripture: yet euen reason it selfe would teach, that we ought to giue more credit to the vniuersall companie of Catholickes, which haue bene at all times, and are now spred ouer all the Christian world, then to any particular priuate man, or some few his fellowes and followers. It is a prouerbe common amongest all men: Vox populi, vox [Page 404] Dei, The voice of the people or whole multitude, is the voice of God; that which all men say, must needs be. And on the contra­rie part, to that particular man or his priuate company, which will oppose themselues against this generall voice of all, (like Ismael, of whom it is written, Manus eius contra omnes, & manus omni­um contra cum, his hands are against all men, and the hands of all are against him) it may well be obiected that which Luther (who was the first in this our age which did so) cōfesseth was obiected to himself by his owne conscience, or rather principally by the mercy and grace of the Almightie God, seeking to reclaime him from his errour, while there was any hope. Num tu solùm sapis: Art thou onely In Praef. Lib. de abrog. Missae, priuatae ad fra­tres. Aug. Or­din. in caenob. VVittenberg. wise? Luthers words be these. Quoties mihi palpitauit tremu­lum cor, & reprehendens obiecit fortissimum illud argumen­tum, Tu solus sapis? Totne errant vniuersi? Tanta secula ig­norauerunt? Quid si tu erres, & tot tecum in errorem trahas damnandos aeternaliter? How often did my trembling heart pant, and reprehending me, did obiect to me that most strong and forcible argument: Art thou alone wise? haue there so many vniuersally erred? haue so many ages bene blinde and liued in ignorance? What rather if thou thy selfe erre, and drawest so many after thee into er­rour, who (therefore) shall be damned eternally? This did Almigh­tie God obiect to Luther, the which might doubtlesse haue done him good, but that he (presuming vpon his owne vnderstanding of Scrip­ture, and preferring his owne iudgement before the iudgement of the Church) hardened his heart against such heauenly inspirations, which he tearmed Papisticall arguments. And this same may well be obiected to any priuate man, or any few, who leauing the Kings broad street, or beaten hye way of the Catholicke Church, will seeke out a by-path, as being in their conceit, a better, easier, & more direct way to heauen. To them (I say) wel may be said, Are you only wise? are all the rest in former ages fooles? haue you onely after so many hundred yeares after Christ found out the true faith, and the right way to heauen? haue all the rest liued in blindnesse, darknesse, and errour? consequently, are you onely they that please God, and shall be saued? (for, as I haue prooued before, without true and entire faith none can be saued) and were then all the rest, so many millions, your owne forefathers and ancestors, (many of which were most [Page 405] innocent men and vertuous liuers, and some of which shed their bloud for Christs sake) were (I say) all these hated of God? did all these pe­rish? were they all damned? shall all these endure vnspeakable paines in hell for euer? O impious, cruell, and incredible assertion! Nay sure­ly, I am rather to thinke, that you are vnwise, who pretending to tra­uell toward the happie kingdome of heauen, and to go to that glori­ous citie the heauenly Ierusalem, wil leaue the beaten street, in which all those haue walked that euer heretofore went thither: who by mi­racles sometimes, as it were by letters sent from thence, haue giuen testimonie to vs that remaine behind, that they are safely arriued there. You (I say) are vnwise that will leaue this way, and will ad­uenture the liues not onely of your bodies, but of your soules, in a path found out of late by your selues, neuer tracked before: in which who­soeuer haue yet gone, God knowes what is become of them, sith we neuer had letter of miracle, or any other euident token, or euer heard any word from them, to assure vs that they safely passed that way: me thinks, I may account you most vnwise men, that will aduenture such a precious iewell as your soule is, to be transported by such an vncer­taine and dangerous way. I must needs thinke, that sith there is but one right way, and that the way of the Catholicke Church is a sure and approued safe way, you are very vnaduised, who with the ad­uenture of the irreparable losse of your dearest and peerlesse treasure your soule, will leaue this safe and secure way, to seeke out a new vn­certaine and perillous way. I must needs think, sith the Catholick Ro­mane Church is (as I haue proued) the light of the world, the rule of faith, the pillar & sure ground of truth: that you leauing it, leaue the light, and therefore walke in darknesse; forsaking it, forsake the di­rect path of true faith, and therefore are misled in the mist of incre­dulitie, into the wildernesse of misbeleefe: and finally that you hauing thus lost the sure ground of truth, do fall into the miry ditch of many absurdities, and must needs be drowned in the pit of innumerable errors; and erring thus from the way, the veritie and the life, which is Christ Iesus residing, according to his promise in the Catholicke Church, must needs (vnlesse you wil, which I hartily wish, returne to the vnitie of the same Church) incur your owne perdition, death and damnation of body and soule: from which sweet Iesus deliuer you, and vs all, to the honor and perpetuall praise of his holy name. Amen.

A. W.

To these idle questions of yours, I answer first in generall, that we may with reason enough perswade our selues that we haue the true faith and true Churches; because we see, that the very quintessence of Bellarmines sophistry distilled againe in your limbeck, is of no force to purge out or alter such perswa­sion. This appeares in the particulars viewed and examined. To which I answer seuerally in a word: The doctrine of the true Church we gladly admit and receiue, yet not vpon the autho­ritie thereof, but because it is agreeable to the Scriptures. If you ask vs then, why we are perswaded that we haue true faith; we returne you answer, that we are therefore so perswaded, because we finde that which we beleeue auowed in Scripture, and confirmed in our hearts by the witnesse of the holy Ghost. Hereupon we conclude (as well we may) that we are members of the true Church, & our congregations true Christiā churches. For wheras you charge some of vs, but craftily forbeare to name them, with chalenging to our selues the title of the true Church; See my an­swer to 12. art part. 1. art. 5. it is a slaunder of yours, and no challenge of ours; saue only thus far, that we affirme there is no true Church, which agreeth not with vs in the fundamentall points of the Gospell. But we are far frō appropriating the Church to our congregations, as if all true Churches depended vpon vs, according to that you teach of your Romish synagogue. And whereas you condemne vs for no true Churches, because we want the markes of true Chur­ches: we say that you take those for markes, which are not so, as you vnderstand them; and farther, that euery one of them rightly conceiued, is to be found in our seuerall congre­gations.

It is one, because it holdeth that one meanes of saluation preached by the Apostles, euen faith in Iesus Christ, without mingling of any workes therewith of the ceremoniall or moral law, before or after grace, to deserue iustification of congruitie, or euerlasting life of condignitie. The contrary errors held by your synagogue, make and proue it to be no true Church. But how foolish is the reason you bring against vs? The Protestants Church is not one, because it hath no meanes to keepe vnitie. It hath meanes sufficient, viz. the truth of the Scriptures, and teaching [Page 407] of the spirit of God. Put case it wanted meanes to continue v­nitie; would it follow thereupon, that it is not One? Surely no more, then that a man is not aliue, because he hath not means to keepe himselfe aliue.

Our Church hath had, and by the blessing of God hath many holy men and women, whose workes haue giuen, and dayly do giue cleare testimonies of their inward graces. Indeed we want vnholy legendaries, to deuise and publish monstrous lies for miracles, by which you haue gotten the aduantage of vs, in the conceits of them, to whom God hath sent strong delusions, that they might beleeue lies. But wisedome is iustified of her chil­dren, though you proud Pharises despise her.

Our doctrine teacheth nothing but holinesse: that we were Ephes. 1. 4. Luk. 1. 74. 75. 1. Cor. 6. 11. Rom. 6. 3. 4. chosen to be holy: that we are freed from our sinnes, to the end we might sinne no more: that we are washed, iustified and sanctified by the bloud of Christ; buried with him in baptisme, that we might die to sinne; raised from sinne to righteousnesse, by the power of his resurrection: that holines of life is a part of our glorie, without which no man shall euer see God: that he which saith he is iustified, and shewes himselfe to be vnsanctified, deceiues his owne soule, and is in the state of damnation: Onely we neither giue the glorie of our saluation to our selues, as if by the power of our freewill, with­out speciall inclination thereof by the holy Ghost, we had re­ceiued faith, which other men haue refused: though they might haue embraced it as well as we, for ought God did for or to vs, more then for or to them; nor looke to merit heauen by the worthinesse of our workes, as if it were the wages of seruants, and not the inheritance of children.

The vniuersal Church (as you speake of it) is a meere name, without any thing answerable to it in nature. That which was generally held (while the Churches of Christ were not subiect to Antichrist) concerning the substance of Religion, by which true and false Churches are to be iudged, we gladly and con­stantly maintaine. The errors which some men defended, and corrupted the Churches withall, we refute and reiect. But it is no marke of the true Church, to hold all that hath bene gene­rally maintained in true Churches; but the dutie of it to ac­knowledge [Page 408] for true, whatsoeuer was taught by the Apostles, and is recorded in Scripture.

How far our Church is spread, it passeth your skill truly to affirme: and we may with good reason perswade our selues, that it is in all places, where the Gospell is preached, and the Scrip­tures knowne; because dayly experience sheweth, that it hath some members in those countries where your bloudie and ty­rannous butchery of Inquisition doth most rule, and vnder the nose of your grand Antichrist, in the citie of Rome. But it is e­nough to make it Catholicke, that it acknowledgeth it selfe to be common both to Iew and Gentile, not tied to any country, people or person whatsoeuer, as yours is to the Pope and Rome.

We are not ashamed of Martin Luther, whom it pleased God to vse admirably, if not miraculously, to rake from vnder the ashes the light of the Gospell, couered and choked with your errors and superstitions. Not as if it had bin al that while out of the world, but as 12. art. part. 1. art. 1. one of your owne fellowes speakes of it, as being in the eclipse, ouershadowed and darkned with the thicke mist of your Popish decrees, decretals, and schoolmens trickes, and other such leud trumpery. Our Church, that is the true Church of Christ was all that time in the world, but not to be seene of euery man: though from time to time there were still found some who durst maintaine the truth of Christ against your Antichristian heresies. Luthers writings, words, deeds, and manner of death, were such as might manifest to all men both his true zeale of the glory of God, and Gods especiall fa­uour to him, whatsoeuer such lying sycophants as Prateolus faine.

If we would stand vpon Apostolicknesse in succession, what haue you, that we want; saue onely that you continue in succes­sion of error, longer then we do? But it is an idle plea, to auouch personall succeeding, where there is manifest contrarietie in doctrine: by which, as we heard out of Tertul. de praesc. cap. 32. Tertullian, howsoeuer you brag of Apostolicknesse, you may be proued not to be A­postolicall.

We differ not in doctrine, touching the fundamentall points [Page 409] of Religion, from any true, holy, Catholicke, and Apostolicke Church: neither doth your synagogue agree with any such. Therfore wheras you demand, how we can brag that we haue true faith, which is not to be found out of the true Church; we answer you, as oft we haue done, that we are sure the faith we hold is true, because it is agreeable to the Scriptures, and being so, we cannot be out of the true Church, as long as we are in the true faith.

True faith cannot be had by any light or discourse of nature, but onely by reuelation from God. For 1. Cor. 2. 9. neither eye hath seene, nor eare hath heard, nor the heart of man can imagine, what the meanes are, whereby God decreed in himselfe to saue those whom he hath chosen to glory. Now it was not the purpose of God in these latter times, as in the first before the law, to reueale his will im­mediatly from heauen; but he sent his Son in the nature of man, and that Sonne his Apostles, to giue knowledge of those means of saluation; both by preaching for that present age wherein they liued, and also by writing, for that age, and all that were to succeed till the end of the world. This is all that the Apostle tea­cheth Rom. 10. 16. in the place alledged by you. Yet we denie not, that the principall ordinary means to bring men to faith, is the ministery of man, by word of mouth expounding the word & wil of God according to the Scriptures. First then, all men to whom the Scriptures are vouchsafed, haue meanes of hearing. For in them they may, if they will, heare men appointed by God, speake to their instruction and saluation. Secondly, the same God hath ordained, that besides the former teaching, there should be cer­taine men set apart and deputed for the ministery, whose dutie it is to preach in their seuerall charges the word of truth. This setting apart & deputing, is that sending which is now required; and is to be performed by such as are, & shall be authorized to that purpose. Thirdly for our particular case, we are to vnder­stand that Luther and these other worthies, by whose ministery it pleased God to reuiue the knowledge of the Gospell decay­ed, were authorized to preach by your congregation, which was at that time in apparence the true Church of God. There­fore were they sent, if your church haue any sending: and accor­ding [Page 410] to their calling, they labored in opening the truth of God, as it is reuealed in the Scriptures. Thus by the gracious mercie of God, it came to passe, that they teaching the word of truth, found diuers, both men and women, whose hearts the Lord by his spirit opened, so that they embraced the loue of the truth de­liuered by them, and accepted them for their pastors, and sub­mitted themselues to become their flockes. By this meanes they had both a generall authoritie to preach, from that com­panie, which (by profession) was the Church, and also a par­ticular charge of those who were now become indeed (in re­gard of their professed faith) a true Church of God. We haue then in our Churches, for the late reforming of them, first, your calling, such as it was, and secondly the approbation of true Christians, of which true Churches consist. Therefore by your owne rule, since we haue some amongst vs that are sent, we may also haue faith and true faith, though we abhor your Anti­christian heresies.

To what purpose is this idle discourse, but to shew your owne errors? We neither looke for, nor allow any opinion of extraordinary sending from God, because we haue no warrant for any such in the Scriptures. But wee say, the restorers of the Gospell, in this last age, had ordinary allowance of that Church which bare the shew of the true Church, and professed the beleeuing of the Gospell, which is the foundation of the Church.

But you require peculiar consecration, because it pleased God to appoint such a course for the Priesthood of the Law. Do you not know, that the consecrating and annointing of Aa­ron, was a part of the ceremoniall law, signifying the annoin­ting of the spirit, which our Sauiour was to receiue: to whom, according to those shewes, Ioan. 3. 34. the Lord gaue the spirit without measure? The consecration that now remaines, is nothing but the setting a part of some men for the worke of the ministerie by prayer and laying on of hands.

2. Chron. 26 18. Your example of Oziah, is little to the purpose. For it had not bene lawfull for him to offer incense, though he had bene consecrated with all the ceremonies that belong to the office [Page 411] of the priesthood, because the office of offring incense was ap­propriated by God to the house of Aaron, as Azariah signifieth in his speech to Vzziah. This appointment of God was their calling: Heb. 5. 4. the outward ceremonies were but to shadow forth the excellencie of our Sauiour Christs priesthood. Neither doth the Apostle prooue the lawfulnesse of Christs priesthood, by his consecration answerable to Aarons, as your alledging of the place intends, but onely by the Lords authorizing of him to that office. vers. 5. Christ tooke not to himselfe the honour to be made the high Priest (saith the Apostle) but he that said vnto him, Thou art my sonne, this day begat I thee, gaue it him. vers. 6. As he also in an other place speaketh, Thou art a Priest for euer, after the order of Melchisedech: what word is there here of our Sauiours conse­cration?

You proceed to heape error vpon error, to the preiudice of Gods truth, and destruction of his people. If euery man be to be held for a true Pastor, and as such a one to be beleeued, if he haue an orderly admission and allowance to teach: had not Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Macedonius, and many other he­retickes lawfull ordination, according to the custome of the Churches in those times? Yea, were not Luther, Bucer, Martyr, authorized by your Church, and Caluin too, as you say after­ward, when you accuse Luther and him for leauing their former profession? Come no hirelings in by the doore, if lawfull out­ward admission be the doore? How many that enter lawfully become wolues afterward? I know this (saith Act. 20. 29 Saint Paul to the Ephesians) that after my departure, grieuous wolues shall enter in among you, not sparing the flocke. Moreouer, vers. 30. of your owne selues shall men arise, speaking peruerse things. Who can doubt, but some of these might be euen of the number of them who were lawfully admitted by imposition of hands and prayer, the onely meanes of consecration in those times, before your shauing and greasing was heard of in the Church?

But you ignorantly or wilfully abuse Ioan. 10. 1. 21. that place of the E­uangelist, by applying it to the ordinary ministerie of the Gospell: whereas it belongeth to the office of the Mes­siah, and the calling that hee had from God, to bee [Page 412] Heb. 13. 20. the great shepheard of our soules. Ioan. 10. 8. All that came before him, professing themselues to be the Messiah, as Act. 5. 36. 37 Iudas and Theu­das did, were theeues and robbers: entring not in by the doore, that is Ioan. 6. 27. Mat, 3. 17. by commission from God, but coming in another way, by their counterfetting of a pattent from God. Neither was the preseruation of the people, but their owne aduancement the marke they shot at. But the true shepheard Iesus Christ came to giue his life for his sheepe, that they might be saued. This is the true sense of that worthy sermon; which if we will apply to ministers, they must be held for true Pastors, which being authorized thereunto, do preach Christ Iesus truly, with­out mingling any such doctrines as may by any meanes draw vs from the acknowledging or resting vpon him for saluation. He that so teacheth and is authorized thereunto, commeth in by Christ the doore, especially if he haue withall a true desire to feed the flock committed to him, in the sinceritie of his heart. But if you stand onely vpon outward calling, the Priests and Le­uits wanted it not, who yet were theeues, because they endeuo­red to steale away the hearts of the sheepe from Christ the true shepheard.

That which followeth of the necessitie of miracles or extraor­dinarie sanctitie, concernes not vs, who pleade not any extraor­dinarie sending. Luther was appointed by your Church, to preach the Gospel. That duty, according to his calling, he faith­fully performed: neuer requiring to be credited, because he was extraordinarily sent by God; but because he taught that which God had left in the Scriptures, for the instruction and edifi­cation of his Church, in all ages till the end of the world. What neede was there now of miracles, or any other extraor­dinarie course? Ioan. 10. 37. & 15. 24. The places you bring, wee answered be­fore.

The vniuersall consent of Pastors and Doctors, in that they teach, hath bene found to be but a crooked rule to measure truth by; though we are perswaded, that the world was neuer without some that held and taught so much of the truth, as is absolutely necessary to saluation. But that is vniuersally or ge­nerally taught, which is the common doctrine of ordinary tea­chers, [Page 413] howsoeuer some one or two here and there may be of a contrarie opinion. Mat. 23. 2. How farre the Scribes and Pharisies were to be heard, it appeared before, where this place was alledged and answered. Surely he, Mat 16. 6. & 23. 16. 17. 19. that charged his Disciples, to take heede of the leauen of the Pharisies, and called them fooles and blinde, would neuer commaund them to take their doctrine, for the rule of truth. Neither could Gal. 1. 8. Saint Paule meane, that euerie man should be accursed, who taught at any time other­wise, then men commonly beleeued; he speaketh not a word of any common consent in teaching, and he knew that 2. Thess. 2. 3. there was to be a generall Apostacy: but his meaning was, that they should hold him for accursed that deliuered any other doctrine of saluation, how generally so euer it were taught, then that which he himselfe had preached to thē. But of this also before.

I hope you are not so mad, as to imagine that any man will beleeue, that Saint Austin so many hundred yeares ago, pro­phesied, that your Pastors and Doctors should from time to time teach nothing else generally, but that which had August. cont. Iuli. Pelag. lib. 2. in his daies descended from hand to hand, from Christ and his Apo­stles. Or do you thinke it would prooue a good reason to say, Austin affirmeth that Ambrose and other learned men, who li­ued in the first 400. yeares, held that which they found in the Church, and taught that which they had learned. There­fore it cannot be that since his time other men haue preached or written otherwise? But be like this place was alledged by you rather for ornament and shew, then for proofe or vse, and so let it passe.

Though there were no other reason to make vs mislike your Church: yet this were cause enough of doubt, that the foun­dation whereon you build it, in this Treatise, and the like, is so weake and vncertaine. We must beleeue you, because you are the Church. Who saith so? Your selues. But you will prooue it by Scripture. How shall I know that you bring, to be Scrip­ture? The Church telleth you so. Shall I laugh at you, or pitie you? You are the Church, because the Scripture saith so. The Scripture is Scripture to vs, because you say so. Gal. 3. 1. Were the Galathians so senslesse, as they that beleeue such absurd [Page 414] fooleries? Or is it possible that any man should beleeue them, but he that is giuen vp by God to strong delusions, that he may beleeue lies? Bethinke your selues, and returne ere it be too late. The Lord will be mercifull to your former ignorance, if at the last you embrace the loue of the truth. Leauing those e­uident proofes, you speake of (proofes indeed of your mani­fold errours) you assay to draw vs by reason, because it is more likelie, that the vniuersall companie of Catholickes deserueth credit, then any particular man or his followers. First, you beg that which is in question. No true Catholicke euer held all the errours that your Antichristian Church maintaineth: nor any one of those, whereby you cast downe the foundation of religion. Se­condly, the comparison is not betwixt the authoritie of a mul­titude, or a few, wherein number may either helpe or hinder, but the reasons of each side are to be weighed, all other re­spects whatsoeuer set apart. And yet if we looke to reason: are not the greatest number (for the most part) the worst? Christs true flocke is a little one, Iuc. 12. 32. Feare not little flocke. 1. Co. 1. 26. Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mightie, not many noble. Was not the voice of the people, euen of Gods people, Exod. 32. 1. Make vs Gods to go before vs? The voice of God is to be heard in the Scriptures, Paphnutius in Concil. Ni­ccno. One man that speaketh according thereunto, is to be preferred before the whole world speaking otherwise.

Those obiections made to Luther in his priuate meditations proceeded from the same spirit, by which the Pharisies spake to Nicodemus in their Councell, Doth Ioan. 7. 48. any of the Rulers, or of the Pharisies beleeue in him. Gal 1. 16. This was that communicating with flesh and blood, which the Apostle would not once hearken to: Luther in his weaknesse was drawne into it, and had perished in it, if the Lord of his infinite mercy, had not drawne him out of it, with a worthie and admirable resolution. VVith the like (that it may appeare whose schollers you are) you Iesuits, and Priests set vpon simple people, ticing them on in their igno­rance, & your owne, though the broad way, that leadeth to de­struction.

But let vs consider this your fleshly eloquence and answer to it. You aske, if we onelie be wise, and all the rest in former ages [Page 415] were fooles. As if we did not acknowledge that it is the mer­cie of God, and not our wisedome that hath giuen vs the abi­litie, and will to vnderstand his truth. We are not wiser then any other, but haue found more mercy, then many haue done at the hands of God, for our saluation. Many in former times haue bene partakers of the like mercie, and bene made wise to saluation by the same truth we now professe: yea it was gene­rally held many hundred yeares, til your master Antichrist draue it into holes and deserts. After the reuealing of his pride and tyrannie: the true way to heauen ceased not to be found, though not so commonly, till it pleased God to scatter those clowdie mists of ignorance and idolatrie, by which you had hidden it, that it could very hardly be knowne. Diuers heretofore, and more now adaies finde fauour with God to discerne and walke through it, to the certaine, and euerlasting saluation of their soules and bodies. So iudge we as it becommeth vs in chari­tie of our forefathers: that he which hath looked in compassi­on vpon vs their seed, did not faile to shew mercy vnto them, who neuer vnderstood the mysterie of your iniquitie: but in the singlenesse of their hearts embraced the generall doctrine of the Gospell, concerning saluation by faith in Christ. This is the onely way, by which all men haue gone, that euer came to heauen, and in this way we trauell with danger of the liues of our bodies (as you speake) because we are continually in hazard by reason of your conspiracies, treasons, massacres, vndermi­nings and fier-works; but with assurance of the saluation of our soules: if we hold fast the shoot-Anchor of our hope, and re­nouncing our owne righteousnesse, repose our selues by faith vpon the gracious mercy of God our Father in Iesus Christ. This doing we haue better certificate, both for the securitie of our way, and the end of our iourney out of the Scriptures, and by the witnesse of the Spirit of God in our hearts, then that lying Carier the diuel can bring by any shew of your coun­terfeit miracles whatsoeuer.

I must needs perswade my selfe, sith that Apostolicall Ro­mish Synagogue is (as I haue shewed) the seducer of the world by shew of authority, without reason, the ouerthrow and de­struction [Page 416] of truth, by denying the sufficiency of the Scripture, and taking the vse of it from the people of God; that all you which cleaue to it, plunge your selues in hellish darknesse, by refusing to see the light of Gods word; and by drinking of the cup of abhomination presented to you by that strumpet of Rome, loose the taste of truth, and runne forward in wilfull ignorance, to most certaine damnation. The Lord is my wit­nesse, whom I serue weakly as I can, in the Gospell of his Son Iesus Christ, that if it were possible and lawfull for me, I could be content to procure your saluation, by pouring out my heart bloud for euerie one of you, that Iesus Christ my master might haue the glory of your true conuersion. To that purpose, and for the establishing of them, which alreadie beleeue: I first vn­dertooke, and haue now at the last (by the mercifull assistance of God) finished my answer to this subtill Treatise. Let me now earnestly intreat you by the care of your owne saluation, by the zeale you haue (in ignorance) to glorifie God, by the infinite loue of Iesus Christ, by the vndeserued mercy of God the Father, by the continuall gracious motions of the holy Ghost, and by whatsoeuer is, or ought to be deare vnto you, that you would vouchsafe seriously in the sinceritie of your hearts, without preiudice to consider; whether it be not more ageeable both to the Scriptures, and the light of reason, to giue the whole glorie of our saluation to the mercie of God in Iesus Christ, then to ascribe the enabling of vs to saue our soules to God, and the vse or imploying of this abilitie to the choise of our owne free-will. If your opinion be true, See my an­swer to 12. Art. part. 2. art. 4. euerie man that is saued, is more beholding to himselfe, then to God for his saluation. For though he haue power from God, to be saued, if he will: yet neither hath he this power, but vpon preparati­on, depending on his free-will; and when he hath it, the vsing of it well is from himselfe, and not from God. You will say, he could not vse it well, vnlesse he were assisted continually by the grace of God. I answer, that for all this assistance by that grace to vse it well, the well or ill vsing of it, when God hath done all, he will do, ariseth from the choise of a mans owne will. That it was possible for me to be saued, it was Gods doing: [Page 417] that this possibilitie tooke effect in me, I may thanke my selfe, more then God: so that by this doctrine, the glorie of euerie particular mans saluation is more due to the partie saued, then to God the Sauiour. Now on the contrarie side; if that we teach be true, the losse falles on mans part, and not vpon Gods. Is any man drawne out of the Iawes of hell and damnation? The whole glorie redounds to God. It was he that prouided meanes of saluation: it was he that gaue me, in particular, know­ledge of that meanes. It was he, that when I was as vnto­ward, and vnwilling to be saued, as the most damned repro­bate, wrought me to beleeue (can I euer be vnmindfull or vn­thankfull!) by inclining my heart to like, and accept of his grace, and faith in Christ. But in the meane while I loose the commendation, and the glory of vsing the grace of God well, by my free-will. O Adam, Adam, earth and ashes, how fast doth that pride of nature, whereby thou wast destroyed in thy selfe, though in thee it were not naturall, cleaue to euerie one of thy posteritie! Gen. 3. 5. 6. We had rather be thought able to gouerne our selues, then be gouerned by God. It is more pleasing to vs, to hazard our saluation vpon the nice choise of our owne free-will, then to be assured of it, by the mercie of God, wor­king in vs this choise to will. O that, as we are all partakers of Adams pride, so we might also partake with his repentance and faith! Would Adam (trow ye) if it might be put to his choise, againe venture vpon his owne free-will, though he were as pure as euer he was, rather then rest secure vpon Gods almightie, and most certaine protection? No, no, blessed soule, he knoweth by wofull experience (though by Gods vnspeak­able goodnesse, to his and our greater glorie) that he, and he only is out of danger, who resignes himselfe into Gods hands, to be disposed of at his gracious pleasure. Why refuse we to be like to Adam in this? Will we follow him in that onely, of which onely he is ashamed? Is it not more glorie to arise with him, then to haue fallē with him? O why do we euery day renew the memorie of his fault, by committing the like! Doth the brightnesse of the truth in these points dazle your eies? Me thinks I see many of you offering to presse forward, as it were [Page 418] to take the kingdome of heauen, the doctrine of the Gospell, by violence: why recoile you? Why quaile you on a sodaine? The bare name of the Church, not onely stayeth you, but bea­teth you backward. The Romish Church cannot erre. VVho telleth you so? Surely they, that can erre, your Priests and Ie­suits. Giue me leaue I pray you, to question with you a little, and for a minute of an hower, be content to make vse of that reason and knowledge, which God hath giuen you, without forestalling your iudgements, by preiudice of the authoritie of the Church. Doth it not appeare to you by the light of natu­rall reason, that the maine end of all religion is the glorie of God? Do not your owne consciences testifie in the simplicitie of your hearts, that it maketh more for the glorie of God, that men should be beholding to his Maiestie for their saluation, then that they should procure it to themselues? Is it not also apparent to you in the secret of your owne soules, that our do­ctrine by beating downe the pride of mans free-will, aduan­ceth the glorie of Gods mercie: and yours, by hoysing vp the conceit of mans good choise, presseth downe the estimation of Gods vnspeakable goodnesse? And shall an idle sound weigh more with you, then sound reason? Consider, I beseech you, what weake grounds you build this opinion of the Church vp­on: I will point at that, which in my answer I haue handled. Can you in any sort compare the opinion of the Churches au­thoritie, with the euidence of those matters, wherewith before I pressed you? Is it as cleere that there are certaine men, whom I must beleeue, whatsoeuer they teach, as it is, that I must seeke the aduancing of Gods glory, more then of mine owne pride? Are you as sure, that these Priests and Iesuits which are your teachers, be sent by the true Church, and deliuer nothing, but the doctrine of the true Chruch; as you are, that they, who per­swade you to rest wholy vpon God, and not at all vpon your selues, shew you the right way to procure Gods glory, and your owne saluation? Tush (say you) all is nothing vnlesse I be­leeue it, vpon the credit of the Church. Alaste, how did the first Christians, who neuer thought on the authoritie of the Church, when they heard and beleeued the Apostles doctrine? [Page 419] Looke ouer all the Historie of the Actes, peruse the Sermons of Peter and Paule, and tell me whether you finde, that euer they pleaded the authoritie of the Church, to procure be­leefe of their doctrine. After men are conuerted, the authori­tie of the Church, hath her due place, and must beare sway in matters in different, but for the auowing of truth, her bare word is neuer of sufficient importance. It was the doctrine of the A­postles, that wrought vpon the hearts of men, by the cleare eui­dence of it, through the power of the Spirit, wherewith it was accompanied. What that doctrine was, where should we learne but in the scriptures, wherein they haue written what they preached? These (you say) giue such authoritie to the Church. This were somewhat, if you made not their au­thoritie in respect of vs, to depend vpon the Church. The scrip­tures (say Stapl. de au­tor. Eccles. li. 1. your Doctors) haue in themselues authoritie, as be­ing from God: but they are not of authoritie to vs, but onely by the authoritie of the Church. I perceiue you are ashamed of these absurdities. The Church must be beleeued vpon her word. Why so? The Scripture saith so. How shall I know that these bookes are scripture? The Church saith so. The Church and the scripture prooue each other, by their mutuall testimonie, they giue each of other: I beleeue the Church because the scripture biddeth me, I beleeue the scripture, because the Church biddeth me. If these things seeme to be absurd, as in­deed they are most absurd, blinde not your selues any longer with such mists of errour, but come out of them, to the cleare light of the scriptures: reade them diligently, meditate in them carefully, call vpon God for his grace earnestly, resigne your selues, and your free-will to him sincerelie: and the Lord that is most readie to blesse them, that vse the meanes of know­ledge and faith, in humilitie, and singlenesse of heart, will assuredly enlighten your vnderstanding, and incline your affections, that you shall discerne, like of, and embrace the true doctrine of Iustification by faith in Iesus Christ: and shall re­nounce your owne righteousnesse, and free-will, to the glorie of his grace, and the present comfort, and euerlasting saluation [Page 420] of your bodies and soules, through the same his sonne, to whom with the Father, and the holy Ghost, be all glorie, praise, obedience, and thankesgiuing, from this time for euermore. Amen.

FINIS.

Texts of Scripture expounded or applied.

  • GEn.
    • 1. 1. pag. 121.
    • 3. 5. 6. p. 417.
    • 9. 21. p. 212.
    • 12. 13. p. 212.
    • 15. 5. p. 288.
    • 15. 13. p. 206.
    • 20. 5. p. 212.
    • 49. 1. 2. p. 38.
  • Exod.
    • 3. 10. p. 140.
    • 7. 8. p. 352.
    • 7. 21. 22. p. 352.
    • 19. 20. p. 140.
    • 21. 1. p. 140.
    • 32. 1. p. 414.
  • Leuit. 10. 11. p. 140
  • Num. 24. 17. p. 171
  • Deut.
    • 42. p. 86.
    • 31. 9. 19. p. 140.
  • Iosu. 5. 5. p. 227.
  • 1. Sam. 8. 7. p. 140.
  • 2. Sam. 12. 9. pag. 212. 275.
  • 1. Reg.
    • 3. 26. p. 377.
    • 18. 13. p. 288.
    • 19. 18. p. 187
  • 2.
    • Reg. 18. 30. p. 38.
    • 19. 4. 6. p. 38.
  • 2. Chron. 26. 18. pag 410
  • Nehe. 8. 8. 9. p 140
  • Psal.
    • 1. 1. 2. pa. 10.
    • 13. 20. 19. 8. p. 74.
    • 22. 27. p. 276.
    • 25. 5. p. 128.
    • 26. 5. p. 210.
    • 42 1, 2. p. 234.
    • 48. 1. 8. p. 168, 169.
    • 48. 5. 6. p. 234.
    • 57. 3. p. 238.
    • 72. 8. p. 276.
    • 72. 17. p. 39.
    • 73. 13. 16. 22. p. 33.
    • 84. 1. 2. 10. p. 234.
    • 105. 8, 9. p. 170.
    • 106. 40. 41, 42, 43. p. 170
    • 111. 9. p. 169.
    • 119. 103. p 20.
    • 119. 105. p. 74.
    • 119 127. 130. pag. 20. 74.
    • 133. 3. p. 169.
    • 143. 2. pag. 363.
  • Prou.
    • 7. 22. p. 19.
    • 20. 9. p. 334. 354.
    • 26. 5. p. 173.
  • Eccles. 9. 1. p. 334. 354.
  • Cant. 6. 8. p. 264,
  • Isa.
    • 30 21. p. 232.
    • 35 8. p. 226. 231.
    • 59. 21. p. 276. 282.
    • 60. 11. p. 196. 206.
    • 61. 9 p. 176. 177. 256
    • 63. 9. p. 170.
  • Ier.
    • 7. 5. pa. 380.
    • 17. 29. 30. p. 39.
    • 31. 31. p. 232,
  • Dan.
    • 2. 44. pa. 29. 168. 170.
    • 9. 20. p. 363.
  • Malac. 2. 7. p. 112 140.
  • Math
    • 1. 1. 2. p. 39.
    • 3. 12. p. 208.
    • 3. 17. p. 257. 42.
    • 4. 23. p. 57.
    • 5. 14. p. 179. 181.
    • 5. 15. p. 182. 184.
    • 5. 18. p. 178.
    • 5. 43, 44. p 141.
    • 7. 1. p. 143
    • 7. 6. p. 195.
    • 7. 7. p 117.
    • 7. 15. p. 253.
    • 7. 16. p. 36.
    • 7. 22, 23. p. 272.
    • 7. 25. p. 167.
    • 10. 5. pa. 55. 135. 190.
    • 10. 7, 8. p. 272. 352
    • 10. 23. p. 190.
    • 10. 33. 186.
    • 11. 30. p. 336.
    • 12. 31. p. 57.
    • 13. 25. p. 284. 378.
    • 13. 30. p. 278. 290.
    • 13. 37, 38. 43. p. 291.
    • 13. 48. p. 208.
    • 15. 11. 14. pa. 141. 249.
    • 15. 24. p. 55.
    • 16. 3, 4. p. 351.
    • 166. 12. p 37. 141. 413.
    • 16. 16. p 199.
    • 16. 18. p. 129. 158. 159. 164.
    • 16. 19. p. 307. 325.
    • 18. 4. p. 268.,
    • 18. 17. p. 145. 147. 193, 194.
    • 20. 16. p. 208.
    • 22. 10. p. 208.
    • 23 2. pa. 138, 139. 143. 413.
    • 23. 3. p. 36.
    • 23. 5, 6. 13, 14. p. 142.
    • 23. 15. p. 382.
    • 23. 16. p. 141.
    • 23. 2. 16. 17. 19. p [...]. 413.
    • 24. 14. p. 178. 291.
    • 24. 24. pa. 36. 280. 352.
    • 25. 1, 2. p. 209.
    • 26. 70. 72. 74. p. 188 212. 275.
    • 28. 19, 20. p. 35. 41. 55. 113. 135. 150 163. 179. 190. 126 199. 130. 131. 173
  • Mark.
    • 9. 24. p. 33.
    • 16. 11. p. 311.
    • 16. 15, 16. p. 41. 135 145, 146. 150. 181
  • Luke
    • 1. 32. 33. pa. 168. 172
    • 1. 74. 75. p. 407.
    • 3. 23. p. 39.
    • 3. 31. p. 39.
    • 4. 18. p. 176.
    • 9. 26. p. 186.
    • 10. 11 p. 137.
    • 10. 11. p. 146.
    • 10. 16. pag. 36. 44. 126. 136. 137. 145. 268. 308.
    • 10. 21. p. 203.
    • 12. 32. p. 364. 414.
    • 17. 5. p. 33.
    • 22 32. p. 364.
    • 22 48. p. 272.
    • 24. 44. p. 277.
  • Iohn
    • 2. 29. p. 39. 411.
    • 3. 34. p. 410.
    • 4. 1, 2, 3. p. 189.
    • 5. 30. p. 257.
    • 5 39. p. 10. 20. 74.
    • 6. 27. p. 412.
    • 6. 35. p. 24.
    • 6. 37. p. 166.
    • 6. 38. p. 257.
    • 6 40. p. 166.
    • 6. 44. p. 203.
    • 6. 65. p. 203.
    • 6. 68. p. 39.
    • 6. 70 p. 272.
    • 7. 48. p. 414.
    • 8. 59. p. 189.
    • 9 30. p. 189.
    • 10. 1, 2 p. 411.
    • 10. 4. 5. 8. p. 265. 412.
    • 10. 16. p. 261. 265.
    • 10. 28. p. 167.
    • 10. 37. p. 412.
    • 11. 32. p. 57.
    • 12. 6. p. 272.
    • 14. 27. p. 130. 134. 373, 388.
    • 14. 26. p. 130. 134.
    • 15. 24. p. 412.
    • 16. 15. p. 130. 135. 137 388.
    • 17 9. pa. 257. 264. 266.
    • 17. 20. p. 131. 264. 266.
    • 17. 21. p. 261. 264.
    • 20. 31. p. 81. 351.
    • [Page] 21. 16, 17. pa. 308. 391.
    • 21. 22, 23. pa. 325. 326.
  • Acts
    • 1. 4. p.
    • 1. 6. p. 39. 310.
    • 1. 8. p. 277. 294.
    • 21, 2. p. 288.
    • 2. 2, 3. p. 39. 133.
    • 2. 5. p. 136.
    • 2. 38. p. 205.
    • 2. 41. p. 185.
    • 2. 47. p. 128.
    • 4. 12. p. 26.
    • 5. 11. p. 128.
    • 5. 36, 37. p. 280. 412
    • 81. p. 189.
    • 8. 4. pa. 288. 373. 204
    • 9. 24. 25. p. 189.
    • 9. 31. p. 129.
    • 10. 3. 5. p. 185.
    • 10. 15. p. 311.
    • 10. 48. p. 190.
    • 13. 46. p 205.
    • 13. 48. p. 204
    • 13. 51. p. 146.
    • 14 23. p. 129.
    • 15. 22. p. 128.
    • 15. 29. p. 321.
    • 17. 11. p. 249.
    • 18. 19. p. 297.
    • 19. 25. 29. 40. 41. p. 128.
    • 20. 19. p. 278.
    • 20. 28. p. 158. 254
    • 20. 29. 30. p. 278. 285.
    • 26. 12. p. 86.
    • 26. 28. p. 183.
  • Rom.
    • 1. 8. p. 369.
    • 3. 2. p. 152.
    • 3. 4. p. 99.
    • 3. 22. p. 24.
    • 4. 25. p 311:
    • 6. 1. 14. p. 339.
    • 6. 3, 4. 407.
    • 6. 23. p. 39.
    • 7. 21. p. 363.
    • 8. 6. p. 61.
    • 8. 9. 16. p. 21. 355.
    • 8. 16. p. 354 355.
    • 8. 30. p. 210.
    • 9. 3 p. 207.
    • 9. 6, 7. p. 107. 172.
    • 9. 11. p. 257. 366.
    • 10. 10. p. 186. 191.
    • 10. 14 p. 32. 33. 113.
    • 10. 14. 15. pa. 185. 233.
    • 10. 17. p. 114. 129.
    • 11. 5. p. 257.
    • 11. 26. p. 282.
    • 11. 2. 7. p. 207.
    • 12. 5. p. 261. 266.
    • 13. 3. 4. p. 275.
    • 16. 5. p. 129.
  • 1. Cor.
    • 1. 1. 2. pag. 340. 349.
    • 15. p. 379.
    • 1. 26. p. 414.
    • 2. 9. p. 102 113. 409
    • 2. 14. p. 232. 236.
    • 2. 16. p. 60. 102.
    • 3. 11. p. 298.
    • 3. 17. 159. 267. 167 270.
    • 5. 1. p. 267. 340.
    • 5. 4. 5. 13. p. 209.
    • 5. 11. 12. p. 147.
    • 6. 1. 5. p. 340.
    • 6. 4. 5. p. 148.
    • 6. 11. p. 407.
    • 10. 17. p. 261. 266.
    • 11. 16. pa. 26. 129. 155.
    • 12. 28. p. 128.
    • 13. 3. p. 334.
    • 14. 23. 25. p. 186.
    • 14. 38. p. 25. 26.
    • 15. 9. p. 128.
    • 15. 11. p. 311.
    • 15. 12. p. 340.
    • 15. 14. 17. p. 311.
  • 2. Cor.
    • 1. 1. p. 349.
    • 2. 10. 245.
    • 2. 11. p. 109. 112.
    • 10. 10. p. 348.
    • 11. 14. p. 108.
    • 13. 5. p. 354.
  • Gal.
    • 1. 1. p. 185.
    • 1. 8. pag. 105. 106. 114. 126. 137. 274. 413.
    • 1. 16. p. 414.
    • 2. 16. p. 24.
    • 3. 4. 5. p 311.
    • 4. 4. 5. p. 365.
    • 4. 6. p. 21.
    • 5. 20. 21. p. 49.
    • 6. 16. p. 172.
  • Ephes.
    • 1. 1. p 265.
    • 1. 4. p. 407.
    • 1. 21. 22. p 129. 158.
    • 2. 8. p. 24.
    • 2. 12. p 297.
    • 2. 13. p. 294.
    • 4. 5. p. 28
    • 4. 14. p. 254 390.
    • 4. 18. p 61. 390.
    • 5. 22. 25. p. 254.
    • 5. 23. pa. 129. 158. 160.
    • 5. 25. 27. 29. 32. px. 158. 160. 254
    • 5. 27. p. 265.
  • Phil.
    • 1. 3. 5. 6. pa. 379.
    • 1. 18. p. 142.
    • 2. 12. p. 336.
    • 2. 21 p. 340.
    • 3. 6. p. 128.
  • Col.
    • 1. 2. p. 349.
    • 1. 6. pa. 278. 290. 292.
    • 1. 24. p. 129.
    • 3. 18. 19. p. 142.
    • 3. 20. p. 144.
  • 1. Thess.
    • 1. 8. pag. 379.
    • 5. 21. p 253.
  • 2. Thess.
    • 2. 4. pag. 292.
    • 2. 3. p. 290. 413.
    • 2. 7. p. 382.
    • 2. 9, 10, 11, 12. p. 19. 72. 114. 115. 205 247. 352. 383.
  • 1. Tim.
    • 1. 5. p. 334.
    • 1. 20. p. 300.
    • 2. 2. p. 312.
    • 2. 3. 4. p. 53. 55. 57. 180. 185.
    • 3. 15. pa. 128. 151. 161.
    • 4. 10. p. 53. 58.
  • 2. Tim.
    • 1. 15. p. 300.
    • 2. 19. p. 265.
    • 3. 9. p 278. 279.
    • 3. 16. 17. p. 96.
  • Tit. 2. 4. pa. 257.
  • Hebr.
    • 2. 14. p. 257.
    • 216. p. 257.
    • 2. 17. p. 3 [...]6.
    • 415. p. 326.
    • 54, 5, 6. p. 411.
    • 10. 38. p. 268. 351.
    • 11. 6 p. 23. 24. 157. 178.
    • 13. 17 p. 143.
    • 13. 20. p. 412.
  • Iames 4. 6. p. 268.
  • 1. Pet.
    • 1. 25. p. 114
    • 2. 13. p. 268. 275.
    • 2. 18. p. 254.
    • 3. 1. 7. p. 254.
  • 2. Pet.
    • 1. 10. p. 115.
    • 1. 19. p. 74.
    • 39. p. 53. 58. 59.
  • 1 Iohn
    • 2. 18. 19. p. 300.
    • 4. 1. p. 109. 251. 274.
    • 4. 6. p. 109. 112.
    • 5. 3. p. 334. 363.
  • Iude vers. 3. p.
  • Reuel.
    • 1. 20. p. 216
    • 2. 5. p. 216.
    • 2. 6. p. 300.
    • 126 p. 171. 205. 293.
    • 17. 1. p. 205.
    • 17. 2 p. 114. 247.
    • 21. 14. p. 297.

A Table of the Authors alledged.

A
  • An. Dom.
  • RObert Abbot An Dom. 1596
  • Adrian. 6. 1522
  • Cornelius Agrippa 1550
  • Albertus Magnus 1220
  • Alexander Alexand. Episcopus 320
  • Alphonsus a Castro 1546
  • Alphons. Tostat. Abulens. episc. 1430
  • Guliel. Altissiodorensis 1320
  • Ambrosius Mediolan. episc. 380
  • Anselmus Cantuariens. episc. 1080
  • Antoninus Florentin. episc. 1450
  • Athanasius Alexandr. episc. 340
  • Augustinus Hippon. episc. 400
  • Azorius 1580
B
  • Iohn Bule 1560
  • Sebastianus Baccadius 1597
  • Bartholomaeus de Pisis 1500
  • Basilius magnus 370
  • Basiliense Consilium 1430
  • Beda 700
  • Bellarminus 1575
  • Bellum papale 1600
  • Bernardus 1130
  • Thomas Bilson 1587
  • VVilliam Bishop 1603
  • Gabriel Biel 1449
  • Bolsec 1565
  • Breidenbacchius 1580
  • Bridget 1518
  • Bonauentura 1260
  • Boccacio 1375
  • Bucchingerus 1542
  • Burdegalens. monachi 1585
C
  • Thomas de vio Caietanus 1520
  • Melchior Canus Canar-episc. 1560
  • Edmundus Campianus 1570
  • Ioannes Capreolus An. Dom. 1415
  • Carthagin. Concil. 3 400
  • Catechismus Trident. Concil. 1565
  • Catharina Senensis 1370
  • Catharinus 1550
  • Cassianus 430
  • Cassander 1530
  • Daniel Chamierus 1605
  • Chalcedon. Concil. 455
  • Girolamo de Catena 1586
  • Christophor. de Capite fontium 1570
  • Chrysostom. Constantinop. episc. 400
  • Clemens P P. 1342
  • Clemens Alexandrinus episc. 200
  • Cochlaeus 1519
  • Codex Iustinian. 529
  • Constantiens Concil. 1417
  • Ianus Cornarius 1540
  • Cornelius Bitontinus episc. 1545
  • Cyprianus Carthag episc. 250
  • Cyrillus Alexandr. episc. 430
  • Cyrillus Hierosolymit. episc. 370
  • Nicol. Cusan. 1464
D
  • Ioan Damascenus 700
  • Declaratio motuum VVisbic. 1601
  • Decretorum liber 1151
  • Didymus Alexandr. 360
  • Dionys. Areopag. noth 100
  • Dionys. Carthusian. 1460
  • George Downam 1598
  • Guliel. Durand. 1236
E
  • Epiphanius Salam. episc. 390
  • Erasmus Roterodam. 1528
  • Eugenius 4. 1430
  • Eusebius Caesariens. episc. 320
  • Extra Ioan. 22. 1315
F
  • [Page]Iohn Field An. Dom. 1606
  • Ioan. Fernelius 1547
  • Ioan. Ferus 1554
  • Francisc. Feuardent. 1584
  • Ioan. Fisher Roffens. episc. 1530
  • Ioan. Foxe 1567
  • Fulgentius 500
  • VVilliam Fulk. 1576
G
  • Galfridus Momunet. 1152
  • Gaudentius 400
  • Gerson 1429
  • Genebrardus 1530
  • Glossa. interlin. Ansel. Laud. 1100
  • Gloss. ordin. Strab. Fulden. 840
  • Goulartius 1590
  • Gregorius P P. 1. 590
  • Gregor. de Valentia 1580
  • Gregor. Nazianzen. episc. 380
H
  • Haymo Halberstadt. 820
  • Heruaeus 1560
  • Hieronymus Stridon 390
  • Hilarius Pictauien. episc. 350
  • Holinshead 1570
  • Holcot 1350
  • Booke of homilies 1560
  • Hosius Cardinall 1530
  • Hugo Cardinal. 1240
  • Lady Hungerfords medita. 1605
I
  • Ignatius 100
  • Illyricus 1540
  • Irenaeus 180
  • Isidorus Clarius 1540
  • Iansenius Gandau. episc. 1581
  • Iesuits Catechisme 1590
  • Iesuiticae Constitut. 1573
  • Iustinus Martyr. 160
L
  • Petrus Lombard. episc. 1140
  • Leo P P. 1. 450
  • Lucas Brugens. 1530
  • Martin. Lutherus 1520
  • Nicolaus Lyranus 1320
M
  • Maccdonius 500
  • Maffaeus An. Dom. 1590
  • Maldonatus 1572
  • Marsilinus Patauin. 1324
  • Martialis Burdeg. 100
  • Gregory Martin 1582
  • Philippus Melanchth. 1530
  • Arias Montanus 1570
  • Philippus Mornaeus 1580
  • Mileuitan. Concil. 407
O
  • Guliel. Occham 1320
  • Oecumenius 1050
  • Opus imperf in Math. 450
  • Optatus Mileu. episc. 380
  • Origines. Adamant. 200
P
  • Pacianus Barcel. episc. 380
  • Pagninus 1532
  • Panormitanus 1470
  • Paphnutius. 320
  • Paschasius 500
  • Petrarcha 1330
  • Petrus de Alliaco 1400
  • Philo Carpath. episc. 410
  • Picus Mirandula 1494
  • Pius P P. 5. 1566
  • Pighius 1525
  • Pizamanus. 1497
  • Platina 1451
  • Polycarp. Smyrnen. episc. 140
  • Polydorus Virgil. 1525
  • Prateolus 1568
  • Prierias 1530
  • Proclus Constantinop. episc. 430
  • Prosper Aquitan. 450
  • Psellus 400
R
  • Rhabanus Maurus 850
  • Reuelation of Religion 1605
  • Rhemish Testam. 1582
  • Iohn Reynolds 1580
  • Ruffinus Aquileiens. 390
S
  • Alphonsus Salmero 1597
  • Nicolaus Sanderus 1569
  • Ioan. Scotus 1308
  • [Page] Sixtus Senensis An. Dom. 1570
  • Smidelinus 1560
  • Dominicus Sotus 1554
  • Sozomenus 430
  • Speculum exempl. 1605
  • Staphylus 1560
  • Didacus Stella 1560
  • Mathew Sutcliffe 1590
T
  • Tertullianus 200
  • Theod. Cyrens. episc. 440
  • Theophylact. Bulgar. episc. 900
  • Thomas de Aquino 1260
  • Trident. Concil. An. Dom. 1545
  • Turrianus 1580
  • Ioan. de Turrecremata 1460
V
  • Vatablus 1545
  • Vega 1568
  • VVhitaker 1586
  • Anno Mundi.
  • Aristoteles 3640
  • M. Tullius Cicero 3980
  • Homerus 3003
  • Virgilius 3998

A TABLE OF THE CHIEFE MATTERS contained in the Treatise and Answer.

A
  • THe Academickes denied that there is any truth to be knowne. pag. 80.
  • All, often was put for euery kind. p. 57.
  • Allegories are not fit to prooue points of doctrine. p. 264.
  • Boniface 3. the first reuealed Antichrist. p. 330.
  • Antichrist reuealed, bare sway ouer all men and their writings. p. 387.
  • The Apostles were absolutely to be heard, as well seuerally as ioyntly. p. 36. 43. 44. 112. 127. 137. 177.
  • No ioynt cōsent in teaching required of the Apostles or any Ministers. p. 127.
  • Sought to many natiōs, were not sought to by them. p. 179. 186.
  • Were the light of the world. p. 181.
  • Seuerally euery of them. p. 182.
  • Did not enlightē the world by any ioint act of them all together. p. ead.
  • Were not beleeued, because they were sent by the Church, but for their do­ctrine. p. 185. 235. 239. 240. 243.
  • Might and did flie in time of persecutiō. p. 190.
  • Looked for an earthly kingdome. p. 39.
  • Yet were in the state of grace by resting vpon Christ for saluation. p. ead.
  • Thought it vnlawful to impart the Gos­pell to the Gentiles. p. 311.
  • Were ouer come by the gates of hell, according to the doctrine of Pope­ry. p. 166.
  • Apostolicknesse, what it is, according to the Papists. 297.
  • Apostolicknesse of a Church, not easie to be knowne to all men. p. 296.
  • Vnpossible to be known, but by report. p. ead.
  • True Apostolicke succession is in Apo­stolicke doctrine. p. 298. 292. 293.
  • Arianisme was very vniuersall, and of ve­ry long continuance. p. 292.
  • Aristotles Physicks set out, as if they had not bin set out. p. 81.
  • [Page] The maine Assumption of the general Syllogisme. p. 218.
  • Answer to the generall Analysis. p. 6, 7.
  • Our answers are commonly so long, that few find leisure to reade them. p. 7.
  • Authority how a meanes to beget faith. p. 60.
  • One man of authoritie and learning drawes many atter him. p. 121.
B
  • To beleeue in Christ, what it is. p. 26.
  • To beleeue the Catholick Church, what it is. p. 156.
  • We do not beleeue in y e church, because that were to equal it with God p 157.
  • They that truly beleeue in Christ, shall not erre out of the way that leadeth to euerlasting life. p. 232.
  • Beleefe how wrought p 362.
  • No man is forced to beleeue. p. 361, 362.
  • No man withheld from beleeuing by God. p. 58.
  • A man may deliuer the truth, and him­selfe not beleeue. p. 112.
  • Beleeuing expresly, implicitè. p. 44, 45.
  • To beleeue, that is, to assent, is not in the power or choice of mans will. p. 40.
  • For what reason we must beleeue or as­sent to the truth p. 30. 31. 42. 43. 47.
  • True beleeuers cannot be separated frō Christ by death. p. 167.
  • Misbeleeuing and obstinately not be­leeuing, differ much. p. 39.
  • Misbeleeuing how far daminable. p. 51.
  • Obstinatly not beleeuing, how not dam nable. p 39. 40. 49.
  • Refusing to beleeue against conscience, alwayes damnable. p. 40. 41.
C
  • Catharin foresaw the Councell of Trent would be misunderstood. p 323.
  • Catholick what it signifieth. p. 280. 281.
  • Few ordinarie Papists know. 280.
  • What the Catholike Church is, & why so called. p. 280. 283. 284. 285. 286. 374.
  • Not all one with Romane. p. 7.
  • As Papists vnderstand it a meere name. p. 187. 199. 373. 407.
  • Said to be Catholicke in sixe respects. p. 281.
  • In respect of al places & persons. p. 285.
  • Catholicknesse seldome taken for vni­uersalitie of time. 281. 373.
  • No particular Church Catholick, as Pa­pists vnderstand Catholick p. 3.
  • The Church before our Sauiours com­ming not Catholicke, as the Papists teach p 281.
  • The Catholicke Church continueth frō Adam to the end of the world. p. 160 164. 281.
  • The church not called Catholick by any autor within the first 200. years. p. 283.
  • No man called a Catholick in the Apo­stles time. p. 282.
  • The word Catholicke not vsed in the Scriptures. p. ead.
  • The title Catholicke not giuen to any of the Epistles by the Apostles them­selues. p. ead.
  • The teaching of the Catholicke Church the rule of faith. p. 61. 151.
  • Teaching contrary to the Catholicke Church, how farre accursed. p. 106.
  • The Catholick Church is as wel in hea­uen as in earth. p. 6. 8.
  • Not visible. p. 209.
  • The Protestāts church Catholick. p. 408.
  • The Church what it is. pag. 6. 10. 26. 71. 150. 169. 170. 175. 199. 225. 393.
  • Not the Clergie onely. p. 71. 123. 131.
  • Papists define it with relatiō to the Pope of Rome. p. 200.
  • A Councel of Bishops y e Popish Church. p. 136. 150.
  • All professors are not the true Church. 177.
  • The congregation and gouernours are properly the Church where they liue. p. 148. 227.
  • [Page] Diuers significations of y e word Church. 127. 128. see Ecclesia.
  • All beleeuers. p. 120. 210.
  • The elect beleeuers liuing in the world. p. 201. 210.
  • Generally a companie, assembled or not assembled. p. 210.
  • Where the Church is to be sought p. 61.
  • To be knowne only by y e scriptures. p. 56
  • How it is to be knowne p. 221.
  • How the pillar and ground of truth. pa. 151. 152.
  • Built and founded vpon the truth. p 154.
  • The faith therof how far to be enquired after. p. 14.
  • The authoritie thereof how farre to be yeelded to. p. 45. 50 54. 91. 111. 151. 246. 250. 275.
  • A maine delusion and needlesse. p. 67. 72 90. 104. 238. 239.
  • Cannot make that damnable, which is not so of it selfe. p. 49.
  • Increaseth the sinne of not beleeuing, when it determineth truly p. 49.
  • Not spoken of in the old testament. p. 97
  • How far commended to vs by the Scrip­ture. p. 96. 97.
  • How Austin was moued to beleeue by the authoritie of the Church p. 93.
  • The authoritie of the Church is great in matters not to be decided by scrip­ture. p. 95. 96. 155. 250.
  • The testimonie and authoritie thereof is but humane. p. 242. 243.
  • What it is for a man to make himselfe iudge ouer the Church. p. 249.
  • Not to heare the Church. p. 147.
  • All Churches may erre. p. 6. 46. 135.
  • What is necessary to the being of a true Church. p. 239.
  • Many reprobates are members thereof according to the Papists. p, 164.
  • Outward profession enough to make a man a mēber thereof according to y e Papists. pa. 23. 123. 224. 264. 272. 350.
  • Why we ought to seeke for, and ioyne our selues to a true Church. p. 219. 234.
  • Gods true publicke worship cannot or­dinarily be performed but in a true Church. p. 219.
  • The Church not holding the foundatiō of y e Apostles doctrine is to be left. p. 14
  • Truth of doctrine in points fundamen­tal, a certaine marke of a true church. p 240. 249.
  • Succession to the Apostles in doctrine makes Churches Apostolicke. p. 301.
  • Was neuer without some diuersitie of opinions among the learned. p. 311.
  • The Church erred in diuers points within the first six hūdred years. p. 163.
  • How it is one. p. 158. 160. 201. 215. 263. 264. 266. 284. 309. 318.
  • The Protestants Church is one. p. 406. Adam, Abel, Enoch, &c. were of the Pro­testants Church. p. 341. 353.
  • No writer within the first thousand yeres agrees with the Papists of the Coun­cell of Trent in all points. p. 341.
  • The Popish Church hath not yet deter­mined all points. p. 14. 375.
  • The Church y t ignorant Papists beleeue, is a Priest or a Iesuit. p. 15. 16. 17. 71.
  • The Papists circle of the Scripture & the Church. p. 72. 91. 244. 246. 261. 413
  • How a whole Church may be counted holy. 271.
  • Many thousands neuer had knowledge of any Church. p 55,
  • No man can certainly know that there is any true Church but by the Scrip­tures. p 244.
  • The Church hath properly to do with none but Christians. p. 90. 193.
  • The Church was confined to Africke by the Donatists. p. 3. 173. 216. 288.
  • It is not all one to be in the Church and of the Church. p. 212.
  • What it is to sit in Moses chaire. p. 140. 141.
  • [Page] Who are meant by the Church belee­ued in the Creed. p. 157. 158. 168. 175 210.
  • The elect called are properly the church p. 158. 159. 165. 168. 211. 212. 213. 217 265.
  • That Church is not visible. p. 174. 177.
  • To that onely is continuance promised. p. 217.
  • The continuance of the Church depen­deth vpō her being ioyned to Christ. p. 168.
  • The Church in the Apostles time did not alwayes hold the same points of faith. p. 310.
  • To beleeue in the Church, were to equal it with God. p. 157.
  • The ceremonies before Christ were not continued without interruption. pag. 170. 227.
  • Communion with a Church may be re­fused by ignorance without pride. p. 275.
  • Confession to a minister neither com­manded nor forbidden by Protestant Churches. p. 342.
  • Popish confession rather prouokes men to sinne, then restraines them from it. 342. 343.
  • Credere Ecclesiam and Credere Ecclesiae, not all one but diuers. p. 156.
  • Credere Deum, Credere in Deum, differ very much, p. 156.
  • The perpetuall couenant. p. 178.
  • Christians how called Saints. p. 349.
  • What makes a man cease to be a Chri­stian. p. 273.
  • There is no constraint vsed toward the will, either in good or in euill. pag. 344.
  • How Constraint and Necessitie differ p. 344. 345.
  • Councels may erre. p. 260.
  • Are hard to be vnderstood, and may be misunderstood. p. 11. 12. 323.
  • Are bound to vse all meanes of disputa­tion to find out the truth. p. 13.
  • Deliuer some things as probable con­iectures. p. 12.
  • The course that hath bene and must al­wayes be held by Popish generall Councels. p. 330.
  • Whether the Councell be aboue the Pope or no, it is not determined. p. 14 15. 375.
  • The Councell hath often deposed the Pope. 324. 325.
  • The Councell of Constance makes the Pope subiect to the decrees of Coun­cels. p. 325.
  • The Councell of the Elders among the Iewes. p. 148.
D
  • What it is to denie Christ. p. 190. 191. Al­wayes damnable. p. 190.
  • Most deuotion in Popery, where there is least vnderstanding. p. 27.
  • Disputation about points of Diuinitie necessary. p. 13.
  • Dissention among Papists about mat­ters of faith. p. 321. 322. 324.
  • Bellarmine dissents in one point or o­ther from almost all learned Papists before him. p. 319.
  • Euery dissent in opiniō makes not chur­ches cease to be churches, or holy. p. 273.
  • Dissention is better then maintaining of false doctrine or worship. p. 319.
  • Doubting of some points, how it ouer­throwes not religion. p. 50.
  • How farre the doctrine of one that is lawfully sent, may be examined. pa. 253.
E
  • [...] what it signifieth. p. 128. Any assembly. pag. ead. Especially about matters of religion. p. ead. Generally all beleeuers. p. 129. 201. 210. Particu­larly seuerall congregations. p. 129.
  • [Page] How arguments may be drawne from those places where the word is vsed. p. 129. 130.
  • Ecclesiasticall gouernours to be obeyed when they commaund that which is right. p. 37.
  • The Elect before the coming of Christ were chosen ordinarily out of the Iews, since, out of the Gentiles. p. 207.
  • The Elect onely are truly called. p. 210. 211.
  • May fall into grieuous sin, and yet not cease to be elect. p. 211.
  • England not conuerted but peruerted by Austin the monke. p. 377.
  • Popish errors crept in by little and little vnperceiued. p. 382. 383. 387.
F
  • Diuers significations of faith. p. 6. 22. 28.
  • Faith is absolutely necessary to saluatiō. p. 22. 25. 26.
  • Faith for assent to the truth, what it is. p. 35. 319.
  • May be had without the autoritie of the Church, p. 104. 113.
  • Is in some greater, in some lesse. p. 31.
  • Goeth before iustifying faith. p. 33.
  • Is accompanied with doubting. p. 32. 33
  • Perfection thereof is to be labored for. p. 32.
  • Is tied to the Scripture, not to y e church. p. 46.
  • May come by the preaching of the schismaticks or heretickes. p. 34.
  • Not to be built on the testimonie of man. p. 329.
  • How it is one. p. 30. 31. 47. 51.
  • Entire and infallible faith necessarie to saluation. p. 73.
  • How faith may be begotten. p. 25. 26. 33 34. 60. 66. 75. 76. 113. 114. 235.
  • Is to be learned of the Ministers, not of the Church. p. 234.
  • Matters of faith according to Poperie. 311. 320.
  • Are indeede to be proued by scripture. p. 250. 319. 320.
  • Fundamentall points of faith. p. 40. 239.
  • Obstinately not beleeuing them dam­nable. p. 40.
  • No matter of faith according to Pope­rie, till within these last 800 yeares, 320. 321.
  • All popish faith dependeth vpon the au­thoritie of the Church. p. 25.
  • The rule of faith what properties it must haue. p. 61. 63. 64. 94. 108.
  • Easinesse to be vnderstood no propertie of the rule. p. 74 94.
  • How farre the rule need be vnderstood. p. 65 94.
  • All truth must be prooued by the rule. p. 84. 87. 115.
  • What points the rule must resolue, and how farre. p. 84.
  • Naturall wit and learning cannot be the rule of faith p. 98, 99, 100.
  • No priuate spirit can be the rule of faith 105.
  • The teaching of the Catholicke Church the rule of faith. p. 61. 122. 42.
  • He that hath Popish faith may be dam­ned. p. 23.
  • Iustifying faith, what it is. p. 24.
  • It is in the wil. p. 33.
  • The iust liues by faith; and where there is faith there is life. p. 273.
  • Liuely faith may be in him that is igno­rant, or misinstructed in many points. p 274.
  • The foundation of the Apostles doctrin is ouerthrowne by Poperie. p. 375.
  • Fasting not condemned, but especially commended by Protestants p. 342.
  • A Popish fast may be kept with glutto­nie and drunkennesse. p. 342. 366.
  • The interpretations of the Fathers reue­renced by the Protestants. p. 80.
  • Frieries and monasteries. p. 357.
  • Saint Francis fiue wounds. p. 358.
G
  • [Page]God calleth all men from damnation. p. 56.
  • Decreed all things, that are or shal come to passe. p. 345.
  • Worketh not alike in good and euill a­ctions. p. 345.
  • The glorie of God is the end of all reli­gion. p. 290. 296.
  • The heathen had one soueraigne God aboue all the rest. p. 387.
  • To whom the rest were mediators of intercession for their fauorites, as the Popish Saints are. p. 387.
  • How we may know, that there is a gos­pell. p. 245.
  • The doctrine of the Gospell is simply necessarie to saluation, not the books of the foure Gospels. p. 243.
  • The Gospell hung about the necke for a preseruatiue. p. 78.
  • Many nations in Austins time had not heard the Gospell. p. 55.
  • The Fathers thought the world should end presently after the preaching of the Gospell in all places. p. 55.
  • Many thousands died in the Apostles time, ere they could by any meanes heare of the Gospell. p. 181. 182. 183.
H
  • Herefie what it is. p. 220.
  • A worke of the flesh. p. 52. 118.
  • May be more generall, for a time, then true religion. p. 293.
  • No man can certainly know how long any heresie shall continue. p. 293.
  • Heresies spring from misunderstanding the Scripture. p. 119 300.
  • May by it be conuinced. p. 119.
  • Great hereticks haue had lawfull calling to the ministerie. p. 36. 411.
  • Hereticks pleade all for themselues, that Papists do. p. 119.
  • They that refuse to make triall of their doctrine by Scripture, are here­ticks. p. 220.
  • Some hereticks haue continued a long time in one and the same doctrine. p. 263.
  • Hereticks may be free from all grosse outward sinne. p. 275.
  • The first 400. yeares were most fruit­full in monstrous heresies. p. 305.
  • Some hereticall Churches, may be true Churches. p. 219.
  • Some heretickes could pleade personall succession from the Apostles. p. 299.
  • Any hereticall Church may haue as good meanes to end controuersies, as the Church of Rome hath. p. 313.
  • Holinesse whence it springeth. p. 21. 360.
  • Onely true inward holinesse can make a man a true Christian. p. 269.
  • Holinesse is resident onely in seuerall persons, not in a companie. p. 270. 249.
  • Is inuested in the Popes person. p. 356.
I
  • Comparison betwixt heathenish & Po­pish Idolatrie. p. 386. 387.
  • Distinction of Idoll and Image. p. 386.
  • Papists worship the Image it selfe. p. 386.
  • No religious vse of any Image to be al­lowed. p. 360.
  • Ignorance the strength of Poperie. p. 4. 70.
  • All ignorance is not heresie. p. 50.
  • How it shuts men out from saluation. p. 40. 44 49. 50. 274.
  • Ignorance can excuse no man, the Gos­pell being preached euerie where. p. 113.
  • Ieconiah childlesse. p. 39.
K
  • [...]. p. 283.
  • The keyes and power to bind and loose common to all the Apostles. p. 325. 326.
  • [Page] Why kings are called humane crea­tures. p. 274.
  • He refuseth not to be subiect to the king that doth not absolutely obey him in all things. p. 275.
L
  • The Lawe cannot be kept perfectly. p. 363.
  • How it is not gricuous. p. 363.
  • One learned mans iudgement often­times drawes many to it. p. 250.
  • The Leuen of the Pharisies what it is. p. 37. 141.
  • No life but in the bodie of Christ. p. 273
  • The light must shine to them that are in the house. p. 182.
  • The loue of God whence it ariseth. p. 20
  • Is not alike to all. p. 257.
M
  • Gregory Martins eauils were answered long since. p. 69.
  • Markes of the Church. p. 221. 222. 226. 259.
  • Must be proper to it always. p. 222. 280.
  • Easier to be knowne then the Church it selfe. p. 222. 223.
  • True doctrine in the fundamētal points is a sure marke of the Church. p. 228. 229. 301. 374. 375.
  • The Masse was brought in by peece meale. p. 384.
  • Ouergreat zeale of Martyrdome. p. 189
  • Messiah not Salomons sonne. p. 39.
  • The ministery, not the authority of men is vsed to beget faith. p. 6. 19. 234. 243 244.
  • Needful for the instruction of the igno­rant. p. 98.
  • No charge, practise or warrant for any vniuersal ministery since the Apostles time. p. 179.
  • Luthers preuailing in his ministery, and his preseruation wanted litle of a mi­racle. p. 355.
  • Ministers to be heard so farre as they speake according to the Scriptures. p. 36. 112. 137. 142. 146.
  • Yet lesse danger not to heare them so speaking, then not to heare the Apo­stles. p. 43 112.
  • Origen preached before he was a Mini­ster. p. 35.
  • Antichrists miracles. p. 114. 352.
  • Miracles are often counterfetted. p. 352. 358.
  • Preferred before the authoritie of the Church. p. 114.
  • The vse of miracles is to confirme do­ctrine, not to testifie of holinesse. pa. 172. 351.
  • There neuer was any true miracle wrought for confirmation of false doctrine. p. 115.
  • Miracles are not to be beleeued for any doctrine against Scripture. p. 115.
  • False miracles cannot alwayes be discerned by men. p. 115. 352. 353.
  • Luther and Caluin did not attempt the working of miracles. p. 355.
N
  • A naturall man what he is. p. 61. 236.
  • Absurdly called sensuall. pa. 60. 61. 236. 237.
  • May vnderstand the Scripture, though not beleeue it to saluation. p. 236.
  • Necessitie, not constraint taught by Pro­testants. p. 344, 345.
P
  • Papists treason. Nouemb. 5. 1605. pa. 8. 346. 347. 379.
  • The wickednesse of Papists testified by their owne writers. p. 340. 346.
  • Papists rest vpon the Pope and Coun­cels. p. 51. 312. Are Pharisaicall boa­sters. p. 338. 363.
  • No Papist holding the authoritie of the Church, and the impossibilitie of the Popes erring, can be a good Christian or a faithfull subiect. p. 72.
  • [Page] Papists not sonnes of God, but seruants of the law. p. 343. 364.
  • Papists count murdering of Princes a meritorious worke. p. 361.
  • Outward peace is not so t [...]ch worth, as that for it the Church should be cor­rupted with errors. p. 312.
  • Must be prouided for by the ciuill ma­gistrate. p. 312.
  • Saint Peter the Popes Lord. p. 388.
  • Why our Sauiour prayed especially for him. p. 326.
  • Why hee asked him thrice, if hee loued him. p. 327.
  • Peters accepting of the soueraigntie, a poore proofe of his loue to Christ. p. 327.
  • His superioritie was in respect of age. p. 315.
  • It is vncertaine whether euer he were at Rome or no. p. 328. 393.
  • The Pope the Papists Lord God. p. 112.
  • How he came to his height. p. 382.
  • Head of the Church, though he beleeue not in heart. p. 23.
  • He that is no Christian may be Pope of Rome. 23. 111.
  • The Pope cannot erre: p. 71.
  • Can shew no charter for his not erring. p. 37. 71. 72.
  • May erre, by the iudgement of Papists. p. 323.
  • Euen with a generall Councell. p. 330. 331.
  • It is not determined that the Pope alone cannot erre. p. 320.
  • Pope Iohn 22. doubted of the immor­talitie of the soule. p. 111.
  • Pope Leo 10. counted the historie of Christ a fable. p. 111.
  • Many Popes haue bene found to be A­postataes from the faith. p. 323, 324.
  • Many decrees of Popes are contrarie one to another. p. 324.
  • Pius 5. and Clement 8. [...]olue concer­ning the words of consecration con­trary to the Councell of Trent. pag. 324.
  • Popish religion cannot hold vp the head without the Popes authoritie. p. 108.
  • The Pope appoints the holy Ghost an office of his owne deuising. p. 388.
  • Our Sauiour and his Apostles hid them­selues from persecutors. p. 186.
  • No necessitie to worship God publikly in time of persecution. p. 190. 191.
  • The Pharises were blind guides. p. 249.
  • To what purpose our Sauiors perpetual presence serueth. p. 132.
  • Predestination doth not take away free will. p. 361.
  • Without true beleefe of predestination and iustification, there can hardly be any true religion. p. 290.
  • Prayer for the dead. p. 96.
  • How euery one that prayeth, receiueth. p. 116, 117.
  • Preaching the ordinarie means of faith. p. 113. 409.
  • No man might haue preached the Gos­pell without warrant from God. pag. 113.
  • How Luther may bee said to haue first preached Christ. p. 392.
  • Pride in opposition against a matter of doctrine, is sometimes in a sanctified man. p. 274.
  • What outward profession of religion is: how farre necessarie. p, 188, 189, 192.
  • What it is to confesse with the mouth. p. 191.
  • False Prophets to be knowne by their doctrine. p. 36.
  • How all prophesies in the scripture are alwayes true p. 206.
  • Purgatorie ends with the world. p. 365
Q
  • Questions of religion how to be deci­ded. pag. 61
R
  • [Page]Reason how farre it may be required in points of diuinitie. p. 16. 17. 18.
  • Light of reason cānot find out all things necessarie to saluation. p. 25.
  • The reason of Gods counsel and doings is oftentimes hid from men. p 204.
  • Nothing against reason is to be belee­ued without warrant frō God. p. 244.
  • The religion of the Popish Church at this day is fetched from the Councell of Trent. p. 358. 377.
  • Our Sauiour did not pray that the re­probate might be one with his father and him. p. 264.
  • Reuelation of the spirit required by the Papists to beleeue that the Scriptures are the word of God. p. 245.
  • The Church of Rome sometimes a true Church. p. 338.
  • Rome was not built in a day. p 382.
S
  • What is absolutely necessary to saluatiō. p. 46. 55. 59. 65. 77. 188. 243. 319.
  • Assurance of saluation. p. 150. 354.
  • Sufficient meanes of saluation prouided for euery man. p. 53. 55. 58.
  • Euery man hath not the meanes. p. 57.
  • God will haue all men to be saued, not euery man. p. 53. 55. 57. 58. 203. 257.
  • The meanes of saluation by Christ are such as no man could deuise. p. 102. 103. 113. 235.
  • May be knowne what they are by the Scriptures without faith, but not ac­knowledged to be true without faith. p. 235. 236.
  • Contempt or neglect of some things not absolutely necessary to saluation, may yet depriue a man of it p. 188.
  • The graces of sanctification shall make the enemies of Gods children ac­knowledge them. p. 179.
  • That this mā is saued rather then that, it proceedeth frō the wil of God. p. 203.
  • Sacrament what it is. p. 385.
  • Administration of the sacraments not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church. p. 226. 227.
  • All things that belong to the right ad­ministration of the sacraments, are set downe in Scripture. p. 230.
  • There haue bin 32. schismes in the Ro­mish Church. p. 393.
  • None are properly schismatickes but they that refuse cōmunion with some true church. p. 275.
  • Schoole-mens writings full of needlesse and endlesse questions. p. 20.
  • All the schoolmen haue refuted some of their fellows, or bin refuted by them. p 313.
  • Interprete and apply the scripture falsly. p. 118.
  • Scribes why so called. p. 140.
  • What is meant by Christs sheepfold. p. 265.
  • Similitudes how they argue. p. 50.
  • Scripture the epistle of the Creator to the creature. p. 81.
  • Acknowledged by Protestants and Pa­pists to be the word of God. p. 87. 42.
  • May be knowne to be so, by the matter. p. 89.
  • Written for the instruction of all. p. 74. 79. 82.
  • Of greater authority then any mans wri­tings, or then all mens. p. 241.
  • The bounds of the Church. p. 61.
  • Ignorance thereof the cause of all euils. p. 119.
  • Condemned by the Papists of hardnesse and vncertaintie, and vnsufficiency. p. 11. 73. 79. 22 [...].
  • Are not hard. p. 74. 75. 76. 77. 82. 94.
  • Papists blasphemies against the Scrip­ture. p. 42. 5 [...]. 81.
  • Depriuing the people of them. p. 52.
  • Hard places of Scripture must be ex­pounded by the plaine. p. 79.
  • [Page] Some places of Scripture so plaine, that they cannot be mistaken. p. 79.
  • Why some places of Scripture are hard, some easie. p. 76. 82.
  • Scripture expoundeth it selfe. p. 82.
  • Reading thereof may breed faith: how? p 25, 26. 34, 35, 36. 75, 76. 114. 235.
  • Exposition of the scripture not tied to the senses of the fathers. p. 121
  • No exposition to bee thrust vpon the church, that cannot euidently be pro­ued. p. 122.
  • The scriptures left instead of the Apo­stles, to be aduised with in all points of faith. p 97.
  • May be vnderstood by naturall wit and learning. p. 102. 103.
  • Papists glad to flie to the priuate teach­ing of the spirit to know the scriptures. p. 72. 245.
  • Scripture why called Canonicall. p 106.
  • Christians doubting of the scripture, how to be dealt withall. p. 90.
  • Atheists in the same question how to be dealt withall. p. 90 92.
  • Knowledge of scripture to be laboured for. p. 20. 74.
  • How far the scripture must be knowne before the church. p. 244. 247.
  • Many things required to the perfect vn­derstanding thereof. p. 73. 81, 82.
  • This word Expresly foisted in by the Papists into the question of the scrip­ture. p. 88, 89, 100.
  • The Hebrew and Greeke originals re­iected by the Papists. p. 52.
  • Interpretation of scripture. p. 73. 80. 82. 92. 101. 118. 120. 121.
  • Scripture an absolute rule for saluation. p. 7. 17. 96. 97. 322.
  • How alone sufficient to saluation. p. 65. 66. 73. 78 96. 97.
  • Sufficient for all matters of faith and maners. p. 56. 67. 68. 83. 86. 87. 89. 94. 250. 260. 314 395.
  • All parts of scripture not true in like sense, nor of like necessitie to be be­leeued p. 38
  • By what argumēt the spirit perswades vs that the scripture is from God. p 245.
  • Priuat spirit when to be reiected p. 120.
  • What spirits are to be tried p. 252.
  • Who are to trie them. p. 254.
  • Sins of infirmitie lesse hainous then sins of wilfulnesse. p. 344.
  • Suspition without iust cause against christianitie and ciuilitie. p. 72.
  • What succession is to be esteemed. p 2. 393. 394.
  • Succession no good mark of the church. p. 394, 395.
  • Protestants haue succession, if Papists haue it. p. 392. 409.
T
  • The English Translation reproued. p. 66
  • Defended. p. 69. 70.
  • Not held by vs to be infallible. p. 68. 94.
  • The Rhemish Translation hard to be vnderstood p. 70.
  • The vulgar Translation corrupt in eight thousand places, by the iudgement of a learned Papist. p. 52,
  • Doubts concerning it. p. 71.
  • The generall Analysis of the Treatise. p. 4. 5.
  • The summe of it. p. 54.
  • What Traditions are to be held for A­postolicall. p. [...]5.
  • The spirit is to teach all truth: how? p. 130
  • God doth not miraculously reueale all truth at once to any man. p. 313.
  • Truth manifested by one simple man, is to be preferred before the iudgment of neuer so many wise and learned in a Councell. p. 249. 250.
  • Truth must be receiued, though deliue­red by euill men. p. 143. 144.
  • Beleefe of euery truth is required as a dutie of sanctification. p. 274.
  • The truth hath had witnesse of men [Page] from time to time. p. 205.
  • From whom truth is hid. p 82.
  • Euidence of truth, not visibilitie of the church the means of conuersion. p. 204
  • The speedie conuersion of great multi­tudes by preaching, a great argument of truth. p. 205.
  • Truth with contention is better then a­greement with Antichristianisme p. 317
  • Without truth the greatest agreement is but a conspiracy against God. p. 317.
V
  • The Protestants Churches haue meanes to continue vnitie. p. 314.
  • Vniuersalitie. p. 65. Cannot be seene but onely conceiued. p. 177. No certaine marke of the Church. p. 293.
  • The state of the question concerning the visibility of the Church. p. 197. 209. 219
  • Visibilitie of the Church. p. 174. 176. 198 202. 20 [...]. 214.
  • A Church may for a time be inuisible: how? p. 202.
  • And yet the flock and Pastor know each other. p. ead.
  • Why it was necessarie that the churches at the first should be visible. p. 204. 205
  • The Catholicke Church inuisible. p. 209
  • To whom the churches are visible. p. 216
  • Voluntas signi, beneplaciti. p. 58. 59.
W
  • The will of God ought to be a sufficient reason of his doings to all men. p. 204
  • Mans free-will preferred before Gods glorie by the Papists. p. 361.
  • Men commonly wonder at that they vnderstand not. p. 27.
  • Good workes shall be rewarded, though not vpon desert. 343.
  • Good workes are not made meritorious by being dipt in Christs bloud. p. 365.

Faults escaped.

Page. 61. line. 16. for seene, read said p. 69. l. 9. for which, r. with. p. ead. l. 11. Isidorus Clarius, put out the comma. p 74. l. 4. in the marg for 13. r. 130. p. 80. l. vlt. for with. r which. p. 92. l. 28. for be, r. he. p. 93 l 26. for yours, r. you p. 96. l. vlt. for expresly. r. properly. p. [...]7. l. 19 for rule, r. vse. p. 119. l. 24. put out, say. p. 134. l. 17. in the mar. for vli. r. vbi. p. l. 1. in the marg. for 2, r. 1. p. 163. l. 10. for Church, r. Churches. p. ead. l. 13. for it, r. they. p. 180. l. 17. for haue men, r. haue all men. p. 144. l. 7. in the marg. for lib, r. lit. p. 223. l. 35. for hereticke, r. hereticks. p. 292. l. 5 in the marg, for Thophyl, r. Theophyl. p. 316. l 4. in the marg for Goulact, r. Goulart. p. 292. l. 27. for from, r. for. p. 298. l. 5. for intend, r. intended. p. 302. l. 27. for it self, r. in it selfe. p. 307. l. 8. put out, in. p. 309. l. 20. for Christians, r. Christian. p. 321. l 22. for you, r. your. p. 331. l. vlt for implied, r. applied p. 339. l. 20. for and setled, r and partly setled. p. 347. l. 22. for his, r. a Popes. p. 347. l. 23. for his Maisters, r. Pius 5. his. p. 352. l. 27. for rrow. r. trow. p. 354 l. 34 for be, r. he. p 367. l. 31. for is, r. it. p. 371. l. 17. for led, r. ved. p. 378. l. 1. for Ethelbat, r. Ethelbert. p. 380. l. 8. for and the, r. and because the. p. 384. l. 4. put out at. 386. l. 22. for purpose, r. purple. p. 412. l. 30. for we, r. were.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.