THE STATE OF THE question concerning the Infa­libilitie of the Church, explicated. FIRST CHAPTER.

IN the former part of this work, which was of the distinction of fundamental and not fun­damental points of faith I shewed, that there are no such fundamental points of faith as Pro­testants imagin, to wit, such, as if [Page 22] they be beleued, suffice to haue a sauing beleefe, to be a true member of the Church, and to be in the way of saluation; though other points of faith sufficiently proposed, be not beleued: nor any such not fundamen­tal points of faith, as, if they be suffi­ciently proposed, be not necessarie and fundamental to a sauing faith, to a true member of the Church, why treated of the suffi­cient Propo­ser. and to the way of saluation, but that a sufficient proposal of what points of faith soeuer, doth binde to beleue them al, and euerie one of them vnder pain of losse of sauing faith, of being a true member of the Church, and of being in the way of saluation: It remaineth, that we she [...] who is this [...]l-sufficient Proposer of points of faith, and which is a suffi­cient Proposal of them. And be­caus (as we shal proue hereafter) the Church is this Al-sufficient ex­ternal Proposer of points of faith, and that she cannot be such, vnless she be infallible in al points of faith, it is requisit before we proceed [Page 23] to explicate, what we vnderstand by the Church, what by her infalli­bilitie, what by matters of faith, and what by, necessarie to al and euerie one.

2. First therefore by the Church, what is me­ant by The Church. we vnderstand not anie particular Church whatsoeuer, either of the cittie of Rome, or of anie particu­lar Prouince, and m [...]ch less anie particular person what soeuer, but only the whole vniuersal or Catho­like Church of Christ, and we only [...]n quire, whether she be infalli­ble in al points, vhich she teacheth as points of diuine faith, not regar­ding for this present, whether also anie particular Church, or person be infallible, or no, becaus it wil suffice to our purpose, that the who­le Church be so infallible; and also because the infallibilitie of anie par­ticular Church or person may be disputed, salua fidei compage as S. Au­gustin speaketh.

3. The second point to be explica­ted, what by in­fallibiliti [...]. is Infallibilitie, by which we [Page 24] mean not freedome both from al actual error, and also from al possi­bilitie of error, as is in God, euen by his nature: but only freedome from al actual error in matters of faith, by Gods efficacious assistan­ce, Bellarm. l 6. degra [...]s 4. Gr [...]tia effi cax adiun­ct [...]m. habet infallibilita­tem, non necessitatem. abstracting, whether there be also freedome from al possibilitie of error, in such matters, or no. And this is that kinde of infallibilitie which we attribute to Gods true Church, and which is both neces­sarie and sufficient to her for to be a fit external proposer of faith. Ne­cessarie, becaus if she were not in so­me sort infallible in matters of faith, her proposal of such matters would not be sufficient to engender infal­lible faith of them. And also suffi­cient to be an external Proposer of such matters, subordinat to God, who is the principal proposer of them. For as it implieth contradi­ction, that diuine faith should bele­ue any thing that is not true: so li­kewise it implieth contradiction, that she, who by Gods assistance is [Page 25] free from al actual errors in matters of faith, should act [...]ally errin them▪ and therefore she is a sufficient ex­ternal ground and pillar to stand or relie vpon And hence it appeareth, See infra c. 9. n. 3. how superfluous it were to proue, that the Church hath no possi­bilitie to err, ether near, or remote, in matters of faith, seing freedome from actual error in them by Gods efficacious assistance, sufficeth to an external proposer of them. And that the true Church of God hath this kinde of freedome from error in matters of faith, is clear by Christs promises, by the testimonies of the Prophets and Apostles, by the at­testation of the holie Fathers, by the light of reason, and by the con­fessions (some times) of the lear­nedest Protestants, as we shal shew hereafter.

4. The third particle to be explica­ted, wha [...] is meāt by matters of faith. is Matters of faith. By which we mean only such matters, as the Church proposeth to be beleued with diuine faith, not such, as she [Page 26] proposeth to be beleued with hu­mane faith, as are the liues of saints in the Breuiarie, their miracles, Re­liques, a [...]d such like.

5. The fourth particle is necessarie what by Ne­cessarie to saluation. to saluation, In which particle Potter sec. 5. p. 16 19. 21. laude sec. 21. p. 140. [...]60. & seqq. Pro­testants commonly agree with Ca­tholiks in words, that the Church is infallible, but indeed they desa­gree two ways. For first, they mean on [...]ly such points of faith as by rea­son of the matter, are whitaker cont. 2. q. 4. l. 2. Caluin. 4. Institut. c. 8. potter sec. 5. p. 19. 23. laude. p. 355 357. 358. absolutely necessarie, as the passion and Resur­rection of Christ, and such like, and not also such, as are necessarie to Sal­uation, by reason they are clearly reuealed by God, and sufficiently proposed to vs. For Catholiks hold, that the Church is infaillible in matters of faith which are any way necessarie to Saluation, though only by reason of their clear reuela­tion and sufficient proposal. Becaus, if we beleue not al things (litle or­great) clearly reuealed by God, and sufficiently proposed to vs as from God, we doe not beleue God to be [Page 27] faithful in al his words, which yet to beleue is most necessarie to sal­ [...]ation. Secondely Potter sec 5. p. 2 [...]. 89. laude p. [...]7 165. Caluin. Admon [...]s. vlt. p. 3 [...]2. marty [...]. la [...]. 4. c. 10. Protestants dif­fer from Catholiks, in that they doe not beleue al points of faith (euen such as are necessarie to be beleued on [...]ly by reason of their clear reuela­tion sufficienly proposed) to be ne­cessarie to the wel being of faith, euen by reason of the matter which they conte [...]ne; when as indeed al points of faith are necessarie to the better being or perfection of faith, euen by reason of the matter which they contein. For as in natural things, God doth not giue what is superfluous both to their being, and also to their wel being, or perfe­ction: so nether doth he in superna­tural matters, as are points of faith. Whererpon the Apostle. 1. Thessal. 3. desired to add somethings, which were wanting to their faith and yet (doubtless) nothing was wanting to the verie being of their sauing faith, but only to the wel being or perfection thereof. And Ephes. 4. he [Page 28] saith, that God gaue Pastors to the consummation or perfection of Saints. Wherfore, as far as the bet­ter being, or perfection of Christian faith, or consummation of Saints reacheth, so far also reacheth the infallibilitie of the Church. And when some Catholiks say, that the Church is infallible onely in things ne­cessarie to saluation, as Canus l. 5. lo­co. 5. Stapleton Controu. 4. q. 2. ad quartum argumentum; and Bellar­min l. 4. de Pontifice c. 5. they doe not mean, as some Potter sec. 5. p. 16. 17. 22. 29. Protestants think, that she is infallible in things merely fundamental, which are necessarie to saluation by reason of the matter, or necessitate medij (as the principal points of faith are ne­cessarie) but of things, which are any way necessarie to saluation, ei­ther by reason of their matter, and their reuelation also, or by reason of their reuelation only, as other The Church infallible o­nely in things some way ne­cessarie. points of faith are necessarie: and al­so which are necessarie ether to the verie being, or to the berter being [Page 29] of saluation, by reason of their mat­ter, as al points of faith are necessa­rie. For in al things, which are anie way necessarie to saluation, and one­ly in things which are some way ne­cessarie to saluation God hath giuen Infallibilitie to his Church. Becaus (as I said) as in natural things he faileth not in any thing, which is anie way necessarie to their being, or better being, so nether doth he faile or abound in supernatural things, as is saluation.

6. The last particle to be explica­ted, whas meant by al and euerie one. is, To al and euerie one. In which Protestants differ from Catholicks, becaus they attribute Infallibilitie to the Church, onely in things Potter sec. 5. p. 19. 29. abso­lutly necessarie to al mens faluation, as Laude speaketh Relat. p. 355. or in things absolutly necessarie in them­selues, as he speaketh ibid. [...]p. 357. and generally Protestants say, the Church is infallible b [...]t in, funda­mental points, by which they mean onely such, as are necessarie to euerie Christian; as Potter saieth sect. 7. [Page 30] p. 74. not such, as are necessarie one­ly to some. But seing Christ hath instituted his Church as a necessarie mean to saue al, and euerie kinde of men she must needs be as in fallible in matters, which are necessarie for the saluation onely of some, as she is in matters which are necessarie for the saluation of al. For els he should faile in a necessaire meanes for the saluation of some kinde of men, which were impious to think, seing he came to saue al kinds of men; and therfore he hath made his Church infallible, as wel in matters of faith, which are necessarie onely to the saluation of some kindes of men, as which are necessarie to al kinds of men. And this is so euident, as whi­taker Controu. 2. q. 4. c. 2. confes­ [...]eth, that in things necessarie to anie, The ful sense of this que­stion. the Church erreth not. So that our meaning in this question of the in­fallibilitie of the Church, is, that the Catholick or vniuersal Church (throughe Gods efficatious assistan­ce) certainly or infallibly neuer er­reth [Page 31] in anie point necessarie to sal­uation, ether for the matter and diuine reuelation too, or onely for diuine reuelation, sufficiently pro­posed; or necessarie ether to the being, or wel being of faith, ether of al men, or of anie kinde of men. So that in what point soeuer, which is anie way necessarie to saluation, ether of al, or of anie men, the Church infallibly neuer erreth through Gods efficatious assistan­ce of her, which assistance Christ hath most clearly promised to her, as he hath promised to her remis­sion of al sinnes, and Protestants might as wel question her power for remission of some kindes of sin­nes, as question her infallibilitie in some points of faith.

SECOND CHAPTER. In vvhich are laid dovvn rational grounds of that, vvhich vve shal say of the Infallibilitie of the Church in matters of faith.

1. THe first ground is, that only Onely Gods word, can be beleued with diuine faith. Quomodo credet, quem non aud [...]e runt Rom. 10. the word of God, or what is said of God, can be the material obiect, or that, which is beleeued with diuine faith. This is euident, becaus only that word, which im­plieth contradiction to be fals, can be the material obiect of diuine faith, which implieth contradiction to beleeue aniething, that is nottrue: and such only, is the word of God, and no word of man, or of anie crea­ture. And hence il followeth, tha [...] Protestants cannot beleue with di­uine saith, either of these proposi­tions: The Bible, is the word of God: The present copies of the Bible, are [Page 33] couformable to the original. For Chillinh. c. [...] p 90. la [...]d [...] sect. 16. p 69. 70 [...]. 117. Hoober l. 2. §. [...]. Beza in Rom. 1. [...]ee l. 2. c. 15. n. 8. and c. 5. sest. 1. they maintein, that the scripture is the sole, and adaequat obiect of diuine faith, and confessing (which is euident) that neither of the said propositions is in scripture, nor is anie written word of God they must needs also confess, that they haue no diuine faith of the said propositions. Whe­refore thus I argue in forme against them: Onely the scripture or writ­ten word of God is the material obiect of diuine faith. The said pro­positions are no scripture, or writ­ten word of God. Therefore they are no material obiect of diuine faith.

2. The second ground is, that one­ly Onely Au­thoritie or veracitie, the form [...]l cause of bel [...]ef. Authoritie or veracitie, can be the formal obiect, or formal cause of anie beleef whatsoeuer. This also is euident. For as the Apostle saieth Rom. 10. faith is of hearing, and S. Austin lib. de vtil. cred. c. 11. That we beleue, we ow [...] to authoritie; that we Know, to reason. Which he hath also lib. de vera Religione c. 24. And [Page 34] it is confessed by Protestants For thus Whitaker l. 3. de scriptuta p. 408. Faith surely relieth vpon Autho­ritie-Authoritie is the foundation of faith; And p. ibid. principium cre­dende ab externa authoritate pen­det. 509. To beleue, s [...]me Authoritie is necessarie, nor can anie thing be be­leued, without Authoritie. And l. 1. p. 50. That thou saiest, our faith relieth vpon testmonies, not vpon arguments, I grant Laude Relat. sec. 38. p. 345. We doe not beleue one article of faith by fallible authoritie of humane dedu­ctions. And heereupon they define diuine faith, to be an Assent to diuine reuelations, vpon the authoritie of the reuealer. And hence it followeth, that Protestants cannot beleue ei­ther Melanc­tho [...] in proe­di [...]amento qualita [...]is. [...]hillingw. c. 11. p. 35. Protest [...]nts can haue no formal faith of theyr bi­bles The Bible to be the word of God, or Their copies thereof, to be incorrupt, for anie light they conceaue to be in them, or for the maiestie or stile of them, or for the excellencie of the matter, becaus none of these, is anie formal Authoritie, or veracitie, but they are qualities of the word [Page 35] of God, which qualities may cause Knowledg or opinion (according­ly as they are certain, or only pro­bable signs of Gods word) but can­not cause formal faith. And that Protestants haue not formal faith of the scripture, they seem some times to confess. For thus laude Relat. Protestant last resolu­tion, is into arguments▪ sect. 1 [...]. p. 83. 84. 85. 101. He that be­leues, [...]esolues his last and full assent, T [...]at the scripture is of diuine authoritie, into internal arguments found in the letter it self, Loe, Protestants last resolution, is not into authoritie, but into arguments. And Pottersec. 5. p. 8. That the scripture is of diuine authoritie, the beleuer seeth, [...]y that glorious beam of diuine light Laudep. 8 [...]. 114. 115. 118. 121. 123. 3 [...]0. which shines in scripture, and by manie inter­nal arguments found in the letter it sel­fe Whitaker. lib. 1. de script. p. 15. We beleue, for the truth of the thing, which is taught, or for the diuinitie of the doctrine it self. So also pag. 56. 88. Which is in effect to confess, that they do not formally beleue, but [Page 36] know, or (as Potter speaketh) see, that the bible is of diuine authoritie because their assurance, that the bible is of diuine authoritie, is not lastly resolued into authoritie, but into arguments taken out of scrip­ture, or into the ligh [...]e, the diuini­tie or truth of the doctrin in it; whe­reas faith, is not lastly resolued into arguments, or truth, or light, but Fides est non apparentium Heb. 11. into authoritie, nor is discursiue, but is a simple assent (of things not appearing) for authoritie.

3. The third ground is, that only diuine Authoritie or veracitie, can be anie true formal obiect, or for­mal cause of diuine faith. This li­kewise is euident: For humane or fallible authoritie is not sufficient to cause diuine and infallible faith. Be­caus the authoritie, for which we beleue, must be (at least) as sure, as our beleef: like as the premises for which we know the conclusion, must be as sure, as the conclusion. And no See infra 12. c. 8. s [...]c. [...]. authoritie but diuine, can be so sure, as diuine faith is, which [Page 37] implieth contradiction to be false. And this Protestants confess. For thus Whitaker l. 3. de scriptura p. sic etiam p. 509. 415. Such as the doctrin and reli­gion is, which we profess, heauenly and diuine, such also must the rea­son and authoritie of beleuing be. And p. 392. Our faith must rely vpon an ex­ternall infallible means. And l. 1. p. 166. The effect doth not surpass the cau­se. Potter sect. 5. p. 40. diuine faith must haue a diuine foundation. And Chillingw. c. 2. n. 154. None can build an infallible faith, vpon motiues, that are not infallible, as it were a great and heauie burden, vpon a foun­dation, that hath not strength propor­tionable. And the same saieth laude sec. 16. n. 5. sec 33 p. 248. Potter sec. 5. p. 7. Field l. 4. of the Church c. 2. and others. And hence we inferre, that the authoritie or testimonie of the church, in matters of faith, is diuine, becaus (as we shal See infr [...]. c. 15. n. 6. proue, and Protestants sometimes confess) it is a true cause of diuine faith.

4. The fourth ground is; that for [Page 38] the authoritie of Gods church to be diuine, it need not rely vpon imme­diat reuelation from God, but his special and effectuall assistance wil suffice thereto. First, becaus it can­not be proued, that immediat reue­lation is absolutely necessarie. Se­condly, it were derogatorie to Gods omnipotencie, as if he could not make anie infallible, but in one manner. Thirdly, becaus S. c. 1. v 3. f L [...]ude sec. 16. p. 91. Luke professeth, that what he wrote, was by hear-say of such as had con­uersed with Christ. Fourthly, be­caus Protestants some times con­fess, that such, and so great assistance of Christ, and of the holie Ghost, as is purposely giuen to that effect, is enough to make the authoritie of anie companie of men, diuine and infallible.

5 The fist ground is; that an au­thoritie Authoritie truly [...]n ne▪ is a sufficient external cause of diuine faith. diuinely infallible may be a sufficient external formal cause of diuine faith, subordinat to Gods au­thoritie, which is the principal for­mal cause thereof. This is certain. For what greater certaintie, or in­fallibilitie [Page 39] can diuine faith require in its external and subordinat cau­se, then to be truly diuine. Becaus al diuine authoritie, effectually as­sisted by God, to tell nothing, but truth neuer lieth, as diuine faith, is neuer fals: and therefore is a suffi­cient foundation (external and sub­ordinat to Gods authoritie) on which diuine faith may rely.

6. The sixt ground is, that veritie, Verities di­stinct from vera [...]itie or authoritie. is distinct from Authoritie and vera­citie. For veritie, is the material object of faith, and that which faith beleueth: Authoritie, or veracitie is the formal obiect, or that for which faith beleueth veritie. Wherefore veritie cannot be beleued for it self; both because it hath not of it self the formal cause of beleef, which is Authoritie or veracitie, as also, be­caus that veritie which faith bele­ueth, hath not of it self any motiue to procure assent, because it is vn­seen and vnapparent in it self, and Formal Au­thoritie or veracit [...]e, is no [...] in words or writings. onely is apparent in Authoritie.

7. The seauenth ground is, that [Page 40] though veritie can be in words or writings, as in signs thereof, yet Authoritie or ver [...]citie (which is the formal cause of beleuing veritie) cannot be in words or in writings taken by themselues For Authoritie is in some Author, and veracitie in one that is verax, and euerie Author or vera [...], is some intellectual person who vttereth veritie, and who, for his authoritie, or veracitie, deser­ueth, and causeth beleef of that The formal cause of faith is the autho­ritie of the reuealer. veritie, which he vttereth. Besi­des, diuine faith (as al dogrant) is beleef of some diuine truth reuealed, for the authoritie of the reuealer, or as Chillingworth c. 1. p. 35. saieth, an assentto diuine reuelation, vpon the authoritie of the reuealer. And the sa­me saieth laude sec. 38. p. 344. Potter sect. 5. p. 3. and others. But a Re­uealer, is a person intelligent. The­refore the authoritie of some per­son intelligent, is the formal cause of faith: and not anie words or wri­tings, which are rather the exter­nal reuelation, then the reuealer. And hence it is, that though in holie [Page 41] Scripture, there be diuine veritie, and that which is to be beleued with diuine faith, yet if scripture be taken alone by it self meerely, as it is such words, or writings, it hath no formal authoritie or veracitie to cause its veritie to be beleued. For as such, it is neither anie intelle­ctuall person, nor hath any intel­lectuall person adioned to it, for whose authoritie it should be bele­ued. Wherefore wel said Staple­ton Controu. 3. q. 1. ar. 2. credimus scripturam, non scripturae, becaus scripture hath in it self truth, which is beleued, but not authoritie, for which it is beleued. And likewise wel wrote Chillingw. c. 2. p. 69. That the diuinitie of a writing, cannot Note this. be known for it self alone, but by some extrinsecal authoritie, you need not proue, for no wise man denieth it. And ibid. p. 114. A written rule, must al­ways need something els, which either is euidently true, or euidently credible, to giue attestation to it. And laude sect. 16. p. 88. Scripture cannot bear witnes [Page 42] to it self, nor one part of it, to an other. The same saieth Hooker. l. 2. §. 4. And See infra. l. 1. c. 14. Protestants generally con­fess, that the scripture cannot be beleued of vs, without the attesta­tion of the Church. The true cause whereof is, that scripture of it self, hath no authoritie, but al the autho­ritie for which it is beleued, is out of it self, to wit, in God who is au­thor of it, and in his Church, who is witnes to it. And when graue au­thors attribute authoritee to the scri­pture, ether by authoritie, they mean veritie, or they take not scripture by it sels alone, but as it is the scrip­ture of God. As in like manner they say, the scripture sai [...]th this, teacheth this, affirmeth this, speaketh this, meaning God, by scripture. But Gods authoritie alone doth not (in ordinarie course) engender faith, and we seeke that authoritie on earth, without which Gods autho­ritie alone, wil not (in ordinarie course) engender diuine faith of the scripture, or of any thing els, which [Page 43] authoritie euidently and confessed­ly, is not in the scripture it self.

8. The eight ground is, that to a Four things in a proposer Proposer of points of faith properly so called, there be long foure things. 1. is, his person, 2. his Authoritie to propose such matters. 3. his proposal, which is his words or writings. And 4 the truth proposed and signified by his words or writings. For a Pro­po [...]er of matters of faith, is a Prea­cher, who proposeth or preacheth ether by word onely (as most of the Apostles did,) or by writings also, as S. Paul, and some other Apostles Netherwords nor writings are proposers. did. And as their words were no Proposers, but that, by which they proposed, so nether were theire writings anie Proposers, but were that▪ by which they proposed. And of all the four said things, only the twoe last are in the scripture, and therefore it cannot be properly the Propos [...]r of faith, but onely the Pro­posal, if we consider the words: and the Proposed, if we consider the truth which the words signifie. But al the [Page 44] foure, are in the Church of God. And Protestants cannot denie, that she is a person, or persons; nor that her words or writings, are her Pro­posals, or the truth signified by them, her truth Proposed. Nether do they whereim, Protestants grant diuine authoritie to the Ch [...]r [...]h. deny, that she hath diuine authori­tie to propose matters of faith, as to teach Gods word, and administer his Sacraments, giuen to her in the last of S. Mathew: onely they de­nie, that her authoritie to testifie or persuade that, which she teacheth, is infallible, and sufficient (as an external and subordinat cause) to engender diuine beleef of what she teacheth. In which they do not con­sequently why Prote­stants de not speake conse­quently. proceed. For first, how can the authoritie of the Church be diuine in proposing Gods word 1 and be not infallible in proposing it secondly, how can she haue diuine and infallible authoritie to preach Gods word, and not haue the like 2 authoritie to testifie and perswade, that it is Gods word, which she preacheth, seing persuation, that [Page 45] it is Gods word which she prea­cheth Persuasion is the end of preaching. is the end of her preaching, as is euident, and Whitaker con­fesseth in these words l. 2. de scrip­tura p. 281. Preaching, is instituted for persuation? Would God giue to his Church, diuine auctoritie for the means, and not for the end? seing The end mo­re desired then [...] the means. euerie rational desirer, desireth mo­re the end then the means? Thirdly, Protestants grant, that God hath giuen diuine authoritie to the Pa­stors of his Church, for to gouern her. Whitaker l. 2. de scrip. p. 246. Ministers of the Church, are i [...]strvments of the holy Ghost, endu [...]d with diuine authoritie to gouern the Church, com­mitted to them. And if Pastors haue di­uineauthoritie to gouern the Church haue they not also diuine authori­tie to persuade her, that it is Gods word, which they teach her? Is not diuine authoritie, as necessarie to Pastors for to persuade the Church, as to gouern it? and right beleef, as necessarie to the Church, as good gouernment? More ouer Chillingw▪ c. 2. p. 105. Prote­stants [Page 46] generally confess, that the church of God, is infallible in fun­damental points, and so infallible, that it implieth contradiction, that she should err in them. And how can she be so infallible in them, and be not infallible by Gods special and effectual assistance? can the church of her own nature or power, be in­fallible in such high matters aboue nature and reason? Nay it seems so absurd euen to Protestants themsel­ues, to deny the church of God to ha­ue diuine authoritie to testifie Gods truth, as sometimes they deny it, but restritctly, as Laude sec. 16. 19. and 10. that it is not simpl [...] di­uine, not absolutely diuine, or that she is not Potter sec. 5. p. [...]5. I whitaker. Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. absolutly infallible, and con­fess, that the iudgment of the church, is in some sorte diuine, and call it a slander, that they say, the iudgment of the church is meer humane. But in truth they make her authoritie in matters of faith, meer humane, yea less, and none at al. For thus Whi­taker Contr. 1. q. 5. c. 10. In the church thou shalt finde nothing, but humane, [Page 47] and therefore vncertain l. 3. de script. p. 395. The perpetual testimonie of the church, as far as it is of the Church, is but humane testimonie p. 327. The te­stimonie of the church, of it self, is wholy and meerly humane. And l. 1. p. 112. The authoritie of the matters of the church, is of no moment p. 16. An Protestants deny all au­thoritie of the Church, in matters of faith. argument, taken from the bare testimo­nie of the Cburch to confirme anie point of faith, is fond, vnfit, and vnforcible to perswade. l. 3. p. 482. The testimonie of the church, vnles it be strengthned by scripture, is not worth a farthing, in matters of faith. And l. 2. p. 235. The Church hath no authoritie in mat­ters of faith, but all is Gods alone. And ibid. In matters of faith and en­gendring faith, the Church hath no au­thoritie at all. And to this blasphe­mous denial of the churches autho­ritie in matters of faith, See infra c. 16. n. 5. Chil­lingworth addeth, that no certain Church, vniuersal, or particular, is infallible euen in fundamental points, but onely, that there shal be always some vncertain men, [Page 48] who shal hold al the fundamental points.

3. The ninth ground is, that as the Apostles may be considered as they were so manie honest men, and [...]o, no doubt, theyr authoritie was but humane: or as Apostles diuinely as­sisted in matters of faith and so their authoritie was diuine, as Protestants confess, infra c. 4. so the church of God, may be considered, as so ma­nie honest and vertuous men, and so, doubtles, her authoritie is but humane, and fallible: or as she is the Church of God, the pillar and ground of truth, guided by Christ her head, and effectually assisted by the holie Ghost; and so we say her authoritie in matters of faith, is di­uine and infallible, though not in that high degree, as the Apostles was. But Protestans, when they say that the authoritie of the Church, is but humane in matters of faith, con­sider her only, as she is such men: wherein they proceed, as if spea­king of a man, they should consider [Page 49] only his bodie, not thinking of his head or Soule. For the true church The church is a misticall bodie, whe­reof Christ is the head and the holie Ghost, the soule. of Christ is a misticall bodie, whe­reof Christ is the head, and the ho­lie Ghost, the soule, and in matters of faith is guided by this head, and effectually assisted by this soule, according to Christs manifest and expresse promise, as we shall see heereafter, and therefore in such matters, hath diuine and infallible authoritie from hersaid head, and soule. And what maruel, that a bo­die, whereof Christ is head, and the holie Ghost, the soule, hath truly diuine authoritie, that is, be truely and effectually assisted by its diuine head and soule, to propose nothing as of faith, but what is truth? And Vvhat i [...] meant by diuine autho­ritie of the Church. to be thus truly and effectually di­uinely assisted, is all the diuine au­thoritie, which we attribute to the church, and is both sufficient and necessarie for the ends, for which God appointed her, as we shall see presently.

10. The tenth ground, are the ends, The end for which God gaue diuine infallibilitie to his church. [Page 50] for which God gaue diuine infalli­bilitie to his Church, and her Pa­stors; which, if they be well consi­dered, wil clearly shew, that he hath giuen her and them, diuine in­fallibilitie in matters of faith. For he hath made his church the pillar and ground of diuine truth 1. Timoth. 3. which she cannot be, without diuine infallibilitie in diuine truth. And becaus he made her pillar and ground, not of a part of diuine truth, but simply, of diuine truth, and that fundamental points, are but a part of diuine truth, and the least part too, he made her diuinely infallible, not onely in fundamental points, but in all points, which he would haue be beleued with diuine faith. And this our Sauiour expressed mo­re fully, when he said to his Apo­stles, that he would send them the holie Ghost for to teach them all Io [...]n 14. §. 16 Matt. 16. things, all truth Likewise, because Christ hath made his church so fir­me and strong, as the gates of hel cannot preuail against her, and that [Page 51] euerie sinful error in any point of faith, is formal haeresie, and a * gate Greg. in psal. 5. p [...]ni [...]. Por­tae inferi, h [...]reses sunt. of hel, destructiue of the church as I shewed parte 1. l. 2. c. 6. therefore he hath giuen his church diuine in­fallibilitie in all matters of faith, for to resist any haeresie in what point of faith soeuer. And in like manner, because God hath made the Pastors Ends, for which God gaue diuine infallibilitie to the Pa­stors. of his church, the external cause, and his instrument and means of en­gendring diuine infallible faith, Rom. 10. he hath giuen them diuine infallibilitie in all matters of faith, because no inferior infallibilitie would suffice, as I shewed n. 3. And likewise, because he hath made them his instruments and means not to engender a parte of faith (as fun­damental points are (but all faith, becaus the Apostle saith not, how shall they beleue fun [...]amental points, without hearing a preacher, but simply, how shall shey beleue? he hath giuen them diuine authoritie, and infalli­bilitie for all points, which [...]e are to beleue. And in like sort, because God [Page 52] hath giuen Pastors, and Doctors not Ephes. c. 4. only for the foūdatiō of the bodie of Christ, or for the making of Saints, but also, for the edification or building of Christs bodie, and c [...]nsummation or perfection of Saints vnto a perfect man; and that fundamental points cannot doe all this, but not fundamental points as they are true points of di­uine faith, so they are necessarie to the building of Christs bodie, and Not funda­mental points are of the perfection of faith. consummation of his Saints vnto a perfect man, therefore he hath gi­uen them diuine authoritie and in­fallibilitie, euen in not fundamental points. And the Apostle, though (no doubt) he had taught the Thessalo­nians al fundamental points, yet he desired to add those things, which he said, were wanting to their faith, which 1. Thessal. c. 3. was, to consummat or perfect theyr faith. And as far, as the edification of Christs bodie, and consumma­tion of faith, extendeth, so far ex­tendeth the Pastors diuine infalli­bilitie, which is giuen to them for this end.

11. And hence riseth the eleuenth ground, which is, that seing Caluin. 4. Instit. c. [...]. § 3. c 2. §. 1. &c. 8. Vvitaker. Contr. 2 q 4. c 2 [...]otter. sess. Ep. 22. Pro­testants, forced by the euidencie of truth, doe confesse, that the Church is infallible in necessarie points of faith, if they would grant, that she is infallible, as well in points necessarie to anie men, as in points necessarie to all men, and in points, as wel necessarie. by reason of the formal cause of beleef which is di­uine reuelation sufficiently propo­sed, though they be not necessarie by reason of their matter, which is to be beleued, though by reason also of that, they be necessarie to the better being of faith, or perfection and consummation of Saints) and as well in points necessarie to the well being, or perfection of faith, as simply to the being thereof, they should not differ from vs, about what points the church is infallible. For we doe not say, that she is infal­lible in points, which are not ne­cessarie to any, nor necessarie in any sorte to the being, or wel being or Stap [...]et. Contr. 4. q. 2. not. 7. Ad E [...]lesiae in­f [...]l ibilita­tem in do­cendo, satis [...]st, vt sit in fallibilis in substantiâ fidet, & publico dogma te, & rebus ad salutem nocessarijs Et ad 4. ar­gumentum: i [...]fa [...]libil [...]tas docentis Ecc [...]efiae, pont tur tantum in rebus ad salutem ne­cessaris. The like saith Bel­larm. l 4. de Pont. c. 5. Canus l. 5 c. 5. Patribus Synodi Spi­ritus [...]. non est praesens in omnibus, sedinrebus solùm ad salutem ne­cessarijs. [Page 54] perfection of Christian faith (as ma­nie scholastical subtilties are) as Sta­pleton professeth Contr. 4. q. 2. no­tab. 7. For as in natural things, God giueth not superfluities, but only, what is necessarie to the being or perfection of them; so nether in su­pernatural matters: But as he is not defectiue in natural things, for ne­cessaries, ether for their simply being, or their perfection, so, much lesse is he defectiue in supernatural matters, according as these are of more importance, then those, and more regarded of him. And Pro­testants, by saying, that God hath made his Church infallible only in things necessarie to all men, and necessarie to her verie being, make him les liberal in supernatural mat­ters, then in natural. Besides, See infra [...]. 6. n. 1. Chillingw: c. 2. p. 54. saieth, that the scripture can end all controuersies touching things necessarie, and verie profitable: And ib. p. 98. What one of the Euangelists hath more then an other, is only profitable, and not neces­sarie. [Page 55] And if God hath giuen diuine infallibilitie to the scripture and Euangelists, not only for necessarie points, but also for such as are pro­fitable, why should we thinke, that he hath not giuen to his Church, the like infallibilitie, not onely for simply necessarie points, but also for profitable, as all are, which ma­ke to the edification of Christs bo­die, and consummation of saints vnto a perfect man, as all true points Morton [...]om 1. Apologa l. 2. c. 9 Quasi [...]erè nou fit fidei dogma, quod piri­ [...]us S. om­nibus ere­dendum pro­pinauis. of faith doe? For who can denie, that all true points of faith reuealed clearly by God, are of the integri­tie and perfection of faith, and are profitable for vs to beleue, other­wise to what end were they so re­uealed? And if God reuealed them clearly, he would haue them bele­ued, and if beleued, he would ap­point on earth some infallible au­thoritie to propose them, which not being in the scripture, must needs be in the church. I ad also, How al point [...] of faith are ne­cessarie. that though al points of faith be not simply necessarie, by reason of the [Page 56] matter, which is to be beleued, they al are simply necessarie, by rea­son of the formal cause, which is diuine reuelation sufficiently pro­posed, for that is simply necessarie to be beleued in whatsoeuer it pro­poseth. How the principal, and the in­strument, are [...]one, and how dif­ferent.

12. The twelft ground is, that as the principal agent, and the instru­ment, are but one entire cause in Kinde, to witt, efficient: but in or­der and degree, are far different. Different causes, to witt, Principal, and Instrumental, so the authoritie of God and of the Apostles in mat­ters of faith, were one and the same entire cause of diuine faith, to witt, formal: but in order and degree were twoe, and far different, for the one was principal, the other ministerial, one increate, the other create, one absolutely necessarie, the other, not absolutely necessarie, the one sufficient of it self to beget diuine faith, the other, not suffi­cient of it self. And this vnitie bet­wixt the authoritie of God and of [Page 57] the Apostles, our Sauiour expressed, when he said Luke c. 10. Who heareth you, heareth me, which could not be true, vnles he and his Apostles were in some sort one and the same spea­ker, as the king and his Embassa­dour are. And this same Protestants sometymes confess. For thus Caluin. in Ioan. 20. v. 21. He bids the Apostles succeed into the same function, which he had of his father, he imposeth on them the same person, he giueth them the same right,—Christ communica­teth with his Apostles, the same autho­ritie, which he had of his father. Whi­taker. Cont. 2. q. 3. c. 5. The Apostles did consigne the Canon, not as men, but as the person of God. And lib. 1. de script. p. 61. Becaus Christ left earth, he gaue his office to preachers. And pa. 71. I denie not, that Pastors doe in some sort bear the person of God. And the di­stinction also between these twoe authorities, Christ expressed, when he said Ioan. 16. The holie Ghost shal bear witnes of me, and yee also shal bear witnes In which words, he expres­seth [Page 58] two witnesses, ad twoe testi­monies. And the same did the Apo­stles, when they said Act. c. 15. It hath seemed to the holie Ghost, and to vs, to lay no other burden vpon you, but these; where, they express twoe imposers of the same burden, the holie Ghost, and themselues, and twoe authorities of imposing it, one of the holie Ghost, the other, of themselues. For they could not im­pose that burden, without they had authoritie distinct from the authori­tie of the holie Ghost, though not separate from it. And the same (for vnitie and distinction of the authori­tie of the holie Ghost, and of the Church) I say of the Church, that, the authoritie of God and of his Church, is one and the same in kin­de The entire formal cause of faith, in ordinarie course see in­fra c. 11. n. 1. of causing diuine faith, but far dif­ferent in credit and degree of cau­sing it, though (in ordinarie course) neuer separated. For in ordinarie course the entire formal cause of di­uine faith, is Gods and his churches authoritie togeither, or God spea­king [Page 59] by his Church. And the Chur­ches authoritie being one entire cause of diuine faith with Gods au­thoritie, her authoritie must needs be in matters of faith, diuine and in­fallible; for a fallible authoritie can­not be one cause in kinde of beleef with an infallible authoritie but a quite different kinde of cause. And if these grounds be compared with the grounds of Protestants, for which they limit the infallibilitie of Gods Church, to onely fundamen­tal points, and to mere humane in­fallibilitie, they will appeare yet more firme and solid. For theyr grounds are not founded vpon any ends of the Church, expressed in scripture, as these are; but founded onely vpon their own ends, which are only to delude the texts of Scri­pture, which attribute infallibilitie to the Church in al points of faith, by saying, that they are meant of fundamental points onely: and partly, to defend themselues from the authoritie of the Church, in [Page 60] points, wherein they oppose her, by saying, that her authoritie in anie points what soeuer, is but human, and fallible also, in such points as they oppose her. See Chil­lingw c. 3. p. 146. 172. c. 2. p. 86 laude sect. 16. p 93. 91. 231. Some say, that the Church is efficaciter, or effica­ciously assisted by God in funda­mental points, and therefore is in­fallible in them; but is only merely The Church, is assisted ef­ficaciously in [...]l points of faith. sufficiently assisted, in not funda­mental points, and therefore falli­ble in them. But besids, that this distinction of Gods efficacious and sufficient assistance, in this matter is new, and therefore iustly suspec­ted as naught, it is also voluntarie without sufficient ground, and the­refore irrational. Besids, it granteth, that the Church is diuinely infalli­ble in fundamental points. For to be diuinely infallible, is no more, but to be diuinely assisted effica­ciously; more ouer it maketh the Churches authoritie euen in funda­mental points, to be vncertain. For if she be fallible in not fundamental points of faith clearely reuealed, [Page 61] (for such al true points of faith are, and points but obscurely and dar­kely reuealed, are but matters of opinion) how shal we be certain, that she is not fallible in fundamētal points seing not fundamental points (if they be points of faith) are as clearly reuealed, as the fundamental, as S. Augustin saieth of the scripture, that if it lie in any point, it may be suspected in al. It maketh also the Churches infallibilitie vnuseful to vs, becaus none know, which are al the fundamental points necessarie to be actually beleued of euerie one, which not. To omit, that there are no vnfundamental points of faith in the Protestants sense, but al true points of faith are fundamental to the verie being of sauing faith, and to be beleued actually, if they be sufficiently proposed, or virtually, though they be not so proposed. And to omit also, that meer suffi­cient assistance, which is neuer effi­cient, Sufficient neuer effi­cient, i [...] vain. were vain, becaus (as Philo­sophers say, that power is vain, which [Page 62] is neuer reduced to act, and is such a power, as is no where els to be found and also, that fully sufficient and not efficacious, implie contradiction. For though fully sufficient assistance may be not efficient, for want of our coo­peration Not distinct from effica­cious. or cōcurse, yet it is alwayes efficacious, becaus efficacious, (as it is distinct from efficient,) is no more, but what hath ful power, or vertue to worke, and such is that, which is sufficient. But whether there be anie difference betwixt sufficient and ef­ficacious assistance or none, God hath really and effectually made his Church the pillar and ground of truth, and so strong, that the gates of hel shal not preuail against her, and the­refore he hath giuen her efficacious or effectual assistance in al points of faith, and so hath made her diuinely infallible in al such points. For as Chillingw. c. 3. p. 145. saieth wel, The Apostles could not be the Churches foundations, without freedome from error in al those things, which they de­liuered constantly, as certain reuealed [Page 63] truthes. So I say, the Church could not be the pillar and ground of truth, without freedome from er­ror in al things, she deliuereth as points of diuine truth.

13. And out of these grounds, first we may clearly see, that the true Church of God is diuinely infalli­ble in all points, which she propo­seth to be beleued with diuine faith. Secondly, we may easily answer al the obiections of Protestants to the contrarie. Thirdly, we may see, what litle cause Laude had sec. 16. p. 91. to make such a wonder, that Catholicks should say, that the pre­sent true Church of God, is diuinely infallible in al matters of faith, seing by diuinely infallible, they mean no more, then diuinely assisted efficacious­ly to propose nothing to be beleued, but what is truth. But rather we Iust wonder, that the Churche of Christ should not be diui­nely infalli­ble. may wonder, that rational Chri­stians wil deny her to be diuinely infallible, or (which is alone) diui­nely assisted efficaciously, whom they cannot deny to be the mother [Page 64] of the faithfull, the spouse of Christ, whose head is Christ, and whose soule, is the holie Ghost, who tea­cheth her al things, and al truth, who is the pillar and ground of truth, and against whom, the verie gates of hel shal not preuail. Is not such a one diuinely assisted effica­ciously? And whome themselues confess to be infallible in fundamen­tal points. For can she be humanely Vvhitaker cont. 1. q. 3. c. 11. & l. 3. descript. p. 19 laude Relat. sect. 16. p. 65. infallible in such high matters?

14. Some Protestants vrge vs much to tel, whether the authoritie or in­fallibilitie of the Church in matters of faith, be meerly diuine, or no. To whom I answer, that if by diuine, they mean diuine in it self, as hauing How the test [...]monie of the Church is diuine, and now not. anie diuinitie in it self: we say it is not diuine meerly, nor at al; for it is a create authoritie, as was also the authoritie of the Prophets, and Apostles; but if by diuine, they mean diuinely instituted, and diuinely assisted efficaciously not to err in matters of faith, it is me [...]rly diuine, it is infal­lible meerly by Gods efficacious as­sistance, [Page 65] and not by any natural knowledg, or industrie of the Church: Though she must vse hu­mane industrie, as was vsed in the Councel of the Apostles Act. 15.

Lastely, it is wel to be noted, that when we say, we beleue for Gods authoritie or veracitie, we mean not therby, that we beleue, becaus God doth efficiently cause our beleef, namely, by lightining our vnder­standing, or stirring vp our wil to beleue, becaus Gods authoritie or veracitie is no efficient cause of our beleef, but onely à formal cause therof; and also, becaus he is in like sorte efficient cause of our hope, or Charitie, as he is of our beleef, and yet he is not cause of them by his au­thoritie: but our meaning is, that we beleue not for anie thing which God worketh in vs; but for his au­thoritie or veracitie, which is in himselfe. And therfore they say no [...] Canu [...] l 2. c. 4. Vvhitaker l. 1. descript. p. 23. wel, who say, we beleue, becaus we are moued therto by special instinct from God, or that our faith [Page 66] is lastely resolued into such special internal instinct. For such special instinct can not be anie formal cau­se of our beleef, but onely an effi­cient cause therof, and faith is not lastly resolued into anie efficient cause but onely into some formal; besids that instinct is peculiar to him in whome it is, wheras the mo­tiue or reason of Catholik faith, is common to al who haue such faith: more ouer it is not euident credible by it self, that such special instinct is from God, and faith is to be re­solued into some cause, which is euidently credible, as is the autho­ritie both of God, and of his Church in matters of faith; and therfore the resolution of our beleef into ether of them, is sufficient and rational. For as when a King sendeth an Em­bassadour to tel vs some thing, we beleue with humane faith, what is told vs, for the authoritie of them both, as for one entire adioint cause of our beleef, yet differently▪ prin­pally for the Kings authoritie, and [Page 67] secondarily, for the authoritie of his faithful Embassador: so what we beleue with diuine faith; we beleue for the authoritie both of God, and of his Church, as for one entire and total cause of our beleef, but prin­cipally, for the authoritie of God, See infra c. 11 n. 1. and secondarily, for the authoritie of his Church, but with this diffe­rence, that the King nether gi­ueth, nor increaseth the fidelitie of his Embassador; but God giueth to his Church al the fidelitie she hath for matters of faith. Wherfore al Christian faith is lastly resolued into Christs outward speach to his Church, and into her outward speaking to vs, both which speakers and speakings, are but one, in such sorte as is Sup. n. 12. before declared. And when the Apostle saied Rom. 10. Faith is of hearing he meant not of hearing internally by inspiration, Vvitaker cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2 who hear the Church, hea [...] Christ him [...]elf. but of hearing externally by prea­ching, and doubtles meant of a last resolution of faith. For hearing Christes lawful Preachers, we heare [Page 68] him, as before we shewed. And the resolution of diuine faith into the Churches authoritie, is both suffi­cient, becaus her authoritie in mat­ters of faith, is plainly diuine, and is also agreable to mens manner of getting faith, who (in ordinarie course (are to haue their faith not from God immediatly speaking to them, but from the Church imme­diatly speaking to them from God; and therfore their faith is to be re­solued immediatly into the authori­tie of the Church, and mediatly in­to the authoritie of God. Wherfore wel saied Bellarmin. l. 6. de Grat. & lib. arb. c. 3. Catholiks haue infallible faith, becaus what they beleue, they be­leue becaus God saied it, and that God said it, they beleue becaus the Church testifieth it. For what we beleue, Christ told it to his Church, and she hauing euer continued til our time, telleth it vnto vs. And seing Prote­stants grant that faith may be welre­solued into the authoritie of the Infra c. 4. [...]. 8. A­postles, or of the L. 2. c. 11. sect. 1. scripture, or vni­uersal [Page 69] tradition, becaus though their t Infra c. 10. n. 3. 6. 7. 9. authoritie be create, yet by Gods efficacious assistance, it is plainly di­uine and infallible, they shold not denie that faith may be also resolued into the authoritie of the Church, becaus it is create authoritie, seing Christ hath most clearly promised to assist his Church most efficacious­ly, and also that the Apostle testi­fieth Rom. 10. That Faith hath its being from hearing the preaching of the Church. And euerie thing is rightly resolued into that, of which it hath its verie being, especially seing the voice of the Church, is the voice of Christ, and that hea­ring her, we hear him.

THIRD CHAPTER. VVhat conditions are necessarie to the Al-sufficient external Pro­poser of pointes of faith appointed by God?

1. CATHOLICKS and Pro­testants agree, that there Twoe kindes of Proposers of faith. are two kindes of Proposer of points of faith vnto men: The one Internal, who proposeth them internally to our mindes; The other external, who proposeth them externally to our senses. Secondly, they agree, that the Internal Proposer, is the Holie Ghost, and the external, some in­stituted by him. Thirdly they agree, that the Internal Proposer can by himself▪ alone sufficiently propo­se al points of faith to vs, and en­gender faith in vs without concur­se of the external Proposer: Fou­rethly they agree, that (ordinaril [...]y) [Page 71] the Internal Proposer, neuer pro­poseth points of faith to our mindes, nor engendereth faith in vs, but with the concurse and proposal of the external Proposer. Fiftly they agree, that the External Proposer, can no way engender diuine faith in vs, without the concurse of the in­ternal. So that they agree in al points touching the Internal Proposer, and also concerning the External Proposer, that there is such a one instituted of God, that his concurse (ordinariely) is necessarie, and that he cannot engender faith, without concurse of the Internal Proposer: but they disagree about the condi­tions necessarie to such an external Proposer, and who he is, but if we finde out the conditions necessarie to such a Proposer, we shal easily finde who he is.

2. The first condition necessarie to a sufficient external Proposer of Conditions necessarie to the external Proposer. points of faith, is, that he be some intellectual person, or Companie of Intellectual Persons. This is eui­dent [Page 72] out of the very word it self. For a Prop [...]ser signifieth a person who proposeth. And also, becaus to propose points to be beleued, is an act of vnderstanding, and (as our Sauiour saied to the first Proposers instituted by himself) is to teach and preach, or (as the Apostle also spea­keth) to preach: and to teach, or Math. vlt. Marc. vlt. Rom. 10. preach, are acts of vnderstanding. Secondly, becaus (as we shal proue hereafter the external Proposer is instituted by God, for to moue men to beleue points of faith for his au­thoritie: and al authoritie (proper­ly speaking) is in some intelle­ctual person. Whervpon when the Apostle saied Rom. 10. How shal they beleue without à Preacher, he ad­ded, that the Preacher must be law­fully sent, which lawful sending gi­ueth him authoritie or credit, that he is worthie to be beleued in what he proposeth. Thirdly, becaus vnles we make, the proposer to be some Person or persons, we confound Proposer with proposal, which are [Page 73] things clearly distinct; and the Pro­poser is some person, his Proposal, is his word or writing, so that a word or writing, is no Proposer, but one­ly à Proposal. If anie obiect, that the Church is proposed in the Apostles Creed to be beleued, as wel as other points of faith are, and being a thing proposed, it cannot be the Proposer of al points of faith, I denie the con­sequence. For the Church being a companie of intellectual persons, it can propose it self to be beleued to be the true Church, as the Prophets and the Apostles proposed them­selues to be such, as wel as anie other thing which they preached. But a dead writing cānot sufficiently pro­pose it self, as Sup. c. 2. n. 5. Chillingworth be­fore confessed, and others L. 2. c. 6. sect. 2. here­after wil confess of the scripture. And the reason hereof is, becaus a writing hath not of it self anie for­mal authoritie. Besides, though the Proposer and proposed may someti­mes be the same thing yet the Pro­poser and Proposal cannot, because [Page 74] the Proposal is that wher with the Proposer proposeth what is to be beleued, as the writings of the Pro­phets or Apostles, were their Pro­posal of matters of faith, and therfo­re not Proposers.

3. The second condition necessa­rie to a sufficient external Proposer of points of faith, instituted by God, is that his authoritie be See infra [...]. 5. n. 2. diuine, or diuinely assisted (as the Apostles was) and infallible in Proposing them. The reason is, becaus points of faith are supernatural and diuine, and to be beleued, so assuredly, as we ought to See infra 62. 6. 8. sec. 1. curse an Angel, if he saied the contrarie Galat. 1. And therfore no humane or natural au­thoritie, but that which passeth An­gelical authoritie, and is supernatu­ral and diuine, is apt or sufficient to cause such assurance of diuine mat­ters. And this Vvitaker l. 1. descrip. p. 392. 415. Potter sect. 5. p 7. See infra l. 5. n. 5. and l. 2. c. 11. n. 1. Protestants grant. For becaus they think the scripture onely hath diuine and infallible au­thoritie, they make it alone the as­sured Proposer of points of faith. [Page 75] Besides, by a sufficient Proposer, we mean such á one, as proposeth matters of faith so sufficiently, as matters of diuine faith require, and whose proposal is such, as it bindeth men to beleue with diuine faith what he proposeth, and such it could not be; vnless his authoritie in pro­posing were infallible, diuine, or diuinely assisted efficaciously.

4. The third condition, is sufficient claritie in his proposing points of faith. The reason is, becaus if he do­not clearly enough propose vnto vs the points of faith, we cannot be assured, what he proposeth, or what we are to beleue.

5. The fourth condition is, that his Proposal be necessarie in ordinarie course, for vs to haue faith. The reason is, becaus if his Proposal were not necessarie to vs for to haue faith, he were not the ordinarie Ex­ternal Proposer instituted by God, without whose concurse, God wil not (in ordinarie course) produce faith.

[Page 76]6. The fift condition is, that he be vniuersal for time, for place, for points of faith, and for al kindes of men, capable of External Proposal The reason is, becaus the external Proposer, without whose concurse, God wil not (in ordinarie course) engender faith, must propose al points of faith, must be present in al times, when God engendereth faith in al places where he engendereth faith; and present to al kinds of men, capable of external Proposal in whome he engendereth faith. And otherwise he were not the ordinarie external Proposer, without whose concurse, God, in ordinarie course, wil not engender faith. And we en­quire, who is this ordinarie exter­nal Proposer of points of faith, be­caus onely he, is necessarie to be known Now of al these conditions onely Infallibilitie and claritie in so­me points, agree to scripture, as is euident, by it self, and we shal pro­ue more hereafter, and therfore it is not the ordinarie External Proposer [Page 77] necessarie to be sought, and they al agree to the true Church, as we shal proue euidently by Gods holie as­sistance. And we wil begin with her Infalibilitie in matters of faith (For that she is a companie of Intelle­ctual persons, needs no proof, which we wil proue by plain places of Scri­pture, testimonies of Holie Fathers, reason grounded in Scripture, and open Confessions of learned Pro­testants. Becaus the denial of the Churchs Infallibilitie in matters of faith, is the formal cause of al He­resies, and Infidelitie, as her Infal­libilitie or veracitie in matters of faith, is the formal external cause of al diuine faith. For she being (by testimonie of the Holie Scri­pture) apointed by God to be the pillar, ground and witness of diuine truth, must needs be the formal Ex­ternal cause of our beleife of diuine truth; without which, God ordina­rily wil not engender faith, and con­sequently The rote of al Heresie. the denial of the Infallibi­litie of this pillar, ground, and wit­ness, [Page 78] must needs be a formal cause of al heresie or Infidelitie opposit to beleif of diuine truth, and of Here­ticks vncertaintie, what they are to beleue firmely and vndoubtedly. For who leaue the pillar ground, and te­stimonie of truth, can neuer be firme­ly setled. Wheras Catholicks, re­lying firmely vpon this pillar, and standing fast vpon this ground, set­led by God, and testimonie appoin­ted by him, are firme and constant in their faith, and iustly giue it for a suf­ficient secōdarie reason of what they beleue, because the pillar, ground, and testimonie of truth, is most iustly giuen for such a sufficient rea­son of our beleuing truth. Yet be­fore we proue the Churches diuine veracitie or infallibilitie in matters of faith, we wil proue, that God can giue to men such a diuine vera­citie or infallibilitie, becaus this is some step to proue, that he hath gi­uen it; at least it remoueth a great impediment of beleuing, that he hath giuen it; and besides, it maketh [Page 79] the testimonies, wherwith we wil afterwards proue, that he hath gi­uen such Infallibilitie, to be more vndoubted.

FOVRTH CHAPTER. That God can giue to men a diui­ne veracitie or Infallibilitie in proposing matters of faith.

1. THERE be two kinds of diuine Infallibilitie: the one Twoe kindes of diuine In­fallib. litie. increate and intrinsecally diuine, which is in God himself, who is the prime veracitie: the other create, and but extrinsecally diuine, in that it is diuinely and efficaciously assi­sted by God, to teach nothing but truth; and therfore but analogically called diuine, as a holesome medi­cin is tearmed healthfull. And in this sorte was the authoritie of the Pro­phets, and Apostles, diuine; and is the authoritie or veracitie of the true Church of God, in matters of [Page 80] faith. The former diuine authoritie or veracitie, is the principal, alone sufficient, and absolutly necessarie cause of diuine faith: the latter, is but secondarie, not alone sufficient nor simply necessarie cause of diui­ne faith: but onely a sufficient ex­ternal, subordinat cause, and neces­sarie onely in ordinarie course; yet both these authorities or veracities are so Infallible, as it implieth con­tradiction, that ether of them should teach anie vntruth. And as for the former, that need no proaf: and the like is manifest of the latter. For it is plain contradiction, that one diuinely ad effectually assisted by God to teach truth, should teach vntruth. And therfore this latter kinde of veracitie may be a sufficient external and subordinate cause of diuine and infallible faith, such as implieth contradiction to be fals. For a diuine veracit [...] or authoritie which implieth contradiction to See infra c. 5. n. 7. teach vntruth, may be a sufficient external cause of such faith, as im­plieth [Page 81] contradiction to be fals, and may be iustly giuen as such, for a sufficient cause of our beleef. And this is that kinde of diuine authori­tie or veracitie, which we say God can giue to men, and which he hath giuen to his Church in matters of faith. Neuertheless we doe not ma­ke the Infallibilitie of the Church equal to the Infallibilitie of the Pro­phets and Apostles; for their Infal­libilitie was by immediate reuelation from God, and sufficient to propose euen new points of faith, and in what smal matter soeuer they proposed as from God, and to be the foūdatiō of the Church: but the Infallibilitie of the present Church, is but by me­diate reuelation from God, nor for to propose anie new points of faith, but to conserue those which she hath receiued from the Prophets and Apostles, nor in anie litle mat­ter soeuer, but onely in points ne­cessarie to the consummation of Saints and edification of the bodie of Christ: yet in this, both those infallibilities [Page 82] agree, that they are both diuine in their kinde by the special assistance of God, and in al things which are necessarie in anie sorte for the con­summation of Saints, and edification of the bodie of Christ, and right constitution of his Church.

2. Now euident it is, that God can not giue to men his owne essential authoritie or veracitie becaus that implieth contradiction, and were to make them Gods: but that he can giue them authoritie or Infalli­bilitie, analogically termed diuine, becaus it is diuinely instituted and assisted efficaciously by God, I proue by scripture. Fathers, Reason, and Confession of Protestants. By scri­pture, Moyses au­thoritie ioy­ned with Gods. Caluin. 4 Instit. c. 8. §. 2. Popu­ [...]n Deum & n Moy­sem credi­d [...]e di [...]un­tur. for Exodi 14. v. 30. it is saied: They beleued God, and Moyses. Where Moyses is saied to be beleued by di­uine faith (becaus with the same faith with which God was beleued) which could not be; if he had not diuine authorite. For who hath but humane authoritie or veracitie, can­not be beleued with diuine faith. [Page 83] The like is Ioan. 5. v. 47. If you be­leued Moyses, perhaps you would beleue me. The Apostle also Galat. 5. v. 2. saith, I Paul, say vnto you; if you be circumcised, Christ wil nothing profit you where he alleadgeth his Apo­stolical authoritie, as sufficient cause of beleuing (not with humane but with diuine faith) that Christ wil not profit those, that are circumci­sed. And his Apostolical authoritie had not be in a sufficēit cause of diui­ne faith vnles itself had bein diuine; for humane authoritie can be a suf­ficient cause but of humane beleif. In like sorte, S. Ihon saieth of him­self c. 20. v. 21. This is the Disciple, who beareth testimonie of these, and wrote these, and we know, that his testi­monie is true. Where, doubtles, he meaneth, that his testimonie is in­fallibly true. And c. 19. v. 35. he Vvhat God can giue to particul [...]r men, he can giue to his Church. proueth, that bloud and water is­sued out of Christs side, by his own testimonie, which had been a weak proof of a matter of diuine faith, if his testimonie or veracitie in testi­fing [Page 84] such matters, had not been di­uine. And c. 1. he saieth; S. Ihon Baptist was sent to giue testimonie of Christ, that Almight beleue by him. And if his testimonie had been falli­ble, it had been too weak a means to cause men to beleue with infallible faith. And the Prophet Isaie c. 53. v. 1. complaineth thus: who hath bele­ued our hearing? Where (doubtles) he speaketh not of humane, but of diuine beleif, and sheweth, that men should haue beleued him with diuine faith. And S. Ihon. c. 4. v. 39. Manie Samaritans of that cittie beleued in him for the word of the woman bea­ring testimonie. Where (doubtles) he meaneth of beleuing in Christ with diuine faith; and yet saieth, they beleued for the word of a woman, bearing witnes who was sent of Christ to bear that witnes. And though they afterward saied: now we beleue, not for they speech, for we ourselues haue heard and know that this is truly the Sauior of the world, they meant not to denie that her testimo­nie [Page 85] was anie cause at al of their be­leif in Christ, but that they needed it not for to beleue in Christ, seing they heard and knew him: and (as S. Augustin saieth homil. 15. in Ioan.) They beleued more firmely for Christs words. For Christ did confirme, not infirme the womans testimonie Wherfore Morton Apol. tom. 2 l. 1. c. 37. citeth and alloweth these words of Tolet vpon this place: when they saied, now we doe not beleue for thy word, that is as if they saied: be­fore we beleued for thy word, but now we haue a greater testimonie of beleuing then thine, we need not the less, where is the greater, insinuating, that they wold beleue for the word of Christ which they heard, albeit they had not beleued for the Samaritan woman. And in like manner, though we doe now beleue in Christ for the testimonie of the Church, yet if we heard himself speak, as the Samaritans did, we wold beleue in him al though we had not beleued in him for the Church.

[Page 86]3. In like manner, the scripture te­stifieth, that it is damnable sin and Incredulitie, not to beleue men sent by God. Marc. vlt. v. 14. Going into the world, preach the Ghospel to euerie Damnable, not to beleue some men, creature, who shal beleue and be bapti­zed, shal be saued, who shal not beleue (you) shal be condemned, Where it is plainly said to be damnable sin, not to beleue with diuine faith men sent by God to preach to them. And how shold it be damnable sin not to be­leue them with diuine faith, if they had not diuine, but only humane au­thoritie? Nay how could they bele­ue men with diuine faith, if they had but humane authoritie, which is fallible: And 16. v. 14. He vpraided their Incredulitie and hardnes of heart, that they beleued not them, who had seen him to haue risen. Where (doubtles) Christ speaketh not of humane, but of diuine beleif, and saieth, it was incredulitie, not to beleue them with diuine faith. And what Incre­dulitie or hardness of heart had it been, not to haue beleued them with [Page 87] diuine and Infallible faith, if they had had only humane and fallible See infra c. 5. n 2. and su­pra c. 2. n. 3. authoritie? Nay (as I saied before) how could they beleue them with diuine and Infallible faith, who had but humane and fallible authoritie or veracitie? And it must wel be no­ted, that he calleth it incredulitie and hardnes of heart, not to haue beleued them, that is, persons, for to auoid a cauil, that he only con­demned Incredulitie of his Resur­rection. For he plainly attributeth Incredulitie to not beleif of the per­sons, who testified his Resurrection. For diuine faith bindeth to beleue both diuine messengers, and their message for their authoritie. And therfore it is incredulitie and against diuine faith, not to beleue ether. And it could not haue been incre­dulititie or want of diuine faith, not to beleue them, vnles they had had diuine authoritie or veracitie to te­stifie his Resurrection. And if it be incredulitie opposit to diuine faith, not to beleue men sent by God to [Page 88] testifie, surely it is diuine credulitie to beleue such, and if it be diuine credulitie to beleue them, they must haue diuine authoritie. For diuine infallible credulitie cannot be but for diuine infallible authoritie. The Apostle also 2. Thessal. 3. v. 13. saieth. If anie obey not our word, note him. And 1. Ioan. 4. v. 6. who knoweth God, hea­reth vs who is not of God, heareth not vs: In this we know the spirit of truth, and spirit of error. Where (doubtles) he speaketh of infallible knowledg of God, by hearing him; and infal­lible knowledg could not haue been by hearing him, if he had not been in­fallible in teaching Gods truth. And these testimonies of scripture doe not only proue, that God can giue to men diuine and infallible autho­ritie or veracitie, but also, that he hath giuen it to some.

4. That the holie Fathers thought, that God can giue diuine or infalli­ble authoritie or veracitie to men, wil be euident out of their testimo­nies, Infra c. 7. hereafter brought to proue, [Page 89] that he hath giuen such to the Church. And Reason conuinceth, that he can giue such authoritie or veracitie to men, because it implieth not contradiction. For what contra­diction can be pretended, that God can (if he please) effectually assist some so, that they teach nothing in matters of faith, but truth? as he ef­ficaciously assisteth the elect, that they cannot be led into error Math. 24. And his effectual assistance maketh their authoritie or veracitie to be so diuine Infallible, as we desire, and is sufficient to be an external mini­sterial, or subordinat cause of diui­ne and infallible faith. For it im­plieth contradiction, that who is efficaciously assisted by God to say but truth, should lie. And I take it to be so euident, that God can giue such authoritie or veracitie to his Church, or to men, as I think scarce anie Protestant wil haue the face [...]o denie it. For this is not to make men or the Church Primam veritatem; prime veritie, as Whitaker fondly [Page 90] argueth l. 2. de scrip. p. 230. but only a secondarie veritie, or veracitie subordinat and depending vpon Gods prime veritie or veracitie. If God can giue to men endles eterni­tie, and yet not make them Gods, why can he not also giue them infal­lible veritie or veracitie, and yet not make them Gods, or Prime veritie? If he can make weakmen not to fall, why can he not make the Church not to err in points of faith? If he can make, that the elect; who are the principal part of the Church shal not be led into error Matth. 24, why can he not make the Church it self? § 45. Naye so manifest it is, See infra c. 15. and Cal uin in Luc. 10. v. 16. that God can giue to men this kinde of diuine veracitie or infallibilitie, as Protestants themselues someti­mes confess, that he hath giuen it to men. For thus Whitaker l. 3. de scri­pturâ p. 395. The testimonie of the ho­lie Diuine Ghost, is internal, of the Apostles, external, both in their kind [...]s, diuine Sufficient. l. 2. p. 310. the authoritie alone of the Apostles, sufficed to cause faith. l. 1. p. [Page 91] 46. The Apostles authoritie was so great, that you might safely beleue their prea­ching for it self. P. 49. though the Apostles were men, y [...]t they were so ex­traordinarily gouerned of the holie Ghost, R [...]lied on their testi­monie. that most certaine faith relied on their testimonie. P. 51. The Apostles for their fulnes of the holie Ghost, by certaine Marks deserued assured authoritie, so as we beleue them alone Controu 2 q. 3. c. 5. the Apostles did consigne the canon, as most certaine organs of the holie Ghost, endued with diuine authoritie. l. 1. de Scrip. c. 8. p. 86. it was safe to Diuine. beleue Paul, but speaking. Laude Re­lat of the Controu. sec. 16. p. 81. If the speech be of the prime Christian Church, the Apostles, disciples, and such as had immediat reuelation from heauen, no question, but the voice and tradition of this Church, is diuine, not Simply d [...] ­uine. aliquo modo, in a sort, but simply P. 84. In the voice of the primitiue and Apo­stolical Church, there was simply diuine authoritie. P. 85. we resolue only into Resolue into Apostolical tradition. prime tradition Apostolical, and scri­pture it self. P. 91. Euerie assistance of [Page 92] Christ and the blessed Spirit, is not enough to make the authoritie of anie companie of men, diuine and infallible, but such and so great an assistance only, as is purposely giuen to that effect. Such an assistance the Prophets vnder the old testament, and the Apostles vnder the New had, P. 102. we haue a double di­uine Diuine. testimonie, altogeither infallible to confirme to vs, that scripture is the word of God. The first, is the tradition of the Apostles themselues: The other, the Scripture it self. And into these, we doe and may safely resolue our faith. Sec. Safely resolue into Tradi­tion. 18. p. 123. The Prophets testimonie, was diuine. Sec. 33. p. 239. Al the places Diuine. ether speak of the Church, including the Apostles, as al of them doe, and then al grant, the voice of the Church, is Gods voice, diuine, and Infallible: Potter sec. 5. p. 5. The prime Church, I call that, which included Christ, and the Apostles, who had immediat reuelation Simply di­uine. from heauen: the voice and testimonie of their Church, is simply diuine and Infallible. Ibid. p. 30. Their (general Councels) authoritie is immediatly [Page 93] deriued and delegated from Christ. sec. 1. p. 25. The high preist in cases of mo­ment, had a certaine priuiledg from er­ror, if he consulted the diuine oracle by the iudgement of Vrim, or by the breast plate of iudgment, wherin were Vrim and Thummim wherby he had an abso­lutly infallible direction. If anie such Absolutely infallible. promise of God to assist the Pope, could be produced, his decisions might then iustly pass for oracles without examina­tion. Behold the high Priest in cases of moment, had a priuiledg from error, had an absolutly infallible di­rection, and if the Pope had such, his decisions might pass for oracles. Humfrey ad Rat. 3. Camp. p. 214. Rock of faith. we confess, the Apostolik Church, to be the rock of our faith. Chillingworth c. 2. paragrapho, 138. we saie, that Infallibilitie continued in the Church euen togeither with the scripture, so long as Christ and his Apostles were liuing. And parag. 155. As the Apostles persons whiles they were liuing, were the only iudges of controuersies, so their writings, now they are dead, are the onlie Rule to [Page 94] iudg them by. Feild. lib. 4. of the Greater then scripture Church c 11. If the comparison be made between the Church, including the Euangelists, we denie not, but the Church is of greater authoritie, anti­quitie and excellencie, then the scriptu­re of the new testament. White in his waie, p. 74. The Apostles teaching, was infallible. Behold, the authori­tie, the testimonie, the voice, the tradition of the Prophets, Apostles, Euangelists, and of the Primitiue Church, is altogeither infallible, is di­uine, not in a sorte, but simply, as Gods voice, is a sufficient cause of faith, is to be beleued for it self, for which alone, we may beleue, into which we maie re­solue our faith, the rock of faith, and the Apostles and Euangelists were of greater authoritie and excellencie, then the scripture of the new testament. And neuertheles the Prophets, Apostles, Euangelists, and Primitiue Church, were men. Wherfore, God not on­ly, can, but hath giuen to men, au­thoritie infallible, simply diuine, made their voice his voice, made it [Page 95] a sufficient cause of diuine faith, and such, as into it, we maie resolue our faith.

6. To al these confessions of Prote­stants, that the authoritie and vera­citie of the Prophets, Apostles, Euangelists, and Primitiue Church, was diuine and infallible, I add, that generally Protestants confes, that the true Church of God, of what time soeuer, is Infallible in funda­mental points of faith, as I shewed parte 1. l. 1. c. 7. And they must needs confes it, vnles they wil say, the Church of the time since the Apo­stles, is perishable. For if it be er­rable in fundamental points, it is pe­rishable, becaus fundamental points are essential points, and without which the Church cannot stand, no more then a house can stand without a fundation, as is euident, and them­selues confess. And besides, if it should not hold al points necessarie to Saluation (which can neuer agree to the true Church of God) it should faile of the end, for which God in­stituted [Page 96] it, which was to bring men to saluation. Now this Infallibilitie of the Church in fundamētal points, cannot be natural, as issuing from the nature of the men who are the Church, as is manifest. Therfore it is supernatural and diuine, procee­ding from Gods special assistance, and vertue of Christs promise, that she doe not err in such points: And if Churches Infallibilitie in funda­mental points be supernatural, and diuine, proceeding from Gods spe­cial and effectual assistance to that purpose, it may iustly be giuen as a sufficient external cause, why we beleue any fundamental point, as that the scripture is the word of God. See Vvita­ [...]er l. 3. de script p. 4 28. Wherfore ether Protestants must denie this to be a fundamental point of their faith (which yet some of them account so fundamental, as that vpon it, their beleif of alother points dependeth) or they cannot denie; but that we may beleue with diuine faith, that the scripture is the word of God, becaus the present [Page 97] Church doth testifie so and that her authoritie is not only an Introdu­ction or inducement to beleue the scripture to be the word of God, as Vvhitaker l. 2. descrip. p. 234. Potter sec. 5. p. 8 Hooler l. 3. §. 8. Laude sec. 5. n. 25. Chilling. c. 3. p. 150. they vse to say, but a true and suf­ficient external cause therof. For it cannot be denied, but that infalli­ble diuine authoritie or veracitie can be (in its order) a sufficient cause of infallible and diuine faith. And if the Churches infallibilitie in some points of faith be diuine, voluntarie and vaine it is to denie it to be such in al points of f [...]ith. For if she be fal­lible in some points of faith, what assurance can we haue, that she is diuinely infallible in others, as S. Augustin rightly said of the scriptu­re. Besides, her diuine infallibilitie in onely fundamental points, were to no purpose for us, seing we know not certainly, which are those fun­damental points, which not. More­ouer, al points of faith sufficiently proposed, are equally to be beleued of vs with diuine faith, and therfore there must be diuine authoritie in [Page 98] the proposer for them al. I add also, that Protestants teach, that the word or voice of a minister, absol­uing a penitent, is infallible and Protestants make mini­sters vo [...]e, Gods voi [...]e. equiualent to Gods voice, and as much to be beleued, as if God spoke to him from heauen, as is to be seen in the Apologie of the Confess: of Auspurg. c. de poenitentia, Perkins Cathol. reform. Cont. 3. c. 3. Fulk. of Priesthood. p. 168. And if one Mi­nisters voice be such, much more the voice of the Church.

7. And out of these confessions of Protestants of the infallible and di­uine authoritie of the Prophets, Apostles, Euangelists, we maie see: First, how fondly some Vvhitaker l. 1. descrip p. 24. [...]26 l. 3. p. 419. & cont. 2. q. 4. c. 1. Laude sect. 16. n. 6. Petter sec. 5. Ch [...]lling. c. 3. n. 50. Protestants argue: The present Church is men: Therfore it is not infallible in mat­ters of faith. As if the Prophets, Apostles, Euangelists, had not been men. Secondly, how vntruly Laude saieth, sec. 16. p. 65. That special im­mediat reuelation is necessarily required to the verye least degree of diuine autho­ritie. For besids that he affirmeth [Page 99] that without all proof, it is mani­festly refuted by their grant of infal­libilitie of the present Church in fundamental points, For if she be infallible in such highe and diuine points she is such without immediat diuine reuelation. Besids, himself sec. tit, p. 51. granteth, that such and so great assistance of Christ, and his Holie Ghost, as is purpos [...]ly giuen to that effect, is enough to make the autho­ritie Vvhat assi­stance suffi­eth to make [...]uine in­f [...]llibilitie. of an [...]e companie of men, diuine and infallible. And if such, and so great assistance wil suffice to make infallible and diuine authoritie, then special immediat reuelation is not needful for that purpose. And sure­ly, it were greatly to restraine the Omnipotencie of God, that he can­not giue the verie least degree of di­uine authoritie, but by special reue­lation, and that what so euer special assistance of his without that, were not sufficient to that purpose: Mo­reouer, S. Luke c. 1. professeth to haue written his Ghospel by hearsay Thirdly, we maiesee, how impiously [Page 100] wrote Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 11. The Apostles are not simply to be Protestants wil examin the Apostles. heard, but to be examined to the Rule of scripture. l. 1. de script. c. 10. sec. 8. No mans testimonie of God, and of his word, can be sufficient. And l. 3. c. 19. p. 500. I beleue Moises, but not for Moises: The like he hath ib. p. 402. 404. and other where often. Ibid. c. 8. p. 409. The Apostles giue al autho­ritie of iudging to the Scriptures, take none to themselues. l. 2. p. 294. Nether Pauls, nor the Apostles authoritie, was reason or Rule of beleuing. l. 1. c. 2. p. 41. Noman beleued for Ihons testimo­nie onely. c. 7. p. 78. The command to heare the Apostles, was not simple, for what soeuer they shold say. Simple obe­dience and beleef, is due to Christ onely. l. 3. c. 3. p. 383. Nones, but Gods testi­monie of himself, is sufficient. And Laude Relat. sec. 16. p. 107. were the Apostles liuing, and should tel vs, that they spake and writ the verie Oracles of God: yet this were but their own testi­monie of themselues, and so alone not able to enforce beleif on others. For wil [Page 101] they haue the Apostles to be exami­ned, and their testimonie vnsuffi­cient, which they haue granted to be simply diuine, the voice of God, al­togeither infallible, to be beleued for it self, sufficient to cause faith, and into which we may resolue our faith. For (as Whitaker himself saieth l. 1. de script. p. 45.) if it once appeare, that the voice of the Church, is the voice of God, it were impietie not to beleue, what she teacheth. For it were to cal in que­stion Gods authoritie. And l. 3. de scri­ptura p. 428. wil you not be content with diuine iudgment, or wil you ex­cept against infallible iudgment? Be­sids, the Church being built vpon the authoritie of the Prophets and Apostles, Ephes. 2. and Apocal. 21. if that be not sufficient, al Christian faith is built vpon an vnsuffi­cient foundation, and so is fallible. But to this vnchristian impietie are they by little and little lead, by their denial of the Churches infallibilitie in al matters which she proposeth vs of faith. For who compareth the [Page 102] dignitie of the Spouse of Christ, with anie singular Prophet or Apostle, or the loue of Christ to his Spouse, with his loue to anie singular Pro­phet or Apostle, or the scriptures testimonies of his efficacious assi­stance to his Spouse for not erring in faith, with the testimonies of his like assistance to anie singular Pro­phet or Apostle, wil easily see, that the denial of the Churches infalli­bilitie, wil lead him to doubt or de­nie the Infallibilitie of anie singular Prophet or Apostle; and the denial of that, wil lead to the denial of al infallible certaintie of Christian faith; to which it hath already lead Chillingworth, as is to be seen in him c. 2. §. 24. and 154. and other­where often. And if it be true, See infra l. 2. c. 8. sec. 2. which his three Approuuers (the cheifest Doctors of Oxford) say, that he teacheth nothing contrarie to the doctrine of their English Church, their English Church hath not infallible or diuine faith. But of this we shal speak more hereafter. [Page 103] Now let vs proue out of Scripture, that the true Church of Christ (which soeuer she is) is infallible in al points of faith. Finally, Prote­stants teach, that a ministers word absoluing one, is as infallible, as Gods word, as is to be seen in Apo­logia Confess Augustanae c. de Poe­nitentia, Confess Bohem. c. 14 Cal­uin. 10 v. 16. Perkins in Reform. Catholik cont. 3. c. 3. and others.

FIFT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is a sufficient and infallible Proposer of al vvhich she proposeth as points of faith, proued by vvhat she is saied to be in Scripture.

1. TWO waies we may proue the Infallibilitie of the true Church of God in al points which she proposeth as of faith, out of Scripture, the one is by what she, [Page 104] or her Pastors, are there saied to be, the other, by what God in Scripture hath promised to her. The first way we wil take in this Chapter, and the second, in the next. In the Scri­pture, the true Church of God is saied, first to be the pillar and ground of truth: secondly, her prea­ching, is saied to be a cause of faith: Thirdly, her pastors are saied to be witnesses of Gods truth: Fourthly, their voice is saied to be Christs voi­ce. Fiftly, they are saied to be put to keepe the faithful constant in faith: out of al which we wil euidently proue her infallibilitie in al matters, which she proposeth as of faith.

2. The Apostle 1. Timot. 3. v. 15. saieth: which is the Church of the li­uing God, the Pillar and Ground of truth. Which words doe not onely proue the Church to be infallible, but also, that she is an external formal cause of diuine truth, concerning vs: or (which commeth al to one) of our beleif of it, becaus on what our be­leif of diuine truth, relieth, as on a [Page 105] pillar or ground, that is some formal cause therof, But her infalli­bilitie I proue out thence in forme, thus: what is the Pillar and Ground of diuine and infallible truth, is diui­nely infallible in such truth. The Church is such, therfore she is diui­nely infallible in diuine truth. The Minor is the Apostles, The Maior is euident. For a humane and fallible pillar or Ground, is not able to See [...]uprae. 2. n. 3. vphold diuine and infallible truth, as is euident, and Chillingworth confesseth c. 2. §. 154. in these words: None can build an infallible! faith vpon motiues, that are not infallible, as it were a great and heauie burden vpon a foundation, that hath not strength proportionable. And the same he hath c. 1. n. 7. And also Whita­ker l. 1. de Script. p. 166. l. 3. p. 392. 415 Field l. 4. de Eccles. c. 2. Laude sec. 33. p. 248. Potter sec 5. p. 7. And (as the same Chillingworth saieth wel c. 3. §. 33.) The Apostles could not be the Churches foundation, without freedom from error in al those things, [Page 106] which they deliuered constantly, as cer­taine reuealed truthes: so I say, the Church could not be the pillar and Ground of truth to the faithful, without fredom from error in al things, which she constantly deli­uereth, as certain reuealed truthes. Nether can it be imagined, how the Scripture could by a clearer meta­phor, haue affirmed the Infallibili­tie of the Church in matters of faith, then by saying, that she is the pillar and Ground of diuine truth. For who can imagin, that God would not make her infallible, whome he maketh the Pillar and Ground of his truth? Neuertheless, Protestants seek manie waies to elude the clear­ness of this text: some by distinguis­hing the word Church. Some, by distinguishing the word Pillar: some by distinguishing the word Is, and some by distinguishing the word truth. And Chillingworth c. 3. §. 76. p. 176. wil haue Timothe, not the Church, to be called the pillar and ground of truth. Which varietie of [Page 107] shifts, doth sufficiently confute them.

3. Vvhitaker cont. 2. q. 2. c. 2. [...]ulk in 1. Timot. 3. Field l. 4. de E [...]cle. c. 4. Some say, the Apostle speaketh not of the vniuersal Church, but onely of the particular Church of Ephesus, becaus he saieth S. Timothe conuersed in the Church, which is the pillar of truth. But this shift, first is new, not found in anie ancient author. Secondly, is contrarie to the Apostles word For he vseth the word, Church absolutly; and Prote­stants translate it, The Church, which (as is clear, and Laude Re [...] lat. p. 128. 141. Chil [...]ing. p. 263. themselues con­fess) signifieth the whole Church, and not a parte of the Church, as a particular Church is. Thirdly, it is contrarie to his meaning. For no particular Church is the pillar and Ground of truth, becaus euerie par­ticular Church is fallible. Fourthly, it is contrarie to the Fathers. For S. Hierom in c. 26. Iob. saieth: The Church, which is the congregation of al Saints, the pillar and ground of truth. Fiftly, it is against themselues. For Whitaker contr. 2. q. 3. c. 2. denieth [Page 108] that by the Church, 1. Timoth. 3. is meant anie particular Church, but wil haue it to be their inuisible and Catholike Church, and so doth Iuel part. 1. Apolog. c. 9. §. 1. and others. Sixtly, the ground or pretence of their limitation of the Apostles words to the particular Church of Ephesus, is not sufficient, both be­caus the pronoune Thou. (Which is their Ground) is not in the Greek text, which alone Protestants ac­count c See infra l. 2 c. 9. sect. 2. authentical, as also becaus S. Timothe conuersed in the vniuersal Church, as euerie citizen conuer­seth in the cittie, though he liue not in euerie parte therof. Iunius l. 3. de eccles c. 14. [...]li [...]nsis Res­pons-ad Bel­larm. c. 14. Others ther­fore distinguish the word pillar, and saie, that the Church is not the pillar on which diuine truth relieth, but such a pillar, as truth is put vpon to be read, as in old time, Edicts were put vpon pillars to be read. This shift also is new, not found in anie an­ciēt author, nor groūded in anie word of the text, nay plainly contrarie to the meaning therof. For the Church [Page 109] is saied to be such a pillar, as Ground is, and Ground is not to laie truth or Edicts vpon, but to vphold things. And so plain it is, that the Church is here called a pillar of truth, becaus it vpholdeth it amongst men, as Cal­uin vpon this place saieth: Becaus in Contr. 3. q. 5. c. 2. Funda­mentum su­stinet e di­ficium. Reinolds Confer. p. 557. respect of men, she susteineth truth. Whi­taker contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. She is like to a pillar in this, that as a pillar doth su­st [...]in the whole building, and make it more firme, so the Church doth sustein and vphold truth. And ibid. q. 1. c. 13. It belongeth to a pillar, to sustein others in truth. Nether do these men, who grant the Church to be such a pillar, as susteineth truth amongst men, differ from Catholiks about the Churches susteining truth amongst men, but about the manner how she doth sustein it, to wit whether by onely preaching truth, as they would, or by preaching, and by her authoritie also of testifying, as Ca­tholiks teach. For a pillar and ground is to be relied on. But to this purpo­se al is one, by what meanes she su­steins [Page 110] infallible truth. For if she sustein infallible truth by teaching it, she must be infallible in teaching it. Beside, if truth be alwaies tied to the Church▪ she is alwaies infallible.

4. Others distinguish the word, d Moulins cont. Peron. c. 13. Chilling. c. 3. p. 177. Vshe [...] Re­ionder. p. 25. Is, and say, that the Apostles mea­ning is not, that the Church is the pillar of truth, but o [...]ely, that she ought to be, or it is the dutie of the Church to be the pillar of truth. This exposition is (as the former) new, and voluntarie, and therfore a plain shift to delude the text, and contrarie to the Apostles words, who saieth not, what is the dutie of the Church, or what she ought to be, but what she is. Nether could it be her dutie to vphold truth, if she were not made infallible. For it were impossible for her to performe it▪ Vvhitaker contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. Others therfore distinguish the word Truth into necessarie, and not necessarie, and grant, that the Church is the pillar and ground of al necessarie truth. But (as I haue said, and must often say) albeit onely [Page 111] the principal articles of faith be ne­cessarie to diuine faith, and saluation by reason of the matter which is to be beleued, yet al articles of faith are also necessarie, by reason of the formal cause for which they are to be beleued, which is diuine reuela­tion sufficiently proposed, and which is most necessarie to diuine faith, and which is denied, if anie article of faith be not beleued. I add also, that al articles of faith (euen by reason of the matter which they conteine) are necessarie to the bet­ter being of faith, and of the faithful or (as the Apostle speaketh) to the consummation of Saints. Seing therfo­re, al articles of faith, be two waies necessarie, there is no reason to limit the Apostles speech, to anie certaine articles, especially, when (as Mor­ton saieth in his Grand Imposture c. 2. sec. 6.) It is the law of allawes: Non Rule not to distinguish. See Gerla­ [...]hius tom. 2. d [...]sput. 24. distinguendum, vbi lex non distinguit. Which he repeateth ibid. c. 13. and tom. 2. Apol. l. 2. c. 22. Moreouer, seeing none knoweth precisely, [Page 112] which points are fundamental or absolutly necessarie to be actually beleued of euerie one, which not, it were to no purpose for vs, that the Church were infallible in funda­mental points only, becaus we know not, which are al the fundamental points: and notknowing which they are, we cānot know in which points of faith, the Church is infallible, in which not; And then what good would her Infallibilitie (which is giuen to her for our good) doe to vs? I add also, that Protestants are not [...]See part. 1. l. 1. c. 7. constant, whether the Church be infalliblein fundamētal points, or no. And that if indeed the Church were infallible in fundamental points her authoritie (as I saied before) were in such points diuine, and we might giue her authoritie, as a iust secon­darie cause of our beleuing them: and in them relie on her authoritie, as vpon a sure pillar or ground of faith, both which Protestants The Churches preaching a [...]se of faith. denie.

5. Our second proof of the Infalli­bilitie [Page 113] of the Church in al points of faith, shal be taken from that in scripture her preaching is saied to be a cause and that necessarie (in or dinarie course) of diuine and infal­lible faith. Rom. 10. v. 14. How shal they beleue, whome they haue not heard. And how shal they heare with out a prea­cher? How shal they preach, vnles they be sent. Therfore faith is of hearing. In which words, the Churches prea­ching, is made a cause, and that ne­cessarie (in ordinarie course) of in­fallible faith, and faith is saied to be of hearing her preaching the word of God. Wherfore thus I argue in forme: The necessarie cause (in or­dinarie course) of infallible faith, is infallible: The Churches preaching is the necessarie cause (in ordinarie course) of infallible faith. Therfore her preaching is infallible. The Maior is euident, becaus a humane and fallible cause, cannot produce a diuine and infallible effect. And See sup. n. 2. (as Whitaker l. 1. de scrip. p. 166.) The effect doth not surpass the cause. [Page 114] And less can it be a necessarie cause therof, becaus what is fallible, can­not be necessarie: for what is falli­ble, maie faile, and what is necessarie to faith, cannot faile. Besides, al grant, that the extraordinarie cause of infallible faith, by the preaching of the Apostles, and Prophets, was infallible, as we shewed in the fourth Chapter n. 5. and why not also the ordinarie cause by the preaching of the Church? seeing the end of both preachings, is the same, to wit, in­fallible faith. For if ordinarie fallible a [...]thoritie in the Church, can cause infallible faith, what need had God to giue infallible authoritie to the Prophets and Apostles for that end? The minor, to wit, that the Chur­ches preaching is (in ordinarie cour­se) a necessarie cause of infallible faith, is plainly the Apostles mea­ning. For he asketh, how shal they beleue without a preacher lawfully sent, and the Pastors of the Church are the only preachers lawfully sent: And out of this necessarie dependen­cie [Page 115] of faith on lawful preaching, he inferreth: Therfore faith is of hearing to wit, of hearing the preaching of some lawfully sent, which is to make lawful preaching, a cause of faith. For if faith be of hearing lawful preaching, lawful preaching is a cause of faith. Nether hindereth it, that the word preached, is also a cause of faith: for the word is the obiect to be beleued, and lawful preaching, is the cause of beleuing it. Otherwise why should lawful prea­ching be necessarie, and notanie kin­de of preaching, suffice. And so eui­dētit is, that these words of the Apo­stle make the Churches preaching à cause ormeans of faith as Whitaker l. 1. de scrip. p. 41. being vrged with them, answereth thus: I confess, prea­ching is the external means instituted by God, by which faith is begotten in the See ib. p. 68. and 442. mindes of the Hearers. And p. 15. The Churches preaching, is but instrumētally cause of faith. And l. 3. p. 425. Faith, is the effect of the testimonie of the Church as of an instrument. And contr. 1. [Page 116] q. 3. c. 3. The Church is not author of faith, but as an instrument and external means. And an instrument is a true cause. And the same say others, as h C. 14. we shal see hereafter. And I as kno more but the Church to be aseconda­rie or instrumental cause (in respect of God) of diuine faith. For doubtles she cannot be the principal cause therof, as nether were the Prophets or Apostles: I omit that fond shift of fundamental and nor fundamen­tal points, which may be here vsed for to delude this text, becaus (be­side that which hath been already saied against it) the Apostle doth not say: How shal they beleue funda­mental points, but how shal they be­leue, that is, beleue anie point of faith at al, without a preacher? And also, becaus out of the Churches diuine infallibilitie in fundamental points of faith, euidently followeth her like infallibilitie in al points of faith: Nether haue I as yet read anie Protestant, who would grant the Church to be diuinely infallible in [Page 117] some points of faith, and denie herto be so infallible also in others points: see infra l. 2. c. 10. sec. 2. Pastors are Gods wit­nesses.

6. The third proof of the Curches Infallibilitie in al points of faith, shal be taken from that in scripture her Pastors are saied to be by God appointed witnesses for to be get di­uine and infallible faith. Acts. 1. v. 8. yee shal be witnesses to me in Hierusa­lem, and in al Iurie and Samaria, and to the vtmost of the land. The like is ibid. v. 48. and 22. c. 2. v. 32. c. 10. v. 39. c. 13. v. 31 c. 22. v. 25. c. 26. v. 6 1. Corinth. 15. v. 15. Ioan 1. v. 8. c. 15. v. 26. c. 21. v. 21. and otherwhere. Out of which places I argue thus in forme: who are witnesses apoin­ted by God to testifie diuine truth, and to beget diuine and infallible faith, (for the end of witnesses, is Caluin Actor. 20. v. 21. Testificatio ad toilendam omnem du­bitationem interponi [...]ur. to beget beleif of what they wit­nes) are altogether infallible: The Pastors of the Church are such; Therfore they are altogether infallible. The Maior is euident. For hu­mane and fallible witnesses, are [Page 118] vnfit to testifie diuine truth, becaus such may proue fals, and are vnable effectually to beget diuine and infal­ble faith. For the Supra n. 2. 5. effect doth not surpass the cause. And surely no wise man would assuredly beleue anie thing for the testimonie of one, of whose fidelitie he were not assured. For as in science, we cannot be assu­red of the conclusion, and not of the Premises, for which we are assured of the conclusion; so in faith, we cannot be infallibly assured of the thing witnessed, and not be infalli­ble assured of the witnes. Vvhitaker l. 1. de scrip. p. 49. 50. Laude sect. 16. p. 65. Some answer, that witnesses appointed immediatly by God, as the Apostles were, are altogether infallible, but not such, as are mediatly appointed by him, as the Church is. But this is The sawne end requireth like means. Ca [...]uin. 1. Cor. 1 15. v. 15. Redun­dat in maxi­mum Dei opprobrium si ordinati á Deo, aetern [...] eius veritatis praecones, mendatijs illus [...]sse [...]undo de­prehendan­tur. friuolous. For the diuers manner of Gods appointing witnesses, doth not varie the end, for which he ap­pointeth them, which being one and the same in the Apostles and the Church (to wit) testifying of diuine truth, and therby causing of diuine [Page 119] faith, requireth diuine infallibilitie in both, and only proueth the man­ner of Gods giuing infallibilitie to them, to be different, to wit, extra­dinarie. The Minor, namely that the Pastors of the Church, are appoin­ted by God witnesses of diuine truth for to beget by their testimonie, di­uine faith, concerning the Apostles, the aforesaid places manifestly auouch, and Protestants generally confess, as we saw in the former N. 5. Chapter: But they denie, that Pastors, successors of the Apostles, are so appointed by God. But this is euidently proued, becaus the end for which the testimonie of the Apostles was instituted by God, to wit, to beget diuine faith, conti­nueth. And therfore their infallible authoritie of testifying, continueth. As becaus the end of the Apostles preaching, baptizing, administra­ting Sacraments, and the like, con­tinueth; so their authoritie of testi­fying Gods truth, doth continue. [...]ay it was more needful, that infal­lible [Page 120] authoritie of testifying, should be in the Apostes successors, then in the Apostles themselues; becaus the Apostles, besides their infallible authoritie of testifying, had the gift of miracles, which much strength­ned their saied authoritie, which gift rheir successors ordinarily haue Office of Pastors, to testifie diui­ne truth. not, and therfore more need infal­lible authoritie of testifying, then the Apostles needed. Beside, the authoritie of testifying diuine truth, is an ordinarie office or dutie of the Pastors of Gods Church, as Prote­stants here confess, and al ordinarie offices or duties remain in the Apo­stles successors Moreouer, Pastors who succed the Apostles, (as we shal proue in the next argument) are put to consummat Saints, ther­fore also to testifie Gods truth. And so euident it is, that the Church and her Pastors, are witnesses of diuine faith, as Protestants often times con­fess it For thus the English confession art. 20. The Church is a witness and The Churche afaithful witnes. teacher of truth. And Rogers vpo [...] [Page 121] that article: Al of vs do grant, that the Church, as faithful witnes, may, yea of necessitie must, testifie to the world, what hath been the doctrine of Gods people from time to time. Melancthon in Locis, tit. de Eccles. I confess, the Church keepeth the scripture as witnes. Sutclif l. 1. de Eccles. c. 1. p. 11. we doubt not, but the Church is a faithfull witnes of the scripture. Beza 1. Tim. 3. v. 15. The Church is witnes and conser­uer of truth amongst men. Feild, of the Church l. 4. c 6. The Churches office of teaching and witnessing the truth. Potter sec. 5. p. 9. To the Church, we willingly attribute these two excellent vses: first, of witnes, testifying the au­thoritie and sense of scripture to vs: Se­condly, of Gods instrument, by whose ministerie in preaching and expoun­ding the scriptures, the Holie Ghost breeds a diuine faith in vs. Whitaker controu. 1. q. 3. c. 1. The Churches te­stimonie, must be receaued. Ibid. The Church deliuereth the rule of faith, as witnes. Controu. 2. q. 5. c. 18. The Church is an external witnes and inter­preter [Page 122] of truth. l. 1. de scrip. p. 15. we may be forced by the authoritie of the Church, to acknowledg the Scripture. Caluin. 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 10. Moulins Bu­ [...]le [...] sec. 104. P. 19. The Churches testimonie must be receiued, and who receaueth it not, is guiltie of Sacriledg. Ibid. it is the office of the Church and Pastors, to testifie of the scriptures. P. 22. The Church hath authoritie to testifie those things, which are of faith. P. 46. we cannot beleue, but by the testimonie of the Church, as by the ordinarie means. P. 49. I haue told, what offices the Church hath tou­ching scripture. First, it is to be witnes and keeper of the scripture. Ibid. Indeed the Church is witnes of faith.

7. You see, how the euidencie of the Churches Infallibilitie in wit­nessing Gods truth, forceth Prote­stants to speak (at least) as Catho­licks doe, howsoeuer they think not so. For they say, she is a faithful wit­nes; she hath authoritie to testifie Gods truth: her authoritie can force men to acknowledg the scripture: Her testimo­nie must be receiued, and who receaueth it not, is guiltie of sacriledg. And hath [Page 123] she of her humane nature, to be a faithful witnes of supernatural truths? hath she of herself, authori­tie to testifie such truths; can her hu­mane authoritie forcemen, to ac­knowledg things aboue sense and reason? Is it sacriledg, not to receiue humane testimonie? Pastors are to consum­mate Saints.

8. The fourth argument, we wil take from that the Scripture saieth, that God hath put Pastors in the Church for to consummate Saints, and to keep them vnited and constant in diuine faith, til we meet al in one. E­phes. 4. v. 11. And he gaue some Apostles, and some Prophets, others some Euāge lists and others Pastors and Doctors, to the con­summation of Saints, for edification of the bodie of Christ, vntil we meet in the vnitie of faith.—That now we be not Children and carried about with euerie winde of doctrin. Out of which place I argue thus in forme: whome God putteth in the Church; as he put Apostles, Prophets, and Euangelists, for to consummate Saints, and to keep them vnited and [Page 124] constant in diuine infallible faith: to them he hath giuen diuine infallibi­litie in matters of faith: but so he put the Pastors and Doctors of the Church: Therfore to them he hath giuen diuine infallibilitie in matters of faith. The Maior is euident, both becaus to the Apostles, Prophets, and Euangelists, such infallibilitie was giuen, and therfore the like, to others, whome God putteth in the Church, for the same end he put them: as also, becaus if they had not diuine Infallibilitie, they were nether fit nor able to consummate Saints, and keep them vnited and constant in diuine infallible faith: For humane veracitie, cannot make men diuinely assured. Some Prote­stants may say, that this proueth, that Pastors of the Church haue In­fallibilitie in fundamental points, but not in al points. But, beside what we haue saied before of this distinction, and that it is here, both new and groundles, and therfore a mere voluntarie and irrational shift, [Page 125] it is clearly refuted. First, becaus Pastors are saied to be put for the same end, for which the Apostles Prophets, and Euangelists were, to wit, to consummate saints, and to keep them vnited and constant in al points of diuine faith. And also, Pastors are saied, to be put in the Church in the same manner for that end, as the Apostles were. Secondly, becaus Saints are not consummate, if they be suffered to err in anie points of faith. Thirdly, Laude sec. 16. p 65. 91. Se [...] the Pre­facen. 2. Protestants wil not grant diuine Infallibilitie to Pa­stors, euen in fundamental points, and the Apostle speaketh of diuine infallibilitie, such as the Prophets and Apostles had. And if Protestants would in deed grant diuine infallibi­litie in fundamētal points to Pastors, I think they would not stick to grant them diuine infallibilitie in other points of faith.

8. Wherfore Chillingworth c. 3. n. 79. and seq. seemeth to grant, that the Pastors (wherof the Apostle speaketh (had diuine infallibilitie in [Page 126] al points of faith, as the Apostles had, but denieth, that he speaketh of Chilling. tur­neth Pastors vnto wri­tings. Pastors succeeding the Apostles, but onely of such, as in the Apostles time, had immediat reuelation, and that they consummate Saints, and keep them vnited and constant in faith for euer, by their writing. But this Exposition, or limitation of the Apostles words to Pastors, onely in the time of the Apostles, First, is new, (for he citeth no ancient au­ther for it) and therfore is iustly sus­pected: secondly, it hath no ground in the Apostles words, and therfore is ameere voluntarie and irrational shift to delude the true sense of them. Thirdly, becaus no Pastors of the Apostles time (distinct from Apostles and Euangelists) wrote anie thing. For S. Mark, and S. Luke were Euangelists, and al other wri­ters, were Apostles. And S. Paul speaketh of Pastors, who were dif­ferent from both Apostles and Euan­gelists, nor saieth he, that the Pastors writings were put in the Church to [Page 127] con [...]ummate Saints, but the Pastors themselues were put for that end. and Chillingworth in effect wil not, that Pastors were put, but onely their writings, becaus not those in­fallible Pastors, but onely their wri­tings were to cōtinue in the Church for euer. Wheras the Apostle spea­keth not of writings, but of men, to wit, of infallible Pastors, that were to continue for euer. Lastly, it is contrarie to the common sense of Protestants, who out of this place doe gather, that there shal beal waies Pastors in the Church, as Melanc­thon to. 1. Lutheri disp. de Politia Eccles. fol. 442. Kemnitius 2. parte Exam p. 192. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 3. §. 2. and vpon this place, Whitaker Controu. 4. q. 1. c. 3. p. 634. and others And besids now S [...] l. 2. [...] 6. sec. 2. Protestants grant, that no Scripture is of it self (without the testimonie of the Pastors of the Church) sufficient to proue anie point to be beleued with diuine faith, much less, to consum­mate Saints, and keep them constant [Page 128] and vnited in such faith. Wherfore S. Paul meant not of anie writings of infallible Pastors in the Apostles time, but of infallible Pastors them­selues: And when I say: the Pastors of the Church are infallible, I meane not, that euerie Pastor is infallible farther then he agreeth with the Church, no more, then when I say The Church is infallible or perpe­tual, I meane, that euerie member of the Church is such, becaus, The Pastors, signifieth the bodie or com­panie of them, as Chilling. p. 263. Laudep. 128. 141. The Church, signi­fieth the whole bodie therof. And these foure arguments hitherto brought, are a pr [...]ori, taken from the end, for which the scripture saieth, the Church was instituted by God. For becaus he made the Church, the pillar and ground of diuine truth, he gaue her, to that end, diuine Infallibilitie: Becaus he made the Churches preaching, the ordinarie means of begetting diuine infallible faith, he gaue her (to that end) diuine infallibilitie in matters [Page 129] of faith: becaus he made her Pastors witnesses of diuine truth, he gaue them (for that end) diuine infal­libilitie in testifying that truth. Becaus he put Pastors for to con­summate Saints, and keep them vnited and constant in diuine faith, he gaue them (for that end) diuine infallibilitie, in matters of faith, be­caus both Church and Pastors with­out diuine infallibilitie had been vn­fit and vnable to attaine to those ends as is euidēt by it self, and confessed by Protestants here aboue n. 2 and 5.

9. The fift argument, shal be taken out of that our Sauior saied of the Pastors of the Church: Luke 10. v. 16. who heareth you, heareth me, who despi­seth Pastors, one teacher with Christ. you, despiseth me. Out of which words I argue thus in forme, who are one teacher with Christ, are infalli­ble teachers of Christs doctrin: The Pastors of the Church, are one tea­cher with Christ: Therfore they are infallible teachers of his doctrin. The Maioris euident. For Fallible, and in­fallible teachers, are not one, but [Page 130] quite different kinds of teachers: the Minor also is manifest. For if they were not one Teacher with Christ, it would not follow, that who heareth them, heareth Christ. For different teachers may haue dif­ferent hearers. And I note, that Christ saied not, who heareth your Vvitaker cont [...]. 2 q. 4. who hear the Church hear Christ him­self. doctrin, heareth my doctrin, but, who heareth you, heareth me. Ther­by making, not onely his Pastors doctrin and his doctrin, one, but also making them and him, one teacher of his doctrin, which is much more. For a priuat mans doctrin, may be al one with Christs doctrin, but be not one Teacher with Christ, becaus he is not a Teacher appoin­ted by Christ to speak for him, as Pastors are. Some Protestants ans­wer, Chilling. c. 3. n. 72. that these words of Christ, are meant onely of the Apostles, who were indeed both infallible Tea­chers; and one Teacher with Christ, but not so their Successors. But this limitation of Christs meaning to the Apostles alone, First, is new, becaus [Page 131] no ancient author is alleadged for it. Secondly, it can haue no other ground in the text, but becaus the words were spoken onely to the Apostles, which is no reasonable ground. For so al power of prea­ching, and ministring Sacraments, should haue been proper to the A­postl [...]s. Thirdly, it is contrarie to the end of Christs speech. For as Christ made the Apostles, Teachers of his doctrin for the good of the Church, so he made them also one with himself for the same end. Wherfore as he made Pastors, suc­cessors of his Apostles, in being Tea­chers, for the good of the Church, so he made them, successors of the Apostles, in being one Teacher with him for the good of the Church: and therfore are such, as long as the Church continueth. Fourthly, the latter part of this speech of Christ, is meant of the successors of the A­postles. For who despiseth them, despiseth Christ, as wel as who des­piseth the Apostles. Therfore the [Page 132] former part who heareth you, heareth me, is also meant of the successors of the Apostles. Fiftly, it is contrarie to the Fathers. For S. Cyprian, Epist. 69. saieth: Christ saieth to his Apostles, and therby to al Pastors who succeed the Apostles by successiue ordination, who heareth you, heareth mee. Lastly, it is contrarie to diuers Protestants, who p Laude sec. 16. p. 25. grant, that these words are meant both of the Apostles, and their Suc­cessors, but (say p some of them) differently, to wit, absolutly, in the A­postles, and conditionally, in their Suc­cessors, namely, so long, and so far as you speak my words and not your own.

10. But this exposition is (as the former) new, and without anie ground in the text, and therfore an irrational elusion of Christs words Secondly, it maketh Christ to equi­uocate, vsing the same words diffe­rently, without anie expression of his different vsage. Thirdly, the lat­ter part of Christs speech, to wit, who desp [...]seth you &c. is meant abso­lutly, aswel of the Pastors, as of the [Page 133] Apostles. For absolutly, who despi­seth Christs Pastors, despiseth him, as wel, as if they despised his Apo­stles, becaus they are his legats, as wel as the Apostles were. Fourthly, it is contrarie to the end of Christs speech, which was to giue both to the Apostles, and to their successors assurance to teach his doctrin; and to People, to heare and beleue them, becaus they were one Teacher with himself. Which end were frustrat in the successors of his Apostles, if his meaning were not absolute to them, as wel as to the Apostles. For what assurance should ether the Pastors haue in teaching, or people, in hearing them, if Christs words depend vpon an vncertain cōdition? Assurance requireth an absolute pro­mise: and seeing Christ meant to as­sure both the Apostles, and their teaching, and people, in hearing them, he must needs meane absolut­ly, both of Apostles, and their suc­cessors. Fiftly, it implieth contra­diction, to be one Teacher with [Page 134] Christ, and not to be absolutly in­fallible in teaching his doctrin. For how can he who is one Teacher with an infallible Teacher, be not absolutly infallible? Besids, it is one thing to teach infallible doctrin, and an other, to be infallible in tea­ching infallible doctrin. And one thing is to heare Christs doctrin, and to heare Christ. Priuat men, may teach infallible doctrin, yet are not infallible in teaching it: and who heareth them, heareth Christs Vvhitaker l. 3. des [...]rip. p. 414. Spi­ritus per os E [...]lesiae lo­quitur so cont. 1. q 3. c. 11. doctrin, but yet heareth not Christ, becaus Christ hath not appointed them to speak for him, nor speaketh by them. But whom Christ appoin­teth to speak for him, (as he doth Pa­stors) they do both teach infallible doctrin, and are infalible in teaching it, and who heareth them, not one­ly heareth Christs doctrin, but also heareth Christ himself, becaus he heareth them, whom Christ hath [...]pointed to speak for him, and by whome he speaketh. And it implieth contradiction, that they should not [Page 135] be absolutly infallible, whom Christ appointeth speakers or teachers for him, and speaketh by them, or. whome hearing, we heare Christ Wherfore Thus I argue; Christ saied absolutly, and without anie condition, as wel of the successors of the Apostles, as of the Apostles themselues; who heareth you, heareth me, Therfore absolutly, and without anie condition, both Apostles, and their successors are infallible. For we cannot be deceaued by Christ, by anie way that we heare him. The antecedent is euident by Christs words, which are absolute and haue no condition anie more for the A­postles Successors, then for the A­postles themselues. The consequen­ce also is euident: For who absolutly are such, as hearing them, we heare Christ, are absolutly infallible. And this consequence those Protestants saw, who denied these words to be at al meant of the Apostles Succes­sors. For they saw, that if Christ saied absolutly of them, as wel as of the [Page 136] Apostles, who heare you, heare me, Laude p. 65. 91. they must need be absolutly and not meerly conditionally, infallible. Lastly, Protestāts do not grant, euen conditional diuine infallibilitie, but onely humane, to Pastors; and yet Christ here speaketh of diuine infal­libilitie, for such was the infallibilitie of the Apostles, and such must needs be theirs, whome who heareth, hea­reth Christ. For who are such, as who heareth them, heareth Christ are such as Christ speaketh by and such as Christ speaketh by, are doub­tles, infallible. For Christ cannot speak vntruthes by anie whom soe­uer. L. 1. de scrip. p. 109. And as Whitaker saieth: What is the Church speaking the word of God, but the mouth and tongue of God?

11. And al the aforesaied places of Scripture, and arguments made, proue indifferently, that the true Church of God, can no way err in points of faith, ether vincibly or in­uincibly: others, peculiarly proue, that she cannot err vincibly or sin­fully in anie point of faith. As where [Page 137] Scripture testifieth, that Hel gates Math. 19. O [...]eae. 2. Rom. 13. 1. Cor. 12. Michea 4. Luca [...]. 57. Psal. 2. 27. 32. Hebr. 32. Galat. 4. shal not preuaile against her, or cal­leth her the Spouse of Christ, the bodie of Christ, Christs kingdom, Christs Inheritance, Christs Tem­ple, our mother which bringeth vs forth to Christ, For sinful error in anie point of faith, is the sin of He­resie, which is a gate of Hel, and S. G [...]egor. in ps [...]l. 5. Poe­niten. which destroieth both the vnitie, and substance of sauing faith, and of the true Church, as we haue pro­ued at large parte 1. l. 2. c. 2. & seqq. and need not here repeate. For hauing clearly proued already, that the true Church cannot err at al in points of faith, we need not proue that she cannot err in them vincibly or sinfully. Wherfore we wil now proue out of Gods promises made in the Scripture to the Church, that she cannot err in points of faith.

SIXT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is in­fallible in al points of faith, proued by Gods promises to her.

1. IOAN. c. 14. v. 16. Christ saieth: I wil request my father, and he wil giue you an other Paraclet for to abide with you for euer. And v 26. The Paraclet, The Holie Ghost, whome the Father wil send in my name, shal teach you al things, and suggest vnto you al things, whatsoeuer I shal say vnto you. And c. 16. c. 13. when the holie spirit of truth shal come, he shal teach you al truth. Behold a most large promise of Christ to the Church, that the Holie Ghost shal be for euer with the Church, and shal both teach, and suggest her al things, al things what soeuer Christ shal say, Al truth. Therfore she cannot err in anie thing, which Christ taught, or [Page 139] in anie truth. And Whitaker cont. 1. q. 3. c. 11. calleth these, most clear and most certain testimonies. To this Protestants make three answers▪ al opposit one to the other: The first Vvhitaker [...]ont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. Laude se [...]. 25. p. 165. P [...]tter se [...]. 5. p. 59. Chilling. c. 3. § 71. and most common, is, that Christ promiseth not that the Holie Ghost shal teach the Church al truth of faith, but onely, al truth which is absolutly necessarie to al. This limi­tation of al truth of faith, to al truth absolutly necessarie to al: First is new, for no ancient Author is alleadged for it. Secondly, it is voluntarie. For it hath no ground in the text, but is voluntarily shaped according to their opinion, That the Church can­not err in fundamental points, but in other points she may: Thirdly, it is violent, for it is as to expound, al truth, by not al truth. Fourthly, it is iniurious to the Apostles, to whome it was personally made, as if Christ had not here promised to teach them al truth of faith whatsoeuer, but onely fundamental. Fiftly, it is contrarie to the Fathers. For Phoe­badus [Page 140] l. contra Arianos saieth: when Christ saieth, al truth, surely he exclu­deth none. Sixtly, al points of faith are absolutly necessarie to al, to be beleued, at least virtually, and also actually, if they be sufficiently pro­posetd, as we haue clearly proued in the former D 2. c. 3. 1 lb. l. 2. c. 3. parte, and Prote­stants sometimes confess. And though there be but some points, which are absolutly necessarie to be beleued actually of al, yet seing (as Protestants confess) none knoweth precisely, which they are, what good would it doe to Christians, to know, that the Church cannot err in them. Do not Protestants confess, that al diuine reuelations without exce­ption, are necessarie to be beleued, when they are sufficiently propo­sed, as I shewed parte 1. l. 1. c. 25. N'ay doe not they confess, that al diuine reuelations are fundamental to faith, when they are sufficiently proposed, as I shewed ibid. l. 2. c. 25. How then can they think, that the Church can err in anie point of faith [Page 141] sufficiently proposed? Doth not Chillingworth in his answer to the preface n. 6. say; that we are bound See P [...]tter [...]c. 7. p. 103. by the loue of God, and the loue of truth, to be zelous on defence of truths, that are anie way profitable, though not simply necessarie to Saluation? Our Sauior him­self hauing assured vs, that he that shal break one of his least commandments, and shal so teach men, shal be called the least in the kingdom of heauen. And wil not Christ teach his Church al tru­thes profitable to saluation, or suffer her to teach contrarie to anie of his least commandements? Doth not Whitaker Controu. 2. q. 4. c. 2. say, that the Church erreth not in those things, which are necessarie to anie? And are such things absolutly ne­cessarie to al men? Doth not Laude Relat. sec. 38. n. 25. say, that beside the foundation common to al, there be things necessarie to manie particular mens Saluation? and wil Christ suffer the Church to err in things necessa­rie to manie particular mens salua­tion? As he doth, if he suffer her not to [Page 142] err but in the foundation common to al. I omit here Laude his fond di­stinction sec. 16. n. 28 That Christ promised an infallible assistance to his Apostles, but onely a fitting assistan­ce to their successors, for beside that it is a new and groundles distinction, it is contrarie to the end of Christs promise. For no assistance in matters of [...]nfallible faith, is fitting, but that which is infallible But out of the aforesaid sayings of Protestants, it is euident, First, that some times they grant, and indeed must grant, that the Church is infallible in more points, then are absolutly fundamen­tal to al men. 2. that in what points she is infallible, she is in them diui­nitus, or diuinely infallible, becaus she is such, by Christs foresaid pro­mise, and the Holie Ghosts special assistance. 3. That in saying, the Church is infallible onely in neces­saries, they should not dissent from Catholiks, if by necessaries, they would mean necessaries to alsortes of men, and both for the being and [Page 143] better being of faith, as no doubt the Apostle meant Ephes. 4. by consum­mation of Saints, and edification of the bodie of Christ. For Catholiks do not think, that that the Church is infal­lible in things altogether vnnecessa­rie, as manie scholastical subtiltiesare.

2. Their second answer is, that though the Holie Ghost teach the Laude sect. 25. n. 5. Chilling. c. 3. §. 71. Church al truth, anie way necessa­rie to Saluation; yet it followeth not, that she learneth al such truth, becaus God complaineth of some, that they had eyes, and would not see, had eares and stopped them. This answer also is new, and not grounded in anie word of Christ, but voluntarie and irrational, and iniurious to the Apostles, as if they had not learnt al truth, which the Holie Ghost taught them, and also to the Holie Church, as if she would not learne al the truth which the Holie Ghost teacheth her, but were like to those reprobats, who would not see, nor heare Gods voice, and blasphemous against Christ, (as if [Page 144] he would not promise) and against the Holie Ghost, as if he wold not more effectually teach the Apostles and Church, then he doth teach Reprobates. But before, we haue proued, that the Holie Ghost tea­cheth the Church efficaciously.

3. Their third answer, is, that this Vvhitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 77. Laud. sec. 16. p. 97. Chilling. c. 3. §. 72. Moulins Bu­ [...]ler p. 51. promise was made to the Apostles onely, whome indeed the Holie Ghost taught al truth of faith, and who also learnt it; but not to the Church; or Successors of the Apo­stles. This answer is new, nor suffi­ciently grounded in the text, as shal by and by appeare, but contrarie to Christs express words of his Promi­se, for euer; For the Apostles were not to abide here for euer Contra­rie to the end of his Promise, which was for the good of the Church, and therfore was to continue so long, as the Church continueth For it was cheifly for the good of the Church, that the Holie Ghost was to teach al truth. Contrarie to the Fathers, as we shal see in the next [Page 145] Chapter: And finally, contrarie to Protestants. For thus Laude sec. 16. p. 93. 96. It was made to the Apostles, and their suecessors. sec. 25. p. 161. A large promise to the Church, of knowing al points of truth. And sec. 33: p. 231▪ for necessarie truth the Apostles receaued this promise for themselues and the who­le Church P. 232. The Fathers refer their speech to the Church vniuersal. And Potter sec. 5. p. 18. That promise was made to the Apostles, in behoof of the Church, and is verified in the vni­uersal Church. And [...]tem Cont. 2. q. 1. c. 1. Laudesect. 16 p. 96. Whitaker con­trou. 3. q. 6. c. 2. saieth, that those words. For euer, conuince it, as in truth they doe, becaus, the Apostles were not to be here for euer. Ne­uertheles Chillingworth c. 3. §. 74. answereth, that by for euer, here is not meant eternally, but continual­ly for the time of the Apostles liues, becaus for euer is sometimes so taken in Scripture. But fondly, for in tho­se places, the Tertul. de [...]estor. [...]3. matter sheweth that for euer signifieth til death. But the like is not here, for the reasons al­ready [Page 146] giuen, and al words are to be vnderstood properly, vnles the contrarie be manifest, as the Tertul de Carne [...]hri [...]. c. 13. 15. 24. de restor. c. 18. Cont. Praxec 13. Augustin l. 3. d [...] Doctrin. c 10. 11. H [...]larius l. 1. 2. 4. 5. 7. Fa­thers teach, and reason sheweth. For els, al vnderstanding of words, should become voluntarie, as men would haue it. And yet Chilling­worth §. 75. saieth I presume I haue she­wed sufficiently, that this (For euer) hinders not, but that the promise may be appropriated to the Apostles, when he hath out of a few places, and those vnlike; (as being of a quite different matter) wrested a word from its proper and vsual signification, to an improper and vnusual, merely for to defend his heresie. For the mat­ter is quite different, becaus in the places brought by Chillingworth, speech is of some particuler persons, who nether in themselues, nor in their successors, could continue eternally: and therfore, for euer, in them, must needs be mant For their life, wheras the Apostles continue in their successors eternally, and therfore For euer, spoken to them [Page 147] them for the good of the Church, is to be vnderstood eternally, as properly and vsually it signifieth. But it is the common sophistical manner of arguing among Prote­staut writers, to argue from so­me few particular improper vse of words, in some matter, against the proper and vsual sense of them, euen in a different and dislike mat­ter, which is a verie Sophistical kinde of arguing, and wel to be noted. For by that, nothing can be assuredly proued out of scripture. Besids, Christ here so promiseth the assistance of the Holie Ghost for euer, as Math. 28. he promiseth his own assistance for euer, but that he promiseth Laude sect. 16. p. 29. eternally. For he saieth. Going, teach al nations, baptizing &c. And I am with you al daies til the end of the world: to wit, with you, teaching and baptizing. Which sheweth Christs assistance for euer with his Pastors in their teaching. Chilling­worths proofs, that this promise was made to the Apostles alone, be [Page 148] caus in them some words pertein to them alone, proue no more, then that the promise was in words made to them alone, but not meant to them alone. As Christs promise to S. Peter Math. 16. that the Church should be built on him, and that he should haue the keyes of heauen, was made to him alone, yet not meant to him alone, but to his suc­cessors also; and commandment was giuen to him alone Ioan. 21. to feed Christs sheep, and yet not meant to him alone, but to his successors also. Math. 18. that what the Apostles should Promises are to be measu­red by, their end. loose on earth, should be loosed in hea­uen, was made onely to them, but meant also to their successors: and the like is of manie others such. And the reason of al, is one and the same, becaus al these promises were made to the Apostles, for the good of the Church, which was to continue after the Apostles. Thus we haue re­futed the Protestants three answers to this promise of Christ, and she­wed them to be mere shifts, Nay [Page 149] indeed they turne Christs most bountiful promise made vnto his Church, to nothing▪ for to what purpose is it to teach the Church al fundamental or absolutly necessarie truths, and not tel her, which are those truths? To what purpose were it to teach the Church vneffectual­ly, as Reprobates are taught: To what purpose were it, that the A­postles alone were taught al truth, if the Church also were not taught it, who is to teach vs as they taught her.

4. An other promise of Infallibili­tie in matters of faith, made to the Church, is Isaiae. 59. v. 21. This is my Conuenant with the, saieth our lord: my spirit which is in the, and my words which I haue put in thy mouth, shal not depart from thy mouth, and from the mouth of thy sred, and from the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith our Lord from hence forward, and for euer. Which words are not a command as Moulins would haue it, but a con­uenant or promise, and that absolu­te, [Page 150] not conditional, as Plessiae wold, and doe plainly promise to the Church continual infallibilitie, and infallibilitie for euer, and in al the words of God, which he hath put in her mouth, and are so plain as Whitaker contr. 2. q. 5. c. 19. saied: This place doth shew, that true prea­ching of the word, shal be in the Church perpetual. Yet l. 1. de Scrip. p. 133. he saieth, this promise was not made to the teaching Church, but to the whole Church, that is the elect. But first, this distinction of the teaching Church, and the elest Church, hath no ground in the text, and therfore is a volun­tarie and irrational shift: Secondly, words put in thy mouth, shew plainly, that it is made to the teaching Church, and (as Whitaker before cited) shew, that true preaching of the word, shal be perpetual in the Church. Thirdly, if this promise be made to the whole elect Church, it compre­hendeth some parte (at least) of the teaching Church. For alwries some of the teaching Church, are Elect: [Page 151] and so there are alwaies some prea­chers of al points of faith in the Church. I omit their vsual shift of their distinction of Fundamental, and not fundamental points of faith, both becaus there are no not funda­mental points in their sense, that is, not necessarie to sauing faith, true Church, and Saluation; but al are fundamental to those ends, that is, necessarie to be beleued, at least vir­tually, and also actually, if they be sufficiently proposed [...]: And also, be­caus See part. 1 l. 1. c. 7. Protestants doe not constant­ly defend, that the Church is infal­lible in fundamental points, and See infra l. 2 c. 10. sect. 2. generally they say, that she is not infallible in their most fundamental point of al, to wit, that scripture is the word of God; and al of them de­nie her to be diuinely infallible in anie point of faith what soeuer. And God in these words, plainly testi­fieth, that he wil make her diuinely infallible, becaus he wil put his word in her mouth and make, that it shal neuer depart from her, which is to [Page 152] make her diuinely infallible, as he made the Prophets; or Euangelists: For I cal that diuinely infallible, which is infallible by Gods diuine assistance, and not by anie natural insight of truth, and natural fide­litie, in telling it: And such diuine infallibilitie God hath promised to his Church in the foresaid words of the Prophet, or that can not be pro­mised by anie words, which men can speak or hear.

5. And now (Gentle Reader) I pray thee consider. First, how ma­nie places (to omit others for bre­uitie sake) I haue brought for the diuine infallibilitie of the true Church of God in al matters of faith: secondly, how directly they affirme the said infallibilitie, so as they need no inference of ours, though I haue reduced some of them to sillogistical forme, becaus Beza in Colloq. mont. p. 95. 96. 98. Hunnius de Condit. dis­put. thesi 18. Vvhitaker Pr [...]. Con­trou. Morton part. 2. Apol. l. 1. [...]. 49. Fulco de Suc [...]es. p. 493. Chil­ling c. 3. n. 43. Pro­testants do require it. Thirdly, how clearly, that Protestants are forced to inuent so manie, so new, so con­trarie one to the other, so volunta­rie, [Page 153] and so violent expositions. Fourthly, how against so manie, so direct, so plain places of Scripture, which teach the infallibilitie of the Church in al points of faith, Prote­stants cannot bring one place of Scripture, which directly, so much as seemeth to teach, that she is falli­ble in points of faith, as may be seen in Whitaker contro. 2. q 4. c. 3. and other Protestants, who write of this matter, but al their arguments are ether taken wholy from mere natu­ral reason, or at least partly from natural reason, which euidently sheweth, that they can haue no di­uine and infallible faith, that the Church is fallible in points of faith, becaus the conclusion followeth the weaker part: wheras Catholiks haue express, and clear scripture for her infallibilitie, and consequently good ground for diuine faith of it. The most they can bring out of Scri­pture for their purpose, are some examples, which are the same, which the Donatists brought for the pe­rishing [Page 154] of the Church, as may be seen in S. Augustin l. de Vnitate c. 13. to which he there fully answe­reth; and indeed do rather proue the perishing of the Church, then her erring in faith, and therfore must be answered as wel of Protestants, as of Catholiks. For (as Whitaker saieth Contro. 2. q. 3. c. 1.) He is mad, that saieth the Church can Perish. And ibid. c. 2. who denieth that the Church is founded for euer, and to continue per­petually, he is no Christian. Morton in his replie, for defence of his apo­logie p. 90. It is madness to say, that the whole visible Church can faile: and Chillingworth c. 3. §. 11. we beleue the Catholik Church can not perish. Though this he beleue not infalli­ble. For in answer to the preface §. 18. he saieth: the contrarie doctrin, I doe at no hand beleue to be a damnable heresie, And c. 5. §. 41. Nether is it certain, that the doctrin of the Churches failing, is re [...]ugnant to the Creed. Fiftly, consider how vntruly wrote Chillingworrh c. 2. §. 28. of Catho­liks: [Page 155] you yourselues doe not so much as pretend to enforce to the beleif hereof (Infallibilitie of the Church) by anie proofs infallible and conuincing, but onely to induce vs to it by such as are, by your confession, onely probable motiues. §. 35. your faith, euen of the foundation of your faith, yo [...]r Churches authoritie, is built lastly and wholy vpon pruden­tial motiues. And §. 70. The faith of Papists, relies alone vpon their Churches infallibilitie: That there is anie Church infallible, and that theirs is it, they pre­tend not to beleue, but onely vpon pru­dential motiues. Are so manie, so plain so direct places of Scripture, as Ca­tholiks bring for the infallibilitie of the Church, onely prudential moti­ues? To say nothing of the testimo­nie of Fathers, conuincent reasons, and plain confession of Protestants, which hereafter we shal bring for the same purpose.

6. To al the former proofes of the infallibilitie of the Church, taken out of holie Scripture, I wil add one taken from the Apostles Creed or [Page 156] Symbol, which Caluin 2. Instit. c. 16. §. 8. Vvhitaker l. 3. de script. c. 3 sect. 1. Protestants say is an Epitome of the Scripture, ad con­teineth al fundamental points of faith. For in that we profess to be­leue, the holie Catholik Church. And holie she cannot be, if she sinfully err in anie point of faith, becaus euerie sinful error in faith, is heresie, and euerie heresie, a sin, which exclu­deth out of heauen. Nor Catholik she could be, if she err sinfully, or not sinfully, in anie matter of faith, becaus Catholik includeth orthodo­xie, that is, right beleef, as is eui­dent, becaus Catholik is opposit to heretik, as also, becaus the Fathers affirme it, as L. 1. in Gen. & Epist. 48. S. Austin, S. Cat [...]chesi [...]8. Cyril, S. Epist. 5. Pation, and Optatus l. 1. others. And name­ly S. L. de vni­ [...]ate. Austin sayeth, that though Christians were spred ouer the world, and yet did not beleue aright, they were not Catholiks. Which sheueth, that Catholik, doth not in­clude onely diffusion, but also Ortho­doxie. And if the Church be euer­more orthodox, she is euermore vn­erring in matters of faith, and we [Page 157] professing in our Creed, that she is euer Catholik, profess that she i [...] euer vnerring in matters of faith, which is to be, as infallible as we mean, and as Laude sec. 21. §. 5. saieth wel: If we wil keep vp our Creed, the whole militant Church must be ho­lie. And holie she cannot be, if she sinfully err anie waie against faith which is the foundation of al ho­lines.

SEAVENT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is a sufficient and infallible Proposer [...]f al points of faith, proued by the holie Fathers.

1. S. Ireney l. 3. c. 4. It is easie to receaue the truth from the Church, seing the Apostles haue most fully deposited, in her, as in a rich store-house, al things belonging to truth. Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 12. p. 389. [Page 158] saieth: we grant this. But indeed they are far from granting it as shal pre­sently appeare. Chillingworth c. 2. n 148. answereth, that though S. Ireney say: The Apostles deposited al truth in the Church, yet he saieth not, that she shal alwaies keep al truth. For the Apostles deposited al truth in particular persons and Churches, and yet these kept it not alwaies. But S. Ireney not onely saieth, that the Apostles deposited al truth in the Church but as in a riche store-house, and that it is easie to recea­ue Vincent. Ecclesia. se­dula & cauta d [...]po­sitorum apud se dogma­tum custos it from her, which he nether saied, nor could saie of anie particular per­sons, or Churches. And for to be a rich store house of al truth, from which is easie to receaue it, is to be a sufficient and infallible keeper and Proposer of al truth. And Whitaker c. citato p. 388. confesseth, that S. Ireney did appeale from scripture to Church, and to Apostolical tra­dition, and saieth, that heretiks, are to be refuted by tradition. Which is to confess, that S. Ireney [Page 159] thouht the Churches tradition infal­lible, for els he had betraied the Christi [...]n cause in appealing from an infallible Proposer, to a fallible, and had taught, that heretiks were to be refuted by fallible meanes.

2. S. Athanasius epist. ad Epictetum, disputing against Arians, saieth, we must answer onely (which alone suffi­ceth) these things are not of the Church, nor our Ancestors thought so. Behold the authoritie Contrà Vvhitaker l. 2. de script. p. 239. alone of the Church, accounted sufficient to refure here­tiks; and if sufficient, surely infal­lible.

3. S. Chrysostom in 2. Thessal. c. 2. It is a tradition (of the Church) ask no more: which words are so plain for the sufficiencie and infallibilitie of the Churchestradition, as it made Whitaker c. cit. p. 391 to crie: It is au inconsiderate speech, and vnworthie Church in­fallible in vniuersal traditions. of so greata Father: and Chillingworth c. 3. n. 45. to confess, that the Church is [...]nfallible in her vniuersal traditions, but not (saieth he) in al her decrees, or definitions of controuersie. But what [Page 160] word of God warranteth the Chur­ches Infallibilitie in her traditions, and not in her definitions of faith. Besids Chillingworth c. 2. n. 25. and els where often, and Protestants ge­nerally denie anie tradition of the Church to be infallible, becaus no­thing is infallible wi [...]h them, but the written word of God, and tradition is not written. I add also, that S. Chrysostom saieth not: it is an vni­uersal tradition, but simply It is a tra­dition.

4. Basil l. de Spiritu sancto c. 27. What things are obserued and preached of vs, we haue receaued partly by writ­ten doctrin, partly by the Apostles deli­uered to vs in misterie, and both these haue equal vertue to pietie. Behold tra­ditions of the Apostles not written, and they of equal vertue to pietie with their written doctrin: and he addeth, that the Ghospel without tradition of the Church, would haue no force, but be a smal or bare letter. To Which Whitaker c. cit▪ p. 390. saieth: If So Ke [...] ­nitiu. part. 1. §. 148. Basil were aliue, he would [Page 161] without doubt not acknowledg this sen­tence, which deserueth to be cast out, and condemned of al pious men. Which is plainly to confess, that S. Basil thought the Churches tradition to be a sufficient proposal of points of faith, and without it the Scripture would be to no purpose.

5. Tertullian l. Praescrip. c. 16. tea­cheth, that we ought not to dispute against Heretiks out of Scripture, but out of tradition. Whitaker c. cit. p. 392 answereth, that he spake of such heretiks, as denied the Scri­pture, and therfore (as Ireney did) appealed from Scripture to the Church. But first it is fals▪ that Tertullian spa­ke onely of such heretiks, as denied Tertul. ap­pealed from scripture to the Church. the Scripture: For he plainly spea­keth, of al such, as denie ether the scripture, or corrupted the true sen­se of it, as al heretiks doe. Secondly, I ask when Tertullian appealed from Scripture to Church, did he appeale to some sufficient and infal­lible proof of faith, or no? If he did, we haue what we desire, if not, he [Page 162] betraied the Christian cause and taught vs to leaue the onely infalli­ble means of refuting heretiks, and to take a fallible.

6. S. Cyprian l. de Vnitate: The spou­se of Christ cannot be made an adulte­ress, and if she cannot be made an Adulteress, she is infallible in faith.

7. Hierom. l. contra Vigilantium, I reiect al Doctrins contrarie to the Church, and with open mouth condemn them. And dialogo contra Lucifer: I could drie vp al the brooks of thy Pro­positions, with the onely sun of the Church.

8. S. Austin l. de haeres: saieth of the Donatists: They dare rebaptize Catho­liks, wherin they more shewed them­selues to be heretiks, seeing the whole Catholik Church hath iudged, that euen in heretiks, vsual baptisme is not to be reiected: Behold Donatists accoun­ted heretiks, becaus they went against the iudgement of the whole Church. And in the end, saieth of al heresies reckoned there by him; it is superfluous to ask, what the Church [Page 163] iudgeth of them, when it sufficeth to See Potter sect. 2. p. 33. know, that she iudgeth against them. Behold the iudgment of the Church, suffiseth to condemn heresies. Lib. de Vnitate c. 22. Thi [...] is nether openly, nor euidently read, ether by you or by me, yet if there were anie wiseman, of who­me our Sauior had giuen testimonie, and that he should be consulted in this question, we would make no doubt to doe what he should say, least we might seem to gain say not him, so much as Christ, by whose testimonie he was com­mended: Now Christ beareth witnes to his Church, Item. Whosoeuer refuseth to follow the practise of the Church, doth refuse our Sauior himself, who by his testimonie, recommendeth this Church. Behold, that to denie the Churches testimonie to be sufficient in matters of faith, is to denie Christs testimonie of her. Chillingworth c. 1. n. 163 saieth, that S. Augustin, in saying, that some point of faith, is nether openly, nor euidently read inscripture, contradicteth (forsooth) himself, becaus l. 2. de Doctr. Christ▪ [Page 164] c. 9. he saieth, In these things, which are openly put in scripture, are al those found, which conteine faith and man­ner of life. But S. Austin there spea­keth of al thinges, which conteine faith, and manner of life Morton tom 2. Apost. l. 1. c 49. verum respondes. necessarie simply to euerie one, or which are necessarie (as he addeth) to haue hope and charitie; or (which commeth alto one) he speaketh of the Rule of faith. Which (as he saieth l. 3. de Doctr. Christ. c. 2.) is receaued from the plai­ner places of scripture. Beside which kinde of points of faith, there are others, which are nether openly, nor euidently read in Scripture, and such was the baptisme of heretiks wher­of he spake lib. de vnit. c. cit. But what is this to S. Austins authoritie, that who contradicteth the Church in a matter of faith, contradicteth Christ, and who followeth her, followeth Christ, becaus he giueth witnes to her? Lib. 2. de Baptist. c. 4. Nether durst we say anie such thing (that baptisme of Heretiks is vaila­ble) vnles we were assured by the most [Page 165] agreeing authoritie of the whole Church. Behold the authoritie of the Church both sufficient and necessarie for some point of faith. And ibid. c. 9. The whole world was held by the strength of Custome (of the Church) and this alone was opposed against those who brought in Noueltie. And was not that sufficient, which held the whole world, and which alone was oppo­sed to erroneous Noueltie? Lib. 7. de Baptis c. 53. It is s [...]f [...] for vs to auouch with confidence of secure voice, what in the Gouernment of our Lord Iesus Christ, is confirmed with consent of the vniuersal Church. Lib. 2. contra Crescon. c. 32. I doe not receaue what Cyprian thought of baptizing heretiks and Schismatiks, becaus the Church doth not receaue it. Lib. contra Epist. fund. c. Becaus. 5. which book, (of the acts) I must needs beleue if I beleue the Ghospel, becaus both books, Catholik authoritie doth Beca [...]s. alike commend to me. Behold Catholik authoritie bindeth vs to beleue books of Scripture, and is a cause why we beleue them l. 2. de Doctr. [Page 166] Christ. c. 8. The Books of Wisdom and Becaus. Ecclesiasticus, are to be accounted pro­phetical, becaus they haue been admit­ted into authoritie. And l. 3. c. 2. let him consult the Rule of faith, which he hath receaued from the plaine [...] places of scripture and from the authoritie of the Church. Epist. 56. Al the height of au­thoritie is setled in that holie name (of Christ) and in his one Church for re­creating and reformi [...]g mankind. And calleth the authoritie of Church most firme, sermone 14. de Verbis A­postoli c. 21. This is a grounded thing: an erring Disputer is to be borne with, in other questions not diligently disgested nor yet made firme by ful authoritie of the Church: There, Error is to be borne with, but it ought not to goe so far, that it endeauour to shake the foundation it self of the Church Behold dispute in matters not determined by the Church, may be borne with al, but not with matters determined by her ful authoritie lib. 10. de Genesi ad literam c. 23. The custome of our Mother the Church in baptizing Infants, is noe [Page 167] way to be despised, not yet at al to be be­leued, vnles it were an Apostolical tra­dition. Laude sec. 15. p. 57. answereth, that S. Austin meaneth not, that tra­dition is the cause of our beleuing the baptisme of Infants, but that it is the cause, that we sought and found it in scripture: But this is a plain euasion. For S. Austin spea­keth not of our seeking the Baptis­me of Infants in Scripture, nor of the cause of our finding it there; but of our beleuing it, and plainly sayeth that the cause of our beleuing it, is tradition, and that without tradi­tion, it were not at al to be beleued.

9. And so vndoubted a thing it was in the time of the Fathers, that the Church of God is a sufficient and in­fallible Proposer of matters of faith, as euen Pelagius in S. Austin l. de gestis Pelagij c. 19. professed, I curse Ancient he­retiks confes­sed the Church to be [...]nfallible. al that gain say or contradict the doctrins of the holie Catholik Church. And Dioscorus in Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. If Euthyches think contrarie to the do­ctrin of the Church, he is worthie not [Page 168] onely of punishment, but euen of fire. But now (Gentle Reader) consider, first, how manie (omitting Vi [...]cent. c. 1. 14 32. manie more for breuities sake) testimonies of holie fathers, haue been brought for the sufficiencie and infallibilitie of the Church in matters of faith. Secondly, how cleare and euident, as some of them are confessed by Protestants to be against them. Thirdly, how vnlikelie it is, that in this so main and clear a matter, the Fathers should ether contradict themselues, or be contrarie some to others. Fourthly, how Protestants expositions of those testimonies, which they wil not grant to be against them, are voluntarie, not grounded in the words of the Fa­thers nay violent and contrarie to the vsual sense of such words, and therfore are mere shifts, inuented for to delude Fathers authoritie. And thus hauing proued, both by holie scripture and Fathers, that the true Church of God is a sufficient and infallible Proposer of points of [Page 169] faith, let vs proue the same by rea­son. Onely I wil add, D. Rainolds confession of the Fathers in his Preface S [...] his th [...]s. 5. p. 106. to his conclusions: The Fathers, who denie the Church of Rome may err, gain say vs indeed, but they gain say the Ghospel too.—Pardon me, o Cy­prian! I would beleue thee gladly, but that beleuing thee, I should not beleue the word of God.—Al the testimo­nies of the Fathers (for the Roman Church) are of two sortes, the one of them true, but clean beside the purpose: the other, to purpose enough, but vn­true. And in verse bidds: Auant al yee, who on the Fathers saws depend. Thus plainly he confesseth the Fa­thers to be against him, touching the Infallibilitie of the Church. Out of which testimonies of Fathers and confession of Protestants, eui­dent it is, that it is an vniuersal tra­dition, that the true Church of God is infallible in al matters which she professeth as of faith. And therfore if (as hereafter Protestants say) they admit vniuersal traditions in al mat­ters [Page 170] where it can be had; and that vniuersal tradition, is the key, the introduction to al diuine truthes, that for it they beleue the Scripture to be the word of God, and that it is as infallible as the Scripture, they cannot denie the true Church of God to be infallible in al matters which she proposeth as of faith.

EIGHT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is in­fallible in al points of faith, pro­ued by Reason.

1. THE Infallibilitie of the Church of God (which soeuer she is) in al points of faith, is so euident, as it is not onely testi­fied by scripture and Fathers, but also conuinced by light of Reason. And therfore falsly saied Chilling­wort c. 3. §. 27. p. 141. For the Infal­libilitie of the Church, no proof can be [Page 171] pretended, but incorrupted places of Scripture: The first Reason we wil take from the definition or descrip­tion of the true Church, giuen by scripture, Fathers, and Protestants. For the Scripture Acts. 2. v. 42. des­cribeth the true Church of Christ, to be à companie of men, p [...]rseuering in the doctrin of the Apostles, and com­munion of Sacraments. And doubtles, a Church perseuering in them, is in­fallible. The Fathers (as Protestants Confess) are wont to vnderstand by a Moulins cont. Peron. l. 1. c. 2. the Church, (which oftentimes they cal Catholik the whole societie of Chri­stians, orthodox and sound in faith, vnited together in Communion. But a Church Orthodox and sound in faith, is infallible, so long as she re­maineth such: Protestants also (as we shewed pars. 1. l. 2. c. 6.) put in the definition of the true Church, that she profess the pure and entire word of God, and they giue, puritie in doc­trin, for an essential note of her. But a Church of whose definition it is, and whose essential note, is to profess [Page 172] pure and entire doctrin, is infallible in profession therof. And what some may say, that they mean onely of puritie of doctrin in fundamental points, is refuted c. 6. citato.

2. The second argument, may be taken from the ends, for which God instituted à Church on earth. And to omit those ends, which we brought out of Scripture c. 5. as to be the pillar and ground of truth, to be the ordinarie means of begetting infallible faith, to be Gods witnes of infallible faith, to consummate and keep the faithful vnited and constant in infallible faith; an other end is, that she is instituted as an in­fallible and Vvhitaker l. 3. de script. [...] 392. Pott [...]r sect. 5. p. 7. necessarie means to bring men to saluation by faith, Hope, and Charitie. And Faith si­signifieth whole faith, not a parte onely, as fundamental articles are. Therfore she is as infallible in tea­ching al points of faith, as in tea­ching al points of hope or Charitie. She is also instituted to be a mother to conceaue and beare Children to [Page 173] God by the infallible word of God: to be their Mistress and Laude sect. 38. p. 345. Guide in faith. That she is the mother of the faithful, The Apostle testifieth. Ga­lat. 4. v. 26. and Caluin confesseth 4. Instit. c. 1. § 4. where he saieth: Let vs learn by the onelie title of Mother The Church, mother and mist [...]es of the faithful. how profitable, yea how necessarie it is to know her, seing there is no entrance into life, vnles she conceaue vs in her wombe, vnles she beare vs, nourish vs with her duggs &c. Whitaker l. 1. de scriptura p. 87. I am a disciple of the Church, I acknowledg the Church for my Mother. The Church truly is mother of the faithful: And p. 72. The Church is truly mistress and Guide of our faith. P. 128. we honor the Chur [...]h as mother, Nurse, Tutress, Teacher, we heare and respect her, as our perpetual Mistress. P. 153. None denieth the Church to be a Mistress of her own.—We denie not, but a Mistreshipp was giuen to the Church l. 2. p. 234. I confess the Church is to be heard as a mistress, and her iudg­ment also to be followed. But the sure means of infallible faith instituted [Page 174] by God; The Mother of Christians in infallible faith instituted by God, the Mistress or Guide of infallible faith instituted by God, must needs be infallible, both becaus of Gods institution, and for the infallibilitie of the end: For a fallible Mistress or guide, is as good as none; for to learn infallible truth, or to attein to infal­lible securitie, or (as Chillingworth saieth c. 6. § 20.) A doubtful Guide is A fallible Guide naught worth. for mens direction, as good as none at al. And c. 1. n. 7. I grant, that this means in the Church to decide controuersies in faith and Religion, must be endued with an vniuersal infallibilitie, in whatsoe­uer it propoundeth for a diuine truth. And to say (as Protestants doe) that she is a sure guide but in fundamen­tal points, cannot stand with her fallibilitie in other points: For (as S. Epist 8. and 9. Difference of Maisters in faith, and science. Austin saieth of the Scriptur) if it faile in anie point, it becoms doubtful in al: so say of the Church, If she can faile in some points of faith, she is doubtful in al. And here must be wel noted, the diffeence [Page 175] of Masters or Mistresses in sciences, and in faith. For Masters or Mistres­ses of sciences, doe shew their schol­lers the truth of things in the things themselues, and so they are but shewers of the truths, which they teach, not perswaders of it; but Masters or Mistresses of mattets to be beleued, doe not make their dis­ciples see the truths (which they teach) in themselues, but in their own authoritie, and their authori­tie is the formal cause of perswading them those truths: Wherfore if Pro­testants would indeed grant the Church to be Mistress of Christians in matters of faith, they must needs grant, that in her authoritie they see the truthes, which they beleue, and for her authoritie are persuaded of them: but indeed they doe not di­stinguish between à Mistress in faith and in science which is a gross ouer­sight.

3. The third argument may be ta­ken from that, if the Church be not infallible in matters of faith, there [Page 176] is no external formal cause sufficient to beget diuine faith. For (as I See inf [...]a l. 244. sh [...] ­wed c. 2.) there is no formal cause of beleef, but authoritie, nor anie for­mal authoritie, but in some Author, nor anie Author, but some intelle­ctual person, or companie of intel­lectual persons: and faith we cannot haue (in ordinarie course) without some formal external cause suffi­cient to engender infallible faith▪ f Vvhitaker l. 1. descript. p. 64. l. 3. p. 39 [...]. See infra c. 17. n. 4. And no person on earth can be pre­tended in which infallible authori­ties should be if not the Church.

4. The fourth argument shal be this. The Churches authoritie in preaching or proposing al Christs doctrin is not natural or humane; but supernatural and diuine. Ther­fore it is infallible in doing that. The consequence is euident, becaus di­uine authoritie is infallible. The an­tecedent I proue out of those words of Christ to his Apostles: Teach al Nation [...], baptizing them &c. teaching Math. vlt. them to keepe al that I haue commanded you. Where Christ gaue no humane [Page 177] or natural authoritie to his Apostles, but supernatural and diuine. And what authoritie of teaching or ba­ptizing he gaue to them, he means also to their successors, els these should haue no authoritie to preach or baptize; as also becaus, that au­thoritie was giuen to the Apostles for the good of the Church, and therfore was to endure as long as the Church endureth: moreouer, the Churches authoritie to preach or propose al points of faith, is di­uine: Therfore also her authoritie to testifie and persuade that it is Gods word, which she preacheth, is diuine. The Antecedent is proued already. The consequence I proue, becaus persuasion, that it is Gods word, which the Church teacheth, is the end of her preaching it. And if God giue her duine authoritie for the means, doubtles he giueth the like for the end, becaus the end is more desired then the means, and the means desired but for the end. And if the Churches authoritie in [Page 178] testifying or perswading what she preacheth, be diuine, doubtles it is infallible in testifying it. For diuine authoritie to perswade, is infallible. Further more, the Churches autho­ritie can force vs to beleue the scri­pture to be Gods word: Therfore her authoritie is diuine and infalli­ble. The consequence is clear, be­caus no authoritie can force vs to beleue diuine matters, but what is diuine. The antecedent Protestants grant: For thus Whitaker contr. 1. q. 3. c. 7. I answer, as often before, that we are forced by the Churches authoritie to beleue these books to be canonical. And can fallible authoritie force?

5. The fift argument for the Infalli­bilitie of the Church in matters of faith, shal be taken from the great and manifold inconueniences, or absurdities, which necessarily fol­low of the denial of it. As first that Christ hath giuen vs no competent or fit Iudge of controuersies of faith For if the Church be fallible, she is no competent or fitt Iudge of Infal­lible [Page 179] matters: and the scripture can­not be a Iudge, becaus à proper iudge is an vnderstanding person, and iudgment, an act of vnderstan­ding. And this is so clear, as now See infra l. 2. c. 7. sect. 2. Protestants confess, that the scri­pture is no proper Iudge: And want of a competent Iudge, would make cōtrouersiesendles. And (as Hooker saieth in the preface to his book §. 6) of this we are right sure, that Natu­re, Scripture, and Experience it self Scripture, nature, ex­perience re­quire a [...]udge of controuersies so also Tailor in l [...]bertie of prophsing sect. 6. n. 1. haue al taught the world to seek for the ending of contentions, by submitting it self vnto some iudicial or definitiue sen­tence, whervnto nether parte that con­tendeth, may vnder anie pretence or coler refuse to stand. Wherfore to refu­se a Iudge who can pronounce such a definitiue sentence in contentions about matters of faith, is to resist Nature, Scripture, and Experience. An other great inconueniencie, which denial of the Churches infal­li ilitie breedeth, is, that it openeth a way to heresies and schismes. For vpon pretence of the Churches er­ring [Page 180] in some matters of faith, a plain gap is opened to depart from her profession of faith, as heretiks doe, or from her communion in Sacra­ments, as Schismatiks doe; And al sufficient means of ether conser [...]ng or restoring vnitie in faith, and com­munion, quite taken away, First, becaus al sufficient external autho­ritie (which is the secondarie formal obiect of faith) is taken away. Se­condly, becaus (as we shal proue hereafter and See infra l 2. c. 5. sec. 2. Protestants now confess) the Scripture nether tea­cheth al points of faith, nor al those which it teacheth, doth it teach so clearly, as is requisit to beget infal­lible faith. Thirdly, Experience she­weth this in Protestants, who de­nying the Church to be infallible, haue nether vnitie in faith, or com­munion, nor yet anie hope of it; as i Cataubor Epist ad R. Iacobum. Caluin An­tid Concil. sess. 7. La [...]de sect. 38. p. 360. Confess Martyr in Hospin part. 2. Histor fol. 245. Whitaker contr. 2. q. [...]. c. 8. cout. 3 q 6. c. 2. & respons ad Rainoldum p. 8. Laude sec. 38. n. 23. Potter sec. 2. p. 38. Chilling­worth [Page 181] c. 2. §. 85 and others. Nether wil it serue them to Laude sect 26. n 3. Chilling c. 2. p. 61. say, that they haue sufficient means of vnitie in fundamental points, becaus the scri­p [...]e teacheth them plainly; and as for diuision in Not-fundamental points, that destroieth not the sub­stantial vnitie of faith, or of the Church. First, becaus themselues confess the Scripture teacheth not [...] See infra l. 2. c. 5. se [...]t. 2. al fundamental points; secondly, becaus they See part. 1. [...] 1 [...] 6. confess they know not, which are fundamental points; Which Not fundamental points. Thirdly, becaus diuision in anie point of faith, sufficiently proposed, or of communion, is a substantial diuision of true faith and Church, as I haue clearly proued parte 1. l. 2. c. 5. And as Laude saieth sec. 32. p. 226. If controuersies arise in the Church, some end they must haue▪ or they wil tear al in sunder.

6. An other great inconueniencie is, that by denying the Churches in­fallibilitie, we take away al exter­nal infallible proof, that the Scri­pture [Page 182] is the word of God; and ther­fore this question; How know you the Scripture to be the word of God? much troubleth Protestants, and (as Lau­de saieth sec. 16. p. 65.) brit [...]geth some of them to infidelitie. For (as he, confesseth ibid. p. 66.) Scripture must be known to be Scripture, by a suf­ficient S [...]ripture must be proud by, some word of God, and by some infal. autho­ritie. infallible diuine proof, and that such a proof, can be nothing but the word of God. And p. 64. It seemes to me verie necessarie, that we be able to proue the books of Scripture to be the word of God, by some authoritie, that is absolutly diuine: and he proueth it thus: For if they be warranted vnto vs by anie authoritie, less then diuine, then al things conteined in them, which haue no greater assurance, then the scri­pture in which they are read, are not obiects of diuine beleif, and that once granted, wil enforce vs to yeeld, that al the articles of Christian beleef, haue no greater assurance, then humane or mo­ral faith or credulitie can affoord. Thus he, both confesseth and proueth, that the Scriptures must be proued [Page 183] to be the word of God, by some in­fallible diuine proof, and that such a proof can be nothing, but a word of God, and by some authoritie, that is absolutly diuine. But where this word of God, by which the scripture is to be proued, is, where this abso­lutly diuine authoritie, is, out of the Church, he cannot tel. For himself saieth sec. 16. cit. p. 70. There is no place in Scripture, which tells vs, that such books conteining such and such par­ticulars, are the word of God. And p. 88. Scripture cannot bear witness to it self, nor one parte of it to an other▪ White also in his way p. 48. The cer­taintie of the scripture, is not written indeed with letters in anie particular place, or book of the scripture. So there is no written word of God, that See inf [...]a l. [...]. c. 6 sec 2. auoucheth the Scripture to be the word of God; And vnwritten word of God, they admit none: Where­fore Laude flieth to a diuine light in See infra l. 2. c. 5 sec. 2. scripture, which (saieth he) after the present Church hath testified the Scripture to be the word, clear­ly [Page 184] sheweth to vs, that it is the word of God. But beside, that this light is feigned (as we shal see more he­reafter) light is no word of God (which Laude requireth to p [...]ue the scripture by) but a quali [...] of the word of God, nor is anie formal obiect of beleef, (which authoritie or veracitie onely is) but is obiect of science, or of vision. And so this light is nether the material obiect of faith, nor sufficient proof of the Scripture, becaus it is no word of God▪ nor anie formal obiector cause of faith, becaus it is no authoritie. Wherefore Chillingworth, finding no surer motiue to beleue the Scri­pture, then the testimonie of the Church, and yet not granting that to be infallible, granteth that con­sequence, which Laud would auoid, See l. 2. [...]. 8. sec. 2. to wit, that al their assurance, that the Scripture is Gods word, and of al things conteined in it, is but hu­mane and fallible, and so Protestants faith is not diuine or infallible, and may deceaue them. An other main [Page 185] inconueniencie is, that if the Ca­tholik A fallible Church men [...] force to pro­fessor in faith, or to forsake her communion. Church, could err in mat­ters of faith, she might force vs to profess her error, (if she exa­cted [...]t as a condition of her commu­n [...], which were great sin or so forsake her communion, which were to put our selues out of the state of Saluation, becaus there is no sal­uation out of the Church as there Caluin. 4. Inst. c. 1. §. 4. Vvhitaker contr. 2. q. 5. c. 3. was not out of the Arck of Noe, Wherby we see, that the Infallibi­litie of the Church, and Necessitie of being in the Church, doe mutual­ly infer one the other.

7. To al these proofs out of Rea­son, I may add, that Reason forceth Protestants to confess, that the Church is infallible in fundamen­tal points: and if it were not to haue some pretence to refuse the Chur­ches iudgment in some points, it wold force them to confess, that she is also infallible in Not-funda­mental points, and making funda­mental or Not-fundamental, which they please, they take pretence to [Page 186] admit or refuse the Churches iudg­ment-in which points they please. And this is the true ground of their denial of the Churches diui­ne Infallibilitie in al points of faith, which to haue discouered, is to haue refuted. I may add also, that for more then 2000. yeares, God Protestants make she Church more infallible in the law of nature, then after. gaue infallibilitie to his Church, and that he neuer said, that he wold take it from her, and that the Church is not less infallible now then it was before Moyses, but rather founded (as the Apostles saieth) in better promises.

NINTH CHAPTER. Some of the Protestants arguments against the Infallibilitie of the true Church of God, in mat­ters of faith, ansvvered?

1. PRotestants heap vp great store of Arguments (but [Page 187] no express testimonie of Scripture) against the Infallibilitie of the Church in matters of faith, that so they may by number supplie the weakness of them, and if not con­uince the Reader, yet confound him; wherfore I wil not relate them al, but the chiefest, by answer to which, the Reader may see, how he may answer the rest. The first ar­gument is this: The Church may a Vvhitaker cont. 2. q. 4. 6. 2. 3. Chilling. c. 5. n. 93. err in matters of manners: therfore also in matters of faith. I answer, that if they mean in the Antecedent, of the vniuersal Church, I distin­guish, of damnably erring, or ve­nially erring, and denie, that the whole Church can damnably err in manners, becaus that would make her not holie, and so that article of our Creed: I beleue the holie Catholik Church, should be fals: and (as Lau­de said sec. 25 §. 5.) The whole mili­tant Church is holie, and so we beleue. Item. If we wil keep vp our Creed the whole militant Church must be holie. Secondly I denie the consequence. [Page 188] For etror in manners destroieth one­ly a qualitie of the Church, which is holiness, and without which the substance of the Church may be; but sinful error in faith destroieth her See part. 1. l. 2. c. 6. substance, and maketh her no true Church of God, but a fals and heretical Church; becaus sinful er­ror in faith, is the sin of heresie. And also euen euerie sinless error in faith, destroieth the end for which the Church is instituted, which is to be a sure and vndoubted See sup. c. 2. n. 2. and c. 8 n. 2. Guide in matters of faith, and to perswade them, which she could not, if she erred in anie point of faith: For (as S. Epist. 8. 9. Austin saieth of the Scripture) if anie error were found in anie point of her doctrin, her doctrin in other points would be vnsure and suspe­cted of error. Besids, we might ar­gue thus against Protestants: the Church may err fundamentally in manners; Therfore also fundamen­tally in faith.

2. A second argument is that the Church may for some time be igno­rant [Page 189] of some points of faith; Ther­fore may also err. I distinguish the antecedent, of points of faith, ne­cessarie necessitate medij, or Adesse fi­dei, and then I denie it. For then she should not be a sufficient guide of faith; or of points not so necessarie, and then I distinguish also of sinful ignorance, and sinles ignorance, I denie the Antecedent, for sinful ignorance is heresie; or equiualent to it: ignorance not sinful, I grant the Antecedent; but denie the con­sequence For error in faith (whether sinful, or sinles) includeth vntruth, and so is contrarie to the end of the Church, which (as saied) is to be a sure guide in matters of faith, and sure she cannot be, who proposeth anie thing as of faith, which ether is not of faith, or is contrarie to faith, for that were vntruth. But simple ignorance of some point of faith not so necessarie, is not repugnant to a sufficient and sure guide in matters of faith, nor includeth anie vntruth. As it is not against the assurednes of [Page 190] Scripture, that it teacheth not al that is of faith, as it would be, if it taught anie the least error or vn­truth: For simple ignorance, or not teaching something, includeth no vntruth, but mere vnknowledg, or not teaching that truth, but error in­cludeth vntruth, which cannot be in a sure Guide, as the true Church Some igno­rance is but against the pe [...]fection of the Church. of God alwayes is. Wherfore igno­rance of some not so necessarie truth, would be against the perfe­ction of the Church: but al error whatsoeuer, sinful or not sinful, in anie point whatsoeuer of faith, would destroie the end of the Church.

3. The third argument may be this: Vvhitaker cont. 2 q. 4. c. 3. Laude sec. 16 p. 65. Chilling. c. 3. n. 70. euerie member of the Church may err in faith: Therfore the whole Church: I denie the consequence both becaus God hath not made euerie member of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, as he hath made the Church; nor made pro­mise of infallible assistance to euerie member of the Church: and also, [Page 191] becaus he hath not instituted euerie member of the Church for an infal­lible and sure Guide in matters of faith, as he hath instituted the Church: And if this note of the es­sence of the Church, which is to be a societie in Christs true faith, and not onely in some parte of his faith; and the end of the Church, which is to be a sure and vndoubted Guide in matters of faith, be wel obserued, we shal easily both defend the Churches infallibilitie, and also solue the Protestants obiections against it. A fourth argument may be taken out of that which Chilling­worth saieth c. 3. §. 30. p. 144. The Churches dependance on the Apostles So also Tailo. in l [...]bertie of prophe [...]ing sect. 6 n. 1. rule, is voluntarie, for it is in the power of the Church to deuiate from this rule being but an aggregation of men, of which euerie one has free wil. To which I answer, first, that this would equally proue, that the Apostles were not infallible, becaus they had free wil, nor the Church infal­lible in fundamental points▪ second­ly, [Page 190] [...] [Page 191] [...] [Page 192] I answer, that by, the Churches Infallibilitie, mean not anie na­tural or absolute infallibilitie as in God but such as Christ saieth Matt. c. 24. is in the Elect, who though of their nature may be led into error, yet through Gods efficacious assistan­ce, can not. And possibilitie of er­ring by nature, and impossibilitie of erring by Gods efficacious assistance, may stand together, as they did in the Apostles. For this impossibilitie or necessitie of not erring, is (as lo­gitians speak) onely consequentiae, non consequentis. And necessitie of Necessitie of consequence, not of con­sequent. consequence, doth not repugne to libertie or freedom. For as of my seing one walk, it followeth neces­sarily, that he walk, and yet he walketh freely: so of Gods effica­cious assistance of the Church not to err, it necessarily followeth, that she err not, and neuertheles she freely erreth not. And the reason is, becaus Gods efficacious assistance altereth not m [...]n smanner of wor­king (which is to work freely) but [Page 193] onely assuredly maketh them to Gods assi­stance ca [...] ­ [...]oth assured­nes not neces­sitie. work. And assurednes of the work, may wel stand with free manner of working it, becaus the work, and the manner of working it, are diffe­rent things. It sufficeth, that God, who is the principal worker, wil haue it done, and that he, by his omnipotencie, can effect it assured­ly as wel by a free secondarie Agent, as by a necessarie Agent; for who resisteth his wil?

4. Wherfore now (Gentle Rea­der) compare our reasons for, the Infallibilitie of the Church in mat­ters of faith, with the Protestants Reasons to the contrarie, and our solutions of their arguments, with their solutions of ours, and thou shalt finde a main difference. For one of our Reasons is taken a priori (as Philosophers speak) from the definitions of the true Church giuen by Scripture, Fathers, and Prote­stants themselues: wheras Prote­stants nether bring nor can bring anie Reason for the fallibilitie of the [Page 194] Church; out of her definition▪ For what colour of her fallibilitie can be drawn from that she is a Societie in Profession of the true faith of Christ, and communion of his Sa­craments, but rather for her Infal­libilitie? An other of our arguments is also taken a prior [...], from the final cause or end of the Church, which is to be a sure Guide to saluation by right faith in Christ: which end can afford no colour of proof of her fal­libilitie. Our third Argument also is a Priori from the formal external cause of diuine faith, which must needs be infallible as faith is, wherof it is cause; which formal external cause of infallible faith affoordeth no colour of fallibilitie. Our fourth argument is taken from Christs gift. And our fift a Posteriori, from [...]he manie and great ill consequences, which necessarily follow of the de­nial of the Churches Infallibilitie▪ wheras Protestants can infer no in­conneniencie at al, out of our auou­ching her infallibilitie in points of [Page 195] faith. But their best reasons against the Churches Infallibilitie, are ta­ken from similitudes, which are in­deed Dissimilitudes, between error in manners, and error in faith, bet­ween ignorance of some point of faith, and error in some point of faith: between euerie member of the Church and the whole Church. And as for our solutions of their ar­guments, they are satisfactorie and scientifical, becaus they are taken from the nature and the end of the true Church, and shew a plain dif­ference betwixt those things, which Protestāts think to be like: Wheras Protestants can giue no such satis­factorie or scientifical answer to our Arguments, taken of the definition, or end of the Churh, but doe vo­luntarily glose the definition and end of the Church as if her essence were onely a societie in profession of some parte of Christs doctrin, and Protestants destroie both the esse ce, and the end of the Church. her end to be a sure Guide, onely in some parte therof, to wit, in the fun­damental or principal parte, which [Page 196] is indeed to make her a parte of Christs Church, and truly not his Church, nor anie sure guide at al? But now let vs proue the Churches Infallibilitie, out of Protestants confessions, for it is so euident, as they are forced sometimes to con­fess it.

TENTH CHAPTER. That Protestants doe manie vvaies confess, that the true Church of God, is Infallible in proposing matters of Faith.

1. IT is so euident, that the true Church of God is Infallible in proposing matters of faith, as Protestants doe manie wayes con­fess it, though it doe quite ouer­throw their cause, becaus themsel­ues acknowledg that for manie ages she hath opposed their doctrin, whose confessions I wil endeauour [Page 197] to set down in order. For first they plainly and absolutly grant, that the Church cannot err in matters of faith Luther l. de seruo arbitrio to. 2. fol. 438. Thus hath our Creed: I be­leue Not in the least article. the holie Catholik Church, that it is impos [...]ible for her to err in the least article. Respons ad Syluestrum tom. 1. fol. 177. I shal be an heretik, if I hold it not, after the Catholik Church hath determined it. Ibid. The vniuersal Church cannot err, as the Cardinal of Cocciustom. [...]. p. 140. Cambray proueth most learnedly. Libro de decem Praeceptis: The Church can­not err, it is gouerned by the holie Ghost In Resolutionibus: Do we not see, how watchful Christ is in his Church, that he suffereth not them to err. Tom. 7. German. fol. 562. The Church nether ought, nor can lie, no not in the least Not in the least matter. matter, seing God is the mouth of the Church, and God cannot lie, so nether the Church can. And lib. de pote­state Bellarm. l. 3. de Verbo D [...] c. 5. Papae. We are not certain of anie priuate man, that he hath reuelation from the father, but the Church it i [...], of whom we may not doubt. Melanc­thon [Page 198] Respons. ad Clerum Colo­niensem to. 2. p. 113. Let the earth swallow me, and al Etna ouer whelme me, before I fight with the Church of God. We sphalus in Hospin parte 2. Histor. Sacram. fol. 237. [...]h Church Not in doctrin. of God can not err in doctrin. Thus Lu­ther and Lutherans.

2. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 3. we are Se [...] al [...]o c. 8. §. 12. sure, that we shal alwayes haue truth whiles we are in the lapos the Church. lib. de scandalis p▪ 102. I willingly add, that the sense of the Church is so ioined with the true doctrin of the law and Gosp [...]l, that she is rightly iudged a faithful teacher and Interpreter of it, And in Antidoto Concil sess. 4. None of vs, but submitts his writings to the iudgment of the Church. Sadeel ad Repetit Turiani loco 30. p. 643. If the Church be the ground of truth, as Paul auoucheth: if faith be the funda­tion of the Church, as Ambrose affir­meth it followeth, that whersoeuer the true Church is, there true faith is. Mou­lins l. 1. contra Peron. c. 1. It is true, that who is assured, that he is in the true [Page 199] Church, is assured, that he hath true faith and doctrin.

3. Cranmer in Fox Acts p. 1709. I am readie in al things to follow the iudg­ment of the most sacred word of God, and of the holie Catholik Church. Latimer Ibid. p. 1603. I confes, there is a Catho­lik Church, to the determination of which, I wil stand. Philpot. ibid. p. 1637. I doe not think the Catholik Church can err in doctrin. P. 1640. If they can proue themselues to be the Ca­tholik Church, I wil neuer be against their doctrin, but reuoke al, that I haue saied. Ridley ibid. p. 1597. I acknow­ledg an vnspotted Church, in the which no man can err. Whitaker controu. See Vvhita­ker [...]ont. 1. q. 5. c. 3. q. 3. c. 5. cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. l 2. cont B [...]. sect. 1. 2. q. 5. c. 18. It cannot hold anie hereti­cal doctrin, and yet be a Church. Ibid. Truth maketh the Church, and the Church teacheth where is truth, and which is truth C. 19. which place (1. Timoth. 3.) sheweth, that truth abi­deth alwaies in the Church, nor can be separated from her: other companies may err, but it is proper, and a Note of this companie, that it can not err, as they [Page 198] [...] [Page 199] [...] [Page 200] confess. Ibid. this place (Isaiae 53.) she­weth, that true preaching of the word, shal be perpetual in the Church. And controu. 4. q. 4. c. 2. The Church is the Mistress of faith and manners, to her al must submit. And l. 3. de Scrip­tura p. 453. They slander vs, that we make the iudgment of the Church mere­ly humane. P. 412. Tradition was once of the same authoritie, as Scripture is now. White in his way p. 79. No man denieth, but that it is a good way not to be deceaued in an obscure question, to ask and follow the Iudgment of the Church, so it be the true Church. P 80. The Church is to vs a witnes and vp­holder of the faith, and alwaies preser­ueth it, which we denie not. P. 67. These words be tolerable: The doctrin, teaching, and beleif, of the true Church Infallible rule. is the infallible Rule in al points to be followed. In his defence p. 318. wee wold fr [...]ely grant this conclusion, if his meaning we [...]e no more, but that the do­ctrin and faith of the vniuersal Church, is the Rule of faith. See him also p. 339. [...]ulk in Ioan. 14. Nota 5. The true [Page 201] Church of Christ neuer fals into Aposta­ [...]ie, heresie, or to nothing. Therfore it is an impudent slander, we say so. Feild in Appendice part. 1. p. 69. Nether D. Humfrey, nor we condemne the Vni­uersal Madnes to condemne the Church. Church, but think it verie mad­nes so to doe. Laude sec. 20. p. 142. A verie dangerous thing it is, to crie out in general tearmes. The whole Catho­lik Church can err. sec. 18. p. 139. We hold, that the Church neuer fals into heresie. That the whole visible Church neuer fals into heresie, we most willing­ly grant. sec. 16. p. 113. First comes in the tradition of the Church, the present Tradition of the Church, is not here­tical. Church, so it is no heretical or schisma­tical beleif. sec. 36. p. 344. we doe re­lie vpon the infallible authoritie of the word of God, and the whole Catholik Church. Ibid. p. 346. Tis true, that after à General Councel is ended, and admitted by the whole Church, is then infallible. Moulins in Arnolds flights c. 8. It is fals, that we say simply. The Church can err. Andrews Respons ad 1. Epist. Molinei. Arrius his name is iustly in the Catalogue of Heretiks, [Page 202] becaus he opposed the consent of the Vni­uersal Church. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 124. p. 100. That the liuing Iudge in the Iewish Church, had an infallible direction, is that which the Doctor (Potter) attributes to the Iews. Pot­ter, sec. 2. p. 25. The high Priest had an absolutly infallible direction, If anie See Chilling. c 2 p. 106. such promise from God to assist the Pope could be produced, his decisions might then iustly pass for oracles without exa­mination. Ibid. p. 34. The Catholik Church is the faithful keeper of al scrip­ture and diuine verities. And ibid. p. 55. Whosoeuer [...]ther wilfully opposeth anie Catholik veritie, manteined by this Church (of Saints) or the Catholik visible Church, as doe heretiks, their Heretiks, who oppose the vi­sible Church. condition is damnable. Chillingworth in his preface n. 16. The doctrin of the Trinitie, is supported by those pillars of the faith, which alone are fit and able to support it, I mean Scripture, and con­sent of the ancient Doctors. Behold the consent of ancient Doctors, a pillar of faith, and able to support euen the doctrin of the Trinitie. And n. [Page 203] 28. what is held necessarie by the Catho­lik Church of this age, I doe verily bele­ue Church of this age. and embrace c. 1. n. 7. I grant, that Christ founded a visible Church stored with al helps necessarie to saluation, particularly, with sufficient means to beget and mantein faith, to conserue vnitie, and compose schismes, to disco­uer and condemn heretiks, and to deter­min controuersies in religion, which were necessarie to be determined. And if Vniuersal tradition, as inf [...]l [...]ble as Scripture. sufficient to these ends, infallible to these ends, as he there granteth. c. 3. n. 45, we willingly grant the Church to be as infallible in he [...] vniuersal tradi­tions, as the scripture is. n. 46. Make it appear, that it is tradition, and we wil seek no farther. c. 2. n. 155. Vniuersal tradition is the rule to iudge al contro­uersies by. Field l. 1. c. 13. Heretiks are they, who obstinatly persist in error, con­trarie And rule to iudg al con­trouersi [...]s by. to the Churches faith l. 4. c. 2. That the whole Church, as it comprehendeth onely al those beleuers, that are and haue been since the Apostles times hold err in anie thing conteined within the com­pass of re [...]cled truth, is impossible: seing [Page 204] error, which is an aberration declining or swaruing from the truth once deliue­red, necessarily implieth a kinde of par­ticularitie, and noueltie. Ibid. yea in Present Church erreth not in things not absolutly necessarie. things, that are not absolutly necessarie to be known and beleued expresly, and distinctly, we constantly beleue, that this (present) Church, can neuer err or doubt pertinaciously. Item. That the visible Church neuer falleth into heresie, we most willingly grant. c. 5. Al the Pastors of the Church since the Apostles, can not err. And (as we shewed part. 1. l. 2. c. 3 and l. 1. of the Author of Protestant religion c. 1.) they com­monly profess to exclude al heretik [...] out of the Church.

4. If anie answer, that these Prote­stants mean onely, that the Church is infallible in fundamental points, but not in proposing al points of faith, I reply, First, that Luthe [...] saieth the Church can not err in the least article, not in the least matters. That Wesphalus, she cannot err in doctrin, that Feild saieth she cannot [...]rr in things not absolutly necessarie▪ [Page 205] Secondly, that others say absolutly: The Church cannot err, and it is so­phistical, to interpret absolute words In parte or, In some sorte. Nether hindereth it, that in other places they say the Church can err, becaus it is vsual for heresiks to con­tradict themselues, and to confess truth when they are pressed ther­vnto, and at other times, to denie it. Thirdly, that if the Church be infallible in fundamental points, she must be also in al points suffi­ciently reuealed to her, becaus al such are fundamental to her. And also, that there are no Not-funda­mental points in their sense, that is such as if they be sufficiently propo­sed, may be not beleued, withou [...] loss of sauing faith, true Church, and saluation, but al are to be bele­ued actually, if they be sufficiently proposed, and to be virtually bele­ued, though not so proposed. And therfore if the true Church be infal­lible in fundamental points, she is infallible in al points of faith, or in [Page 206] al parts of Gods word, sufficiently reuealed to her. But it must be wel noted, how plainly Protestants confess, that the Church can not err in the least article, in the least mat­ter, cannot err in doctrin, not in things not absolutly necessarie, in al points, that they are sure of truth, who are in the Church, that the Church cannot fal into here [...]ie: that it is heresie, and to be an heritik, obstinatly to oppose the Churches faith. Which if they would constantly hold, al contro­uersies were ended, in finding the Church.

5. Secondly, Protestants put pure, sincere, incorrupt, and entire profession of Christs doctrin, in their definition of the true visible Church, as is she­wed parte 1. l. 2. c. 6. And it implieth contradiction, that there should be anie error. where there is pure, sin­cere, incorrupt and entire profes­sion of Christs doctrin. If anie ans­wer, that they mean onely: Pure sin­cere, incorrupt, and entire, profession of Christs fundamental doctrin, I [Page 207] replie (as before) to the former shift, and also that this were to condemn their definition of the true Church, of defect and obscuritie; in not ex­pressing such a necessarie particle, as without which, the definition were fals, and would not agree to the thing defined. For Puritie, vnles, In fundamentals; be added, wil not agree to a true Church erring in Not fundamentals. I add also, that as yet, neuer durst anie Protestant define the true Church, to be a companie, professing the fundamen­tal parte of Christs doctrin, becaus the name of anie parte of his doctrin, would shew, that it is not his true Church absolutly, but in parte one­ly, and simply not his Church. Like to this, is that they giue Pure prea­ching of Gods word, for an essential Note of the Church, yea for the onely essential Note therof, as saieth Whi­taker contro. 2. q. 5. c. 17. Morton l. 2. Apolog. c. 4. and others. And Luther in [...]. 2. Isaiae. Beza de no­bis Eccles. how can, Pure preaching, be anie Note, if there may be error in al [Page 208] secondarie points of faith? If ther­fore Riuer tract. 1. sec. 45. Daneus [...]ont. 4. p. 141. Chilling. c. 4. p. 221. they wil mantein their essential definition, and their essential Note of the true Church, they cannot say, she can err in anie points of faith.

6. Thirdly, they sometimes grant that the Church is infallible in her vniuersal traditions, and namely, Vniuersal tradition as infallible as scripture and so a word of God. that the scripture is the word of God. Chillingworth c. 3. n. 45. you were to proue the Church infallible, not in her traditions, which we wil­lingly grant (if they be as vniuersal, as the tradition of the vndoubted books of scripture, is) to be as infallible, as the Scripture is. For nether does, being written, make the word of God more in­fallible, Protestants in Col [...]oq. Ratisb. s [...]ss. 1. and 11. nor being vnwritten, make it the less infallible. Brentius in Prole­gomenis contra Sotum p. 249. we speak not of that tradition, by which the Scripture, and what is conteined in it, hath been deliuered to vs. For we affirme this tradition to be certain and vndoub­ted. And Morton l. 1. Apolog. c. 32. and to. 2. l. 1. c. 5. calleth this. The La­die and as it were Goddess of al traditions. [Page 209] Robert Baronius tract. de Eccles. c. 21. n. 1. The Fathers knew no other in­fallible Rule of faith, beside the Scripture and perpetual tradition of the Church. Dauenant de Iudice c. 5. we grant, Tradition before Moy­ses, was suf­ficient. that before Moises, the word of God not written and propagated to posteritie by continual tradition, was a sufficient Rule of faith. Whitaker contr. 1. q. 3. c. 5. I deny not, that the Churches Trad [...]tion. conuin [...]ent. tradition is a conuincent argument, which books are Canonical, which not. And if conuincent, infallible. Be­hold, the Churches tradition of the Scripture, is certain, vndoubted, the Ladie, and as it were Goddess▪ of traditions, and her perpetual or vniuersal tradition, as infallible, as the Scripture, an infallible rule of faith. And what maketh it so, but Gods assistance?

7. Fourthly they grant, that the te­stimonie or tradition of the Church, Testimonie of the Church proueth the scripture. is an infallible proof of the Scripture. Whitaker l. 2. de Scriptura c. 4. sec. 4. p. 227. I say, the testimonie of the Church, sufficeth to conuince and [Page 210] refute those, who think amiss of Scri­pture, or denie the articles of Christian faith. Ibid. p 270. Thy meaning was, that the iudgment of the Church, was a most strong argument, in the kinde of external cause, and my meaning was al­together the same l. 1. c. 1. sec. 9. p. 19. The true Churches testimonie of the Scri­pture, must be taken, and who taketh it not, shal be guiltie of sacriledg. Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 7. we are forced by the Chur­ches authoritie, to beleue these books to be diuine. And c. 9. p. 325. Al those Fathers doe they proue anie other thing, then that Scripture is to be receaued, be­caus it was alwaies receaued of the Becaus. Church: and some books to be reiected, becaus the Churchal waies reiected them? This we most willingly grant. And ibid. p. 326. we conf [...]ss with Ireney, that the authoritie of the Church, is a firme and compendious Demonstration of Ca­nonical doctrin. And l. 5. contra Du­reum, sec. 19. I think, there could not be brought à stronger argument against the schismatical Donatists, then from the authoritie of the Church. And l. 1. [Page 211] sec. 30. we confess the Churches appro­bation is necessarie, and we admit no books, but which haue certain and per­petual testimonie of the true Church—you see therfore, how much we giue to the Churches t [...]stimonie, in which we think is strenght enough, to confirme Strenght enough in the [...]hurch te­stimonie. the Canon of Scripture, and refute al Aduersaries. Kemnitius 1. parte Exam▪ tit. de Scriptura: Al this dispute (whet­her S. Iames Epistle be Canonical) dependeth on the assu [...]ed, firme and agreing testimonies of the Church. Hoo­ker l. 2. §. 4. Nether could we euer come to anie pause wheron to rest our as­surance this way, so that vnles beside Scripture, there were something, which Something beside Scrip­ture, can assure vs. might assure vs, that we doe wel, we could not think, we doe wel, in being assured, that the Scripture is a sacred and holie rule of wel doing. And this thing, which can assure vs, as a pause to rest on, that scripture is a sacred rule, he saieth l. 3. §. 8. is the Church, whe­re he addeth: scripture teacheth vs, that sauing faith, the which God hath discouered vnto the worldby Reuelation, [Page 208] and it presumeth vs taught (by the Church) that it self is diuine and sa­cred. Item. If [...]nfidels or Atheists chance at anie time to cal it in question, this gi­ueth vs occasion, to [...]ift, what reason there is, wherby the testimonie of the Church concerning scripture, and our owne perswasion, which Scripture it self confirmed, may be proued a truth Testimonie of the Church, infal [...]ible. infallible. Behold the Church can assure vs, as a pause to rest our assurance on, that the Scripture is Gods word, she teacheth vs, that it is diuine, and that her testimonie of the Scriptu­re, is infallible. And is not this, to haue one [...]illable to this purpose, that, That wheron, we must rest our assurance that the Scripture is Gods word, is the Church, as Chillingworth auou­cheth c. 2. §. 30. Doth the Church assure vs, as a pause to rest our assurance on, doth she teach vs, that the Scrip­pture is Gods word, is her testimo­nie of the Scripture, infallible, and may we not rest our assurance herof on the Church? or is this no more, but to be a key or inducement, as Laude [Page 213] wold haue it sec 16 §. 25. 8. Spalatensis l. 7. de Republ. c. 1. n. 9. doth not onely say, that the Churches testimonie of the Scriptu­re, is sufficient to beleue it to be The Chur [...]h [...] [...] stim. onelie me [...]ns. Gods word, but also addeth, that it is the onely motiue or meane to beleue it to be such. To enquire (which book is Canonical) the Church hath that alone, singular, and onely Rule, that the Vniuersal Church ask herself, and what she in actual exercise holdeth, seek and plainely know. And l. contra Suarem c. 1. n. 34. I shew, that nether Councels, nor Popes, nor Fathers, nor Church can otherwise define, which books be canonical, which not, but by the onely testimonie of the whole Church▪ Chillingworth c. 2 n. 27. The question whether such or such a book, be canoni­cal Scripture, cannot be decided affir­matiuely, but onely by the testimonies of ancient Churches. n. 32. by the Churches But by the Church. consent, we are assured, what Scriptures be canonical—of this controuersie, we make iudge, the consent and testimo­nie of the ancient and primitiue Church▪ [Page 214] Which he repeateth n. 35. 42 And n. 114 It is vpon the authoritie of vni­uersal tradition, that we would haue them beleue scripture. In his preface n. 28. Whatsoeuer is held necessarie by the Catholik Church of this age, I verily beleue. Finally, they commonly grant (as we shal see l 2. c. 4 sec. 2.) that the Scripture needeth an Interpre­ter, euen for some necessarie points of faith. And I hope, they wil not say, that a needful Interpreter for matters of infallible faith, is fallible in interpreting them: or that the Church of God, is not this infalli­ble Interpreter, rather then anie A needful interpreter of infallible faith, is in­fallible. other. I add also, that Whitaker contr. 2. q. 4. c. 2. granteth, that the Church erreth not in things, that are ne­cessarie to anie men. And such are more then absolutly necessarie to euerie one. Laude also Relat. p. 356. The Fathers of the primitiue Church, did sufficiently propose to men the diuine re­uelation, and did by it beget and breed vp faith. Behold, the testimonie or authoritie of the Church, sufficeth [Page 215] to conuince, and demonstrate, that the Scripture is to be receaued, be­caus the Church receaueth it: that the Church can assure vs that the Scrip­ture is the word of God; and that her testimonie herein, is infallible, is a Rule of faith, nay the onely Rule or meane to know, which books be Canonical. And why infallible in this, and not in other points? What word of God affirmeth that, and denieth this? Is it not plainly volun­tarie, to grant her to be infallible in this, and not in other points of faith? Is it not for to haue some pretence, that Protestants are infallibly cer­taine, that the Scripture is the word of God, by testimonie of the Church and that being had, to neglect her See S. Austin Cont. Epist. fund [...]m [...]. 5. testimonie in other points of faith? Is not this to make the infallibilitie of the Church, to serue their turne, as far as they haue need of it, and otherwhere to leaue it? For in the matter of the Scripture, and other such points, as they think themsel­ues bound to beleue which are onely [Page 216] (as they cal them) the fundamental points, they wil haue the Church to be infallible: but in other points, which they think themselues not bound to beleue, they wil haue her to be fallible: so that iust as far, as they think themselues bound to be­leue, she is infallible, and farther, she is fallible.

9. Fiftly, they plainly insinuate, Protestants beleue partly for the Church. that they beleue the scripture to be Gods word, partly for the testimo­nie, and authoritie of the Church. For thus their French Confession art. 4. We acknowledg these books to be Canonical, not onely for the common Protestants in Col [...]oq Rot [...]b [...]ess. 11 Fulk. 2. T [...]essal. 2. consent of the Church, but also &c. Laude sec. 38. p. 330. I beleue the entire scripture, first by the trrdition of the Church. Whitaker Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 1. The summ of our opinion is, that the scripture is of it self worthie to be beleued not onely becaus the Church hath so commanded. Ibid. We reiect not the testimonie of the Church, but denie, that we beleue the scripture for her com­mendation alone. And c. 5. We beleue [Page 217] them to be canonical, not onely for the Churches testimonie, and Authoritie, but for &c. The same he hath l. 1. de Scriptura p. 18. 52. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 35. Protestants, by the Churches consent are assured, what scriptures be canonical. §. 155. scripture needs the at­testation Scripture needs tra­dition. of vniuersal tradition. Field l. 4. c. 20. The number, authors, and in­tegritie of canonical books, we receaue by tradition. And truely who say, they beleue the Scripture not for the testimonie of the Church only, doe plainly insinuate, that they beleue it partly for her testimonie. And as Chilling. saieth c. 2. §. 154. None can build an infallible faith vpon motiues, that are onely lightly credible, and no [...] infallible, as it were a great and heauie burden, vpon a foundation, that hath not strenght proportionable. For what is euen a partial formal cause of in­fallible beleef, is infallible.

10. Sixtly, they teach, that we ought to follow the Church. King Iames in Praefat. Antiuors: blameth Vors­tius becaus he would not admit the [Page 218] Church to be Arbitrer of the errors, ob­iected The Church is arbiter of controuersie. to him. Carleton l. de Eccles c. 1. what then, wil some say? Doe we see the Church, in the Church? I indeed doe so, and after holie scripture, wil ask my mother to shew herself, and that the Church teach, where the Church is to be sought. White in defense of his waie c. 37. It is necessarie to finde and follow the teaching of the Church. Whitaker l. 2. de Scrip. p. 234. I confess, the Church is to be heard as a Mistress. Potter sec. 6. p. 66. It is ve­rie meet, that the ignorant people should submit themselues to the direction of the Church in manie profound doctrins aboue their reach sec. 2. p. 28. The Church Catholik or vniuersal is confessed in some sense to be vnerring: and he is little better then a pagan, that despiseth her iudgme [...]t. Ibid. p. 52 Particular Churches ow to the Catholik, mother of al Christians, the duetie of obedience. Geneuas note Prouerb. 1. Frustrate not thy Mothers instruction, that is the teaching of the Church: Field in the Epist. Dedicatorie before his books [Page 219] of the Church: seing the Controuersies of Religion in our time are grown in number, so manie and in Nature, so intricate, that few haue time and lea­sure, fewer strenght of vnderstanding to examin them, what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out, which, among al the societies of men in the world, is that blessed companie of holie ones, that house hold of faith, that Spouse of Christ, and Church of the li­uing God, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that so they may embrace her communion, follow her directions, and Rest in the iudgment of the Church. rest in her iudgment. Which words are so ful and so plain for the suf­ficient, and safe proposal of the Church in al controuersies of faith, as Chilling. c. 2. n. 86. saieth. They slipt vnaduisedly from him, and he strai­ned to high.

11. But of al which hath in this Chapter been related out of Prote­stants, it euidently appeareth: first, how manifest a truth it is, that the Church of God, is infallible in pro­posing [Page 220] matters of faith, seing they haue so plainly, and manifoldly con­fessed it, partly directly, partly in­directly, though it doe quite ouer­throw their cause. Secondly, that if they would constantly stand to their aforesaied confessions, there would be no more controuersies betwixt vs, whether the true Church were the al-sufficient external pro­poser of al points of faith, nor indeed about anie other matter of faith. For Laude sect. 33. p. 249. they confess in plain words, that the true Church, for more then a thou­sand yeares, hath taught contrarie to their doctrin, and therfore openly except against the Church, after the first four or fiue hundred yeares, and indeed against the Church, of what time soeuer, calling that in her, ouersights, and blemi [...]hes, which in the Church of latter times, they caler­rors, superstitions, impietie Idolatries. And thus hauing proued, that the true Church is infallible in propo­sing points of faith, let vs also proue, that she is a necessarie proposer of [Page 221] them, becaus this also is a necessarie condition of the Al-sufficient Pro­poser of matters of faith.

ELEVENTH CHAPTER. That the true Church of God is (in ordinarie course) a necessarie Pro­poser of al points of faith, proued by holie scripture.

1. THAT the true Church of Christ is (in ordinarie course) a necessarie proposer of al points of faith, so as we cannot (in ordinarie course) haue sauing faith of anie point, vnles she propose it for diuine truth, is euident out of those former places of Scripture, whence we proued, that she is a sufficient proposer of al points of faith. For they proue not onely the sufficiencie, but also the necessitie of her proposal. Rom. 10. The Apo­stle, giuing the necessarie ordinarie [Page 222] external cause of diuine faith, giueth no other then hearing lawful prea­ching of the word of God, saying: How shal they beleue, whome they haue not heard? How shal they preach, vnles they be sent? And then inferreth: Therefore faith is of hearing. Where­fore he maketh hearing of lawful preaching the word of God, as necessarie a cause (ordinarily speaking) of bele­uing, as mission is a necessarie cause of lawful preaching. And lawful preaching is not out of the true Church. And truly said Stapleton contr. 4. q. 3. art. 2. The compleat for­mal Compleat formal cause of faith. L. 2. de Sa­ [...]ram. c 25. omnium dogmatum firmitas, pendetab authoritate praesentis Ecclesiae. Epiphan in Ancorato Hieron. cont. Lucifer. Cyril Ca­tech. 17. cause of our faith (ordinarily spea­king) is God reuealing by the Church: and Bellarmin l 3. de Verbo Dei, c. 10. The secondarie foundation of faith, is the testimonie of the Church: But the formal cause, and secondarie foun­dation, is (doubtles) necessarie to faith in ordinarie course: which is al the necessitie, we speak of. And this must those fathers mean, who did read in the Greed: I beleue in the holie Church, for to beleue in one, is to [Page 223] make his authoritie a formal cause of beleef: and also waldensis, who tom. 1. l. 2. c. 21. saieth, that the testi­monie Io. de Ra­gusio de com. sub vtraque spec [...]e: Ec­clesiam non errare, & simpl [...]ter primum in doctrina fides. of the Catholik Church, is the obiect of Christian faith: to wit, the formal external, obiect, for the ma­terial obiect, is al reuealed truth. And falsly saieth Whitaker, l. 1. de Scrip. p. 175. Faith is not of hearing the voice or authoritie of the Church, but of Gods word. For the Apostle saieth plainely, that faith is of hearing, and hearing, of lawful preaching of Gods word. Wherfore he must no more exclude lawful preaching, from a cause of faith, then we exclu­de the word of God. For the word of God, is that which faith beleueth, and lawful preaching, is the exter­nal formal cause, wherefore we be­leue it. And Whitaker himself loco cit. is forced to confess, that the voice of the Church, is an instrumen­tal cause of faith. And if an instrumen­tal cause, surely a necessarie cause, in ordinarie course, and faith is of its instrumental cause, and conse­quently, [Page 224] of the voice of the Church. Ibid. p. 11 [...]. he saieth: hearing, is the mother of faith. Item p. 121. The Church by the preaching of the Gospel, begetteth vs to Christ. And p. 118. The Church, is the mother of beleuers, and how mother of beleuers, if not necessa­rie? Is not a mother, necessarie? And p. 69. I most willingly grant, that the external iudgment of the Church, is a help and means to engender, nourish, and confirme faith, instituted of God, and necessarie for vs. And if necessarie for vs, we can haue no faith without it. controu. 2. q. 5. c. 19. By preaching of the Gospel, we come to faith, and neuer without. The Church is the schoole of the faithful, and maketh faithful, by preaching of the word, as by a necessarie, and ordinarie meanes. If anie obiect, that then deaf men could not haue faith: I answer, First, that deaf men can nether read Scripture, becaus without hearing they cannot know, what letters signifie. Secondly, that deaf men haue not anie ordinarie meanes of faith. For (as S. Austin [Page 225] saieth l. 3. contra Iulianum c. 4.) The defect of deafnes, hindereth faith it self, witnes the Apostle, faith is of hea­ [...]ing. Porter sec. p 104. Some are inui [...] ­bly disab [...]ed from faith. Wherfore if God wil haue such to beleue actually, he prouideth them, of some extraordinarie mea­ne. And this proof I confirme out of the Confession of Bohemia, and di­uers Protestants, who (as we shal see hereafter) out of this place doe proue, that preaching and ministe­rie b C. 14. of the word, are necessarie to en­gender faith.

2. Secondly I proue▪ that the true Church is a necessarie proposer of al points of faith, out of her forsaied proprietie, that she is the pillar and ground of truth. 1. Tim. 3. For the pillar and ground of truth, is neces­sarie to vphold truth. The true Church is the pillar and ground of Truth, Therfore she is necessarie to vphold truth. The Maior seemeth euident by it self. For how can the pillar and ground of a thing, be not necessarie to vphold, that whereof it is the pillar and ground? The Mi­nor [Page 226] is the Apostles words. And Cal­uin vpon this place saieth, the Church in respect of men, doth sustein truth. And Whitaker controu. 2. q. 5. c. 19. The Church doth sustein, preach, and pro­pose truth to others l. 1. de scrip. p. 112. The Church doth sustein diuine truth, that it fal not wholy among men. But what susteineth a thing, is necessa­rie to it.

3. Thirdly I proue The same, out of her office to be witnes to Gods truth. For witnesses are necessarie for to beleue that which they are appointed to testifie. The Church, or the Pastors of the Church, are appointed by God to be witnesses of his truth. Therfore they are ne­cessarie. The Minor is proued before And the Maior is euident. For vnles witnesses were necessarie to assure vs of the truth, wherof they are witnesses, there were no need to a point them. For what need is there to appoint such, as are needles? and such witnesses are needles, without whome wecābe assured of the truth.

[Page 227]4. Fourthly I proue, the necessities of the Churches proposing matters of faith, out of the ends, for which Protestants (as we saw c. 8. n. 2.) confess the Church was instituted by God, to wit, to be Mother, Mistres, and guide of Christians in matters of faith. For doubtles what is such, is necessarie. But now let vs proue the same by the holie Fathers.

TWELFT CHAPTER. That the true Church of God, is a necessarie proposer of al points of faith, proued by holie Fathers.

1. S. Cyprian l. de vnitate: It is the Church, by whose tra­uail we are borne, with whose milk we are nourished, with whose spirit, we are animated. But such a one, is a ne­cessarie proposer of faith. S. Ireney l. 3. c. 4. What if dispute had been of [Page 228] some smal matter, should we not haue recurred to the most ancient Churches, and receaued from them, what is certain of this present question? Which made Whitaker cont. 1. q. 3. c 9. to grant, that the authoritie of the Church, is a firme compendious Demonstration of Canonical scripture. But Ireney saieth more, that it is a necessarie demon­stration. Tertull. praescrip. c. 21. What the Apostles preached, what Christ reuealed to them, here I wil prescribe, that it ought not to be proued otherwise, then by the same Churches, which the Apostles erected: For Which words Whitaker l. citato granteth, that Tertullian made this prescription, that the doctrin of the Apostles, was not to be proued anie other way, then by the Churches which they founded. And if by no other way, then the Churches testimonie is necessarie.

2. S. Augustin contra Epist Fun­dam. c. 5. I must needs beleue this book (of the Acts) if I beleue the Gospel, seing the Catholik authoritie doth com­mend to me both books alike. Which Present Church. [Page 229] authoritie made Whitaker contr. 1. q. 3. c. 7. to say: we may be forced by the authoritie of the Church, to beleue these books to be Canonical. And if forced to beleue by authoritie of the Church then the authoritie of the Church is a most effectual and sufficient cause of infallible beleif. And in the same place S. Austin: I would not beleue the Gospel, vnles the Authoritie of the Catholik Church did moue me: which clearly testifieth the necessitie of the Churches proposal, and made Whitaker q. cit. c. 8. to grant, that it is true, we should not bele­ue the Gospel, vnles th [...] Catholik Church did propose it. But S Austin saieth mo­re: If the Catholik Churches authoritie did not moue me. And it is far more, for Catholik authoritie to moue vs to beleue, then for the Church onely to propose. Men of no authoritie, may propose; but authoritie, which mo­ueth to beleue the Gospel, and with out which we cannot beleue the Gospel, must needs be necessarie and infallible authoritie. For beleif [Page 230] of the Gospel is infallible, and such must be the authoritie, that so mo­ueth vs to it, as without which we cannot beleue. Commonly Prote­stants answer, that S. Austin spake these words of himself, as he was an heretik. But this cannot be becaus as he was an heretik, he did not be­leue the authoritie it self of the Ca­tholik Church, and therfore as such he could not be moued to beleue the Scripture for her authoritie. For how could he be moued to beleue the Scripture for that, which it self he did not beleue? Secondly, becaus he saieth not: non credidissem: (as Morton tom. Apol. l. 1 c. 37 falsly citeth him (but non crederem, which words properly are to be vnderstood of him, as he was minded at that pre­sent And al August. de Doctrina l. 3 c. 10. 11. Tertul de [...]arn [...] Christi c. 13 15. words are to be vn­derstood according to their pro­prietie, if the contrarie be not ma­nifest. For otherwise we should be vncertain, how to vnderstand men. And it is not manifest, that S. Austin did not vse those his words accor­ding [Page 231] to their proprietie. Wherfore Morton loco cit. granteth, that S. Austin maketh the Church, the mea­nes, by which a Catholik beleueth, and the reason without which not, which sufficeth for my present purpose, to shew the necessitie of the Churches proposal for the meanes by which, and reason without which not, are neces­sarie. Thirdly, becaus afterward S. Austin addeth: The authoritie of Ca­tholiks being weakned, I can no more beleue the Gospel, which he spake plainly of himself, as he was then a Catholik, and shew, that his beleef of the Gospel, euen both then, and for the time after, depended on the authoritie of the Church I add also, that though S. Austin had saied the foresaied word of himself, onely as he was an heretik, yet it would thence follow, that the proposal and authoritie of the Church is (at least) necessarie to begin beleif of the Gospel, howsoeuer it be not neces­sarie for to continue it. And it can­not be saied, that is is necessarie so, [Page 232] onely as an inducement or disposi­tion to such beleef, becaus (as S. L. de vtil. cred. c. 11. Austin saieth) That we know, we owe to reason, that we beleue, to authoritie. So that, as Reason, is the formal cause of our knowledg, so is Autho­ritie the formal cause of our beleef: and such cause of our beleef of the Gospel, is the authoritie of the Ca­tholik Church, such, not principal but subordinate to Gods authoritie. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 54 p. 54. p. 73. and §. 97. p. 88. saieth, That S. Austin by Catholik Church, meanerh the Church of al ages, including Christ and the Apostles. But nether proueth he that, nor can tel, how S. Austin could be infallibly certain of the testimonie of the Church of Christ, and the Apostles time, but by the testimonie of the Church of his time. Which if it were not infal­lible, he could not be infallibly cer­tain of the testimonie of the Church of Christ, and the Apostles time. Beside, S. Austin sheweth, that he meaneth of the authoritie of the [Page 233] present Church, in saying: The Catholik authoritie doth commend to me both books alike. And l. 1. contra Crescon. c. 33. The truth of Scripture is held, when we doe, what now see­meth to the whole Church. Which is plainly ment of the present Church. The same S. Austin (as is before ci­ted) saieth, l. 10. de Gen. ad literam c. 23. That baptisme of Infants were not to be beleued, vnles it were an Apostolical tradition. And l. 2. de ba­ptismo c. 4. that he durst not defend the baptisme giuen by heretiks, vn­les he were assured by the authoritie of the Church. Therfore he thought the authoritie of the Church necessarie to beleue those points of faith. Vin­centius l. 1. c. 2. Here possibly one may demand, when the rule of Scripture is perfect, and in it self more then enough sufficient vnto al things, what need is there to ioine vnto it the authoritie of the Churches sense? And he answereth; this is, becaus al men doe not take it in one sense, therfore it is necessarie, that the line of interpretation be directed [Page 234] according to the rule of Ecclesiastical and Catholik sense. Behold the sense of the Church, necessarie to vnder­stand the Scripture rightly. And the same Vincent. 16. c. 41. It is ne­cessarie, that the vnderstanding of the holie Scripture be directed according to the onely rule of the Churches sense. And if the vnderstanding of the Scriptu­re must be directed according to the sense of the Church, doubtles the sense of the Church is necessarie.

THIRTEENTH CHAPTER. That the true Church of God, is a necessarie proposer of al points of faith, proued by reason grounded in Scripture.

1. FIrst: What is Gods ordi­narie meanes of teaching faith, is (in ordinarie course) neces­sarie to haue faith. Gods ordinarie means of teaching faith, is by the [Page 236] Church: therfore his means of tea­ching by the Church, is (in ordina­rie course) necessarie. The Maior seemeth euident by it self; and the Minor is proued by those places Rom. 10. Faithis of hearing lawful preaching. Ephes. 4. God hath put Pastors for consummation of Saints. 1. Tim. 5. The Church is the pillar, and ground of truth: and so euident, as Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. p. 73. saieth: That the ordinarie manner, by which God teacheth, is by the Church, I wil­lingly grant.

2. Secondly, becaus nether Scri­pture, nor reading of Scripture, is a necessarie cause of engen­dring faith, in ordinarie course. Therfore the preaching of the Church is such a means. For there is (doubtles) some ordinarie means instituted by God, which in ordina­rie course is necessarie, and if not Scripture, nor reading of Scriptu­re, surely the Church and her prea­ching. For no other can be reasona­bly imagined. The Antecedent I [Page 236] proue, becaus (as I saied before) for manie ages before Moyses, there was no Scripture at al, nor for some yeares after Christ, was there anie Scripture of the new Testament, and in S. Ireneys time, no Scripture, amongst some Barbarians, and yet there wanted not then, some ne­cessarie means of getting faith. For there were faithful men in al those times, and places.

3. Thirdly, Preachers or Pastors are necessarie to the Church in ordina­rie course. Therfore preaching also is necessarie. The consequent is eui­dent. For why should preachers be necessarie, if preaching (for which preachers are) be not? The Ante­cedent is cleare, both out of manie places in Scripture, and out of the definition of the Church, where Ministers of the word and of Sacra­ments are put, as an essential parte of the Church, where nether Scri­pture, nor reading of it, is put as anie parte thereof; and also, out of the confessions of Protestants, as [Page 237] we shal see in the next Chapter. If anie say, that before Scripture was written, Gods ordinarie means, and necessarie for vs, was preaching, but after Scripture was written, the reading of it, is the necessarie ordi­narie means of faith: First I answer: he voluntarily saieth, that God hath changed his necessarie ordinarie means of causing faith. Secondly, Scripture neuer can be the vniuersal necessarie means of causing faith, becaus it cannot be such to blinde men, or to such as cannot read, nay nor to anie that vnderstand it not in the original toungs, according to the opinion of Protestants. Besids, See l. 2 c. 2. sect. 2. it is absurd to say, that after Scrip­ture, God had altered his ordinarie necessarie means of engendring faith. For why should he alter it? What proof is there that he did alter it? Where is his word that saieth it?

4. Fourthly, sowing is necessarie in ordinarie course that the seed doe grow, but preaching is compared in [Page 239] Scripture to sowing. Therfore it is necessarie in ordinatie course, that Gods seed or word doe grow in mens hearts.

FOVERTEENTH CHAPTER That the true Church of God is a necessarie proposer of points of faith, proued by plain confession of Protestants.

1. THat the Church is so ne­cessarie a proposer of points, as without her proposal, in ordinarie course, we can haue no diuine faith, is so manifest, as Prote­stants sometimes doe plainly confess it. For thus Luther tom. 1. fol. 54. The ministration of the word by a priest, is necessarie to faith. Tom. 2. l. contra Church con­ceaued by voc [...]l word. Catharin. fol. 140. The Church is conceaued, framed, nourished generated, conserued, by the vocal word. Tom. 5. in c. 1. Zachariae fol. 516. Albeit God [Page 240] can teach men the Gospel without prea­ching, yet he wil not doe it. And ibid. praefat. in Catechesim fol. 645. There are some this day, euen of the Gentrie, who dare say, they haue no need of Pa­stors or preachers, but that books suffice, out of which, anie man may learne the same things by himself without anie tea­ching. And in colloquio marpurgi in Hospin. part. 2. fol. 77. Lutherans and Sacramentariās agreed, That the holie Gost, ordinarily speaking, giueth, faith to none vnles the vocal word goe before, Kemnitius 2. parte Exam. tit. de Sacram. ord. p. 391. God, vpon his certain Decree, hath determined to dispense those things, which belong to our saluation, not infusing into mens minds inward peculiar reuelations, without anie means, but by the external ministerie of the word. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 4. The knowledg of the (visible See him 1. In [...]t. c. 7. § 3. l. 4. c. 1. §. 5. & in Actor. c. 16. v. 17. Church) is profitable, yea necessarie to vs, seing there is no other entrance vnto life, vnles she conceaue vs in her wom­be, beare vs, and f [...]ed vs with her duggs. And ibid. §. 5. Howbeit Gods [Page 240] power is not tied to external means, yet he hath tied vs to the ordinarie means of teaching.—Ether pride or emu­lation, or sloth driueth manie to perswa­de themselues, that by priuate reading and studying, they can profit enough. In 1. Tim. 3 The office of ministring doctrin, which God hath put in his Church, is the onely instrument of truth Onlie In­strumental. Preaching is before faith. that it perish not out of the memorie of men. The ministerie of the word, being taken away, Gods truth wil fal. Ibid. Paul simply meaneth, that becaus faith is by hearing, there wil be no faith, without preaching. Beza, epist. 20. I [...] it clear that faith is of hearing, and ther­fore it followeth, that preaching must goe before faith. Fayus in enchiridio disput. 66. The necessitie of Ecclesiasti­cal ministerie, appeareth by that, that without it, we cannot haue knowledg and vnderstanding, ether of the word of God, or of his [...]il reuealed to vs in it. Whitaker l. 3. de Scriptura p. 413. We alconf [...]ss, the testimonie of the Church to be most necessarie, by which men, by Christs apointment, may be brought to [Page 241] beleue. P. 499. we affirme, the ministe­rie of the Church to be verie necessarie l. 1. de Script. p. simply we cannot beleue without the ministerie of the Church. P. 39. we beleue not, I confes, vnles the Church by preaching teach vs. P. 106. The ministerie being taken away, nether faith, nor charitie, nor obedience, nor anie other vertue wil remaine safe. See him p. 46. 106. 108. 111. l. 3. p. 369. I confess, that the mini­sterie of the Church, is most necessarie for to beleue the Scriptures l. 3. p. 478. I affirme, determine, hold, that there is no entrance to saluation, without the ministerie of the word. Ibid. By ministe­rie of Pastors, we assent to the Scriptures, nor is it to behoped, that without this ministerie, we can haue faith. And p. 477. It is true, that without the mini­sterie, there is no entrance to saluation, and that this ministerie, is not, but in Pastors. Contro. 2. q. 3. c. 11. p. 332. By the preaching of Pastors, the gates of heauen are in a sorte opened, so that without the ministerie of the word, no entrance to saluation can be for an [...]. [Page 242] Ibid. q. 5. c. 19. p. 550. Without prea­ching of the Gospel we neuer come to sal­uation. Fulk of succession p. 30. Sal­uation of people, can neuer be procured without preaching. And p. 163. No Christian wil denie, but that preaching is necessarie for building of the Church. Latimer in his sermons fol. 38. Take away preaching, and you take away faith. And fol. 99. The office of prea­ching, is the onely ordinarie means, by which God hath decreed, that we be sa­ued. Cartwright in Hooker l. 5. p. 230. No saluation to be looked for, where no preaching is. Item. Reading, cannot begin the work of saluation, it cannot breed and cause faith without sermons. And the Puritans in whitgifts Ans­wer to the admonition p. 53. Reading is not feeding. Field in his Appendix part. 2 p. 21. The tradition of the Church is a necessarie means, wherby the books of Scripture may be made known.—The Churches proposiug of things, is a neces­sarie condition, without which ordina­rily men can not beleue. Potter sec. 5. p. 5. We doe not depriue the Church of [Page 243] that prerogatiue and office, which Christ hath giuen it. Faith comes by hearing the word of God, and the ministerie of the Church, is necessarie in ordinarie course, for the begetting of faith. P. 9. The Church, ordinarie propounder of faith. God hath apointed an outward ordinarie means to present and propound diuine verities to our faith, and this ordinarie means, we grant is the Church. Is not this to grant in plain termes, that the Church is the ordinarie propo­ser of faith apointed by God? P. 10. The Church is one cause, to wit, induc­tiue or preparatiue, without which men ordinarily doe not beleue, P. 6. The testi­monie of the present Church, is the first external motiue of our faith, it is the key or dore that lets men into the know­ledg of diuine misteries. Laude sec. 16. p. 73. No man may expect inward priuat reuelation, without the external means of the Church, vnles perhaps the case of necessitie be excepted. Hooker l. 3. §. 8. we al know, that the first outward motiue, leading men to esteeme of the Scripture, is the authoritie of Gods Church. Chillingworth. c. 1. p. 63. [Page 244] Whether such or such a book be canoni­cal Scripture, affirmatiuely cannot be decided, but by the testimonie of the an­cient Churches. P. 52. we take the Scrip­ture vpon vniuersal tradition. P. 66. Of this controuersies (which books be canonical) we make the Church the Iudg, The consent and testimonie of the ancient and primitiue Church. P. 72. It is superfluous for you to proue out of S. Athanasius, and S. Austin, that we must receaue the sacred Canon vpon the credit of Gods Church, vnderstanding by Church, the credit of Tradition. P. 96. It is vpon the authoritie of vniuersal tradition, that we would haue them be­leue the Scripture. c. 3. §. 38. p. 150. The Church is a necessarie introduction to faith. Couel. art. 4. Doubtles, it is a tolerable opinion in the Church of Rome that the Scriptures are holie, and diuine in themselues, but so esteemed by vs, for the authoritie of the Church. See Whi­tes defense p. 251. 254.

3. Nether doe they onely confess this, but also confess, that the Scrip­ture teacheth it. The confession of▪ [Page 245] Auspurg. c. de potestate Ecclesiasti­câ. Eternal iustice, the holie Spirit, life euerlasting, can not be had, but by the ministerie of the word and Sacraments, as Paul saieth. The confession of Bo­hemia art. 10. They grant, that none can haue true faith, vnles he hear the word of God, according to that of Paul, Faith is of hearing. And againe: how shal they beleue in him, whome they haue not heard? And the Protestants in their Conferencie in Maspurg in Hospin parte 2. Historiae Sacram▪ fol. 77. agreed: that the holie Ghost (speaking of the ordinarie waie) giueth Vocal word of God. faith to none, vnles a sermon or vocal word goe before: but he worketh faith by, and with the vocal word, where, and in whome he pleaseth. Rom. 10. Caluin 4. Instit. c. 1. §. 5. God inspi­reth faith, but by the Organ of his Gos­pel, as Paul admonisheth, that faith is of hearing. Ibid. Vve must hold, what we haue cited out of Paul that the Church is not builded otherwise, then by exter­nal preaching. In 1. Cor. 3. v 6. Note in this place, that preaching of the word, [Page 246] is necessarie nothing can hinder, but God can infuse faith whiles we sleep, if he wil, without help of man, but he hath decreed otherwise, to wit, that faith is of hearing, The same he hath Hebr. 4. 1. Tim. 3. and Ephes. 4. Beza in colloquio Montisbel. p. 407. The ordinarie means, by which faith is ordinarie cause. infused, is by hearing the word of God. Rom. 10. wherfore these two causes are alwaies ioined, to wit, the Holie Ghost, and hearing of the word of God. Bucer in Rom. 10. The Apostle knew, that God can cal al men, without the ministerie of men, yet he simply wrote, how shal they beleue in him, of whome they haue heard nothing? Hyperius vpon the same place: This it is: That al beleue and inuocate God, it is necessa­rie, that they first heare the Gospel, and be taught. Daneus l. de visibili Eccle­sia p. 1069. Paul saieth, Faith is of hea­ring, not of priuat reading. Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura p. 29. Vvhat thou obiectest of the Apostle: how shal they beleue him, whome they haue not hear, doth demonstrate, that preaching is [Page 247] necessarie to [...]aue right faith of God. P. 39. I am not ignorant, how necessarie the ministerie of the Church is both to begett, and confirme faith, and if you vrge, I can grant, that what is beleued, is beleued by the ministerie of the Church. For God hath set that order in his Church, that faith be of hearing, and hearing of the word of God. The like he hath p. 41. 100. l. 3. p. 396. Con­tro. 1. q. 2. c. 15. Faith (as the Apostle witnesseth Rom. 10.) is of hearing. And q. 6. c. 15. out of which place (Rom. 10) it is euident, that faith is conceaued by hearing. And in his last sermon. p. 694. It is certain, that in those of yeares, faith is of hearing, as the Apostle tea­cheth. White in his way §. 27. p. 116. It wil be easily granted, that the mini­sterie of the Church, is the ordinarie means, wherby we learn the faith of Christ, and that no man of himself can attain to the knowledg therof, but as the Church teacheth him. Except in some extraordinarie cases, the preaching ther­of is required, is a necessarie condition, as the text of S. Paul (Rom. 10.) speaketh [Page 248] See Potter sec. 5. p. 9. and Dent in his plain way p. 250.

4. Out of which confessions of Protestants, it is manifest, 1. that the Churches proposal is necessarie 1 to beget faith, 2. that her proposal is the ordinarie means and instru­ment, 2 by which God produceth faith in vs, 3. That without her prea­ching, 3 there is no faith. 4. That though God can beget faith with­out 4 the help of the Church, yet he hath decreed not to doe it; 5. That we cannot beleue the Scriptures, 5 but by the means of the Church, 6. That the Scripture teacheth this: 6 which is plainly to confess, both that the Churches proposal of points of faith, is necessarie to haue faith of them, and also, that we must first know the Church, before we can know the Scripture, and conse­quently, that we must know the Scripture by the Church, and not Vvhitaker l. [...]. de Scrip. p. 18. 49. Chilling. c. 2. n. 21. the Church by the Scripture, as commonly Protestants vse to teach. Let them therfore tel me, what [Page 249] Church preached Protestant do­ctrin to Luther and to the first Pro­testants; of hearing of what lawful preacher, he had his Protestant faith? By what Churches ministerie, he learnt the Protestant sense of Scriptures? or say, that he had not his faith of hearing, but of diuine inspiration, which themselues con­demn in Suencfeldius, Anabaptists, and Enthusiasts, as is to be seen in Melancthon, Respons ad articulos Bauaricos fol. 172. Schusselburg to. 10. catal haeret. p. 30. Kemnitius 2. parte Exam. tit. de Sacram. ord p. 391. Whitaker contro. 1. q. 3. c. 11. and l. 1. de Script. c. 3. p. 44. and l. 2. c. 10. sec. 4. Pareus l. 3. de Iustif. c. 3. and 8. to which I ad, that Beza in colloquio Montisbelg. p. 407. saieth, of extraordinarie means, by which faith is infused, we haue no testi­monie in Scripture. Wherfore they can haue no faith, that Luther had his faith by anie extraordinarie means, or otherwise then Suenc­feldius, Anabaptists, and Enthusiasts [Page 250] pretend, that they had theirs. And hence also appeareth, that Prote­stants nether take the right way, which God hath apointed, and the Scripture plainly declareth, for to learn true faith, and diuine truth by, Protestants take no [...] the right way to get right faith. nor wil learn them of those, whome God hath apointed to teach and shew them. For the onely way, which God (in ordinarie course) hath apointed, and the Scripture declareth, to learn true faith by, is by hearing Rom. 10. and the persons, whome they are to hear, are lawful­ly sent Preachers ibidem, the Suc­cessors of those, of whome Christ saied: Who heareth yee, heareth me. Lu­ke 10. and whome he hath put in his Church, for consummation of Saints Ephes. 4. and whome he hath made the pillar and ground of truth. 1. Timoth. 3. But Protestants seek truth by their reading, or by their discoursing or inference: and not of Pastors, or of the pillar or ground of truth, and therfore no meruel, if they neuer finde truth, whiles they wil not seek [Page 251] it, how and where it is to be found. For where should truth be sought or found, but at the pillar and groūd of truth; And who seek it not there, are neuer like to finde diuine faith, but at most, humane beleef. And Chillingworih therfore often times L 36. 37. 62. 73. 112. 117. professeth, that Protestants haue onely humane and moral certaintie, such as they haue of profane stories, no infal­lible or certainly vnerring beleef: and that they haue as great reason to beleue there was a Heurie eight, as that Iesus Christ suffered vnder Pontius Pilat. To such prophane credulitie or rather incredulitie, are they fallen, who seek not truth at the pillar and ground of truth, which is the Church Vvhitaker l. 1. descrip. p. p. 8. 43. Chil [...]ng. c. 2. n. 12. but profess, that they wil first seek, truth, and then the Church: which is as much, as if they said, they wil seek first the end, and afterwards the onely means to come to it. But now let vs proue that Protestants doe some times grant that the authoritie of the Church is euen diuine, or di­uinely infallible.

FIFTEENTH CHAPTER. That Protestants doe diuers vvaies confess, that the authoritie of the Church in matters [...]f faith, is diuine or diuinely infallible.

1. IN the former Tenth Chap­ter we shewed, that Prote­stants doe often times confess, that the Church is infallible, at lest in fundamental points of faith, now we wil shew, that some, times they confess, that she is also diuinely in­fallible, that is, infallible by Gods diuine efficacious assistance. And in­deed it cannot be conceaued, how she can be infallible in anie kinde of supernatural and diuine matters, and not be diuinely infallible in them, that is, infallible by Gods diuine ef­ficacious assistance, For by herself, or her natural power, she cannot so much as know them, much less be infallible in them.

[Page 253]2. Caluin in Luc. 10. The testimonie of our Saluation, giuen by men sent of God, is no less then if he spoke from hea­uen. The same saieth confessio Bo­hemica c. 14. Apologia Confess Au­gustanae c. de Poenitentia. perkins in Reformed Catholik cont. 3. c▪ 3. and others. Whitaker l. 3 de Script. p. 4 [...]6. when the Church giueth testimo­nie to the Scriptures, surely this testimo­nie is diuine, because God is the author Testimonie of the Church diuine. of this testimonie. Behold the testi­monie of the Church is diuine and that becaus God is Author of it. Nether can he, by the testimonie of the Church, mean the truth testified by her: becaus that were to equiuoca­te, and also to grant no more her testimonie to be diuine, then is the testimonie of anie priuat man, of the Scriptures. Wherfore by the Churches testimonie, he must needs mean, The Churches testification of the Scriptures, or her act of testifying them, to be diuine, and so is no pri­uat mans testification, diuine, though he testifie the same, which [Page 254] the Church testifieth. And contr. 1. q. 3. c. 11. Stapleton saieth; the iudg­ment Iudgement of the Church diuine. of the Church is diuine; be it so, let the iudgment of the Church be diuine—We enquire not now, whether the iudgment of the Church be diuine in it self, but how we know that it is diui­ne. Which supposeth, that the Iudg­ment of the Church is diuine, for we cannot know, that it is diuine, if it be not such indeed. And ibid. we confess, that the iudgment of the Chuch is in some sorte diuine, not simply, but in some parte, when the testimonie of the Church conspireth with the testi­monie of the holie Ghost, then we confess, it is diuine. Where, by Iudgment, he cannot mean, the truth iudged by the Church, but her act of iudging both for what we said of testimonie of the Church, as also, becaus he saieth, her iudgment is not simply diuine, wheras Gods truth iudged by the Church, is simply diuine, and not onely in parte. And the same Whi­taker l. 2. de Script. c. 7. p. 246. Ministers of the Church, are instruments [Page 255] of the holie Ghost, and endued with di­uine Ministers endued with diuine au­thoritie. authoritie to gouern the Church committed to them. Where, is plainly granted to Ministers, diuine autho­ritie to gouern the Church, and if to gouern, why not also diuine au­thoritie to testifie that to be diuine truth, which they teach? Is it not as necessarie to the Church, to be rightly taught, as to be rightly go­uerned? And if as necessarie, why not diuine authoritie granted as wel for the one, as for the other? And Authoritie of s [...]ripture equal to Christ. contro. 1. q. 3. c. 11. p. 328. The autho­ritie of the Scripture, is no less then the authoritie of Christ himself. And yet the Scripture is a create thing, as wel as the Church is. Powel l. de Adiaphoris p. 7. Such indifferent things as by the Church haue been lawfully and orderly instituted, are so far humane, as they are also diuine therfore haue more then humane authoritie, yea plainly di­uine. And if things instituted by the Things insti­tuted by the Church plai­nely diuine. Church, haue plainly diuine autho­ritie, surely she hath diuine authori­tie to institute them. For humane [Page 256] authoritie can institute nothing, which is plainly diuine. Nether do I think, that anie iudicious Prote­stant wil denie, that the Authoritie of the Church to preach Gods word and administer his Sacraments, is truly diuine, becaus our Sauiour Mathew the last, saieth: Al power in heauen and earth is giuen to me, wher­fore going, teach al nations, baptizing them &c. And what need had he to say, Al power in heauen and earth was giuen to him, for to giue mere huma­ne power to his Apostles; and also, what humane power could be fit or sufficient to teach and administer diuine word, and Sacraments? And if Christ gaue to his Apostles true diuine authoritie to preach his word and administer his Sacraments, he gaue them also true diuine authori­tie to testifie, that it was his word and Sacraments, which they admi­nistred; becaus the end of their prea­ching, was to perswade men, that it was his word and Sacraments, which they administred; and God [Page 257] giuing diuine authoritie to the means, must needs giue the like au­thoritie to the end, becaus he more desireth the end, then the means, and therfore wil not giue less autho­ritie to obtaine the end, then he doth to obtain the means.

3. Secondly, Protestants say manie things of the Churches authoritie, which must needs argue it to be di­uine. For Whitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 11. and 19. saieth, It is sacriledg not to receaue the Churches testimonie of the Sacriledg not to receaue the Churches testimonie. Scriptures Tailor l. of libertie of pro­phesying sec. 9. n. 2. The authoritie of the Church, is diuine in its original, for it deriues immediatly from Christ. Potter sec. 1. p. 10. The good Spirit of truth and loue euer assists and mantai­nes that great bodie (the Catholik Church) Sec. 5. p. 20. The whole Church cannot so err, as to be destroied. For then our lords Promise of her stable edification, shold be of no value. P. 21. Nor hath the Church vniuersal the like assurance from Christ, that she shal not err in vnnecessarie additions, as she Assurance from Christ. [Page 258] hath for her not erring in taking away from the faith, what is fundamental and necessarie. It is comfort enough for the Church, that the lord in mercie wil secure her from al capital dangers. P. 22. That the Church shal neuer be robbed of anie truth, necessarie to the being of the Church, the promses of Christ assure vs. P. 30. Their (General councels) authoritie is immediatly deriued and de­riued and delegated from Christ. Laude in his Relation sec. 21. p. 170. That the whole Church cannot err in doctrins absolutly fundamental, seemes to be clear by the promise of Christ, Mathew 16. The gates of hel &c. Ibid. This power By Christs [...]romise. (of not erring) is in it, partely by this promise of Christ. Sec. 16. p. 61. The vniuersal Church deliuers those super­natural (fundamental) truthes, by promises of assistance. Sec. 33. p. 231. For this necessarie truth, the Apostles receaued the promise for themselues, and the whole Catholik Church. Sec▪ 38. p. 355. The Catholik Church of Christ Infallible as­sistance pro­mised. in things absolutly necessarie onely, had infallible assistance promised. And [Page 259] Chillingworth c. 5. p. 277. That there shal be, by diuine prouidence, preserued God hath promised ab­solutely. in the world, to the worlds end, a com­panie of Christians who hold al things precisely and indispensably necessarie to saluation, and nothing ineuitably de­structiue of it, this the Doctor affirmeth, that God hath promised absolutely. And is her authoritie not diuine, which not to. receaue, is sacriledg? Is not she diuinely infallible, who is infal­lible by Christs absolute promise, and the Spirit of truth his efficacious assistance? What mean we by Diui­nely infallible, but infallible in this sort? Doth not Laude sec. 16. p. 91. say, That so great assistance of Christ and the B. spirit, as is purposely giuen to that effect, that the authoritie of anie companie be diuine and infallible enough. And doe not the forsaid Pro­testants confess, that such assistance of Christ and of the B. Spirit, is pur­posely giuen to the Church in fun­damental points of faith; How then can they denie, that her authoritie in such points is diuine, and she diui­nely [Page 260] infallible in them?

4. Thirdly, Protestants are so­metimes ashamed to say, the Au­thoritie or testimonie of the true Church is mere humane: and doe but restrictly say, that it is diuine. Whitaker contro. 1. q. 3. c. 11. p. 331. It is a slander that we make the Iudg­ment of the Church, mere humane, which surely is fals. Laude in his Relat. sec. 16. n. 19. The tradition of the pre­sent Not more humane. Church, is not absolutely diuine. And n. 21. The voice of the Church, is not simply diuine. Sec. 10. n. 11. The Churches authoritie is not simply diui­ne. Sec. 19. n. 1. The testimonie of the present Church, is not simply diuine. Potter Sec. 5. p. 15. That the Church is infallible, we doe not absolutely deny, we onely deny, the Church to be abso­lutely infallible. Which is tacitly to confess, that the authoritie or testi­monie of the Church, is truely di­uine in some degree. For what is not meerly humane, and onely denied to be simply diuine, is in some degree truly diuine. And what authoritie is [Page 261] in anie degree truly diuine by Gods special assistance, implieth contra­diction, to deceaue. But why doe Protestants vse these ambiguous and equiuocal termes, not simply, not absolutely, which they condemne in others, and doe not speak out, and Vvhitaker l. 3. p. 419. Laude Relat sec. 33. p. 247 tel plainly, whether authoritie of the Church in matters of faith be truly diuine by Gods efficacious as­sistance, or no. For if it be truly di­uine in anie degree by Gods effica­cious assistance, that sufficeth to vs, becaus it implieth contradiction, that such diuine authoritie, should deceaue or be deceaued. And as Chillingworth c. 3. §. 33. p. 175. saieth: The Apostles, could not be the Churches fundation, without freedom from error in al those things, which they deliuered constantly, as certain reuealed truthes, For if once we suppose, they may haue erred in some things of this nature, it wil be vtterly vndiscernable, what they haue erred in, and what they haue not. And in like manner I say of the Church: That she could not be the [Page 262] pillar and ground of diuine truth, without freedom from error in al things which she deliuereth as di­uine truthes.

4. Fourthly, they grant, that the The Rule of faith. tradition and doctrin of the Church, is the rule of faith, and of iudging controuersies by. White in defense of his way c. 3. p. 339. I grant, that the doctrin of the Pastors of the true Church such as succeed the Apostles, is the rule and means of faith. And c. 37. p. 356. That the Churches doctrin is the rule, I deny not. Chillingworth l. 2. n. 155. Vniuersal tradition, is the rule to iudge al controuersies by. And c. 3. p. 148. We beleue canonical books, vpon vni­uersal tradition. But the doctrin or tradition of the Church, could not be the rule of diuine and infallible faith, or of iudging controuersies in such faith, if it were not also diuine and infallible▪ For a rule, must be as diuine and infallible, as that is which is ruled by it. And as Chillingworth saieth. c. 3. p. 148. cit. An authoritie subiect to error, can be no firme or solid [Page 263] foundation of my beleef in anie thing. Nor likewise, no firme or solid Rule.

6. Fiftly, they grant, that the voi­ce, Cause of di­uine faith. authoritie, or testimonie of the Church is a true cause of diuine faith Whitaker l. 1. de Scriptura p. 118. The Church is Mother of beleuers. P. 121. The Church, by preaching the Gospel, begot vs to Christ. P. 175. I denie not, that the voice of the Church, is an in­strumental cause of beleuing. l. 3. c. 441. I exclude not the testimonie of the Church from a cause of beleuing, if by cause, you mean an instrument. P. 442. Thou tel­lest, what kinde of instrument, the Church is, to wit, not dumb or dead, but in which is its proper motion and vertue. And who denieth this, or knoweth not the necessitie or vertue of this instru­ment? Ibid. p. 425. The Church is Mistress of faith: Item. faith is the effect of the Churches testimonie. And contr. 2. q. 5. c. 19. The Church maketh faith­ful, by preaching of the word. And l. 1. de Scrip. p. 145. out of both testimonies (Spirit and Church) faith is in some [Page 264] sort inflamed and burneth. Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. God reuealeth truth by the Church c. 11. We confess, God speaketh by the God speaketh by the Church. Church. And generally al Protestants confess, that the Church is: the Mo­ther of the faithful, and a mother; is a true cause of her Children. And if the Church be the mother of the faith­ful, doe beget the faithful, if her voice, her testimonie, be an instrumental cause of diuine faith, if she haue a proper ver­tue in producing faith, if diuine faith be the effect of her testimonie, and by her preaching, she make faithful, Surely, If the effect be diuine, the cause is diuine. she hath a diuine power or vertue. For as Whitaker confesseth l. 1. de Scripturâ p. 166. The effect surpasseth not the cause: and l. 3. § 415. Such as the doctrin and religion is, which we profess [...] such also must the cause and au­thoritie of beleuing be. So also Potter sec. 5. p. 7. Field of the Church l. 4. c. 2 Chillingworth c. 2. n 154. c. 3. n. 33. But the effect of the Church, is truly diuine, to wit, diuine faith. Therfore also her testimonie and [Page 265] is truly diuine. And indeed, how can we diuinely and infallibly beleue, for a humane and fallible testimonie? How can diuine faith, be the effect of a humane testimonie?

SIXTEENTH CHAPTER. That Protestants doe diuers vvaies grant, that the Authoritie or Testimonie of the Church is a formal cause of diuine faith.

1. THis followeth, first out of that they granted, the au­thoritie of the Church in matters of S [...]p. c. 15. n. 2. faith, to be diuine. For doubtles, if it be diuine, it may be some formal cause of diuine faith. Nay, they think (as is before shewed) that if it be diuine, it may be the vltimate formal cause of diuine faith. But otherwise they grant it also. For first they con­fess, that the cause, why they beleue the Scripture, is, the authoritie of [Page 266] the Church. Whitaker l. 2. de Scrip­tura p. 320. I grant indeed, that the Ratio cre­dend [...] est prop [...]er quam credimus Vvhitaker l. 3. de Scrip. p 442. 459. Scripture is to be receaued, becaus [...] is receaued of the Church. P. 312. Al Chri­stians are moued by the authoritie of the Church to beleue the Gospel. Cont. 1. q. 3. c. 9. Al these Fathers, what other thing doe they proue, then that the Gospel is to be receaued, becaus it hath alwaies been receaued of the Church: and some books to be reiected, becaus the Church alwaies Becaus. reiected them. This we most willingly grant. Ibid. sec. 5. p. 322. we beleue them For. to be canonical, not for the onelie testi­monie or authoritie of the By. Church, to beleue these books to be cano­nical. And ibid. c. 1. This way seems For. tolerable, that Scripture is diuine in it self, but not acknowledged for such, but for the testimonie of the Church. Laude Relat. sec. 15. p. 57. Tis not denied, that this (baptisme of Infants) is an Apo­stolical Therfore. tradition, and therfore to be be­leued. Chillingworth c. 2. p. 73. we must receaue the sacred canons, vpon Vpon. the credit of Gods Church. Ibid. we wil Becaus. [Page 266] say with Athanasius, That onely fowr Gospels are to be receaued, becaus the Canons of the holie Catholik Church (vnderstand of al ages since the perfec­tion of the Canons) haue so determined. Ibid. p. 62. We beleue the Scripture vpon Vpon. the credibilitie of vniuersal tradition. And c. 3. p. 140. We haue sufficient cer­taintie From. of Scripture, from vniuersal tra­dition. And what can those causal particles, Becaus, By, For, Vpon, From, Therfore, in this matter signifie, but a formal cause of beleef?

2. Hooker l. 2. §. 4. There is some pause, wheron to rest our assurance (of Pause to rest assuran­ce or. the Scripture) beside the Scripture, and some other thing, which may assure vs. And this pause wheron to rest our assurance, and which can assu­re vs of the Scripture, he saieth l. 5. § 8. is the authoritie of the Church. And what is that, which is a pause wheron we rest the assurance of our be­leef, but some formal cause of our beleef? Laude Relat. sec. 16. p. 119. The credit of the Scripture to be diuine, Main ground. hath three main grounds. The first, is the [Page 268] tradition of the Church. And is not that which is a main ground of beleef, some formal cause of beleef? And sec. 38. p. 344. we relie vpon the infal­lible authoritie of the word of God, and Relie vpon. the whole Catholik Church. And is not that, some formal cause of be­leef, vpon which we relie, as we doe vpon the word of God? Couel art. 4. p. Doubtless, it is a tolerable opi­nion in the Church of Rome, that the Scriptures are holie and diuine in them­selues, but so esteemed of vs, for the au­thoritie of the Church. And is not that For. for which we esteem the Scriptures to be diuine, some formal cause of our esteem of them? The like hath Whitaker contr. 1. q. 3. c. 1. who also l. 1. de Script. p. 23. saieth; That the question, between him and D. Sta­pleton was, whether we are to beleue For. the Scripture to be diuine, onely for the testimonie of the Church, or rather for the inward persuasion of the holie Ghost, The same he saieth contr. 1. q. 3. c. 1. Wherin he plainly supposeth, that we are to beleue the Scripture to be [Page 269] diuine, for the authoritie of the Church and onely denieth, that we are to beleue so, for it alone. Which al Catholiks also denie. And contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. saieth: Manie beleued Christ for the testimonie of Ihon. And c. 5. p. 322. we beleue them to be canonical, not onely for the authoritie of the Church. Then partly for her authoritie. Ibid. It followeth not, that we know not By. which books be Canonical by anie other testimonie, then of the Church. And c. 8. Austin indeed saieth: he was held in the Church for testimonie of Catholiks, and consent of Nacions. But (as himself saieth l. 1. de Script. p. 39.) To beleue for the Church, and for the Churches For sheweth the reason of beleef. authoritie, sheweth the cause and rea­son of beleef. The same he saieth p. 46. And Chillingworth c. 2. p. 68. To say, we receaue the books of the new So doth Becaus. testament commonly receaued, becaus they are so, were indeed to make (Com­monly receaued) a rule or reason to know the Canon by. And indeed (as I saied before) what other kinde of cause of beleef, can these particles, Becaus, [Page 290] or For, signifie but some formal cau­se of beleef? And the same Chilling­worth c. 3. p. 152. It followeth not, that becaus the Churches authoritie is warrant enough, for vs to beleue some Vvarrant enough for to beleue. doctrin, touching which, the Scripture is silent, therfore it is warrant enough, to beleue these, to which the Scripture seemes repugnant. Now the doctrins which S. Austin receaued vpon the Churches authoritie, were of the first sorte. Which is plainly to confess, that S. Austin receaued some doc­trins vpon the Churches authoritie, and that the Churches authoritie is war­rant enough to beleue doctrins, of which the Scripture is silent. But authori­tie, which is warrant enough to be­leue, is a formal cause of beleef. Lau­de also sec. 16. p. 102. The key, that lets men into the Scriptures, euen to this The key. knowledg of them, That they are the word of God, is the tradition of the Church. And p. 107. The testimonie of the Church is a subseruient cause to lead to knowledg of the author (of Scriptures) And what is the key of beleef, but a formal cause [Page 291] of beleef: or what subseruient cause of beleef, can testimonie be, but a for­mal cause? Hooker also l. 2. §. 7. gran­teth, that the authoritie of the Church, is the key, which openeth the dore into The dore. the knowledg of Scripture. And Po [...]ter sec. 5. p. 6. The testimonie of the present Church, is the key or dore, which lets men into the knowledg of diuine miste­ries. And what is the key or dore, in matters of beleef, but some formal cause of beleuing them? For (as I said before) what cause of beleef, can testimonie or authoritie be, but formal? Wherfore if not in words, in effect and deed, they grant the testimonie or authoritie of the Church, to be a formal cause of faith. Ad in vaine they denie the na­me, when they grant the thing. For August. 9. de ciuit c. vel l. 2. contr. Crescon. c. 2. l. 2. ad Bonif. c. 5. Caluin 2. Instit. c. 2 §. 7. l. 4. c. 3. truth consisteth not in words, but in things.

3. Secondly, they often times grant, that we beleue By the Church, by the testimonie of the Church, and By the preaching of the Church. Whitaker l. 1. de Script. p. 39. We beleue by the [Page 272] Church, by the preaching of the Church. Ibid. p. 46. That we cannot beleue but by the testimonie of the Church, is no question betwene vs. Contr. 2. q. 3. c. 3. p. 317. Manie beleue these Scriptures by the Church. Which he repeateth p. 316. and 320. where headdeth: God re­uealeth by the Church, as by aministerial means. But in matter of beleef, To By testimo­nie, and for testimonie, is al one cause. beleue by or for authoritie by or for te­stimonie, is al one kinde of cause, be­caus Authoritie or testimonie, can be no other kinde of cause of beleef, but formal; nor beleef, can haue anie other formal cause, but Authoritie or Testimonie. Wherfore the Scrip­ture often times saieth, men beleued by Ihon Baptist, by the Apostles, by the Prophets, meaning for their testimo­nie or authoritie. And so we say, we beleue by witnesses, or for their tes­timonie. Becaus, when the word B [...] is said of Authoritie or Testimo­nie, in respect of beleef, it can signi­fie no other cause then For, doth in the same matter, to wit, formal. Wherfore seing the causal particle [Page 273] By, doth signifie, that Authoritie or Testimonie is some kinde of cause of beleef, it must needs signifie the same kinde of cause, which For, in that matter, doth signifie (as it is al one to say, we know the conclusion by the premises, and for the premi­ses) but yet with this difference, that By, more signifieth a subordinat cause of beleef, then For, doth, and therfore it is oftener said in the Scripture, men beleued by the Apo­stles, or by the Prophets, then for them, Though in other matters, By, may signifie a different kinde of cause, then, For, doth. And that By, and For, in matter of beleef, signifie the same cause of beleef, Whitaker ta­citly granteth, in that he often times denieth, that we beleue by the Church or by the testimonie of the Church, and saieth l. 1. de Script. p. 7. What then Protestant [...] den [...]e, we beleue by, the testimo­nie of the Church. Stapleton? Dost not thou say, that we are certain by the Church, that this or that Scripture is diuine. This thou saiest, is that which properly is in question. Did I say, think, put, or ascribe to thee or thine, [Page 294] anie other thing, when I sought the true state of the question? Behold, how plainly he confesseth, that the true state of the question between him and Catholiks, is whether we bele­ue the Scripture to be diuine by the testimonie of the Church: though in other places he would put a great L. 1. de script p 39. 46. difference between beleuing by the testimonie, and for the testimonie of the Church. And ibid. in Margine: To beleue by the testimonie of the Church, is the plain heresie of Papists.

4. Thirdly, Protestants grant the Church of God is apointed by him, to be witnes of his diuine truth, as I shewed before c. 5. n. 6. But a witnes, is by his authoritie and testimonie, a formal cause of beleuing what he witnesseth, and the onely end of a witnes, is to cause beleef. And this confesseth Caluin in Acts c. 20. v. 21. saying: Testimonie, is interposed to take away al doubt, that is, to beleue firme­ly. And out of that which hath been shewed in this Chapter, it is euident that (if not in words) indeed and [Page 295] effect, Protestants doe grant, that the authoritie or testimonie of the Church, is a formal cause of diuine faith: and (as I said before) to grant the thing, and denie the word or name, is but follie: For what doe we mean, when we say, the Church is a formal subordinat cause of faith, then what they haue saied and gran­ted? Thus haue we proued, that euen by the confession of Prote­stants, the Church of God, is infal­lible, at lest in fundamental points of faith, and also diuinely infallible by Christs absolute promise, and the holie Ghosts assistance, and also, that her authoritiein matters of faith is a formal cause of faith, though subordinat to Gods authoritie, with which (in ordinarie course) it ma­keth one total or entire formal cau­se of faith.

SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER. Hovv a vicious circle is auoided, in prouing the Scripture by the Church, and the Church, by the Scripture.

1. PRotestants greatly obiect to Catholiks, that they Laude sect. 16. p. 64. 116. Ch [...]ling c. 2. n. 118. c. 3. n. 27. Field. l. 4. c. 7 Morton 10. 1. Apol. l. 1. c. 55 make a vicious circle, becaus they proue the Church by the Scripture, and likewise the Scripture, by the Church. Wheras themselues vse the same proof, and haue the same difficultie, and auoidles apparently (as we shal make manifest) a vicious circle. For (as is euident by their confessions relate din the fourteenth Chapter) commonly they teach, that the testimonie of the Church is necessarie to beleue the Scripture to be the word of God, and that it cannot be known to be such, by its own light alone: and yet they proue [Page 277] the Church to be the true Church, onely by the scripture. Laude Relat. sec. 16. p. 38. and 102. thinketh to See in [...]a l. 2. c. 6. se [...]. 2. auoid a vicious circle, thus: That though they doe mutually, yet they doe not equally confirme the authoritie, ether of other. For the Scripture doth infalli­bly confirme the authoritie of the tradi­tion of the Church, but tradition doth but morally and probably confirme the authoritie of the Scripture. But first, it is fals, that the Church doth but probably confirme the authoritie of the Scripture. For (as we haue she­wed before) the Churches testimo­nie is a sufficient external and mini­sterial means to beget diuine faith: and the holie Fathers also proued sufficiently the diuine veritie of Scripture (against such as denied anie parte of it) by the authoritie of the Church: and it were to expo­se the credit of Scripture to the laughter of Infidels, to say, that it cannot be proued otherwise, then probably, and that al Christian faith of what is in scripture, relieth vpon [Page 298] onely probable proof, that the scrip­ture Seesup. c. 8. n. 13. is the word of God. Besids, it is euidently fals, and no way proued, that after the Church hath proba­bly proued; that the Scripture is the word of God, the Scripture it self sheweth a clear light, that it is the the word of God. For that the Scrip­ture hath such a clear light, ether before the Churches testimonie, or after, is merely faigned without al proof; and if it had, it would not cause faith in vs, that it is the word of God (becaus faith is of things not appearing) but science or knowledg. Moreouer, seing Laude and Prote­stants generally confess, that the Church is infallible in fundamental points, they cannot consequently say, that she is not infallible in this point, That the Scripture is the word of God becaus they account this, the Hooker l. 1. §. 14. Laudesest. 11. p. 43. sect. 16. p. 59. 65. 110. See infral. 2. 6. 11. sect. 1. fundation of al other points what­soeuer. And what is infallible, affor­deth an infallible, and more then a moral and probable proof. Besids, this circle were vicious, becaus the [Page 299] proof were not equal on ether side. For on the Scriptures side, it were infallible, and on the Churches side, but fallible. And we ask for an infal­lible proof of Scripture, as wel as of the Church, becaus we must be in­fallibly assured of both: and to giue vs a fallible proof of the Scripture by the Church, were to delude vs. Finally I ask, if the Scripture, doe infallibly confirme the tradition of the Church (as Laude saieth) how doth the tradition of the Church onely probably confirme the autho­ritie of the Scripture? can not that, which is infallibly, proued or con­firmed, make an infallible proof of some other thing.

2. But Catholiks far more clearly auoid al vicious circles: (For euerie circular proof, is not vicious, but that onely, wherby our knowledg is no way bettered: For the effect may be proued a priori, or propter quid, by the cause, and the cause, a posteriori, or quia, by the effect) and say, that our diuine faith of the [Page 280] Church, nether first riseth, nor de­pendeth of the certaine of the Scripture, but onely is confirmed by the Scripture; but that the cer­taintie of the Scripture, both first riseth, and stil dependeth (for vs) on the authoritie of the Church. For the true Church of God (who­soeuer she is) was beleued more then two thousand yeares before there was anie Scripture, and she hath suf­ficient authoritie to testifie of her­self. This we proue by al the waies, by which we proued, that she is a sufficient proposer of al points of faith. For if of al, euen of herself, that she is the true Church. For this is a point (and a principal one) of faith. Besids, the foresaid proofs not onely proue, that she is a suffi­cient proposer of points of faith, but also, that she is such of herself, or of her own authoritie giuen to her by God. For if of her preaching, faith riseth, if she be the pillar and ground of truth, if she be a witnes apointed by God, if her voice be [Page 281] one with the voice of Christ, her authoritie is diuine, and she is, euen for herself, to be beleued, as the Apostles were to be beleued for Sup. c. 4 [...] 5. themselues. The Fathers also, who by her authoritie proued the Scrip­tures against such heretiks, as de­nied them, and (as they thought) sufficiently and infallibly, surely did think, that she was to be beleued for her own authoritie. For by Scriptu­re, they could not proue her, against such as denied Scripture. Reason also confirmeth the same. For if a Disci­ple of Christ be to be beleued for him­self, why not the Spouse of Christ, one mistical person with him, whose head he is and whose soule, is the ho­lie Ghost? And if S. Paul could say I Paul say vnto you: If you be circumcised, Galat. 5. Christ wil not profit you. Why not the Church? Whitaker l 1. de Script. p. 86. saieth: who haue such a Spirit, as Paul had, may by some iudgment, testifie their Spirit. And contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. Paul doth aproue his epistles with his own name and iudgment The old and [Page 282] new Testament doe confirme and signe one the other. In other causes, this mu­tual confirmation is naught worth. But in this, it is much worth, becaus none is so fit a witnes of God and of his word, as God himself in his word. And why may we not say the same of the Church, and Scripture, which he saieth of the old and new Testa­ment? becaus none is so fit a witnes of God, and of his Church, and of his word, as God, in his Church, and in his word. If S. Iohn could say of himself: we know, that his testimo­nie is true; why may not the Spouse C. 21. of Christ who is one mistical person with him, and whose head, he is, to whome he promised the assistan­ce of the Holie Ghost to teach her al truth, and the Holie Ghost is her soule, say the like? Protestants also, who (being enforced by Scripture) confess, that concerning men, the Church susteineth truth, must needs Supra c. 5. n. 3. confess, that she is to be beleued of men, for herself. For doubtles the susteiner of truth, is to be beleued [Page 283] for himself. Besids Chillingworth c. 2. n. 25. 1 [...]9. and 154. granteth, that Vniuersal tradition, credible of itself. See sup. c. 10. n. 37. c. 15. [...]. 5. Vniuersal tradition, is credible of it self, and therfore fit to be rested on. So that something beside Scripture, is credible of itself. And Laude Relat. sec. 19. p. 124. saieth: A man may be assured by Ecclesiastical and humane proof. And p. 125. Certain it is, that by humane authoritie, consent, and proof, a man may be assured infallibly, that the Scripture is the word of God. The same hath Potter sec. 5. p. 7. who addeth ibid. p. 6. That the testimonie of the pre­sent Church, is the highest humane au­thoritie. And is not the highest hu­mane authoritie, and that which can assure vs infallibly, credible of it self. As in matters known by rea­son, some are intelligible by them selues: so in matters of beleef, some are credible by themselues, els there wold be an endles process in such matters. Beside, some are wit­nesses without al exception, and if anie be such, surely the true Church of God, and witnesses without al [Page 284] exception, are credible for them selues. But here we must beware of being deceaued, becaus as Prote­stants grant to the Church no other authoritie, then humane, so they can grant her to be beleued for her­self, with no other kinde of faith, then humane. Wheras, as the Apo­stles had two kinds of authorities, the one humane, as they were ho­nest and vertuous men, the other diuine, as they were specially assi­sted by the holie Ghost: so the true Church of God hath the same two kinds of authorities: humane, as it is so ancient, so great, so learned, so vertuous a companie of men; and diuine, as it is specially assisted by the holie Ghost in al matters of faith And so she is to be beleued for her self, both with humane and diuine faith, as the Apostles were to be be­leued: and the humane authoritie, is no doubt, a great disposition to the beleef of the diuine authoritie. And surely, sith we must needs grant that ether the true Church of God [Page 285] is credible with diuine faith, that she is the true Church of God, for her self, or that these Copies which we haue written by fallible men, are credible for themselues, that they are the word of God and conforma­ble to their originals, no man of iudgment can think, but that rather the Church of God is so credible for herself, then such copies, as we haue, written by fallible men. For beside al other proofes, these Copies nether doe, nor can testifie of them­selues, that they are the word of God, or agreable to the original writings of the Prophets or Apostles as the true Church of God, both can and doth testifie of herself, that she is the true Church of God, and the same with that which was insti­tuted by Christ.

3. Hence it is euident, that Catho­liks, prouing to themselues the Church, by the Scripture, and the Scripture, by the Church, commit no vicious Circle: For they first pro­ue the Church, by her own diuine [Page 286] authoritie, and likewise the Scrip­ture, by the same authoritie and they doe but confirme the authori­tie of the Church, by the Scripture. And to heretiks, who denie the true Church, but admit the Scrip­ture (as did the Donatists) they pro­ue the Church by the Scripture and to other Heretiks, who denie Scrip­tures (as did the Manichees) they proue the Scripture by the Church. And therfore, in prouing the Church, and the Scripture, one by the other, commit no vitious Circle ether in their proof to themselues, or to Heretiks. For to themselues, they proue the Scripture to be the word of God, by authoritie of the Church, as by the external and se­condarie formal motiue of faith; and confirme their beleef of the Church by the Scripture, as by a material obiect of faith, which is the word of God. So that two waies they auoid a vitious Circle: first, becaus they first beleue the Church for her own authoritie, as for a secondarie [Page 287] and subordinat authoritie to Gods authoritie, and doe but confirme their beleef of the Church by the Scripture. So that beleef of the Scripture to be Gods word, depen­deth necessarily (in ordinarie cour­se) of the Churches authoritie, but beleef of the Church, to be the Church of God, doth not necessa­rily depend vpon the testimonie of the Scripture, but onely is confir­med therby Secondly, becaus they proue the Church by the Scripture, otherwise then they proue the Scrip­ture by the Church. For they proue the Scripture, by the authoritie of the Church, as by a witnes, and as by the external formal motiue of faith, secondarie and subordinate to Gods authoritie: as the Primitiue Christians, proued the Scripture by the authoritie of the Apostles; and they proue the Church by the Scrip­ture, as by a material obiect of faith which is Gods word, and not as by a witness but as by a testimonie of a witnes. And to proue things by [Page 288] Gods word, and by authoritie insti­tuted by God, are different kinds of proofes, and shew, that there is no vitious Circle. If anie say, that we proue the Church by the autho­ritie of Gods word: I answer, that authoritie properly, is of some per­son, and truth and veritie, is in his word: so we proue the Church, by the truth of Scripture; but the Scrip­ture; we proue by the authoritie of the Church. And as for our proof also of the Church by Scrip­ture, and of the Scripture by the Church, to Heretiks, we com­mit no vitious circle, becaus we proceed so with different here­tiks. For to such heretiks, as admit Scripture, but denie the Church, we proue the Church by Scripture: and to such as admit the Church, but denie Scripture, we proue Scripture by the Church.

4. And hence also appeareth, how falsly saied Chillingworth c. 2. n. 35. That our Churches authoritie is built, lastly, and wholy, vpon prudentia [...] [Page 289] motiues. Which he repeateth again n. 70. For her authoritieis built lastly vpon Gods institution, which we know by her infallible testimonie, and confirme it by Scripture. Falsly also he saied c. 3. n. 27. For the infal­libilitie Vniuersal tradition, is Gods vo­cal word. of the Church, no proof can be pretended for it, but incorrupted places of Scripture. For the Churches infal­libilitie is built principally vpon Gods authoritie, and secondarily vpon her own, which is instituted by God, as the Apostles infallibili­tie, was built secondarily vpon their own authoritie. Prudential motiues, are but rational motiues, or disposi­tions to faith; they are nether the principal nor subordinat formal cau­se of diuine faith. For diuine Autho­ritie is the formal motiue of faith, prudential motiues, make knowledg or opinion, not faith, and at most▪ can make the Churches authoritie to be euidently credible, but cannot make it to be credited or beleued with diuine faith.

EIGHTENTH CHAPTER. Hovv vve are to ansvver that que­stion VVherfore or hovv vve beleue or knovv the Church to be Infallible.

1. OVT of that which hath been hitherto saied, is clearly answered that question: How or Wherfore we beleue or know the true Church of God to be absolutly infallible in al which she teacheth, as matter of faith. Laude sec. 16. p. 60. saieth: The tradition of the Church taken alone cannot be a sufficient proof to beleue by diuine faith, that Scripture is the word of God. For that which is a ful and suf­ficient proof, is able of it self, to settle the soule of man, which Tradition is not alone able to doe. For it may be fur­ther asked, why we should beleue the Churches Tradition? And if it be answe­red, Becaus the Church is infallibly [Page 291] gouerned by the holie Ghost, it may be demanded: How that may appeare; And if th [...] be demanded, ether you must say you haue it by special Reuelation, or els you must attempt to proue it by Scripture. And the verie offer to proue it by Scriptu­re, is a sufficient ackno [...]ledgment, that the Scripture is a higher proof, then the Churches tradition, which in your own ground, is or may be questionable, til you come thither. Besids it is an inuiola­ble ground of reason, that the Principles of anie conclusion. Thus he, whose words I haue related at large that I might not seem to dissemble the difficultie.

2. First therfore we must note, that Beleef and Knowledg are different. For Beleef, is a simple assent for the authoritie of the speaker. Knowledg (if it be not of such things as are eui­dent of themselues, as that the whole is greater then a parte, and such like) is discursiue, inferring one thing out of an other. Therfore these are dif­ferent questions: Wherfore we know [Page 292] the Church to be infallible in al matters of faith: and, Wherfore we beleue her to be so infallible: And we wil answer to both questions differently and di­stinctly. To the question: Wherfore we beleue the Chrch to be infallible: I answer that if you demand the ma­terial Gods vocal word the material obiect of faith. obiect of my beleef therof, it is Gods vocal word, vttered to me by the Church. For (as is shewed before out of the Apostle) Faith is of hearing, and, Hearing, is by the vocal word of God vttered by the Church. And for this vocal word of God as his testimonie, the Church was beleued to be infallible, before there was anie Scripture; and of the aforesaied Barbarians, who had no Scripture; and could be so beleued, though al Scripture should perish. And this Luther, and other Prote­stants before cited doe confess, when they say: The Church is concea­ued, bred by the vocal word of God. Supra c. 14. [...]. 1. and 3.

3. And if you ask the formal obiect, for whose authoritie we beleue the Church to be thus infallible? I [Page 293] answer; For the authoritie of God, principally, and for the authoritie of the Church, (which is the pillar and ground of faith,) subordinatly. As we beleue what the Embassador saieth, principally, for the King, who sent him, and subordinatly for the authoritie of the Embassador himself, as apointed by the king. And as before anie Scripture was written, Prophets were beleued, not for anie Scripture, but princi­pally for the authoritie of God, who sent them, and secondarily, for their own Prophetical authoritie, instituted by God. Wherfore we need not (as Laude thinketh) proue the Church to be infallible, ether by special reuelation, or by Scriptu­re, as Chillingworth, saieth c. 3. p. 141. Becaus beside the priuat word of God (which is by special reuela­tion) and his publik written word, Publik vocal word of God Videsup. c. 14. n. 1. which is Scripture, there is also his publik vocal word, which he vtte­reth and speaketh by the mouth of the Church, as wel as there is his [Page 294] written word, which he wrot by Vvhitak l 3. descript. p. 414. Spiritus per as Ecclesia loquitur [...]ic etiam cont. 1. q. 3. c. 11. & cont. 2. q. 4. c. 2. Qu [...] eccle­siam au­diunt Chri­stum ipsum audiunt. the hands of his prophets and Euan­gelists. And Gods word (by whom soeuer it is, ether spoke nor written) is of equal authoritie, and his vocal word, equally to be beleued, as his written. Wherfore we haue no need to proue the Church to be in­fallible by the Scripture (as there was no need, nor possibilitie by it, to proue that, or anie other point of faith, before anie Scripture, was written) vnles it be against such he­retiks, as beleue the Scripture, but beleue not the Church. But Catho­liks doe onely confirme their faith (which before they had of the infal­libilitie of the Church by Gods vo­cal Gods vocal word, con­firmed by his. written. word vttered by the Church) by his written word of the Scripture. As we vse to be confirmed in the be­leef of a thing, which a man doth not only say by word of mouth, but also by writing.

4. And moreouer it is not alwaies necessarie (as laude thinks) that the mean of knowing, be more known, [Page 295] then the thing known by it: as when they mutually make each other known, as Relatiues and the Cause and proper Effect doe. For in these, a Circle is not vitious. As from a Father, we proue a sonn, and from a sonn, à Father, From Rational, Risible, and from Risible, Rational; from the suns rising, the Daie; and from the Daie, the suns rising. And (as Whitaker saieth contr. 1. q. 3. c. 3. of the old and new Testament) Somethings mutually proue each other. The old and new Testament doe mutual­ly confirme one the other. In other mat­ters, this mutual confirmation would not auaile, but in this it auaileth much. For none is so fit a witnes of God and of his word, as God in his word. And contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. As the cause doth bring forth and shew the effect; so the effect in like manner doth illustrat the cause. Ibid. c. 9. Relatiues are not be­fore or after one the other. And lib. 3. contra Dureum sec. 3. doth this seem ridiculous to the, to seek the word out of the word? White in his Defense p. 301. It is no more a Circle in vs, to proue [Page 296] our Spirit by the Scripture, and again to be assured of the Scripture, by the Spi­rit, then it is in discours to goe too and and fro, between causes and effects. The like he hath in his way p. 117. Field in his Appendice part. 2. p. 16. That the cause may be proued by the effect, and the effect by the cause: and that such a kinde of argumentation, is not a circu­lation, but a demonstratiue regress: that two causes may becauses ether of other, we make no question. Caluin 1. Instit. c. 9. §. 3. God hath ioyned together the certaintie of his word and Spirit, with a mutual knot. The samesay I of Gods vocal word, vttered by the Church, and his written word, signed by the Euangelists, that they mutually con­firme each other: yet with this diffe­rence, that the true Church giueth sufficient testimonie to her self, suf­ficient (I say) to beleue her with di­uine faith, to be the true Church of God, becaus her authoritie in mat­ters of faith, is diuine, as the Apo­stles was, and therfore needeth not the testimonie of the Scripture to [Page 297] be beleued to be such: (as Christ gaue sufficient testimonie to himself Ioan. 5. S. Ihon Baptist to himself. If particular men were credible of themselues, why not the whole Church of God. Math. 3. S. Ihon Euangelist to him­self. Ioan. 21. and S. Paul to himself Galat. 1. 2. Cor. 4. and so doth the pillar and ground of truth, to her self.) But the Scripture giueth not sufficient testimonie of it self to be infallibly beleued to be Gods word, but needeth authoritie of some in­fallible Author, or Person; becaus Scripture is onely the material ob­iect, which is to be beleued, and au­thoritie is the formal obiect or cause of beleef, without which there can be no true or formal beleef, but onely science or opinion. For as S. Austin saieth: That we beleue, we owe to authoritie. And Whitaker l. 3. de Script. p. 408. Faith relieth vpon au­thoritie. Authoritie is the foundation of faith. Yet Scripture being beleued to be Gods word, is a sufficient testi­monie to confirme the beleef alrea­dy had of the Church, and also to produce such beleef in those, who [Page 298] beleue not the Church. And thus much for answer to that question: How we beleue the Church to be infalli­ble? For we first beleue the Church God speaketh by, the mouth of the Church Vvhitaker l. 3 de Scrip 414. so also Contr. 1 q. 3. c. 11. see c. 4. n. 4. and c. 14. n. 1. to be infallible, for Gods vocal word vttered by the Church: And we are confirmed in that beleef, for Gods written word in the Scripture. And to Catholiks, we giue Gods vocal word, as the first subordinat cause of that our beleef; but to such, as beleue the Scripture, and not the Church, we giue onely Gods writ­ten word. And therfore no maruel, if to Protestants, who admit not the authoritie of Gods Church, or his vocal word, we proue the infallibi­litie of the Church, onely by Scrip­ture; wheras if they did equally ad­mit, as wel Gods vocal word, as his written word, or his true Church, as his Scripture, we might, without anie vitious Circle at al, mutually proue Gods vocal word by his writ­ten word, and his written, by his vo­cal, and his Church by his Scripture, and his Scripture by his Church, be­caus [Page 299] Gods testimonie is sufficient for proof of whatsoeuer, and by what means soeuer it be vttered, to wit, by speech, by writing, or howsoeuer els. Wherfore this is no vitious Cir­cle: God saieth by his Church, that God speaketh by his Church, Vvhitaker supra. such Scripture is his word. Therfore it is so. God saieth by his Scripture, that such are his Church: Therfore they are so.

5. And as for answer to the question: How know you the true Church to be in­fallible in al matters of faith? I say, that beside the reasons, grounded in Scripture, giuen before, we may giue a natural reason therof. For (as S. Austin saieth rightly (If God haue L. de v [...]il. cred. c. 16. prouidence of mankinde, he hath on earth setled some authoritie, on which we relying, may mount to him. And this authoritie must not be blinde or deceiptful in matters of saluation (as al matters of faith are) as al fallible authoritie is, and ther­fore is infallible in al such matters: And (as the same S. Austin saieth of the Scripture, that if the lest lie be [Page 300] found in it, the authoritie of al the rest faileth: so if in the authoritie, which God hath setled on earth for matters of Saluation, there were found anie error, we could not se­curely relie vpon it. And the same reason teacheth vs, that if God would setle this infallible authoritie on earth in anie, he would setle it in his Church who is his beloued Spou­se, and Mother of the Faithful, who­me he hath apointed to conceaue them by the diuine seed of his word to beare, nourish, and guide them in their way to saluation. For who can be imagined to be more fit to be infallible in matters of Saluation, then the spouse of God, the mother, Nurse, and Guide of the Faithful? Would God apoint to mankinde a blinde or deceiptful guide to salua­tion? surely no, if he effectually meant to saue mankinde. Nether, wil it suffice to grant, (as Protestants doe) that the Church is infallible in fundamental points: first, becaus there are no fundamental points [...] [Page 301] their sense, that is, such as suffice to saluation, though others sufficiently proposed, be not beleued. Second­ly, becaus if (as S. Austin saied of the Scripture) she lie in some points of faith, we cannot be sure she doth not in others. Wherfore wel saied Chillingworth c. 3. n. 36. An autho­ritie subiect to error, can be no stable or firme foundation of my beleef in anie thing. Thirdly, becaus Protestants cannot tel, which precisely are such fundamental points, as they ima­gin, and therfore cannot be certain, in which points the Church erreth not. Fourthly, becaus they say the Church is fallible euen in their most fundamental point of al, which is, That Scripture is the word of God, and sometimes also, in other fundamen­tal points, as is shewed parte 1. l. 1. c. 7. Fiftly, Chillingworth denieth, that there is anie one certain Church, vniuersal or particular, which is infallible, euen in funda­mental points, but onely, that there are alwaies some vncertain men, [Page 302] who hold al the fundamental points and therfore denieth, that anie cer­tain Church is an infallible Guide euen in fundamentals: and saieth c. 2 n 139. p. 105. you must know, there is a wide difference between infallible in No certain Church in­fa [...]lible euen [...]funda­mental points. fundamentals, and being an Infallible guide euen in fundamentals, and we vtterly denie the Church to be the latter. For to say so, were to oblidge ourselues to finde some certain societie of men, of whome we might be certain, that they nether doe, nor, can err in fundamentals nor in declaring, what is fundamental, what not fundamental, and consequent­ly, to make anie Church an infallible Guide in fundamentals, would be to make it infallible in al things which Note this. she proposeth, and requireth to bele­ued Which he often times repeateth c. 3. as n. 39. 55. 58. and 60. where he addeth: that it is falsly supposed, that they grant, that in some certain points No certain Church to be obeied vnder pain [...]f damna­tion. (fundamental) some certain Church is infallibly assisted, and vnder pain of damnation to be obeyed. So that no certain Church (vniuersal or particu­lar) [Page 303] is ether an infallible Guide, or to be beleued, or obeyed vnder pain of damnation euen in fundamental points. Beside The Church, and Some Church, are different. For The Church signifieth the whole true Church, as himself confesseth c. 5. n. 26. p. 263. or, The onely true Church, as Laude saieth sec. 20 p. 128 and Some Church signieth some indeterminate parti­lar Church. Therfore The Church, cannot be said to be infallible in fun­damentals, if onely Some Church be so. For Some Church is not The Church.

6. Nether can this necessarie au­thoritie setled by God for mankin­de, be said to be in Scripture, becaus Scripture was nether in al times, (for there was none before Moises) nor in al places; (for in S. Ireneyes time, there were manie good Chri­stians, See infr [...] c. 20. who had no Scripture) nor can serue immediatly by it self for al kinds of men. For scripture can not immediatly by it self, teach those, who are blinde, or cannot read, as [Page 304] mo [...]st men cannot. And to teach of guide them by the reading of men, who are fallible, were no infallible guidance. Besides, Protestants con­fess, that Scripture is hard to be vn­derstood, and needeth Interpreters, euen in matters of faith, in which See infral. 2 c. 4. sec. 2. and c. 2. sec. 2 matters it cannot be a sufficient gui­de. For (as Chillingworth c. 1. n. 6. saieth of a Rule) Both these Properties are required to be a perfect rule, both to be so compleat, as to need no addition, and to be so euident, as to need no Inter­pretation; so I say of a Guide or au­thoritie to direct, if it be not eui­dent, it is no sufficient guide or au­thoritie, becaus without euidencie, it cannot serue for sure direction. Moreouer, Scripture cannot but im­properly be called a guide, (but as a Rule may be called a Guide,) or a Iudge. For properly a Guide or Iud­ge, is a liuing person, who may di­rect by Rule. But of this we shal speak more hereafter.

7. And out of al which hath been said in this Chapter, appeareth, how [Page 305] wrongfully Laude said, first, that we must know the Church to be infallible ether by special reuea­lation, or by Scripture. For there is a third way, to wit, by Gods vocal word vttered by the Church it self, as when the Apostles liued, we might haue known them to be infallible, by their own testi­monie, which was Gods vocal word. Secondly, he falsly saieth, that to proue the Church by the Scripture, is a sufficient acknow­ledgment; that the Scripture is of a higher proof. For Christ and the Apostles proued their doctrin out of the old testament, and yet the old testament was not a higher proof then their doctrin. And in like sorte the Fathers proued Scrip­ture by the Church▪ and (as I said before) Relatiues, and such as mu­tually and equally make each other known, are of equal proof, each to other. Thirdly, how wrongly he saied, that it is an inuiolable ground of reason, that the principles [Page 306] of anie conclusion must be of more cre­dit, then the conclusion it self. For this is not true in Relatiues, and such others, as are equally known and equally infer one the other. And that principle is true onely in such Consequents, as are not as wel known, as the Antecedents, but known onely for the Antece­dents, as most consequents are, as may appeare out of that Ma­xime, of which that principle dependeth, to wit: Propter quod vnumquodque tale, & illud magis. Which is plainly meant of that, which is the sole cause of the knowlegd of an other. But Scrip­ture is nether the sole cause, nor yet the first cause of our assurance of the true Church▪ but the first cause, is principally Gods autho­ritie, and secondarily the Churches diuine authoritie instituted by him (as it was in his Apostles) and also Gods vocal testimonie or word vt­tered by his Church; and Gods written testimonie signed in Scrip­ture [Page 307] by his diuine Scribes, is but a confirmation of our assurance of his true Church. And God may wel confirme by writing, what he hath spoken; and yet be equally credited by what he speaketh, as by what he writeth; becaus his veracitie is infi­nit, and equally infallible in both. And hitherto we haue sufficiently proued, that Gods true Church (which soeuer she is) wanteth not ether Infallibilitie or necessitie re­quired to be the sufficient external Proposer of faith apointed by God; it resteth, that we shew, that she wanteth, nether sufficient Claritie, nor vniuersalitie, requisite to be that external Proposer, and to shew, which proposal of hers, is sufficient and requisit for to cause faith.

NINETENTH CHAPTER That the true Church of God doth clearly and vniuersally propose al points of faith.

1. IN the third Chapter we she­wed, that foure conditions are necessarie to the al▪ sufficient ex­ternal Proposer of al points of faith, to wit, Infallibilitie, Necessitie, Clari­tie, and Vniuersalitie: and hitherto we haue proued, that the true Church of God hath the two first conditions It remaineth that we also shew, that she hath also the two latter, to wit, Claritie in clearly proposing, what is to be beleued, and Vniuersalitie, in proposing it to al, who are capable of external proposal, and in al ti­mes, and places, where faith is to be proposed.

2 And for Claritie, it is euident, that the Church of God clearly [Page 309] enough proposeth to her Children, and to others, what they are to be­leue, and if anie doubt arise of her meaning, she calleth General Coun­cels, and expresseth it more clearly, as was seen in the Councel of Nice, ad others. And as for Vniuersalitie of time and place, it is euident, that it agreeth to Gods true Church, be­caus she hath been in al times, and is dispersed al the world ouer, wher­soeuer faith is preached. And the like is of her proposing al points of faith.

3. And finally, that in the true Church, is lawful sending to preach points of faith, is vndoubted. And so haue we proued, that the true Church of God (which soeuer she is) hath al the conditions requisit to the al or absolute sufficient external proposer of al points of diuine faith, which God wil haue men to beleue, and consequently, is that al▪ suffi­cient external proposer of faith, which we ought to seek.

TWENTITH CHAPTER. VVhich is a sufficient proposal of the Church, for points of faith.

1. A sufficient proposal of the Church for points of faith, is when she clearly decla­reth a matter to be of faith: or when she condemneth the contrarie, as heresie, and excludeth out of her communion al obstinat or pertina­cious mainteiners of it. See D. Sta­pleton l. 1. de Principijs c. 11. But onely Excommunication doth not conuince, that the Church accoun­teth it Heresie, becaus she may ex­communicate euen for holding do­ctrines that are temerarious or scan­dalous.

FIRST CHAPTER. VVhether S. Iames Epistle be Ca­nonical Scripture and Gods vvord, or no?

SECOND CHAPTER. VVhether al things that are in Scripture, be plain and easie to be vnderstood, or no?

THIRD CHAPTER. VVhether al points necessarie to be belued, be actually or expresly in scripture or no.

FOVRTH CHAPTER. VVhether al necessarie points of faith be euidently or clearly con­teined in Scripture.

FIFT CHAPTER. VVhether Scripture be the sole and entire Rule of al Christian beleif, or no?

SIXT CHAPTER. VVhether Scripture of it self doe sufficiently shevv or proue it self to be the vvord of God?

SEAVENTH CHAPTER. VVhether Scripture be the true Iudge of Controuersies of faith?

EIGHTH CHAPTER. VVhether Scripture be to beleued to be Gods vvord, vvith diuine and infallible assurance.

NINTH CHAPTER. VVhether translated Scripture be authentical?

TENTH CHAPTER. VVhether the Scripture be to be beleued to be the vvord of God, onely for the testimonie of the Church.

ELEVENTH CHAPTER. VVhether Scripture be the for­mal cause of Protestants bele­uing vvhatsoeuer they belleue as of faith?

TWELFH CHAPTER. VVhether Protestants had the Scriptures from Catholiks or no?

THIRTEENTH CHAPTER. VVhether Catholiks make great account of Scripture, and proue their doctrin out of it, or no?

FOVRTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture, taken by it self alone, vvithout attestation of the Church, that it is the let­ter or vvord of God, cannot sufficiently propose to men anie thing to be beleued vvith diui­ne and infallible faith.

1. THat Scripture, taken by it self alone without atte­station of the Church, that it is the letter or word of God, doth not suf­ficiently propose to vs, or (to speak more properly) that in Scripture, or by Scripture alone, is not suffi­ciently proposed to vs, anie thing to be beleued with diuine and infalli­ble faith, is euident, becaus al the Scriptures sufficient proposal Sup c. 1 [...]. sect. 1 de­pendeth on this, that it self is the word of God. And Sup. c. 5. sect. 1. it self saieth not anie [Page 412] where, that it is the word of God, and if it did anie where say it, that saying would require an other word of God to say the same of it, and so forward without end. And this is so clear, as Hooker l. 2. §. 4. Laude Relat. sec. 16. p. 70. and 88. Potter sec. 5. and Chillingworth c. 2. doe both grant it, and proue it, and li­kewise al other Sup. c. 6. sect. 2. Protestants, who grant, that the light of the Scriptu­re is not so great, that without the Church shew it to vs, we can see it. And indeed al Protestants should grant the same, who confess (as we related l. 1. c. 14.) that the preaching of the Church, is necessarie to en­gender diuine faith. For if that be necessarie (as we haue proued l. 1. c. 11. 12. 13. 14.) we cannot beleue the Scripture to be the word of God before the Church preach it to vs.

2. But it is against those Protestants who (as we related supra c. 6. sec. 1.) auouch, that Scripture in it self hath such and so much diuine light, as by it self alone, it can be infallibly known [Page 413] to be the word of God. But beside, that this great light is denied by most of their fellowes, as is shewed c. 6. cit. sec. 2. and feigned without al suf­ficient ground (as shal hereafter ap­peare) it may be clearly refuted. For as Laude loco cit. p. 7. saieth wel If this inward light were so clear, how could there haue been anie varietie among the ancient Beleuers, touching the authoritie of S. Iames, and S. Iudes epistle, and the Apocalyps? For certain­ly the light which is in the Scripture, was the same then, which is now. And I add: How could the Lutherans not see this light in S. Iames Epistle, as wel as the Caluinists? Nether can it be pretended, that this is, becaus the Holie Ghost doth not sufficient­ly lighten their eyes, becaus this light may be seen euen by natural reason, as Whitaker, Hooker, White and other taught supra c. 8. sec. 2.

3. Besids, this light (great or less) is not fit or apt to the end for which it was feigned. For it was feigned to [Page 414] defend, that beleif, That Scripture is the word of God dependeth not on the testimonie of the Church, but proceedeth of the Scripture it self. And clear light cannot cause beleif Light causeth not faith, but sight or vision. (which is of things not appearing, Hebrewes 11.) but onely causeth certain knowledg or vision. And not light, but onely authoritie, is the formal obiect of faith. For (as the Apostle saieth: Faith is of hearing, not of sight. And S. Austin l. devtili­tate Credendi c. 11.) That we beleue, we owe to authoritie. So that light, wanteth both the material obiect of faith, which is Things not appearing, Haebrae. 11. and also the formal ob­iect, which is Authoritie. And ther­fore Whitaker l. 2. de Script. p. 227. 319. 235. l. 1. p. 77. 116. 122. often ti­mes granteth, that though certain knowledg, (That the Scripture is the word of God) may be had with­out the testimonie of the Church, yet denieth, that diuine faith therof can be had without the Churches preaching, becaus the Apostle saieth [Page 415] plainly, How shal they beleue without à Preacher? And, Faith is of hearing. And Potter sec. 5. p. 8. That Scripture is of diuine authoritie, the Beleuer sees by that glorious beam of diuine light, which shines in Scripture, and by manie internal arguments found in the letter it self. So this light breedeth sight, not faith. Beside, How doe Bele­uers How doe Beleuers se [...]. see? If therfore the Scripture can sufficiently propose nothing to be beleued with diuine faith, til it self be beleued with diuine faith to be the word of God (as is certain) the natural, knowledg or vision, which one may haue, that the Scrip­ture is the word of God without the Churches testimonie, serueth not to the end, for which it was deuised. Besids, I hope, they wil not say, that their diuine faith, That al that is in Scripture, is true, is resolued into na­tural Sup c. 8 se. 1. knowledg, That the Scripture is the word of God, as Chillingworth seemeth to say c. 2. p. 53. 72. For so the ground and foundation of diuine and infallible faith, should be natu­ral, [Page 416] humane, and fallible knowledg. Moreouer, this internal light, is no word of God, but (at most) a qua­litie of the word of God: and no­thing can be the material obiect of diuine faith and beleued, but what is the word of God, or saied of God; Wherfore ether they must shew, where God hath saied, that Scriptu­re is the word of God; or they can neuer beleue it with diuine faith; or they must say, that they can bele­ue that with diuinefaith, which God hath neuer saied, which is most ab­surd. And into this absurditie, al Protestants must fal, who say, they beleue with diuine faith, that the Scripture is the word of God, and yet denie, that there is anie vnwrit­ten word of God, which saieth, That the Scripture is the word of God. d Sup. c. 5. sect. 2. For doubtles, there is no such writ­ten word, as themselues confess.

4. Moreouer, this light (great or less) is ether in the letter or words of the Scripture, or in the sense therof. Some Protestants seem to [Page 417] say, that it is in the letter or words. For thus Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. p. 25 We beleue the Scriptures, for the most diuine character. P. 88. That they Scripture known by the words. are the Scriptures, is known by the stile and phrase. P. 104. The Scripture doth shew à certain kinde of diuinitie in the verie words, phrase, and in al the for­me of the speech. And p. 113. That it came from God, is euident by the in­scription, the hand, the seal, the things and al the letter [...]. And Contro. 1. q. 6 c. 9. As if by the verie inscription to the Romans, it were not euident, that it is Pauls. And Laude sec. 16 p. 83. He that beleues, resolues his last and ful assent, That the Scripture is of diuine authoritie, into internal arguments found in the letter it self. But beside that this internal light in the words of Scripture, is merely feigned, it is clearly refuted, becaus, so al men should see it, who can read the Scripture. And also, becaus the words of Scripture are such, as men first inuented, and haue no diuine light in them. Likewise, if the light [Page 418] were onely in the original letters of Scripture, as Hebrew, and Greek, no translated Scripture should haue this light, and so none should know the Scripture to be Gods word, but who know Hebrew and Greek. Moreo­uer, both Fathers teach; and Pro­testants S. Hierom. Galat 1 Vvh [...]t [...]ker l 2 cont. Dur. sec. 1. confess, that Scripture con­sisteth in the sense, not in the letter. or words of Scripture. As Wotton in Whites Defense c. 28. p. 259. de­nieth the words to be the Rule of faith. And White ibid. affirmeth; the mat­ter conteined in the words, so to be. Nay Whitaker himself l. 3. de Scrip. c. 4. p. 39 [...]. saieth, Nether doe I put most certain diuinitie in the written letter. And surely writing or letters giue no diuine authoritie to Gods word. For Gods word is of the same au­thoritie, written and vnwritten, as is euident, and Protestants confess. How then can writing or letters giue anie true light or brightnes to Gods word? Finally, I add, that e Sup l 1. c. 10. n. 6. faith cannot be resolued into argu­ments, becaus it is not discursiue, [Page 419] but onely into authoritie. For it is a simple assent to the saying▪ for the authoritie of the saier. And onely the word of God, or which God hath said, can be beleued with diui­ne faith. And no collection or infe­rence of man out of the character or letter of God, is Gods word, and therfore cannot be the obiect or formal cause of diuine faith. Nor is this feigned light in the sense of the Scripture, becaus then by it, we could not beleue euerie parte of the Scipture to be Gods word For (as Protestants before confessed) it Sup. c. 2. sect. 2. were impudencie and madnes to say, that anie know the true sense of euerie parte of Scripture, which is beleued to be Gods word. S. Austin Epist. 119. professed, that there is more in Scripture, which he knew not, then which he knew. And Whitaker l. 2. de Script▪ p. 220. 235. saieth; The Eunuch, though he vnderstood not the Scriptures, yet he acknowledged them and certainly knew them to be diuine. And l. 1. p. [Page 420] 156. God hath so framed his speech, that though pious men doe not alwaies clear­ly see what he speaketh, yet they clearly see by the verie speech, that it is God who speaketh. What diuine light of honestie, haue those words to Osee, Take a fornicarian, and make sonnes of fornication? What diuine light of humanitie, haue those words to Abraham: sacrifice thy sonne? what diuine light of truth haue those words, that Balaams ass spake to him? And the like of manie more? 5. Furthermore, the Deuisers of this sufficient internal light of the Scripture, are not wel resolued, whether not withstanding this light, it need be proued infallibly, that Scripture is the word of God. For Laude sec. 16. p. 64▪ saieth: It seemes to m [...] very necessarie, that we be able to proue the books of scripture to be the word of God, by some authoritie, that is absolutly diuine. And ibid. p. 66. Scripture must be proued by some word of God. This is agreed on by me, that scripture must be known to be scripture, by a suf­ficient infallible diuine proof, And that [Page 421] such proof can be nothing, but the word of God, is agreed also by me. Thus he confesseth, that notwithstanding anie light in the Scripture, it must be infalliby proued to be the word of God, and that such proof can be none, but some word of God. Which if he wold constantly hold, he must needs grant, that there is some vnwritten word of God, by which the Scripture must be proued to be his word. Neuertheles himself soon after p. 104. saieth, It is most But Prote­stants can not proue it so. reasonable, that Theologie should be al­lowed to haue some principle, which she proues not, but presupposes; and the chiefest, of these is, Tat the scriptures are of diuine authoritie. And the same he repeateth p. 110. Potter also sec. 5. p. 26. Al Christians in the world con­fess the authoritie of scripture to be a Prin­ciple indemonstrable, yet are we by them (Papists) perpetually vrged to proue that authoritie, and that by scrip­ture. And Whitaker l 1. de Script. 106. What Pastor euer laboreth to proue that it is God, who speaketh in scriptu­res? [Page 422] He by his right, requireth, that this be granted to him. So that the chiefest principle of Protestants Theologie, and that on which de­pendeth their beleif of al they bele­ue, cannot be infallibly proued, but must be praesupposed, and free­ly granted: and consequently, they can beleue nothing infallibly, as Laude p. 64. cit. wel inferred. For (as generally Protestants teach) we Sup. l. 1. c. 18. n. 1. can haue no greater certaintie of the inference, then we haue of the Prin­ciple out of which we inferr it. And herevpon Chillingworth (as befo­re we shewed c. 8. sec. 2.) conse­quently granted, that Protestants haue but humane and moral assu­rance of what they beleue: And (as Laude saieth sec. 16. p. 59.) This question; how doe you know scripture to be scripture? driueth some of them into infidelitie. Such fruits they see come of their denying the Churches infallibilitie in al matters of faith.

6. Finally, this sufficient internal light of the Scripture (great or less) [Page 423] hath no sufficient ground. For the pretended ground therof, is, that the Scripture is called a light psal. 118. To which I answer, First, That arguments taken from Metaphors Arguments taken from me [...]aphors, are deceitful. or similitudes, are most subiect to deceipt, becaus the true similitude may be easily mistaken. Secondly, it is not saied, that the scripture or Written word, and much less, Al scrip­ture, is a light, but simply: The word of God, which may be wel vnder­stood, ether of the word preached. Gal. 1. Without which there is no faith, Rom. 10. or of the ingrafted word, which can saue our soules. Iaco­bi 1. or of the word written in the hearts of the faithful. Hierem. 31. Thirdly I say, that the word of God is called a light, not becaus it she­weth Vvhy Gods word called a light. it self to be the word of God, as light sheweth it self to be light, but becaus it sheweth the way to heauen. And therfore it is called a light to our feet, which can not see but follow. And in this sorte Iob. 2. 29. saieth: He was an eye to the blinde, [Page 424] not that the blinde could see him but follow his directions. The like I say to that other place 2. Petri, c. 1. Where he likeneth Prophetical speech to a lamp shining in a dark place. For nether speaketh he of al scripture, but onely of Prophesies, nether like­neth he them to a lamp, in that this is seen by it self, but ether becaus Prophesies gaue but a darksome light of Christ, in respect of the Gospel, or becaus they directed to Christ, as a lamp directeth in a dark­some roome. In like sorte, the Apo­stles were called the light of the world. Math. 5. Not becaus the world could see them to be Apostles of themselues, but becaus they gaue to others the light of faith and pietie And thus much for this first proof, that Scripture cannot sufficiently shew it self to be the word of God, for want of the material obiect of diuine faith, which is Gods saying, that it is his word. For God no where saieth in Scripture, that Scripture is his word, and what God faieth [Page 425] diuine faith cannot beleue.

7. An other argument to the same purpose, may be taken from the Scriptures not hauing in it self the formal obiect of faith, which is au­thoritie. For albeit Scripture in it self contein most diuine and infallible veritie, yet taken by it self, as it is such words, and such sense, it hath not proper authoritie, becaus Au­thoritie, is in an Author, and an Author is a Rational, or intellectual Person, saying something, which for his au­thoritie or credit, we beleue. And Veritie, which we beleue, is in his speech, Authoritie or Veracitie, for which we beleue is in his person. Li­kewise we cannot beleue, but for some witnes, who testifieth that, which we are to beleue: and a wit­nes, doubtles, is an intellectual per­son, distinct from his testimonie, or that which he witnesseth. And Scripture is no intellectual person, but the testimonie of God, who is supreme witnes of it. Wherfore it is no formal cause of our beleef, as a [Page 426] witnes is, but onely the material ob­iect, which is to be beleued. Besids, the Character or stile of Scripture, or the doctrin or maiestie therof, being not authoritie or veracitie, they cannot cause formal faith, or beleif, but (at most) opinion or knowledg. For (as we haue often repeated out of S. Austin) That we beleue, we owe to Authoritie. Which is so euident, as Whitaker l. 3 de Scrip­tura p. 408. saieth, Faith relieth vpon authoritie. Authoritie is the foundation of faith. And p. 509. To beleue, some Authoritie is necessarie. Wherfore wel wrote Stapleton Contro. 3. q. 1. art. 2. The word of God it self (written or vnwritten) is not of it self, and pro­perly à mean to beleue, but is that which is beleued: Is not the formal obiect of faith, or anie parte therof, but is the ma­terial obiect. For the word speaketh not but is heard by the voice of God, or of the Church speaking, and faith is of hea­ring the word of God. And therfore pro­perly Scripturam credimus, non Scrip­turae. And in like manner, Potter sec. [Page 427] 7. p. 95. saieth: The Creed conteines onely the material obiect of faith, not the formal. And yet it conteines the words and sense of Scripture. Wherfore the Scripture it self con­taines not the formal obiect of faith, but onely the material, which is di­uine veritie. And when graue Au­thors attribute authoritie to Scrip­ture, ether they take authoritie for veritie or credibilitie to be beleued; or they speak figuratiuely, attrib [...] ­ting by prosopopeia a person to the Scripture, as is vsual, when men speak of writings, to speak of them, as if they were the writers. So we say, the Scripture speaketh, saieth, teacheth, and such like, meaning, God by the Scripture doth so. Or els they take not Scripture by it self, but with the writer therof. And so (no doubt) it hath authoritie, not in it self, but adioined to it, to wit, as it is the Scripture of God, or word of God: But this authoritie is the in­create authoritie of God himself, beside which, we must haue (in or­dinarie [Page 428] course) à create authoritie for to beleue with diuine faith, and this create authoritie is not in the Scripture, but in the Church, and much less is in the Scripture Prima v [...]ritas, as Whitaker saieth l. 3. de Scripturâ p. 485. & 509. For so it shold not be a made or created thing but God himself. And hence appea­reth, that Protestants beleuing, what they beleue, merely becaus they fin­de [...]up. c. 11. [...]ect. 1. it in Scripture, and making Scrip­ture their formal and vttermost cau­se of their beleif, haue no formal faith, becaus they beleue not for anie formal authoritie or veracitie, but for seeming veritie of the things, which they finde in Scripture; which seeming veritie, may cause opinion, but not true and formal faith. But to admit, that the original hand wri­tings of the Prophets and Apostles, known to be theirs, had authoritie sufficient to beget diuine faith, how can mere copies of their writings, and those made by fallible men (as al Bibles now extant are made by [Page 429] ordinarie writers or Printers) haue Copies of au­thentical writings, are not authen­tical of themselues. such authoritie, vnles they be signed or testified by some authentical per­son, that they are agreable to the Originals? Are mere Copies of ne­uer so authentical writings, made by priuate men, but not testified by anie of sufficient credit that they are agreable to the originals, of suffi­cient credit to beget humane vn­doubted beleif in anie court of Iu­stice? And wil we haue mere copies of the Prophets or Apostles writings made by fallible and ordinarie men, to be of themselues alone, of suffi­cient credit to beget diuine faith? can not vndoubted humane faith be gotten by such mere copies not atte­sted by anie authentical person; and can vndoubted diuine faith becau­sed by such? copies made by fallible men cannot reasonably be accoūted infallible vnles they be attested by so­me infallible person; and it is the atte­station of the infallible person, which maketh them infallibly credible to vs. Wherfore out of that [Page 430] which I haue hitherto said, I argue Vvhat is one­ly the mate­rial obiect of faith, is not the formal. thus in forme. What is onely thema­terial obiect of faith, or is onely be­leued, cannot be also the formal obiect of faith, and the reason of be­leuing. That which is the word of God (written or vnwritten) is one­ly the material obiect of faith, and what is beleued. Therfore it can not be also the formal obiect, and rea­son of beleuing. The Maior is eui­dent. The Minor I proue, becaus the word of God, taken by it self, hath no formal authoritie▪ And onely for­mal authoritie, is the formal obiect of faith, and reason of beleuing. And here is the difference betwixt the word of God, and the Prophets, Apostles, and Church of God, that these haue formal diuine authoritie in themselues, and therfore are not onely material obiects of faith, and beleued to be Prophets, Apostles, Difference between Scripture and Church. and Church of God, but also are formal external reasons of beleuing what they say themselues are, or what els they propose.

8. A third proof, that Scripture of it self cannot sufficiently propose it self to be the word of God, is, becaus the authoritie of the true Church, is the formal external cau­se, for which (in ordinarie course) the Scripture is beleued with diuine faith to be the word of God. This is euident out of those places in Scrip­ture, which we cited before l. 1. c. 11. and 12. which not onely proue the necessitie of the Churches preaching the Scripture to be Gods word, for to be beleued as such, but also pro­ue the verie authoritie of the Church to be necessarie for to beleue it. For faith is said to be of hearing of the word of God lawfully preached: The Church is called the pillar and ground of truth: she is accounted Gods witnes, her voice, Christs voice; her Pastors are accounted Gods Legats, and apointed by God to keep men constant in faith. Al which doe shew, not onely that the Churches preaching is necessarie to beleue, but that also her authoritie [Page 432] or testimonie is necessarie. And al au­thoritie or testimonie, is a formal cause of beleif, becaus That we beleue Chilling. c. 1. n. 7. we ow to authoritie. And Protestants define faith to be an assent to diuine Reuelations, vpon the authoritie of the Reuealer. And doubtles, à Reuealer is a liuing and intellectual person, not a dead letter Whitaker also (as I before cited) Authoritie is the foun­dation of faith. [...]aith relieth vpon au­thoritie. Herevpon S. Austin l. con­tra Epist. Fundam. c. 4. and 5. pro­fesseth, that authoritie held him in the Catholik Church. That Christ by miracles, got authoritie, and by Authoritie deserued beleef. That religion can no way be rightly got­ten, but by authoritie. And other­where, De vtil cred. c. 17. Epist. 5. 6. that in the Church is the height, the top, the castle of authoritie and that her authoritie is most firme. And l. 2. contra Crescon. c. 32. I re­ceaue not what Cyprian held of bapti­zing heretiks, becaus the Church doth not receaue it. l. 2. de Doctrin. Chri­stiana c. 8. The books of wisdom, and [Page 433] Ecclesiasticus, are to be accounted Pro­phetical, becaus they haue been admit­ted into authoritie. l. contra Epist. Fund. c. 5. Which books (of the Acts) I must needs beleue, if I beleue the Gospel becaus both Books, Catholiks authoritie doth alike commend vnto me. In which places he plainly maketh the autho­ritie of the Catholik Church, a suf­ficient external cause of his beleif, or not beleif.

9. Reason also sheweth the same. For if God would haue vs to beleue his misteries, it is most likelie he would apoint on earth some exter­nal authoritie, subordinat to his su­preme authoritie, for which we should beleue them: Whervpon S. Austin l. de vtilit. Credendi c. 16. saied; If God haue Prouidence of man­kinde, we ought not to despaire, but that he hath apointed some authoritie, on which we relying, as on a sure step, may mount to God. And this authoritie he saieth, is the authoritie of the Church. But the authoritie, on which we relie, is (doubtles) some [Page 434] formal cause of our beleif. Prote­stants also sometimes confess the same. For thus Chillingworth c. 2. Scripture be­leued for the Churches authoritie. p. 96. It is vpon the authoritie of vni­uersal tradition that we would haue them beleue Scripture. The same he hath p. 69. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 3. c. 7. We are forced by the Churches Forced to beleue. authoritie, to beleue these books to be Canonical. And if her authoritie can force vs to beleue, it is a sufficient cause of beleef. And l. 1. de Script. p. 15. We may be forced by the authoritie of the Church, to acknowledg the Scrip­ture. P. 72. The Church, is Mistres and Guide of our faith. P. 87. I am à Disci­ple of the Church, I acknowledg her my Mother. P. 46. We cannot beleue, but by the testimonie of the Church, as by the ordinarie meanes. P. 62. We are led to beleue, first by the authoritie of the Church. P. 68. I most willingly grant, the external iudgment of the Church to be the help and means ordained by God, and necessarie for vs to engender, nourish and confirme faith. And l. 2. p. 234. The Authoritie of the Church, is a certain [Page 435] introduction to beleue. P. 289. Catholik authoritie commending both books, Austin was necessarily induced to beleue both books. The same we must doe. For what book soeuer such authoritie shal commend to vs, we must needs beleue it. P. 320. I grant, the Scripture is to be receaued, becaus it is receaued of the Church, Contr. 1. q. 3. c. 2. The Church is a witnes of holie writ. C. 5. By tradi­tion Tradition conu [...]nceth. and authoritie of the Church, it may be conuinced, which books be Ca­nonical. C. 9. what other doe al those Fathers proue, then that Scripture is to be receaued, becaus it was alwaies re­ceaued of the Church? And doth not, Becaus, giue a cause of beleif? And Hooker, Laude, Potter cited l. 1. c. 14. grant, that the testimonie of the present Church, is the key or dore that lets men into the Scriptu­re, Laude Re­lat. sec. 16. p. 102. euen to this knowledg of them, that they are the word of God. And Spala­tensis and Chillingworth c. 10. libri primi, add, that such a book cannot be known to be Canonical Scriptu­re, but by the testimonie of the Church. [Page 436] But authoritie, testimonie, iudgment, are formal causes of beleif; And if Protestants doe think, that the au­thoritie S [...]p. l. 1. c. 14. of the Church is no formal cause of faith, why should they teach, that the Churches preaching, is necessarie to faith, and that the preaching, teaching, or proposing by priuat men, would not suffice? For priuat men may propose, al the Church proposeth, onely they can­not propose anie thing with such authoritie.

10. And hence appeareth euidently that the true Church and her autho­ritie, must alwaies (in ordinarie cour­se) be beleued before Scripture be­caus her authoritie is the formal ex­ternal cause of the beleif of the Scrip­ture. And also that falsly wrote Whi­taker l. 2. de Scrip. p. 235. The Church hath no authoritie in matters of faith. Ibid. p. 228. The testimonie of the Church is no cause of faith And l. p. 122. The So Laude Relat. sec. 1. p. 117. Taude sec. 16. p. 106. Scripture is now the onely sufficient meās to beleue. And Contr. 2. q. 5. c. 18. Faith doth not depend vpon the authoritie of [Page 437] the Church. And ibid. c. 20. The Scrip­ture is more manifest, then the Church. And Chillingworth c. 2. p. 57. we say, euerie man is to chuse his religion first, and then his Church. For beside what we haue proued, Whitaker himself hath granted, That the au­thoritie of the Church is an introdu­ction to faith, That we are first led to beleue by her authoritie, and that her So laude sec. 16. p. 89. Hooker l. 2. §. 7. Potter sect. 5. testimonie is the ordinarie and necessarie means to engender faith, That her au­thoritie causeth faith: and therfore her authoritie must first of al be beleued, becaus it is an introduction, à first leader, à necessarie means to ingen­der faith or (as others say) the key or dore, to faith.

1 [...]. And out of that, which hath been said in this Chapter, is easily solued that question: why is tradition Vvhy Tradi­tionerodi­ble of it self, a [...]d not Scripture. of itself Credible, and not Scripture? I answer, That if we speak of tradi­tion materially, that is, of the do­ctrin, which we haue by tradition, that is no more credible of itself, then is the doctrin, which we haue [Page 438] by the Scripture. For example, the doctrin of seauen Sacraments, which we haue by tradition, is no more credible of itself, then anie other point of faith, which we haue by Scripture: But if we speak formally of Tradition, as it is an act of the Church, that is of itself credible, becaus that includeth the deliuerie of doctrin by the liuelie or liuing voice of the Church. Which voice of the Church, is euident to vs, and her authoritie maketh the doctrin, which she deliuereth, credible. But the Scripture is deliuered to vs by dead letters, and it is not euident to vs, that the Prophets or Apostles were the Enditers of those letters: and therfore it hath not their autho­ritie adioined to it, as the voice of the Church hath her authoritie ad­ioined to it: and so the Scripture, not hauing the authoritie of the Au­thors therof so annexed to it, as Tra­dition hath the authoritie of the Church, it can not be so credible of itself. Hence also is answered that [Page 439] question, which Chillingworth in his Answer to the Preface n. 25. p. Chillingwort the question answered. 18. and c. 3. p. 162. saieth, He desired to be resolued by manie of our side, but neuer could, to wit: why an implicit faith in Christ and in his word, shold not suffice, as wel as implicit faith in our Church. Becaus it implieth, that (in ordinarie course) there should be diuine faith in Christ and in his word, without faith in his Church. Christ and his word, include not al that is necessarie (in ordinarie course) to diuine faith, becaus faith is of hea­ring à lawful Preacher Rom. 10. But faith in his Church includeth al that is (in ordinarie course) necessarie to diuine faith. For we can not be­leue in Christs Church, but we must beleue in Christs and in his word: Heretiks say, they beleue in Christ and in his word, but that wil not suf­fice them, becaus they doe not be­leue Vhosoeuer beloue in Christ Church beleue in Christ, but not contra­riewise. also in his Church: But who­soeuer beleue in his Church, beleue in him, but not contrariwise, who­soeuer beleue in Christ (so as Here­tiks [Page 440] doe) beleue also in his Church, wherfore implicit faith in Christs Church may suffice, becaus that ne­cessarily concludeth faith in Christ: but al kinds of faith in Christ (as that of Heretiks) doth not include faith in his Church.

12. As for the authoritie of Fathers, to proue, that the Scripture of it self without the attestation of the Church, can propose nothing suf­ficiently to be beleued with diuine faith, it may suffice, what before l. 1. c. 7. we cited out of S. Basil, that Scripture, without tradition of the Church, would haue no force, but be like a bare letter: and out of S. Austin, that he could not beleue the Gospel, if the authoritie of the Church were weakened, And as for Protestants confessions, it may also suffice, what we cited out of them l. 1. c. 14. and here l. 2. c. 5. and 6. That the Church is a necessarie introdu­ction, the key the dore, which lets vs into the knowledg of the Scripture. And c. 5. That we cannot refel schisma­tiks, [Page 441] or Heretiks, who denie the Scripture, out of Scripture. For if the Church, be such euident itis, that without the Church, the Scripture cannot be beleued to be Gods word; and til it be beleued to be Gods word, it can not sufficiently propose anie thing to vs, to be beleued with diuine faith.

FIFTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture (though beleued to be Gods vvord) doth not suffi­ciently propose to men al points of faith.

1. THat Scripture (though beleued to be Gods word) doth not sufficiently propose to vs al points of faith, is euident. First, be­caus, (as is proued in the former Chapter) it doth not at al propose to vs this point of faith, That it self is the wodr of God, which yet is a point [Page 442] of Confess. Angl. art. 6. Gall. art 3 Belg. art 4. faith necessarie to be beleued, yea in the Sup. c. 11. sec. 1. Protestants opinion, the chiefest point of al, as on which de­pendeth their beleif of al the rest. If anie obiect, that the Scripture, being beleued to be Gods word, it need not propose itself to be Gods word: I answer, that I speak not, what the Scripture need not doe, but what it doth not. Caluin 1. Instit. c. 7. & 8. where he endeauoreth to proue Scripture to be Gods word, brin­geth no word of God to proue it, but proueth it out of the qualities of Scripture, to wit, dignitie, veritie, conformitie, antiquitie and such li­ke. And so doth Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 3 c. 3. and yet there confesseth, c Item l. 1. de Sript p 21. that these arguments cannot persuade these books to be Canonical. And the same saieth Caluin c. 7. cit. § 4. And what cannot perswade, doth not suffi­ciently propose to make beleif. For beleif cannot be without persuasion. Besids these arguments make not faith, but science.

2. Secondly, the Scripture itself [Page 443] saieth; There are some necessarie traditions, not written. 2. Thessalon. 2. v. 15. Hold the traditions, which you haue learnt, ether by speech, or by our E­pistle. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 10. confesseth, that Protestants ans­wer diuersly, whose answers, becaus himself refuteth, we wil for breui­ties sake omit. His answer is, that d So Pe [...]kins Cath Refor. cont. 7. c. [...]. [...] Barom. An. 53. there were some necessarie traditiōs not written, when this Epistle was written. Let Whitaker shew as plain testimonie of Scripture, that al was written after. You must proue as plain­ly out of Scripture, as we proue, as Ter­tullian saied to Praxeas c. 11. Second­ly, becaus the Fathers, as S. Chry­sostom, Oecumenius, Theophilact, vpon this place, S Basil, l de Spiri­tu Sancto. c 29. S. Epiphanius haeresi 61. and S. Damascen. l. 4. de fide c. 17. out of this place do proue, that euen in their times, there were ne­cessarie traditions not written.

3. Thirdly, becaus there are diuers points of faith, which nether are ex­presly in Scripture, nor can be eui­dently [Page 444] and necessarily inferred out of it: But for breuities sake, I wil speak of one onely, which is the per­petual virginitie of our Blessed Ladie. For that is a point of faith, as is clear, Perpetual Virginitie of our B. Ladie, a point of faith. becaus both Iouinian, and Helui­dius were condemned as Heretiks for denying it, as is euident out of S. Ambrose Epist. 7. S. Epiphanius haeresi 78. S. Hierom. l. contra Hel­uidium, S. Austin haeresi 84. Genna­dius l. de Ecclesiast. dogmat. c. 68. And doth anie now know, what is a point of faith, or what is true he­resie, better then al these Fathers? Nay then al the Church of their ti­me, which condemned, partly ta­citly, partly openly, the aforesaid Heretiks? S. Basil homil. de humana generatione Christi, saieth: The eares of those, who loue Christ, cannot suffer to here, that the Mother of God at anie time left to be a Virgin. S. Epiphanius loc. cit. calleth it Blasphemous. And Confessed by Prote­stants diuers Protestants confess this to be a point of faith. For the Bohemian confession professeth to beleue, art. [Page 445] 17. That our Ladie was a Virgin before and after her childbirth. Protestants in Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 10. p. 318. Who denies it (her perpetual Virginitie) is an Heretik Zuinglius serm. de B. Virgine Maria to. 1. fol. 350. I beleue with firme and vndoubted minde, the pure, chaste, and vnspotted Virgin, brought forth Christ, yet so, as without anie spot of Chastitie, she remained a Chaste Virgin for euer. Luther l. de votis, to. 2. fol. 272. If anie denie Ma­rie vas à Virgin, he is damned. Beza in his confession of faith c. 3. sec. 3. pro­fesseth, that she was a Virgin after her Childbirth And why put he it into his confession of faith, if he beleued it not to be a point of faith? Whita­ker also Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 9. dares not denie it plainly: For being pres­sed with this argument, he saieth: It belongeth not to me to dispute of the perpetual Virginitie of Marie. Feild l. 3. of the Church c. 30. If these were the opinions of [...]ouinian: That Marie ceased to be a Virgin, when she had born Christ and that al sinns are equal: we condemn [Page 446] them, and his error therin, as much, as the Romanists doe. Nether can Prote­stants denie it, if they wil obserue the definition of Heresie, which so­metimes, they giue, to wit, Error against the doctrin of the Church. For Beza de pu­niendis Haeret. p. 150. Moulins l. 1. cont. Peron. c. 7. Potter sect. 2. p. 55 See sup. l. [...]. 10. that the perpetual Virginitie of our B Ladie, is the doctrin of the Church is euident by the aforesaid Fathers, Greek, and Latin, in the East, West, and South. Nether haue they anie reason to denie it, besides their own error, That nothing is of faith, but what is expresly in Scripture, or may be eui­dently deduced of it. Now, that this is nether expressed, nor euidently col­lected ou [...] of Scripture, granteth Perkins Cathol. Refut. Contro. 7. c. 1. I finde not in holie Scripture, that Marie remained alwaies a Virgin, and died a Virgin. And al Protestants must grant, becaus most of them denie it to be a point of faith: as Beza Apo­logia altera contra Saintem p. 355. Academia Nemausiensis contra Ie­suit. Tornan p. 566. Feild l 4. de Ec­cles. p. 240. Riuet Contro. tract. 1. [Page 447] 1. sec. 20. Iunius Contro. 1. l. 4. c. 9 To this point of faith, I ad the question of Schisme, which (as Plessie cited supra c. 5. sec. 2. confessed) cannot be decided by Scripture, becaus it is a matter of fact, of which the Scrip­ture speaketh not. And yet schisme is as necessarie to be decided, as he­resie, becaus that is as wel damna­ble, as this

4. As for the Fathers, they so plain­ly and directly say there are tradi­tions not written, as for breuities sake, I wil omit their words, and relate the confessions of Protestants Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. vlt. p. 415. I confess, the Fathers speak much of traditions—The Fathers were sometimes deceaued—we grant, that the Fathers defended traditions Ibid. c. 12. I grant, that Ireneus appea­led from Scripture to Apostolical tradi­tions So Perkins.— it is clear, he was decea­ued with traditions. P. 389. Eusebius his testimonie (for traditions) is plain enough, but no way to be admitted. Ibid. It is clear, that Basil was too much [Page 448] addicted to traditions. Ibid. Damascen was too much giuen to traditions. P. 391. Chrysostomus saying (for tradition) is Morton Appeal. p. 315 vnaduised, and vnworthie of so great a Father.—I doe not acknowledg this his tradition. Ibid. Epiphanius was too much delighted with traditions—He allowes indeed Apostolical Seultettom. 2. c. 19. 20. traditions. P. 392. Let vs not regard, what Cyprian, saieth (of tradition) P. 393. Al is not to be admitted, which Ambrose saieth (of traditions) Ibid. Ether Austin speaketh of vnnecessarie traditions, or he contradicteth himself. P. 394. Innocentius Primus erred in his traditions. Thus he Kemnitius 1. parte Exam. tit. de Traditionibus p. 140. Excellent men in the Church, besids Scripture, gaue too much to traditions. P. 141. The admiring of traditions not written, drew manie good and excellent men in the Church, from the holsome rule of faith. And that was done in the first and best times of the Church—soone after the Apostles, traditions beg an to be thrust vpon the Church. This opi­nion remained, and stuck in their succes­sors, [Page 449] as in Clement. P. 142. Euen good men in the Church, were deceaued by too great esteem of not-written tradi­tions. P. 143. Admiration of not-writ­ten traditions, deceaued good and great men in the Church—Euen in the best times of the Primitiue Church ad­miration of not-written traditions, could draw most excellent men from the rule of faith. Reinolds thesi 1. Basil and Epiphanius, assaying al sorts of helps against Heretiks, wil haue certain things to be conteined in traditions, wherto, by the iudgment of the Scripture itself, the­re must be no less credit giuen, then to Scripture. Perkins in his problem c. de Tradit, some Fathers inclining to heretiks, did embrace traditions not-written. And he reakoneth S. Iustin, S. Ireney, Clement Alexandrin, Eu­sebius, Tertullian. And ibid. saieth: The Fathers oftentimes speak contradi­ctions about tradition.

5. Surely the Fathers testimonies for necessarie traditions, must needs be euident, which haue forced thes learned and earnest Protestants to [Page 450] confess, that the Fathers auouch such kinde of traditions, as they reiect, wheras no one learned Catholik euer granted, that the Fathers re­iected such kinde of traditions, as they defend. Nether can Protestants produce one testimonie of anie Fa­ther, which expresly or directly de­nieth such traditions: But Protestants infer it out of some Father speeches of the perfection of Scripture, and of its conteining al things necessa­rie; which inference is naught: For the perfection of Scripture and its conteining al things necessarie, may wel stand with traditions as we shal see hereafter.

6. Nay Protestants themselues are Protostants admit some traditions. forced to admit some necessarie tra­dition not written. Brentius in Pro­legomenis contra Sotum c. de tradi­tionibus; Wee grant, that the tradition wherwith the holie Scripture, and what is conteined in it, is deliuered vnto vs by our Ancestors, is certain, firme, and vndoubted: this tradition is necessarie to vs, and in al manner to be embraced. [Page 451] Kemnitius parte 1. exam. tit. de Tra­ditionibus p. 113 This tradition by which the books of the holie Scripture are giuen into our hands, we reuerently receaue.—The Fathers, where they deliuer this tradition of the books of Scripture, proue it by the testimonies of the Primitiue Church. Morton to. 1. Apol. l. 1. c. 32. after he had rehearsed the aforsaid words of Brentius of the tradition of Scrip­ture, saieth: This Ladie, and as it were Goddess of al traditions, Protestants re­uerence, more then you (Papists) And to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 5. The true Canon of Scriptures, we must honor and reue­rence, as the Queen, and plainly God­dess of traditions. And l. 1. c 36. rela­teth the foresaid words of Brentius and alloweth them. Feild of the Church l 4. c. 20. Though we reiect the vncertain and vain traditions of the Papists, yet we receaue the number and names of the Authors of books diuine and Canonical, as deliuered by tradi­tion—The number, authors, and integritie of the partes of these books (of [Page 452] Scripture) we receaue as deliuered by Integritie of Scripture be­leued by Tradition. tradition. Bel in his Downfal art. 7. p 134. We receaue this tradition (that the Scripture is the word of God) p. 135. And so this tradition, is not excep­ted, but virtually included in our affir­mation. Moulins of Traditions c. 3. and 2 [...]. we reiect not al traditions, for Scripture itself is a tradition. Carleton in Consensu de Scriptura c. 9. I wil say freely what I think. I think there are some Apostolical traditions euer conser­ued, and to be conserued iu the Church. For Austin said not in vain: what the whole Church obserueth &c. So he pro­ued Baptisme of Infants to be an Aposto­lical tradition, so also before him, Ori­gen. From Apostolical traditiou, we re­ceaued the true Canon of Scripture, and the true sense of the Canon. From hence the Church doth celebrate the Lords day. Canon and sense of it receaued by Tradition. Aretius loco 33. calleth [...], The Apostles Creed: what books are Cano­nical: which is the true exposition of scripture. Item. Vniuersal traditions necessarie to be obserued, are the Apostles Creed, which books be Canonical, which [Page 453] is the true exposition of the chiefest pla­ces of scripture. Laude Relat sec. 16. p. 104. when the Fathers say, we are to relie vpon scripture onely, they are neuer to Note this. be vnderstood with exclusion of Tradi­tion, in what case soeuer it may be had, not, but that the Scripture is abundant­ly sufficient, in, and to it self, for al things, but becaus it is deep, and may be drawn into different senses, and so mi­staken, if anie man wil presume vpon his own strenght, and go single without the Church. sec. 11. p. 44. Some tradi­tions I denie not, true and firme, and of great both authoritie and vse in the Church, as being Apostolical. And why is not the Churches tradition con­cerning Scripture, one of these? Ibid. As for that tradition, That the books of holie Scripture, are diuine. I wil handle that hereafter. And sec. 16. cit. p. 81. Against this tradition, That the books of Scripture are the word of God, the Church of England neuer ex­cepted. Sess 15. p. 57. It is not denied, that this (baptisme of infants) is an apostolical tradition, and therfore (note) [Page 454] to be beleued. Protestants in Colloq. Ratisb. sess. 11. Our aduersaries bring that tradition (of Scripture) of which there is no Controuersie at al among vs. And sess. 1. We grant, that Moyses books are Moyses, that this is a tradition by the testimonie of the Church, which could witnes, that Moyses books were put into the Ark. Chillingworth c. 2. §. 45. The Canon of Scripture, as we receaue it, is built vpon vniuersal tradi­tion. The Canon is built vpon vniuersal Tradition. Vniuersal Tradition, rule of Con­trouersies. §. 155. Vniuersal tradition, is the Rule to iudge al Controuersies by. §. 114. It is vpon the authoritie of vniuersal tradition, that we wold haue them bele­ue Scripture. And though sometimes he teach, that this vniuersal tradition is but humane and fallible, and con­sequently Supra c. 2. sect. 2. grant his faith of the Scrip­ture, and al that is in it, is but huma­ne and fallible (as we haue seen be­fore) yet c. 3. n. 45. he auoucheth it to be as infallible as the Scripture. For thus he writeth; you were to proue the Church infallible, not in her tra­ditions, which wee willingly grant (if they be as vniuersal as the tradition of [Page 455] the vndoubted books of Scripture is) to Vniuersal tradition, as infallible a [...] Scripture. be as infallible as the Scripture is. Ibid. §. 46. If you can of anie thing make it appeare, that it is tradition, we wil seek no farther Hooker also l. 3 § 8. If In­fidels or Atheists chance at anie time to cal it (Scripture) in question, this gi­ueth vs occasion to sift, what reason the­re is, wherby, the testimonie of the Church concerning scripture, and our own perswasion, which scripture itself hath confirmed, may be proued a truth infallible. Lo! the Churches testimo­nie, is a truth infallible. And we may rest our assurance vpon a truth infal­lible; and such is more, then an in­ducement to faith. Brentius also in the words afore cited, saieth the Churches tradition concerning Scripture is certain, firme and vndoub­ted. And Morton saieth, Protestants reuerence it, as it were the Goddess of traditions.

7. Moreouer they grant, that it is a point of faith, That scripture, or the Bible, is the word of God, and as such, it is put in their Confessions of faith. [Page 456] Nay Hooker l. 1. § 14. saieth: Of Anglica art. 6. Gallica art. 3. Belgica art. 4. things necessarie, the verie chiefest is to know, what books we are bound to esteem holie. l. 3. §. 8. The main princi­ple, whervpon our beleif of al things therin conteined, is, that the scriptures Protestants main Prin­ciple. are Oracles of God himself. Laude Re­lat. sec. 11. §. 2. calleth it, prime prin­ciple of faith sec. 16. §. 2. Great princi­ple in Diuinitie. §. 6. Great principle of faith, the ground and proof of whatsoe­uer is of faith. P. 104. Cheifest princi­ple. P. 110. Main principle of Diuinitie Chillingworth c. 2. §. 11. First prin­ciple. Whitaker l. 2. de Scriptura p. 218. It is most of al necessarie, that the certain Canon of scriptures be vndoub­ted among Christians. Vshers Reioin­der p. 63 Of al things, this is most sure, and ought to be beleued, that the scrip­ture is the word of God. But this most necessarie, most sure, this prime, this great, this main point of faith, is no written word of God. For thus Laude sec. 16. p. 70. There is no place in scripture, which tels vs, that such books, conteining such and such particu­lars, [Page 457] are the Canon and infallible wil and word of God. Hooker l, 1. §. 14. Being perswaded by other means, that these Scriptures are the Oracles of God, Note. themselues doe then teach vs the rest. l. 4. §. 4. It is not the word of God, which doth, or possibly can assure vs, that we do wel, to think it is in his word. White in his Way p. 48. The cer­taintie of the Scripture, is not written indeed with letters in anie particular place or book therof. And I hope it is not written with Ciphers. See more of their like Confessions supra c. 5. sec. 2.

8. And yet Hooker l. 5. §. 21. saieth, We haue no word of God, but the Scrip­ture. No word of God for their main Prin­ciple. Whitaker Contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. We acknowledg no other word, then written: what doctrin soeuer is not written, that we say is bastard. Beza in Rom. 1. v. 17. Christians acknowledg no other obiect of faith, but the written word of God Perkins in his Reform. Cath. Contro. 20. c. 2. We acknow­ledg the onely written word of God. Wherfore ether there is some point [Page 458] of faith, nay the cheifest point of al, an vnwritten word of God: or this point; That the scripture is the word of God, is no point of faith with Prote­stants: Which Chillingworth c. 2. § 4. seemeth plainly to teach, where he saieth: The controuersies, wherin the scripture it self is the subiect of the question, cannot be determined but by natural reason. §. 32. The scripture is none of the material obiects of our faith. Scripture no material obiect of faith. §. 51. Tradition (by which Scripture is known) is a Principle, not in Chri­stianitie, but in reason. §. 159. God re­quireth of vs vnder pain of damnation, onely to beleue the verities therin contei­ned, not the diuine authoritie of the books wherin they are conteined. And the sa­me insinuate Whitaker, Hooker, and White cited supra c. 8. sec. 2. Who say, that Scripture may be known by reason and light of nature to be the word of God. So that the most necessarie, most sure, prime, great, main ground of Protestants faith, is a principle of natural reason, and no obiect of diuine faith, or [Page 459] which we are bound to beleue vnder pain of damnation. Surely I see not, how Protestants can make agree these two main points of their do­ctrin: There is no word of God vnwrit­ten, necessarie to be beleued and, That scripture is the word of God, is a word of God vnwritten, necessarie to be beleued. The first is the common doctrin of al Protestants, who therfore denie, that there is anie tradition, that is word of God vnwritten, necessarie to be beleued, and say, the Scrip­ture is the perfect and entire rule of faith, conteining al, that is necessa­rie to be beleued. The second also is their vsual doctrin. For that with them it is a word of God: That the Scripture is the word of God, is euident both becaus they put the Canon of Scripture in their Confessions of faith, as a parte of their beleif, and Sup n. 7. also because Laude loco cit. calleth it a prime principle of faith; And Vs­her; That of al things, this ought to be beleued. And seing they say, their be­leif of al other points dependeth on [Page 460] this, I suppose, they wil not denie this to be a point of faith, or Gods word, and say it is but a humane principle, or word of man. That this point is not written is euident. For no where it can be shewed: and also because Laude, White and others cited supra c. 5. sec. 2 confess, that it is no where written in Scripture. And if it were anie where written, we could proue Scripture by itself, which Whitaker, Feild, Hooker, Couel, Chillingworth, and others cited c. 5. doe denie. And that they account this point necessarie to be beleued, I need not proue, becaus they account it the most ne­cessarie of al, and on which depen­deth whatsoeuer els they beleue.

9. An other proof, that the Scrip­ture doth not sufficiently propose al points of faith, may be taken from the Protestants confession, That they cannot deduce most of their points of faith, in which they differ from vs, out of Scripture by anie ne­cessarie Inference; but by adding [Page 461] to Scripture some humane principle As they cānot infer out of that saying of Scripture: Doe this in Commemora­tion of me, that the Eucharist is not substantially the bodie of Christ, but by adding this humane principle, A Commemoration cannot be substantially the thing which is commemorated. And the like wil appeare in their proof of other their points of faith, if they be brought into syllogistical forme. And how can that be saied to pro­pose See Vvhites. [...]. 16 p. 138. sufficiently al points of faith, which doth but partly propose them and needeth the addition of another How can it be called the perfect ru­le of faith which needeth addition? seening we haue shewed before out of the Fathers, and their own con­fession, that a Rule needeth no ad­dition. C. 5. sect. 2. Nay how can they say, they beleue those conclusions, as points to be infallibly beleued, which they being fallible men, doe also infer partly out of fallible and humane principles? seeing (as Laude saieth sec. 16. §. 3.) This is an inuiolable See him sect. 19. p. 125. [Page 462] ground of reason, That the principle of anie conclusion, must be of more credit, then the conclusion itself. And the same say Whitaker Contro. 2. q. 5. c. 18. l. [...]. de Script. p. 166. 392. 416. Potter sec. 5. p 14. 15 33. 40 Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 37. Chillingworth Fallible Principles can neuer produce an infallible conclusion. c. 2. p. 57. and others commonly. Thus haue we proued, that Scrip­ture doth not sufficiently propose al points of faith: now we wil proue, that it doth not propose to al men.

SIXTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture doth not sufficient­ly propose points of faith to al men capable of external pro­posal.

1. THat Scripture doth not sufficiently propose points of faith to al men, who are capable of external proposal, is euident in the blinde, and those who cannot [Page 463] read. For the blinde cannot so much as see the letters of the Scripture, and those who cannot read, cannot see their signification, or what they signifie: Therfore Scripture of itself doth propose nothing sufficiently vnto them. If anie answer, that Scripture may be read to them, and so propose sufficiently to them, I re­ply: First, that if Scripture cannot propose to them but by some others reading of it, of itself alone it can­not propose, and so can be no Rule of faith to them, becaus a Rule nee­deth no help to direct. And yet White in his Defense c. 24. p. 105. saith; This Rule (of faith) is of such nature, as it is able to direct al men, yea the simplest and vnlea [...]nedest aline. Se­condly, that according to Prote­stants, al men are fallible, and may read wrong, ether of purpose or of ignorance. And the Scriptures pro­posal were not infallible, if it vsed a fallible help. Surely the blinde or ignorant men, can haue no greater assurance, then moral, that the Rea­der [Page 464] readeth true. For what diuine in­fallible assistance can he be thought to haue in reading true? And it were madness to say, he hath diuine assi­stance in reading true, and to denie that the true Church of God hath the like assistance in teaching true.

2. And (as D. Potter saieth sec. 5. p. 7.) The assent of diuine faith is abso­lutly diuine, which requires an obiect and motiue so infallibly true, as that it nether hath nor can possibly admit anie mixture of error or falshood. And he should haue said; it cannot possibly admit anie mixture of fallibilitie. And doubtles anie particular mans rea­ding, is fallible: How then can the blinde or ignorant men haue faith, absolutly diuine, whose motiue is Gods word read by a particular fal­lible man? If anie answer, that Rea­ding, to them is but à condition of their beleuing, but the whole moti­ue, is Gods word, which is written: I replie, First, that their beleif de­pendeth vpon this condition, and how can infallible faith depend [Page 465] vpon à condition, which is fallible? Secondly, that thus the word Read, and not, Written, must be the for­mal cause of their beleif: And so Scripture is not the formal cause of their faith: For Scripture is onely the word written. I ask therfore, what is the external formal cause of the blinde and ignorant mens beleif of that which is in Scripture? For some such external cause there must be, as Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. c. 6. p. 64. Potter and others grant; not the do­ctrin it self: For that is the material obiect of their faith, and the thing, which is beleued. Nor the writing of it, or letters of the Scripture. For that they perceaue or vnderstand not: Nor the Reading, For that is fallible.

3. If anie say, that the doctrin is both the material and formal cause of their beleif, becaus it is credible for itself. I replie: First, that this Cre­dibilitie for itself, or internal light in the doctrin, is feigned and refu­ted heretofore, in that we said be­fore [Page 466] c. 14. of the Scripture. Second­ly, that assent to doctrin for itself, cannot be faith, becaus faith is an assent for authoritie of some that proposeth doctrin. Thirdly, that thus Scripture or writing, is no for­mal cause of beleif (as Protestants said before c. 11. sec. 1.) but meerly doctrin is that cause, and that wri­ting is but a conseruer, or pointer to diuine doctrin, but no cause at al of beleuing it. Let them then not say, that Scripture is the principal external formal cause of their bele­uing, what they beleue; but confess, that Scripture, or writing of diui­ne doctrin, serues them to no more, then Reading serues the blind or igno­rant, who, as they haue the same faith, which the learned, so must they haue the same external formal cause of faith, which they haue: but that al the formal cause of their be­leuing what they finde in Scripture, is the internal light of the doctrin it self, and that they haue no external formal cause of their beleif of it; and [Page 467] that writing or reading of it, doth but point to the veritie or light of the doctrin, as they say of the Churches testimonie of the Scrip­ture, that it doth but point at the word of God, which is to destroie al formal faith, which is an assent for authoritie, and to become En­thusiasts and to make al Christian doctrin ridiculous to Infidels, in telling them, that Christians haue no external formal cause, why they beleue, ether the Scripture to be written by Gods inspiration, or that which is in it, to be Gods do­ctrin, beside the Scripture or do­ctrin itself. And that, as the Church doth but point to the diuinitie of the Scripture, but is no formal cau­se of our beleuing it to be diuine: So the Scripture doth but point at the diuinitie of the doctrin which it conteineth, but is no formal cause of beleuing it to be diuine do­ctrin. Nether can they giue a good reason, why they should say, that Gods writing should be credible of [Page 468] be credible of itself to be Gods wri­ting, and need onely the Churches pointing to it for to beleue, that it is Gods writing; and that Gods do­ctrin should not be credible of itself to be his doctrin, and need onely the Scriptures pointing to it, that it is his doctrin. For why should not Gods doctrin be as credible of itself, to be his writing? And so al external formal causing of beleif is gon, and onely pointing to the obiect of be­leeif, is left. And Protestants must not say: that they beleue anie thing, becaus it is in Scripture, but onely pointeth to what they beleue, as they say, they beleue not Scripture to be the word of God, becaus the Church testifieth, that it is so, but for it self, being pointed to by the Church. See Chillingworth supra c. 11. sec. 2.

SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER. That the Scripture hath not pro­posed points of faith in al ti­mes, vvhen faith vvas had.

1. THat Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in al times, when points of faith we­re beleued, is euident: For there was no Scripture til Moises, and yet therewas true faith euer before since Adam. Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 7. I grant, that there is no Scripture ancienter then Moises books, and that religion remained pure al that time without Scripture. Ibid. c. 16 I grant, that God from Adam to Moises, kept Religion kept by tradition more then 2000. years. doctrin deliuered by liuing voice, that is traditions not written. Item c. 7. cit. Some barbarous men for a time wanted Scripture: For a time doctrin may be kept entire without writing. Item q. 3. c. 10. I grant there was a time when the [Page 471] word was not written, and then was the Church. Kemnice 1. parte Exam. tit. de Scriptura p. 14. From the begin­ning of the world for 2450. yeares, hea­uenly Moulins of Tradition c. 17. doctrin, by diuine voice reuealed, was proposed, and from hand deliuered, without Scripture diuinely inspired. And ibid. p. 41. It is clear, that the A­postles for some first yeares deliuered and spread Apostolik doctrin, without anie writing of theirs, by onely liuelie voice.

2. Chillingworth c 2 n. 159. Ireneus tels vs of some barbarous Nations, that beleued the doctrin of Christ, and yet be­leued not the Scripture to be the word of God: For they neuer heard of it, and faith comes of hearing.

3. Dauenant de Iudice c. 5. We grant that before Moyses, the word of God Before Moyses, Tradi­tion was sufficient. not written, and propagated to Posteri­tie by continual tradition, was a suffi­cient Rule of faith. Rainolds Conclus. 1. God reuealed his wil without writing to Adam, and from Adams time, til Moises.

4. And was the Church of God, for 2400. years before Christ, in­fallible [Page 471] in al points of faith, and is she not after Christ, infallible in the most fundamental point of al con­cerning Scripture? was the tradition of the Church for al that time, an infallible rule of faith, and it is not now? Is the Church since Christs Hebr. 7. time, of worse condition, then it was then? or did men in that time, ordinarily beleue ether without some external means or motiue, (which is Prophetical and miracu­lous) or did they beleue infallibly for the tradition of the Church at that time which was fallible? Whi­taker l. 1. de Script. p. 64. saieth: We ask which is that external cause, for which we must beleue: For there must Some exter­nal cause infallible. be some external cause, seing faith is not bred in vs, nor produced of the Holie Ghost, without external causes, vnles miraculously, and is of hearing. And l. 3. c. 10. p. 415. As the Doctrin and re­ligion which we profess, is heauenlie and diuine, such also must be the reason and authoritie of beleuing. And ibid. c. 4. p. 392. Our faith must relie vpon [Page 472] an external Chilling. c. 1. n. 7. Laude sect. 33 p. 2. 8 Field l. 4. c. 7. infallible means, and which is an external infallible means, causeth faith. Potter sec. 5. p. 7. The assent of diuine faith is absolutly diuine, which requires an obiect and motiue so infallibly true, as that it nether hath, nor can possibly admit anie mixture of error or falshood. And what external means had men to beleue ordinarily, before there was Scripture, but the Church? For what external infalli­ble cause, did they beleue, but for the Church? or was the beleif of eue­rie man for those 2400. yeares, Pro­phetical or miraculous, without anie external infallible motiue or cause? What motiue so infallibly true, as that it could not possibly admit anie mixture of error or falshood, had the ordinarie Beleuers, before the­re was anie Scripture, beside the Church?

EIGHTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in al places, vvhe­re faith vvas had.

1. THis is euident by the testi­monie of S. Ireney, who l. 3. c. 4. saieth, that in his time, manie Barbarous Nations beleued in Christ, Augustin l. 1. de Doctr. Christ. c. 39. without letters or inck. which made Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 7. to confess, that some Barbarous men for a time, wanted Scriptures, and that for a Scripture not simply necessarie. time, doctrin may be conserued enti­re without writing, and that hence is rightly concluded, that Scripture is not simply necessarie. And l. 1. de Script. c 14. sec. 4. p. 159. Those Barbarians, of whome Ireney speaketh, who had sal­uation written in their hearts, were in­deed true Christians, though they knew not Scripture: But (saieth he) they were not simply ignorant of the Scripture, be­caus [Page 474] they held the doctrin of the Scriptu­re. But I replie, that Scripture and doctrin of Scripture, are different, and relatiuely opposit. Moreouer, the doctrin of Scripture is no Proposer to beleue, but the thing proposed to be beleued. And we speak of the Proposer of points of faith, not of points of faith, or doctrin of faith proposed: Though therfore these Barbarians beleued the doctrin, which is in Scripture, yet they bele­ued not it by means of Scripture. We therfore ask, by what infalli­ble external means, they beleued it, if not by the Church? For some in­fallible means they must haue had to beleue in ordinarie course, as Whitaker and Potter cited in the former Chapter confess, and is eui­dent: And howsoeuer the doctrin or sense of the Scripture, may be saied to be the Scripture, becaus it is the more principal parte of Scrip­ture; yet in this question of the Pro­poser of points of faith, it ought not to be meant by the word Scripture, [Page 475] becaus the doctrin of Scripture, is the points of faith, and is that, which is to be sufficiently proposed and be­leued; and so it is not the Proposer, but the Proposed. Wherfore Whi­taker So also Vvhite in his Vvay p. 2 [...]. and in his Defen­sep. 259. loco iam citato, and Contro. 1. q. 3. c. 10. equiuocateth: For when Catholiks argue, that the Church is ancienter then Scripture, becaus it was before anie Scripture; Or that Scripture is not necessarie to faith, becaus diuers Nations be­leued without Scripture, he answe­reth, that the Church is not ancienter then the word of God, None beleued without knowledg of that doctrin, which is in Scripture: For Scripture is Vvhitaker Contr. 2 q. 5. c. 19. Praedicatio, & verbum [...]c iptum, ratione dif­feruns. not the word of God, or doctrin of God, simply taken, but the word or doctrin of God, written. Wher­fore it is a Sophisme à Coniunctis ad diuisa, to speak of Gods word sim­ply, when he should speak of Gods word written: For Catholiks speak of the word or doctrin of God writ­ten, not simply taken; and confess, that the word of God simply taken, [Page 476] is ancienter then the Church; and that none can beleue without this doctrin, becaus it is that, which is to be beleued. And they ask, what is the infallible external cause, for which this doctrin, or word of God was beleued of those Barbarians, seing that could not be the letter of God, or the Scripture, which they had not. Ether therfore they bele­ued the word of God, and doctrin of Scripture, for no external infalli­ble cause, and so they beleued mira­culously and extraordinarily: or they beleued it for the infallible authori­tie of the Church. When therfore Whitaker saieth, that Scripture is the L. 1 de Scrip. c. 11. sec. 1. Contr. 1. q. 6. c. 9. 14. Caluin 1 Instit. c. 6. §. 2. Vide supra c. 5. sec. 1. onely sufficient means to beleue, ether he meaneth by Scripture, the letter of Scripture, or the sense; if the let­ter, those Barbarians had not, nor blinde and ignorant men, haue that means to beleue: if the sense, that is not the means to beleue but the obiect to be beleued; and we ask, what is the infallible external means for to beleue this sense. For (as [Page 477] Whitaker saieth l. 1. de Script. p. 151.) Wee seek some external means, for which we beleue the Scripture. And Contro 2. q. 4. c. 3. To interpret Scrip­ture without means, is Enthusiastical, Anabaptistical, and extraordinarie; For the spirit now teacheth only by means, and such as the means are, such must needs be the Interpretation.

2. Protestants Confessions, that al things which are to be beleued, are not in Scripture, are related supra c. 5 sec. 2. to wit: That al things absolut­ly cannot be proued by scripture; not al things simply; that it is not an absolutly perfect Rule; not safe to iudge by Scrip­ture alone; that scripture cannot assure vs; cannot proue itself to be Gods word: That Schisme cannot be decided by scripture.

NINTEENTH CHAPTER. That Scripture doth not clearly enough propose al points of faith.

1. THat Scripture doth not clearly enough propose al points of faith, is euident: First, becaus (as we haue already proued) it teacheth not al points of faith im­mediatly, and much less so clearly, as is necessarie to beget diuine faith of them al Secondly, becaus Scrip­ture nowhere saieth, that it teacheth al points of faith so clearly And ther­fore Protestants can haue no diuine faith, that it teacheth al points so clearly, as is necessarie to faith. Thirdly, becaus the Scripture itself saieth, that in it are some hard and difficult things 2. Petri 3. And Acts 8. When S. Phillip had asked the Eunuch, whether he vnderstood, [Page 479] what he read in Scripture, He ans­wered; And how can I, vnles somes hew me? and the place which he read, was of the passion of Christ, which is a most necessarie point of faith. Whervpon Whitaker l. 2. de Scrip­tura p. 229. saieth; The Eunuch, without Philip, nether beleued, nor vnderstood, what was sufficient to saluation. And yet he was a pious man. And Luke. 24. Iesus beginning from Moises, and al the Prophets, interpreted to them in al Scriptures, which were of him. And what needed he to interpret the pla­ces of Scripture, which were of him, if they had been of themselues clear enough to beget faith? And yet the knowledg of Christ, is a point most necessarie. Fourthly, holie Fathers frequently say, that the Scripture is obscure, or hard to be vnderstood, whose testimonies I omit for breui­ties sake: And to say, they meane not of anie point of faith, as Prote­stants say, is mere voluntarie. Fiftly, if the Scripture were plain enough in al points of faith, there would [Page 480] need no gift of Interpretation for points faith. For to what end need Interpretation, where there is cla­ritie enough to breed faith.

2. Finally, this is so euident, as Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 4. c. 1. saieth When he (Bellarmin) maketh this See sup. c. [...]. sect. 2. the state of the question, whether Scrip­ture of itself be so clear, as without In­terpretation, it sufficeth of itself to end and decide al Controuersies of faith, he fighteth without an aduersarie: For in this he hath not vs for Aduersaries. And ibid. They say, but falsly, that we think that Scripture, without interpretation, sufficeth to decide al Controuersies. Be­hould, Scripture of itself, and with­out Interpretation, sufficeth not to end al Controuersies of faith. Caluin also 4. Instit. c. 7. §. 25. being vrged, that the words of the institution of the Eucha­rist, did plainly teach the real and substantial presence of Christ, ans­wereth; As if you could cast the gift of Interpretation out of the Church, which giueth light to the word. So that the [Page 481] Scripture doth not clearly enough teach, what the Eucharist is, with­out the light Interpretation: And yet it is a great point of faith And the same is euident in the dissentions of Protestans about so manie points of faith. For they being (forsooth) holie men, would not gainsay clear Scripture. At least true learned and holie men could hardly fal into anie errors in faith, becaus al points therof were clearly set down in Scripture: And yet S. Hierom. l. 2. contra Pela­gium, and S. Austin l. 2. de Baptis. c. 1. 5. l. 3. c. 14. and De dono perseueran­tiae c. 21. say it is hard, euen for the best learned, not to fal into some such errors. And we see it in S. Cy­prian and his Fellowes, and in others. 3. Protestants Confessions, that al points of faith are not clear enough in Scripture, may be seen supra c. 2. sec. 2. and c. 4. sec. 2.

TWENTITH CHAPTER. That the Scriptures proposal, is not necessarie, in ordinarie cour­se, to haue diuine faith.

1. THat the Scriptures propo­sal of points of faith, is not necessarie in ordinarie course, to haue diuine faith, is euident First; becaus the Scripture no whe­re saieth it. Secondly, becaus the Scripture is not the external formal cause of faith, as we haue shewed, that the authoritie of the Church is. Thirdly, becaus diuine faith was for more then Caluin 1. Instit. c. 6. §. 2. See su­pra c. 17. 18. 2000. yeares, befo­re there was anie Scripture. Fourth­ly, becaus euen after Scripture was, there was in S. L. 3. c. 7. Irenes time, faith among some barbarous nations, where was no Scripture. And this is so euident, that although Prote­stants [Page 483] must needs say the contrarie, becaus commonly they teach, (as we saw c. 11. sec. 1.) that Scripture is the vtmost formal cause of their faith (without which cause, vndoubted­ly, there can be no formal faith) yet sometimes they confess it. Whita­ker Contro. 1. q 6. c. 7. Hence he con­cludeth, Therfore scriptures are not sim­ply necessarie: Rightly: And it is clear out of which Protestants grant that there was diuine faith in the world for 2000. yeares before anie Scripture was: and since Christ also, where there was no Scripture: which conuinceth, that Scripture nether of its nature, nor of Gods institu­tion, is an absolutly necessarie means (in ordinarie course) to haue faith. For then the Barbarians, of whome L. 3. c. 4. S. Ireney speaketh, could not haue had diuine faith. And Chillingworth c. 2. n. 159. saieth: scripture is not so much of the being of Christian doctrin, as requisit to the wel being of it. And Vvhy Scrip­ture is not the sufficient Proposer. out of al which we haue hitherto saied of Scripture, it is euident, that [Page 483] it is not the Al—sufficient Proposer, in­stituted by God for to beleue with diuine faith. For first, it is no intel­lectual person, as doubtles a proper 1 Proposer of points of faith, is. Se­condly, it proposeth not al points, 2 which God wil haue vs to beleue with diuine faith. Thirdly, it doth not propose clearly enough al the 3 points of faith, which it proposeth. Fourthly, it proposeth not points 4 of faith to al kindes of men, who are capable of external proposal. Fiftly, it hath not been in al times, nor in al places, when and where 5 diuine faith was. Sixtly, in ordinarie course, it is not necessarie, to haue 6 diuine faith. Al which agree to the proper Proposer of points of faith instituted by God. But now hauing seen, what the Scripture is not, let vs see, what it is. For though it be not the proper Proposer of faith in­stituted by God, yet it hath manie excellent properties conducing to that end.

ONE AND TWENTITH CHAPTER. That the Scripture conteineth the summ of Christian faith, and al things, that are necessarie to be beleued, of al kinds of men, explicitly.

1. THat the Scripture conteineth the summe of Chri­stian faith, and al things necessarie to be explicitly beleued of al kinds of men, is manifest. First, becaus it conteineth the misterie of the Tri­nitie, the Incarnation, and al the Articles of the Apostles Creed. Se­condly, becaus the Scripture pro­fesseth this: For Ioan. 20. v. 51. it is said: These are written, that you may beleue that Iesus is Christ, the sonn of God, and that beleuing, you may haue life in his name. And S. Luke c. 1. It [Page 486] seemed good vnto me, hauing diligently attained to al things, from the beginning to write to thee in order (good Teophi­lus) that thou maist know the veritie of those words, wherof thou hast been instructed. Where it seemes, that both S. Ihon, and S. Luke profess, that they wrote in their Gospel, the summe of Christian faith, and al that is absolutly necessarie to saluation: Rom. 15. v. 4. Whatsoeuer are written, are written for our learning, that by pa­tience and comfort of scriptures, we may haue hope. And if we may haue hope, why not faith?

2. And this, Fathers teach, as we shal see in the next Chapter. And this is al, which some Protestants a Laude sect. 17. p. 117. Potter sect. 4. p. 96. Morton to. 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 19 Vvhite De­fense c 29. p. 270. Plessie de Eccles c. 4. p. 85. Sum of religion. desire, though in words they wil seem to say more. Whitaker Con­tro. 1. q. 6. c. 6. We affirme, that the summe of our Religion, is written. Q. 4. c. 4. If he confess, that the knowledg of Christ is manifest in Scripture, surely we desire no more: For this is as much as we desire. Ibid. If by al the scripture, he mean the summe of doctrin, necessa­rie [Page 487] to euerie one for saluation, then we Knowledg of Christ. Necessarie to euerie one. acknowledg the argument, and say, it is al clear. Againe: If he confess, that the scripture is like an open book for the misteries of our Redemption, truly we haue not to demand anie more: For then­ce wil follow, that al things are mani­fest in scripture, which are necessarie to saluation, which is the ground of our Defense. Morton to 1. Apol. l. 2. c. 9. after he had cited out of Coster these words. We denie not, but that the chiefest points of faith necessarie to euerie ones saluation, are clearly enough set down in scripture, saieth: A pure and right doctrin of Protestants. And in his Appeal. l. 2. c. 28. scriptures be Al funda­mental points. the perfect treasurie of al fundamental Principles of faith. Musculus in locis, tit. de Nomine Dei p. 425. Al things could not be namely expressed in scriptu­re, which desire of Gods glorie doth re­quire, it sufficeth, that the summe of them Sum and general rules and certain general rules should be in­serted in scripture, to which we might frame al our life. Humphrey ad Rat. 2 ^dam Campiani p. 114. We know, [Page 488] that cases or points of law, cannot be set down in lawes, as Aristotle and Lawyers say wel: yet the summ of al re­ligion Summe of religion. and al heads of faith, are contei­ned in those writings, out of which, al our dogmes may be fully and abundantly drawn, as out of fountaines. Caluin l. 2. de lib. arbit. p. 151. Not al sermons were taken word for word, yet their Gospel was faithfully drawn into a sum­me, which may fully suffice vs.

3. Now that Catholiks teach, that Stat. le [...]on l 13. de Prin­cipijs c. 6. Bellar. l. 4. de Verbo Dei c. 11. Gordon Cont. 1. c. 21. 32. the summ of Christian religion, and al things necessarily to be beleued explicitly, of al men, are conteined in Scripture, Protestants themsel­ues confess: For thus Rainolds in the Preface to his Conclusions ci­teth out of the Preface of Gregorie 13. in Biblia Regia: In these Books, See Vvhit [...]k Cont 2 q. 5. c. 20. Morton to. 2. Apol l. 1. c. 19. & in [...]. p. 317. Ch [...]lling. c. [...]. §. 80. are explaned al the Misteries of our reli­gion. And ibid saieth. The Church of Rome itself doth acknowledg, that the whole doctrin, religion and faith which leadeth the Faithful to saluation and life, by the true worship of God, is conteined in Gods word. Whitaker [Page 489] Contro. 1. q. 6. c. vlt. Bellarmin con­fesseth Vvhole do­ctrin of re­ligion. Al dogmes simply neces­sarie to al. Vvhite Vvay p [...]3. and in Defense [...]. 35. Potter sect. 4. p 95. that al Dogmes simply necessarie to al men, are had in the Scripture. Lau­de Relat. sec. 11. n. 1. Bellarmin con­fesseth, that al things simply necessarie for al mens saluation, are in the Creed, and the Decalogue. See him sec. 20. n. 3. See also Chillingworth c. 2. n. 144. c. 3. n. 80. Potter sec. 4. p. 95. sec. 5. p 4. 13.

4. Wherfore the true difference between vs, is not, whether al things simply necessarie to be explicitly be­leued, or al, necessarie to euerie one, be in Scripture; but whether al things anie way necessarie, or neces­sarie to anie men, be in Scripture: For they wil haue al points, that are of faith, to be ether actually conteined in Scripture, or to be clearly inferred out of it, as we shewed supra c. 9. sec. 1. Nay Rai­nolds in his first Conclusion, defen­deth, that the Scripture teacheth, whatsoeuer is behooful for saluation: which he often repeateth; so that Vvhatsoeuer is behooful. [Page 490] they wil haue not onely al things ne­cessarie, but also al things behooful to saluation, to be conteined in Scripture. And neuertheles they confess, that it doth not teach, that itself is the word of God, which, with them, is the most fundamental point of al. Wheras we confess, that it conteineth al, which we acknow­ledg to be fundamental, that is by Gods institution absolutly necessa­rie to saluation: so that in effect we grant more to Scripture, then they doe, though they in words giue more to it, then we.

5. I add also, that the Scripture, sufficiently teacheth the far greater parte of points of faith: This I proue, becaus the Fathers heretofore, and other Catholiks since, haue confu­ted al most al the heresies, that haue risen, by plain testimonies of Scri­pture: Herevpon Catholik writers (as we heard Protestants Confess. c. 13. sec. 1.) say, they haue plain Scrip­ture in al places for the Catholik faith, an in al Controuersies, crie, Plain eui­dent, [Page 491] manifest Scripture. And here­vpon also both Fathers and Catho­liks sometimes, by the word Scrip­ture, vnderstand the whole word of God; becaus it conteineth the far greater, and principaller parte of the word of God. Catholiks (saieth Stapleton Act. 17. v. 2.) expresly teach, that the far greatest parte, and in general In general al doctrin of faith. al doctrin of faith, may be, and must be gathered out of Scriptuie.

6. Moreouer I add, that the Scrip­ture teacheth mediatly, euerie point of faith, becaus it sendeth vs to the Church, which teacheth vs al points of faith. S. Austin l. 1. cont. Crescon. c. 33. Albeit of this matter, there be no example brought out of holie Scriptures, yet euen in this matter, the truth of the same holic Scriptures is held, when we doe, what Present Church. now seemeth to the whole Church, which the authoritie of the sa­me Scriptures doth commend: that seing the holie scripture cannot deceaue, who­soeuer feareth to be deceaued by the ob­scuritie of this question, let him of it ask the same Church, which the holie Scrip­ture [Page 492] sheweth without al doubt. And the like he saieth in other places. And Protestants in Colloq Ratisb. sess. 6. p. 144. confess, That it seemeth a faire saying: By means of the infalli­ble authoritie of the Church, al matters of faith or manners, may be deduced out of scripture. Hence appareth how vn­truly D. Potter sec. 5. p. 12. saied of vs: They teach, that much of the obiect, or matter of faith, is not conteined in Scripture anie way.

TWO AND TWENTITH CHAPTER. That the Scripture teacheth plain­ly enough, the summ of Chri­stian faith, and al things ab­solutly necessarie to be beleued explicitly.

1. THat Scripture teacheth plainly enough the summ [Page 493] of Christian faith, and al things ab­solutly necessarie to be beleued ex­plicitly, I proue becaus (as is shewed in the former Chapter) it teacheth al such points; and that it teacheth them clearly enough, appereth by that it teacheth them in the plain and vsual sense of these words, which is to teach plainly enough, as can be by writing. And this may be she­wed by Induction though al the Ar­ticles of the Apostles Creed, which Catechi­mus Tri­dent p. 13. conteineth al the points, which are absolutly necessarie to be bele­ued explicitly, and is called of the August. serm. 194. de Temp. See more inf [...]a c. 24. Laude sec. 11. § 11. Plessie de Eccles. c. 4. Leo Epist. [...]om. 13. See him [...] de vnit. c. 1. 3. 5. 7. 10. 11. 16. 18. 20. Fathers Regula fidei. And of ordina­tion the Councel of Trent sess. 23. c. 3. saieth, that by the testimonie of Scrip­ture, it is manifest, that grace is giuen by ord [...]nation. And sess. 13. c. 1. pro­fesseth, that Christ gaue his Bodie to his Apostles in plain and express words, and in a most manifest sense: And pro­ueth al most al its Decrees of faith, by manifest places of Scripture. The same also teacheth S. Austin l. 2. de peccatorum meritis c. vlt I beleue, [Page 494] that herein the authoritie of scriptures would be most clear, if man could not be ignorant of it, without loss of promi­sed saluation. And l. 2 de Doctrina Christiana c. 9. In those things, which are plainly set down in scripture, are found al which contein faith and man­ner of life: In which words, I note those: If man, that is, if man could not be ignorant of it, without loss of Saluation! which clearly shew, that he speaketh of things necessa­rie to be actually beleued of al men: And in the second place he saieth not, which contein al faith, but which is necessarie to saluation, and which be­fore he had called Regula credendi. And l. 3. c. 2. he saieth: the Rule of faith is gathered out of the plainer places of scripture. And the Rule of faith or Rule of beleif, conteineth not al faith, but al that is absolutly necessarie to Saluation. For a Rule is not to con­tein, but to regulate al. Regula dicta est, eo quod recte ducit, nec aliquem tra­hit D. 3. apu [...] Gratian. aliorsum.

2. Nether is this contrarie to that, [Page 495] which Fathers and Catholiks say, that the Scriptures are hard or obs­cure, First becaus to say, that the Scriptures are easie for the summ of Christian faith, and points by Gods apointment absolutly necessarie to be beleued explicitly of al, is not to say absolutly, that the Scriptures are easie, but onely that they are easie in some parte, and that a smal one too. Secondly, becaus a way may be said dangerous, if in some parte it be so, though not in al partes: so the Scripture may be said hard and ob­scure, if in some parte it be such. Thirdly, becaus though the Scrip­ture may be easie to be vnderstood, yet it may be hard to be infallibly sure, that we rightly vnderstand it, without the assurance of the Church.

THREE AND TWENTITH CHAPTER. That the Scripture is necessarie to the better being of Christian faith.

1. THat Scripture is necessa­rie to the better being of Christian faith, is euident, both by what the Apostle saieth 2. Tim. 3. Al scripture diuinely inspired is profita­ble to teach, to reproue, to instruct &c. and also by what hath been saied in the former Chapter, that it teacheth al points fundamental, or absolutly necessarie to be beleued explicitly of al, that it teacheth the most points of Christian faith in sending vs to the Church, which teacheth them al. Besids, it helpeth to remember better what we are to beleue; it describeth what is the true Church, and which are the Notes, and giueth [Page 497] testimonie to her; And it is a main confirmation of the true Christian faith, and a great confutation of he­resies contrarie to it, and the onely armes proper to Christians, which they haue against most heretiks. For they denying the Infallibilitie of the Church, Councels, or Fathers, and reiecting al testimonie of miracles, leaue the true Christian Church no proper armes to fight against them, but the Scripture, which God hath made to be of so great esteem among Christians, as S. Austin saieth: None wil refuse Scripture who wil be accoun­ted in anie sort a Christian. And other­where: No Christian wil goe against scripture, no quiet man against the Church, no man in his wits against reason. And Vincentius Lyrinensis c. 39. addeth: we must ether impugne ol­der heresies only with scripture, or auoid them being condemned by General Councels. Moreouer, it is not likelie, that ether the holie Writers; would haue been so careful to write, or the Church, to conserue the holie Scrip­ture, [Page 498] if it had not been thought to haue been in some sorte necessarie to Christian faith. And what great necessitie soeuer some Protestants pretend, that there is of Scripture, Whitaker confesseth, that there is no absolute necessitie of it, and that so­me parte of Scripture helpeth, though not to the being, yet to the better being of faith. And Chillingworth, that it is not so much of the being of Christian doctrin, as requisit to the wel being of it, as we shewed c. 11. sec. 2. which is but in other termes to say, as we doe, that it is but necessarie to the better being of Christian faith, and religion. So that indeed they make no greater necessitie of Scripture, then we doe, whatsoeuer they pre­tend in words, as we shewed befo­re, that they say, that the Scripture conteineth not so much, as we say, nor is more clear then we say it is; yet becaus sometimes they pretend the contrarie, we wil now answer to their obiections.

FOVRE AND TWENTITH CHAPTER. Protestants arguments out of Scrip­ture, that it conteineth al points of faith ansvvered.

1. THeir chiefest place out of Scripture, that it contei­neth al points of faith is 2. Tim. 3. Al scripture diuinely inspired, is profita­ble to teach, to reproue, to correct, to in­struct in iustice, that the man of God be perfect, instructed to euerie good work: out of which they inferr, that the Scripture sufficiently teacheth al points of faith. Catholiks answer: First, that S. Paul speaketh onely of the old Testament, is as euident, becaus, much of the New [...], was not then written, as also, becaus he saieth, that Timothy had known it from his Childhood, and he had not known the New Testament from [Page 500] his Childhood. And if Protestants wil say, the Old testament suffi­ciently teacheth al points of faith, they make the New Testament needles, which none of them dare say, at least it were not necessarie. For how can the New testament be necessarie, if the old be sufficient? And I think, they wil not say, the New Testament is not necessarie: And that S. Paul speaketh of the New testament, Protestants nether proue nor can proue: wheras we proue plainly, that he speaketh one­ly of the old Testament.

2. Their second answer is, that the Apostle saieth not, that the Scrip­ture is sufficient, but onely saieth pro­fitable: And a thing may be profita­ble, which is not sufficient: Their third is, that the Apostle saieth not, that the Scripture is profitable to teach al things, to correct al things, to reproue al things, to instruct in al things, but simply to teach, to cor­rect, to reproue, to instruct so that: by to euerie good work, he compre­hendeth [Page 501] not euerie particular good work, but al kinds of good works, as are teaching, correcting, reprouing, instructing. And so three waies they answer sufficiently to this argument to which Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 14. saieth: no Papist euer answered suffictently, or can answer.

3. The Protestants second place is Galat. 1 where is saied: If anie Euan­gelize to you, be side what we haue Euan­gelized let him be Anathema: Catho­liks answer, that the Apostle by Be­side, meaneth so beside, as is contra­rie: First, becaus both the Greek word [...], and the Latin Praeter, is vsually so taken: And Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 14. saieth I grant that [...], may wel be translated con­tra. Secondly, becaus els he should haue accursed S. Ihon, who after this wrote his Apocalyps, in which there are some things, which S. Paul neuer told to the Galathians. Third­ly, becaus the Fathers, Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecumenius, Austin, so plainly ex­pound [Page 502] it, as Whitaker loco cir. saieth: we need not answer them. And S. Chrysostom eypoundeth it of such an addition to the Scripture, which ouerturneth ether al, or anie par­te of the Gospel. And S. Austin tract. 98. in Ioan proueth it, becaus other­wise S. Paul had accursed himself, who desired to come again to the Thessalonians, that he might haue adde what was wanting to their faith. Fourthly, becaus the Apostle there, speaketh of a thing which was not onely beside, but also contrarie to what he had preached, to wit the keeping of the law of Moises, which he called an other Gospel. And of it and such like, he said iustly, that he deserued to be accursed, who should teach beside what he had preached to the Galathians, to whome, being but rude, it is not like, he had, as then, preached al points of faith whatsoeuer. I may ad also, that Tra­ditions are not beside the Scripture, becaus the Scripture teacheth them mediatly, in sending vs to the [Page 503] Church, whome it testifieth to teach al truth. In which sense, it may be S. Austin l. 3. contra Petilian c. 6. saied, that he were Anathema, who shold teach anie thing which belongeth to our faith and life, beside that which we haue receaued in the legal and Euan­gelical scripture, becaus al that belon­geth to our faith or life, is mediatly in Scripture, though perhaps by be­side, he mean contrarie, as he doth tract. 98. cit, and l. 17. contra Fau­stum c. 3. and l. 23. c. 7. For in the aforesaid place he speaketh of flying schisme contravnitatem Christi, which is not only beside, but indeed contra­rietoholie Scripture. And Whitaker Contro. 1. q. 6. c. 14. euen vrging this place of the Apostle, saieth: Tradi­tions agreable to scripture are to be recea­ued and who receaue them not, are con­demned.—These Fathers speake of Traditions agreable to scriptures. So that Traditions agreable to Scriptu­re, are not condemned here by the Apostle: and approued by Fathers, [Page 504] and admitted by Protestants.

4. As for what they alleadge out of some Fathers, that Scripture con­teineth al things necessarie, proueth no more, then what we haue said before, that it conteineth the summe of Christian faith, al things that are necessarie to be explicitly bele­ued of euerie one, and the greatest parte of the rest, and mediatly al points of faith whatsoeuer: but not that it conteineth immediatly al points whatsouer. For S. Hilaire l. 2. de Trinit. speaking of the forme of Baptisme, saieth: what is it, that is not conteined in that sacrament of mans saluation? Hierom. praefat. in libros Paralipomenon. Al learning of scripture, is conteined in this book. S. Austin serm. 194. & serm. 130. The Creed conteineth al the mysteries of our faith. Nor the Fathers only speak thus, but euen both Catholiks and Protestants also: For Catechismus ad Parachos in Praefat. §. 12. saith: the Apostles Creed conteineth al things; [Page 505] that are to be beleued: and our Lords praier, al that is asked. The like saieth the Caluinist French Ca­techisme, Luther in c. 15. Genesis that Melchisedechs speech to A­braham, conteineth al that can be said of Religion. Caluin 3. Instit. c. 20. §. 48. The Lords praier con­teineth al, that we are to ask of God: And in Math. 16. v. 18. That Peters Confession conteineth the whole summ of our saluation. Which kinde of speeches no man vnder­standeth of euerie particular thing, that we are to beleue or ask of God. Besids, manie Protestants doe grant, that Scripture doth not contein euerie particular point of faith, no not their most funda­mental point of al, which is, that itself is the word of God. And Laude cited l. 2. c. 5. sec. 2. saieth, that when the Fathers say; we are to relie vpon Scripture onely, they are neuer to be vnderstood with exclusion of Tradition, in whatsoeuer it may [Page 506] be had, and that without the Chur­ches help, we may mistake the Scrip­ture. And Feild ibid. That they doe not make the Scripture, the rule of their faith, but that other things in their kinde are Rules likewise, in such sorte, as it is not safe without respect had vnto them, to iudge of things by the Scripture alone. And also White cited l. 1. c. 10. That the Doctrin of the Church is an in­fallible Rule, and the Rule of faith And Baro ibid. That Tradition is an infallible Rule. And Chilling­worth ibid. That vniuersal Tradi­tion, is as infallible as the Scripture. And out of this, is also answered, that the Fathers cal Scripture The Rule, or, A Rule of faith. For they cal also the Apostles Cred so: As Tertullian l. Praescrip. c. 13. S. Austin serm. de Symbolo, S. Ire­ney l. 1. c. 1. S. Epiphanius haeres. 31. and others; And Protestants, as Kemnice in locis p. 10. Perkins in his reformed Catholik at the end, [Page 507] and vpon the Creed, in the be­ginning, and Plessie de Eccles. c. 8. saieth; The Fathers cal it ordina­rily, the Rule of faith, Potter sec. 7. p. 78. 89. And yet mean not, that it conteineth immediatly al points of faith whatsoeuer. Nay a Rule is not to contein al faith, but to regulate al.

5. Hence also may be answered, what Protestants obiect, that if the Scripture contein not al points of faith whatsoeuer, it should be imperfect. For imper­fect is that onely, which hath not al, that it ought to haue. And Scripture hath al the points of faith, which it ought to haue, and therfore is perfect. As the Creed conteineth al that it ought to haue, and therfore is a perfect Rule, though it contein not absolutly al points of faith whatsoeuer. And yet Chilling­worth cited aboue c. 5. granteth, that Scripture is not absolutly a per­fect [Page 508] Rule. But seeing Scripture, and the Creed, haue al, for which they were made, both are to be ac­counted perfect Rules; and not to be accounted imperfect, be­caus they haue not something for which they were not made. It sufficeth, that they can sufficiently rule al that, for ruling of which, they were made. And Protestants suppose (but neuer can proue) that ether the Creed was made, or the Scripture written, to rule immediatly al points of faith what­soeuer. Nay some of them confess the contrarie, as we shewed befo­re c. 5. sec. 2. who must as wel answer, what is brought to proue the Scripture to contein imme­diatly al points of faith whatsoe­uer, or to be the immediat Rule of al points of faith, as we.