To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
LEt vs passe therefore from the preface to the booke it selfe, the first thing that he objecteth in the booke it selfe, is, that I giue Apostolicke power to the present * 1.1 Church; whence he thinketh it may be inferred, that the Church cannot erre in
matters of faith or ceremonies. That I giue Apostolique power to the present church, he endeavoureth to proue, because I say, She hath authority to dispense with some constitutions of the Apostles, touching order and comelinesse; which he thinketh She might not doe if she had not the same Authority, by force whereof they were made: but he could not but know that this proofe is too weake, if he were not very weake in vnderstanding. For the Apostles made these constitutions not precisely in that they were Apostles, as they reported the precepts of CHRIST, & deliuered the Doctrine of faith; but by vertue of their pastorall power in generall, common to them with o∣ther Pastors of the Church: though in that they were no ordinarie Pastors but Apo∣stles, they had absolute infallibilitie, & could make no lawes or constitutions but good & profitable, in which respect no other are equall to them. So that the Pastors of the Church now haue that power by which the Apostles made their Ecclesiasticall con∣stitutions touching order & comelinesse, but not with like assurance of not erring, in making or reversing such lawes: & therefore the Treatiser cannot from hence inferre, that the present Church, & the guides of it, haue infallible iudgement touching mat∣ters of faith or ceremonies.
IN the next place, first he produceth my distinction of the Church, considered as it comprehendeth all the faithfull that are & haue beene since Christ appeared in the * 1.2 flesh, or onelie such as are & haue beene since the Apostles times, or such alone as are at one time in the world. Secondly an assertion, that the present Church may be said at all times to be the pillar of truth, & not to erre, because it euer retaineth a sauing pro∣fession of heauenlie truth, that is true doctrine, concerning all such principall points as are of the substance of Faith, and needfull to bee knowne and beleeued expresly by e∣uery man. Thirdly, he addeth, that we deny so much as the virtuall beleefe of other things to be necessary; which he pronounceth to be an absurd opinion. For the confu∣tation of my distinction of the Church considered in those three different sorts, hee asketh if there be now presently any Church in the world including in it all the faith∣full that are and haue beene since CHRIST appeared in the flesh, or at least since the Apostles times; which is a most childish & senselesse demaund. For it will easily bee answered, that the Church that includeth in it all these faithfull ones, is now extant in the world, as he is pleased to speake, in that some of her parts, betweene which and the rest there is a connexion, are now in the world, though all be not; as time, whereof the parts are present, past, & to come, is now, though all parts of it be not now. But his inference vpon supposall of our answer is more strange then the question. For if it bee granted, that the Church including in it all these holy ones, hath not all her parts in the world at one time, he inferreth from thence, that the promises of Christ cannot be ve∣rified of it. As if Christs promises were verified of the church, only in respect of those parts that it hath in the world at one time: whereas a 1.3 Bellarmine himself teacheth, that the promise of the churches being in all parts of the world, is not verified of it at one time, but successiuely: in that though it be not in all parts & Provinces of the world at one time, yet at one time or other it spreadeth it selfe into euery part of it. And b 1.4 Staple∣ton defineth the church according to the state of the New Testament, to be a collectiue multitude of men, professing the name of Christ, beginning at Hierusalem, & frō thence dispersed throughout the world, increasing & spreading it self through all nations, al∣waies visible & manifest, mixt of good & bad, elect & reprobate, in respect of faith & Sacraments holy, in respect of origin & successiō Apostolique, in extent catholique, in cōnexion & order of parts one, in duratiō & continuance perpetuall, expressing vnto vs that church that includeth all faithful ones since Christ till now, nay till the end of the world. Which is no doubt a reall body, & hath many excellent promises made vn∣to it, though all the parts of it be not in the world at one time. But let vs goe for∣ward, and wee shall see how this silly Treatiser forgetteth himselfe. For first hee confesseth, that the diuerse considerations of the church proposed by mee, * 1.5 may bee in our vnderstanding, and yet presently addeth, that wee cannot di∣stinguish them really one from another: which hee goeth about to proue, because
the Church in the first consideration includeth in it the same Church as it is taken in the second and third: but the proofe is to weake; for euery child will tell him, that these considerations may be really distinguished one from another, because though the former includeth the latter, yet the latter includeth not the former. For as euery man is a liuing thing, but euery liuing thing is not a man; soe the Church consisting of all faithfull ones, that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh, includeth in it all those that now presently are in the world: but the Church consisting of those onely that are at one time, includeth not the other, but is included in it as a part in the whole, and consequently cannot challenge all the priuiledges belonging to it, more then the part of a thing may challenge all that pertaineth to the whole: soe that the Church in the former consideration may bee free from error, though not in the latter. But the Treatiser will proue it cannot: seeing if the Church including in it all faith∣full ones, that are or haue beene since Christ, be free from error; euery part of it must * 1.6 be free, and consequently the present Church; as a man cannot be sayd to bee free from sicknesse, vnlesse euery part of him be free. For answere where-vnto wee say that the Church being a collectiue body, may be sayd to be free from error in another sort then a man is said to be free from sicknesse, for a man cannot be sayd to be free from sicknesse vnlesse euery part be free; but the Church may rightly be sayd to be free from error, if all her parts erre not, though some doe: for otherwise I would aske of this Treatiser, whether the Church were free frō error in the daies of Athanasius, when, as c 1.7 Vincen∣tius Lyrinensis sayth, almost all the Bishops of the Latine Church were misled by force or fraud, and when Liberius Bishop of Rome subscribed to heresie, as d 1.8 Athanasius and e 1.9 Hierome testifie, If the Church were not free from errour at that time, where is the priuiledge of neuer erring? If it were, it was but in respect of some few partes: whence it will follow, that the Church may be sayd to bee free from errour, though many partes bee not, if any continue sound; for here the greater and more principall partes did erre. But that the Church may be sayd to be free from errour, though all parts be not, it is euident, in that they who most stifly maintaine the not erring of the present Church, yet confesse, that some parts of it do erre. For f 1.10 Stapleton and Bellar∣mine, who both thinke the present Roman Church to be free from error, yet deny that she is free in all her parts, and tell vs, there are some who are parts of this Church and Catholiques, that thinke the Pope may iudicially erre, vnlesse a generall Councell con∣curre with him, which in their opinion is an error and neare to heresie. Yea the same g 1.11 Bellarmine sayth, that the particular Romane Church, that is, the cleargy and people of Rome, subiect to the Pope, cannot erre, because though some of them may, yet all cannot. It is true therefore which I haue deliuered, not withstanding any thinge the Treatiser can say to the contrary, that the Church including all the faithfull that are and haue beene since the Apostles, may be sayd to bee free from error, because in re∣spect of her totall vniuersality she is so: it being impossible, that any errour should bee found in all her parts, at all times, though in respect of her seuerall parts shee be not. For sometimes and in some parts she hath erred, and in this sense can no more be sayd to be free from error, then a man may be sayd to bee free from sicknesse, that in some parts is ill affected. But as a man that hath not beene alwaies, nor in all parts ill, may bee said to be free from perpetuall and vniuersall sicknesse; so the Church is free from per∣petuall and vniuersall error. This the Treatiser saith is a weake priuiledge, and not an∣swerable to the great and ample promises made by Christ: whereas the Fathers knew no other, whatsoeuer, this good man imagineth. For h 1.12 Vincentius Lyrinen∣sis confesseth, that error may infect some parts of the Church, yea that it may some∣times infect almost the whole Church: so that he freeth it only from vniuersall & per∣petuall error. But, sayth the Treatiser, what are poore Christians the nearer for this priuiledge? how shall such a Church be the director of their faith? and how shall they know what faith was preached by the Apostles, what parts taught true doctrine, and when and which erred in subsequent ages? Surely this question is easily answered. For they may know what the Apostles taught by their writings: and they may know what parts of the Church teach true doctrine, by comparing the doctrine each part
teacheth, with the written word of God, and by obseruing who they are that bring in priuate and strange opinions, contrary to the resolution of the rest. But if hap∣pily some new contagion, endeauour to commaculate the whole Church together, they must looke vp into Antiquity; and if in Antiquity they finde that some followed priuate and strange opinions, they must carefully obserue what all, not noted for sin∣gularity or heresie in diuerse places and times, constantly deliuered, as vndoubtedly true, and receiued from such as went before them. This course Vincentius Lyrinensis prescribeth. But the Treatiser disclaimeth it, not liking that all should be brought * 1.13 to the letter of holy Scripture, and the workes of Antiquity; which setting aside the authority of the present Church, he thinketh, yeeld no certaine and diuine argument. So that, according to his conceipt, wee must rest on the bare censure and iudgement of the Pope: for he is the present Church, & Antiquity is to be contēued as little or no∣thing worth. Hauing iustified the distinctiō of the diuerse cōsiderations of the Church impugned by the Treatiser, that which he hath touching the two assertions annexed to it, will easily bee answered For the one of them is most true, his addition of not erring, being taken away: and the other is but his idle imagination, for wee neuer deli∣uered any such thing.
IN the third place he excepteth against Mee, because I say the words of the Apostle in the Epistle to Timothy, touching the house and Church of God, are originally vn∣derstood * 1.14 of the Church of Ephesus, wherein Paul directeth Tymothy how to demeane and behaue himselfe: but because I haue cleared this exception in my answere to Hig∣gons, I will say nothing to him in this place, but referre him thither.
FRom the Apostle, the Treatiser passeth to Saint Augustine, and chargeth Me th I wrest his words, when he sayth, he would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authority of the Church did not moue him, to a sense neuer meant by him. These words of S. Au∣gustin * 1.15 are vsually alleadged by the Papists, to proue that the authority of the Church is the ground of our faith, & reason of beleeuing: in answere whereunto I shew that the Diuines giue two explications of them. For Ockam and some other, vnderstand them not of the multitude of beleeuers, that now are in the world, but of the whole number of them that are and haue beene since Christ appeared in the flesh, so including the A∣postles; and in this sense they confesse that the Church, because it includeth the wri∣ters of the bookes of the new Testament, is of greater authority then the books them∣selues. Other vnderstand by the name of the Church, onely the multitude of belee∣uers liuing in the world at one time: and thinke the meaning of Augustine is, that the authority of this Church was an introduction vnto him, but not the ground of his faith, and principall or sole reason of beleeuing. The former of these explications, this graue censurer pronounceth to be friuolous. First, because if wee may beleeue him, Saint Augustine neuer vsed these words, Catholique Church, after this sort in * 1.16 that sense. Secondly, because he speaketh of that Church, which commanded him not to beleeue Manicheus, which vndoubtedly was the present Church. Thirdly, be∣cause, as he supposeth, I can alleadge no Diuine, that so interpreted the words of Au∣gustine; that which I cite out of Ockam being impertinent. To euery of these reasons I will briefly answere. And first that Augustine doth vse the words, Catholique Church, in the sense specified by Me, it is euident. For writing against Manicheus, he hath these words. Palám est quantū in re dubia ad fidem & certitudinem valent Catholicae Ecclesiae authoritas, quae ab ipsis fundatissimis sedibus Apostolorū, vs{que} ad hodiernū diem succedēti∣bus * 1.17 sibimet Episcopis, & tot populorū cōsensione firmatur; that is, it is apparant, what great force the authority of that Church hath, to settle the perswasion of faith, & cause cer∣tainty in things doubtfull, that from the most surely established seats of the Apostles, by succession of Bishops euen till this present, & cōsent of people is most firmely setled.
To the second reason wee answere, that the Church including the Apostles, and all faithfull ones that haue beene since, comprehendeth in it the present Church, and so might commaund Augustine not to listen to Manicheus. So that this commaunding proueth not that he speaketh precisely of the present Church. To the third I say, that the Treatiser is either strangely ignorant, or strangely impudent, when hee affir∣meth, that I can alledge no Diuine that vnderstandeth the words of Augustine of the Church, including in it the Apostles, & such as liued in their times. For first Durandus vnderstandeth them of the Primitiue Church, including the Apostles. Secondly b 1.18 Ger∣son will tell him, that when Augustine saith, he would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him, hee vnderstandeth by the name of the Church, the Primitiue congregation of those Faithful ones which saw & heard Christ, and were his witnesses. Thirdly c 1.19 Driedo writeth thus: when Augustine saith, hee would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him, hee vnderstandeth that Church which hath beene euer since the beginning of the Christi∣an Faith, hauing her Bishops in orderly sort succeeding one another, and growing and increasing till our times, which Church truly comprehendeth in it the blessed compa∣ny of the Holy Apostles, who hauing seene Christ & his miracles, and learned from his mouth the Doctrine of Faith, deliuered vnto vs the Evangelicall Scriptures. And againe the same • Driedo saith, that the authority of the Scripture is greater then the * 1.20 authoritie of the Church that now is in the world, in it selfe considered. But if wee speake of the vniversal Church, including all Faithfull ones that are and haue beene, the authority of the Church is in a sort greater then the Scripture, and in a sort equall. For explication whereof he addeth, that as touching things that cannot bee seené, nor knowne by vs, we beleeue the sayings & writings of men, not, as if they had in them, in themselues considered a sufficient force to moue vs to beleeue; but because by some reasons we are perswaded of them who deliuer such things vnto vs, & thinke them worthie to be beleeued. So S. Augustine might rightly say, hee would not beleeue the bookes of the Gospel, if the authority of the Church did not moue him, vnderstanding the vniuersal Church; of which he speaketh against Manicheus, which, including the Apostles, hath had in it an orderly course of succession of Bishops till our time. For the faithfulnes, trueth, & credit of this Church was more evident, then the Trueth of the books of the New Testament, which are therefore receiued as sacred & true, because written by those Apostles to whō Christ so many waies gaue testimony both by word and worke: and the Scriptures are to be proued by the authority of that Church which included the Apostles; but in the Church that now is, or that includeth only such as are now liuing, God doth not so manifest himselfe as hee formerly did: so that this Church must demōstrat herself to be Orthodox, by prouing her faith out of the Scrip∣ture. With Driedo e 1.21 Ockam cōcurreth, his words are these: sometimes the name of the Church cōprehendeth not only the whole cōgregation of Catholiques liuing, but the Faithful departed also; & in this sense blessed Augustine vseth the name of the Church in his book against the Manichees, cited in the Decrees, 2. dist. c. palàm: where the Ca∣tholique Church importeth the Bishops that haue succeeded one another frō the A∣postles times, & the people subiect to thē. And in the same sense Augustine vseth the name of the Church, when he saith, he would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authoritie of the Church did not moue him: for this Church comprehendeth in it the Writers of the bookes of the Gospell, and all the Apostles: so that from the authoritie of Augu∣stine, rightly vnderstood, it cannot be inferred, that the Pope the maker of the Canons, is rather & more to be beleeued then the Gospel: yet it may be granted, that wee must more & rather beleeue the Church which hath beene from the times of the Prophets & Apostles till now, then the Gospel: not for that men may any way doubt of the Go∣spell, but because the whole is greater then the part. So that the Church which is of greater authoritie then the Gospel, is, that whereof the Writer of the Gospel is a part. Neither is it strange, that the whole should bee of more authority then the parts. These are the words of Ockam in the place cited by me. Wherfore let the Reader judge whether that I cite out of Ockam be impertinent, as the Treatiser saith, or not. To Du∣randus, Gerson, Driedo, & Ockam, we may adde f 1.22 Waldensis, who fully agrees with thē,
shewing at large, that it pertayned to the Church onely in her first, best, and primitiue state & age, to deliuer a perfect direction touching the Canon of the Scripture; so that shee hath no power or authority now, to adde any more bookes to the Canon already receiued, as out of her owne immediate knowledge. But it sufficeth to the magni∣fying of her authority in her present estate, that euen now, no other bookes may bee receiued, but such only as in her first and best estate shee proposed. Farther adding, that the saying of Augustine, that hee would not beleeue the Gospell, if the authority of the Church did not moue him, is to bee vnderstood of the Church, including the primitiue Fathers and Pastors, the Apostles Scholers. By this which hath bin sayd, it is euident, as I thinke, that the former of those two constructions which I make of Augustines words, hath bin approued by far better men then this Treatiser. And that therefore he sheweth himself more bold then wise; when he pronounceth it to be fri∣volous. And surely, if we consider well the discourse of g 1.23 S. Augustine, I thinke it may be proued vnanswerably, out of the circumstances of the fame, that hee speaketh not precisely of the present Church. For it is that authority of the catholicke church hee vrgeth, that was begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, & con∣firmed & strengthned by long continuance. And of that Church he speaketh, wherin there had bin a succession of Bishops from Peter till that present time. So that he must needs meane the Church, including not onely such faythfull ones as were then liuing when hee wrote, but all that either then were, or had bin from the Apostles times. Wherefore let vs passe to the other construction of Augustines words, which is, that the authority of the present church, was the ground & reason of an acquisit fayth, & an introduction leading him to a more sure stay, but not the reason or ground of that faith, whereby principally he did beleeue. This constructiō the Treatiser sayth, cannot stand, because Aug: saith, if the authority he speaketh of be weakned, hee will beleeue no longer. Whence it seemeth to be consequent, that it was the cause of all thē perswa∣sion of fayth that he had, then when he wrote, & not only of an acquisit fayth, prepa∣ring & fitting him to a stronger, more excellent, & farther degree or kind of faith. For the clearing of this poynt, we must note, that there are 3. h 1.24 sorts of such mē as beleeue: for there are some that beleeue out of piety onely, not discerning by reason, whether the things they beleeue, be to be beleeued as true or not: the 2d. haue a light of diuine reason shining in them, & causing an approbation of that they beleeue: the 3d. sort, ha∣uing a pure heart & conscience, begin already inwardly to taste, that which hereafter more fully shall be enioyed. Resting in the first degree, as the authority of the Church moueth vs to beleeue, so if it be weakned, that kind & degree of faith, that stayeth on it, falleth to the ground, hauing no other sufficient stay: But if we speake of fayth in respect of her two other degrees, shee hath a more sure and firme ground & stay to rest vpon. And therefore i 1.25 August: affirmeth, that the truth, clearly manifesting it selfe vnto vs, is to be preferred before all those things that commend vnto vs the authority of the church; & that there are certaine spiritually minded men, who in this life at∣taine to the knowledge of heauenly truth, & sincere wisdome, without all doubt dis∣cerning it, though but in part & weakly, in that they are men. Of which number there is no question, but that Aug: was one; so that the authority of the Church, could not be the sole or principall motiue or reason, at that time, when hee wrote of his present perswasion of the truth of heauenly mysteries, contayned in the Gospell of Christ, as the Treatiser would make vs beleeue: but hauing to do with the Manichees, who pro∣mised the evident and cleere knowledge of trueth; but fayling to performe that they promised, vrged him to beleeue that, which they could not make him know to bee true; he professeth, that if he must beleeue without discerning the truth of that he be∣leeueth, he must rest on the authority of the catholicke church: For the Manichees had no authority sufficient to moue a man to beleeue in this sort. Now the Catholicke Church commanded him not to listen to Manicheus, in which behalfe, if they would & could weaken the authority thereof, he professeth hee neither can, nor will beleeue any more, with such a kind of faith as they vrged him to; which is, without all discer∣ning of the truth of the things that are to be beleeued. Thus we see the discourse of S.
Augustine no way proueth, that the authority of the Church was the fole or princi∣pall ground of the highest degree, or kind of faith, he had; but it is most euident out of the same, that it serued onely as an introduction to lead to a more sure perswasion then it selfe could cause.
THe next thing the Treatiser hath, that concerneth Mee, is, that I acknowledge in * 1.26 the Church a rule of faith, descending by tradition from the Apostles, according to which the Scriptures are to be expounded. Whereunto I briefly answere; that in∣deede I admit such a rule so descending vnto vs; but that the rule I speake of, is no∣thing else but a summary comprehension of the chiefe heads of Christian doctrine, e∣uery part whereof is found in Scripture, and from them easily to bee collected and proued, deliuered vnto vs by the guides of the Church, from hand to hand as from the Apostles. So that my words make nothing for proofe of the papists supposed vn∣written traditions: wherefore let vs passe to that which followeth, which is the So∣phisticall circulation, which I say Papists runne into, in that they beleeue that the Church is infallibly lead into all truth, because it is soe contained in the Scripture; and that the Scripture is the word of God, because the Church infallibly led into all truth, telleth them it is. In this passage he sayth I wrong Stapleton, in that I charge him, that in his triplication against Whitaker, he affirmeth other matters to be beleeued, because they are contained in Scripture, and the Scripture, because it is the word of God: and * 1.27 that it is the word of God, because the Church deliuereth it to be so: and the Church, because it is lead by the spirit: and that it is lead by the spirit, because it is so contained in the Scripture and the Creed. For that, as he saith, Stapleton in the last place maketh no mention of the Scripture, but of the Creed only. Wherefore let vs heare Stapleton himselfe speake. Whereas D. Whitaker obiecteth, that Papists according to Stapletons opiniō, beleeue whatsoeuer they beleeue, not only by, but for the Church: & that inge∣nuously he had cōfessed so much: he a 1.28 answereth, that indeed he had so professed, & that he euer would so professe: and in b 1.29 another place, whereas D. Whitaker saith: Papistes beleeue the Church, because God commaundeth them to do soe: and that God doth so commaund them, because the Church, whose authority is sacred, telleth them so: he answereth, that they doe not beleeue that God commaundeth them to beleeue the Church, either properly, or onely, because the Church telleth them soe: but partly, because of the most manifest authorities of Scriptures, sending men to the Church to bee taught by it: partly moued so to doe by the Creede of the Apostles, wherein we professe, that wee beleeue the Catholique Church: that is, not only that there is such a Church, but that we are members of it; and that God doth teach vs by it. Is here noe mention of the Scripture, but of the Creed onely? Doubtlesse the Treatiser hath a very hard fore-head, for otherwise he could not but blush, and acknowledge that hee wrongeth Mee, and not I Stapleton. But to make good that which I haue written: that Papists either fall into a Sophisticall circulation, or resolue the perswasion of their faith finally into humane motiues, and inducements; first, it is to be obserued, that noe man perswadeth himselfe of the truth of any thing, but because it is euident unto him in it selfe, to be as he perswadeth himselfe, either in abstractiue knowledge, or in∣tuitiue, intellectuall or experimentall, or of affection; or else because it is soe deliuered to bee, by some such as hee is well perswaded of, both in respect of their vnder∣standing discerning aright, and will to deliuer nothing, but that they apprehend to be true. In the former kind, the inducement, motiue, or formall cause of mens assent to such propositions as they assent vnto, is the euidence of them in themselues, which ei∣ther they haue originally as the first principles, or by necessary deduction from things so euident, as conclusions thence inferred; In the latter, the authority and credit of the reporter. The former kind of assent, is named assensus euidens, the latter ineuidens, of which latter sort faith is, which is named a firme assent without euidence, because ma∣ny of the things which we are to beleeue, are not, nor cannot be euident vnto vs origi∣nally in themselues, as the first principles of humane knowledge, nor by deduction,
from, and out of things so evident, in such sort as conclusions in sciences are. Yet is not this assent without all evidence. For though the things beleeued be not euident in themselues, yet the medium, by vertue whereof we beleeue them, must be evident: & the proofe of them by vertue of that medium. Now the medium, by vertue whereof we beleeue things no way evident vnto vs in themselues, can be nothing else but the re∣port of another: neither is euery report of another a sufficient medium or inducement to make vs beleeue things we know not, but it must be the report of such an one as we know cannot be deceiued, nor will not deceiue. It must therefore be evident to euery one, that firmely and without doubting beleeueth things not knowne vnto him vpon the report of another, that he that reporteth them vnto him, neither is deceiued, nor can deceiue. Whence it followeth necessarily, that things are as he reporteth. These things presupposed, I demaund of this Treatiser, whether he and his consorts assent to the Articles of the Christian Faith, induced so to doe by the evidence of the things in thēselues, or by the report of another. That they assent not vnto thē, induced so to do by the evidence of the things in thēselues they all professe, but by the report of another. I demand therefore, who that other is? whether God, or man? if man, then haue they nothing but anhumane perswasion, very weakly grounded, & wherein they may be deceiued, for euery man is a lyar. If God, let them tel me whether it be evident in it self, that God deliuereth these things vnto thē, & pronounceth them to be as they beleeue, or not: If not, but beleeued only, then, as before, by reasō of authority: & that either of God, or man. Not of God, for it is not evident in it self, that God deliuereth a∣ny thing vnto thē, not of men, for their report is not of such credit asthat we may cer∣tainly & vndoubtedly stay vpon it: seeing they may be deceiued, & deceiue other. They answere therefore, that it is no way evident vnto them in it selfe, that God deliuereth the things they beleeue: but that they perswade themselues, hee deliuered such things vpōthe report of men; but such men as are infallibly led into all truth. See then if they doe not runne round in a circle, finding no stay. They beleeue the resurrection of the dead, and the like things, because God revealed it; they beleeue that God revealed it, because it is so contained in the Scripture: and the Scripture, because it is the Word of God: and that it is the Word of God, because the Church so delivereth: and the Church because it is a multitude of men, infallibly led into all truth: and that there is a Church infallibly led into all truth, because it is so contained in Scripture: and the Scripture because it is the word of God: and so round without euer finding any end. Out of this circle they cannot get, vnles they either groūd their Faith vpon the meere report of men, as men, & humane probabilities: or confesse that it is evident vnto them, in it selfe, that God speaketh in the Scripture, and revealeth those things which they beleeue: which if they doe, it must bee in respect either of the manner, matter there vttered, or consequent effects. In respect of the manner, there being a certaine diuine vertue, force, and majesty, in the very forme of the words of him that spea∣keth, in the Scripture: in respect of the matter, which being suggested and proposed to vs, findeth approbation of reason, inlightned by the light of grace: in respect of the consequent effects, in that we finde a strange and wonderful change wrought in vs, as∣suring vs the doctrine is of God that hath such effects, which is that we say, & which they condemne in vs. The Treatiser would make vs beleeue that there are two opi∣nions amongst them touching this point: whereof the one is, as he telleth vs, that wee beleeue the Church, because the Scripture teacheth vs, that shee is to be beleeued: & the Scripture, because the Church deliuereth it to vs to be the word of God. And the other, that by the assistance of God together with the concurrence of our naturall vn∣derstanding, we produce an act of supernaturall Faith; by which wee firmely beleeue the Articles of Christian Faith, not for any humane inducements, but for that they are revealed by Almighty God, without seeking any further: which if it be so, it must be evident in it self to thē that follow this opiniō: that God hath revealed & deliuered the things they beleeue, & that by one of the 3 waies before mētioned, & thē they fal into our opiniō: for if it be not evidēt to thē in it self, that God speakes in the scriptures, & reveales the things they are to beleeue, they must go further, to be assured that he doth
so speake and reueale the things that are to bee beleeued, either to proofe of reason, or authority. For no man perswadeth himselfe of any thing, but vpon some induce∣ments. Proofe of reason demonstratiue, I thinke they will not seeke; and probable inducements they may not rest in; therefore they must proceede to some proofeby authority, which can bee no other but that of the Church, and then they ioyne with them that follow the other opinion, and beleeue the articles of Christian faith, con∣teyned in Scripture, because God hath reuealed them; and that God hath reuealed them, because the Church telleth them so; and the Church, because the Scripture te∣stifieth of it that it is led into all trueth, which is a very grosse sophisticall circulation. This the Treatiser did well perceiue, and therefore to helpe the matter, he distingui∣sheth the cause of beleeuing, and the condition necessarily requisite, that the cause may haue her working, in shew, making the Diuine Reuelation, the reason or cause that we beleeue, and the Churches proposing to vs the things to be beleeued, a condition only, and not a cause: in sort, as the fire alone is the cause of the burning of the wood, but the putting of one of them to another, is a necessary condition, without which that cause can produce no such effect: but this shift will not serue the turne. For it is the fire onely that burneth the wood, though it cannot burne vnlesse it be put vnto it: so that in like sort, if the comparison hold, the Diuine Reuelation must, of and by it selfe alone, moue, induce, and incline vs to beleeue the things proposed by the Church, as being euident vnto vs, to be a Deuine Reuelation, though without the Churches pro∣posing, we could take no notice of it. Euen as in naturall knowledge, it is the euidence of trueth, appearing vnto vs, originally found in the first principles, and secondarily in the conclusions from thence deduced, that is the sole and onely cause or reason of our assent to such principles and conclusions, though without the helpe of some men of knowledge, proposing them to vs, and leading vs from the apprehension of one of them to another, happily we should not at all attaine such knowledge. But this eui∣dence of the Diuine Reuelation in it selfe, the Treatiser will not admit. For it is no way euident in it selfe, to him, that God hath reuealed any of the things he beleeueth; but the onely proofe, besides humane motiues or reasons, (which are too weake to bee the ground of Fayth) that he hath, is the authority of the Church. So that the Mini∣stery of the Church, is not onely a condition, but a cause of that perswasion of fayth which they haue: yea the authority of the Church is the formall cause of all that faith, seduced Papists haue. And therefore the distinction of a cause and condition hel∣peth them not: It is true indeed that the Ministerie of the Church, proposing to men thinges to bee beleeued, is onely a condition requisite to the producing of a super∣naturall act of fayth, in respect of them that haue some other thing to perswade them, that that is true which the Church proposeth, besides the authority of the Church; but in respect of such as haue no other proofe of the trueth thereof it is a formall cause. Now this is the condition of all Papists: For let them tell Mee whether they beleeue the Scripture to be the Word of God, without any motiue at all or not? and if they doe not, as it is most certaine they doe not, whether besides such as are humane they haue any other then the authority of the Church? if they haue not, as doubtlesse they haue not, they make the authority of the Church the formall cause of their faith, and fall into that sophisticall circulation they are charged with. For they beleeue the articles of religion, because reuealed; and that they were reuealed, because it is so contayned in the Scripture; and the Scripture, because it is the Word of God; & that it is the Word of God, because the Church telleth them it is; and the Church, because it is guided by the spirit; and that it is so guided, because it is so contayned in the Scripture: this is such a maze as no wise man will willingly enter into: and yet the Treatiser commendeth the treading of these intricate pathes, and telleth vs that two causes may bee causes one of another. That the cause may bee proued by the effect, and the effect by the cause; and that such a kinde of argumentation, is not a circulati∣on, but a demonstratiue regresse: that two causes may be causes either of other, in di∣uerse respects we make no question. For the end of each thing, as it is desired, set∣teth the efficient cause a worke, and the efficient causeth the same to bee actually en∣joyed.
Likewise, we doubt not, but that the cause may be proued by the effect, and the effect by the cause in a demonstratiue regresse. For the effect, as better known vn∣to vs then the cause, may make vs know the cause; and the cause being found out by vs, may make vs more perfitly, and in a better sort to knowe the effect, then before; not onely that, and what it is, but why it is also. So the death of little infants proueth them sinners, and their being sinners proueth them mortall. The bignesse of the foot∣step in the dust or sand, sheweth the bignesse of his foote that made that impression: And the bignesse of his foote will shew how bigge the impression is that he maketh: but this maketh nothing for the justifying of the Romish circulations. For heere the effect being knowne in a sort in itselfe, maketh vs know the cause; and the cause be∣ing found out and knowne, maketh vs more perfectly to knowe the effect then at first wee did; but the case is otherwise with the Papists; for with them the Scripture, which in it selfe hath no credit with them, but such onely as it is to receiue from the Church, giueth the Church credit; and the Church, which hath no credit but such as it is to receiue from the Scripture, giueth the Scripture credit by her testimony. And they endeauour to proue the infallibility of the Churches judgment out of the Scrip∣ture, and the trueth of the Scripture out of the determination and judgement of the Church. Much like, as if when question is made touching the quality & condition of two men, vtterly vnknowne, a man to commend them to such as doubt of them, should bring no other testimony of their good and honest disposition, but the testi∣mony of each of them of the other. It is true then which I haue said, that to a man ad∣mitting the Old Testament, and doubting of the New, a man may vrge the authority of the Old; and to a man doubting of the Old, and admitting the New, the authority of the New; but to him that doubteth of both, a man must alledge neither of them, but must bring some other authority or proofe: so likewise, to him that admitteth the Scripture, and doubteth of the Church, a man may vrge the authority of the Scrip∣ture; but to him that doubteth of both, as all doe when they begin to beleeue, a man must alledge some other proofe; or else hee shall cause him to runne round in a Circle for euer, and neuer to finde any way out. Wherefore to conclude this poynt, let our Aduersaries know, that wee admitte and require humane motiues and induce∣ments, and amongst them a good opinion of them that teach vs, as preparing & fit∣ting vs to fayth. Secondly, that wee require a supernaturall ayde, light, and habit, for the producing of an act of faith. Thirdly, that we require some diuine motiue & inducement. Fourthly, that this cannot be the authority of the Church, seeing the au∣thority of the Church is one of the things wee are to bee induced to beleeue. Fiftly, that wee require the ministery of the Church, as a propounder of all heauenly trueth; though her authority can be no proofe in generall, of all such truth. Sixtly, that the Church, though not as it includeth onely the beleeuers that are in the world, at one time, yet as it comprehendeth all that are, or haue beene, is an infallible propounder of heauenly truth, and so acknowledged to bee, by such as are assured of the trueth of the doctrine of Christianity in generall. Seauenthly, that the authority of this Church is a sufficient proofe of the trueth of particular things, proposed by her to such as already are by other diuine motiues assured of her infallibility.
FRom the authority of the Scripture, which he would faine make to bee wholy de∣pendant * 1.30 on the Church, the Treatiser passeth to the fulnesse and sufficiency of it; seeking amongst other his discourses, to weaken those proofes which are brought by Mee, for confirmation thereof. Affirming, that though I make shew, as if it were a plaine matter, that the Euangelists in their Gospels, Saint Luke in the Actes of the A∣postles, and Saint Iohn in the Apocalyps, meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Chri∣stian doctrine, and direction of faith, yet I bring no reason of any moment to proue it. Whereas yet in the place cited by him, I haue these wordes, contayning in them, as I suppose, a strong proofe of the thing questioned. Who seeth not that
the Evangelists, writing the history of CHRISTS life and death, St Luke in the booke of the Acts of the Apostles; describing the comming of the Holy Ghost, the admira∣ble gifts and graces powred vpon the Apostles and the churches founded and ordered by them, and Saint Iohn writing the Revelations which he had concerning the future state of things to the end of the world, meant to deliuer a perfect summe of Christian doctrine? if the proof contained in these words be not sufficiēt, for my part I know not what may be, for what can be necessary to bee knowne of Christians, ouer and aboue that which is found in the olde Testament, besides the Incarnation of Christ, his words, actions, & sufferings; the manner of the establishment of churches in the faith of Christ: and the ordaining and appointing of fit guides to take care of the govern∣ment of the same, and the future state of things to the end of the world? But he saith, no one of the Evangelists intended to set downe all that Christ did and suffered, as it appeareth in that no one of them hath so done; & that it cannot be said that all jointly haue so done, seeing that could not proceed but from some common deliberation, or the disposition and inspiration of the holy Ghost, mouing them to write: neither of which can be said. For that there was no such deliberation, he saith it is evident, in that no man mentioneth any such thing, & in that it is knowne they wrote in diuers coun∣tries at diuers times, vpon diuers occasions; & that the inspiration of the holy spirit did not direct them to the writing of all things necessary, hee saith it is likewise most cleare, in that I confesse there are some things wanting in their bookes, which the church beleeueth: which could not be if the spirit had moued them to write all. This obiection will soone be answered. For first it is certain that some one of the Evange∣lists intended to write all things which Christ did and spake: a 1.31 S. Luke professing that he had so done, Which yet is not to be vnderstood of all things simply, but such onely as he did & spake in that time, within the compasse whereof he confined his narration. Neither doth this prejudice the fulnesse of the Evangelicall history. For as Baronius * 1.32 noteth, the later Evangelists taking a view of that the former had written, for the most part added what things they found omitted by them: So Marke & Luke write of the ascension of Christ, not mentioned by S. Mathew, because he ended his story before he came to it. And Iohn finding as c 1.33 Hierome saith, that the other three had written onely the history of one yeare, after Iohn the Baptist was cast into prison, wherein Christ suffered; approued that which they had written as true, & omitting that yeare, because the things that fell out in it were reported by thē, recorded such things as fell out be∣fore the imprisonment of the Baptist, which they had not written, as not fetching the beginning of their narration so farre off. If it be said by this Treatiser, that many things that Christ did are so omitted, that they are found in none of the Evangelists: for that d 1.34 Iohn who wrote last of all, & knew well what the rest had written, hath these words: Many other signes also Iesus wrought in the sight of his Disciples, which are not written in this booke, but these things are written that you may beleeue that Iesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that beleeuing you may haue euerlasting life through his Name. e 1.35 And againe, there are also many other things which Iesus did, which if they should be written euery one, I suppose the world would not be able to containe the Bookes which should be written. f 1.36 Ba∣ronius will tell him that the Evangelists when they tooke in hand the writing of the sacred stories, intended not to write all the things generally that Christ did: but such & so many only, as might serue to confirme the Faith, and to demonstrate that IESVS is the Son of GOD: & that the things which they haue written are sufficient to salua∣tion, that men beleeuing may haue eternall life. So that though there were no commō deliberation or consultation amongst the Evangelists, & though they wrote at diuers times & in diuers places, yet by the sweet disposition of the holy Spirit that moued them to write, it might, and did so fall out, in that one saw what another had written, that the later added such things as they foūd omitted by the former, & so left vnto vs a perfect & full narration concerning Christ his incarnation, life, death, resurrectiō, & ascension, as also the things he did and spake during the time of his conversing amōgst men. So that the Treatiser is not able to proue that the Evangelicall historie is imper∣fect: but there is one thing wherein hee gloryeth, as if hee had gotten some great
aduantage, which is, that I confesse, that there are somethings found in the Epistles of the Apostles, occasionally writtē & beleeued by the Church, that are not found in the history of the Euangelists, the book of all the Acts of the Apostles, nor the Reuelation of Saint Iohn: whence hee thinketh hee may inferre, that eyther the Authors of th•…•…se books, meant not to deliuer a perfect summe & directiō of Christian faith as I affirme; or that they missed of their purpose: which may not bee graunted. But lette him know, that there is no consequence of any such absurdity as hee imagineth, from any thing I haue written. For the things beleeued by the Church, and not found in the former bookes, but in the Epistles of the Apostles, are nothing else but distinct and cleare determinations of doubts arising touching matters of faith or manners, out of, and according to the summe of Christian Doctrine, found in the former bookes or historicall narrations of such thinges as passed betweene the Apostles themselues or between them and the Churches founded by them, or some particular persons in them, not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles: or lastly, Apostolicall prescriptions of things pertaining to decencie, order and comelinesse in the performance of the acts of Gods worship and seruice. Now I thinke it will not follow, that if there be found in the Apostolicall Epistles some more distinct & cleere resolutiōs & determinations of doubtes out of the forme and direction of Christian Doctrine, found in the former bookes, then are there found, or a prescription of some outward obseruations, that the former bookes containe not a perfect summe and direction of Christian faith: much lesse will it be consequent that these bookes containe not a perfect direction of Chri∣stian faith, because some historicall narrations, not found in them, are beleeued in the Church: as that Paul left his cloake at Troas, that hee mediated for Onesimus, and sought to reconcile him to his Maister, and the like. The Treatiser therefore pas∣seth from this exception, and asketh how I will proue, that all thinges beleeued by the Church, & not contained in the former books are found in the Epistles of the Apostles; to whom I answere, that when hee shall giue any instance of things beleeued by the Church, & not foūd in the former books, either it shal be proued that they are not belei∣ued by the Church, or they shal be shewed him in those Epistles. Wherfore, let vs see what he hath more to say. One of the Apostolicall Epistles he saith is lost, namely that which Paul wrote to the Laodiceans, in which there might be something necessarily to * 1.37 be beleeued that is not foūd in any other book of the New Testament. Therefore it may be thought that there is some want & imperfection in the books of the New Testa∣ment. This truly is a very idle and and silly obiection: for though there was a cer∣taine Epistle to the Laodiceans carried about and read by some in auncient times, yet, as Hierome testifieth it was exploded by all: and h 1.38 Chrysostome, and i 1.39 Theodoret are of opinion, that Paul neuer wrote any Epistle to the Laodiceans: but that the Epistle hee * 1.40 speaketh of, was written from Laodicea, or by the Laodiceans, to informe him of the state of things amongst themselues, or amongst the Colossians, by whom hee would haue it read. And k 1.41 Cardinall Baronius himselfe approueth their opinion, rather then the other. That which he hath, of my admitting traditions, I will answere when I come to examine his next section.
IN his next section he hath these words. Barlow and Field, two famous English Pro∣testants, admitte certaine Apostolicall traditions. And farther hee addeth, that I allow of certaine rules for the discerning of Apostolicke traditions, from such as are not such. Whereunto wee answere, that wee admit sundry kindes of tradition, and yet deny, that any thing concerning fayth, or the necessary direction and information of mens manners is to bee beleeued and receiued, that is not written. For we say, nothing was deliuered by tradition, but the bookes of Scripture, thinges in some sort therein contayned, and thence deduced; and certaine dispensable obseruations, not at all, or hardly to be discerned from Ecclesiasticall constitutions. Neither is it new, or strange, that wee should admit some kinds of traditions, For a 1.42 Kemnitiu•…•… acknowled∣geth all those kinds that I mētion; which will no way help the Papists, For the questi∣on between thē & vs, is not whether there be any traditions or not. For it is most cer∣taine
that the bookes of Scripture are deliuered by tradition. But it beeing •…•…up∣posed, that the holy men of God, taught immediately by Christ his Sonne, •…•…∣ded certaine bookes to posterities, and agreed on, which those bookes are; wh•…•…her they containe all thinges necessary to bee knowne, and practised by Christian •…•…en for the attayning of euerlasting life and saluation, Wee say they doe, they deny it Yet will the Treatiser proue from hence, contrary to my assertions, that according to my owne grounds, tradition is the very foundation of my faith. For if Protestantes receiue the number, names of the Authours, and integrity of the parts of bookes, di∣vine, and canonicall, as deliuered by tradition, as I say they doe: and if without tradi∣tion wee cannot know such diuine bookes, hee thinketh it consequent that tradition is the ground of our faith. But indeede there is no such consequence as hee imagi∣neth. For it is one thing to require the tradition of the church, as a necessary mea•…•…s, whereby the bookes of Scripture may be deliuered vnto vs, and made known; & ano∣ther to make the same tradition the ground of our faith; seeing in the judgment of the Treatiser himselfe, euery thing is not the ground of our saith, builded vpon Scripture, without which we cannot know the Canonicall bookes of Scripture from such as are not of that ranke. As it is euident, in that he distinguisheth the gro•…•…d of our faith, & * 1.43 reason of our beleeuing, from the condition required to the producing of such an act of fayth; denying the churches proposing of things to bee beleeued to be the ground of our faith, and yet requiring it, as a necessary condition, without which ordinarily men cannot beleeue. So that though we know the names of the writers of the books of holy Scripture by tradition, and that there were no more bookes, nor no more partes of bookes, of this kinde left to posterities, by the Apostles, but such as the church deliuereth to vs; yet it is not consequent, that wee haue no other ground of our perswasion, that the bookes deliuered to vs, and the parts thereof are canonicall, but tradition: for the euidence of diuine power, and majesty, shewing it selfe in them more then in all humane compōsitions whatsoeuer, proueth them to haue proceeded from the immediate inspiration of the holy Ghost, breathing in them nothing but heauenly grace. The words of holy Scripture, sayth b 1.44 Picus Mirandula, are rude and plaine, but full of life and soule; they haue their sting; they pierce and enter in, euen to the most secret spirit, and strangely transforme him that with due respect readeth them and meditateth on them. And besides, there are sundry diuine and con∣uincing reasons; that the summe of Christian doctrine contayned in these bookes, is nothing else but heauenly truth; and being without the compasse of that wee natural∣ly vnderstand, reuealed trueth. So that the Treatiser doth greatly forget himselfe, when hee pronounceth it to bee false, that I say, that the Scriptures winne credit of * 1.45 themselues, and yeelde sufficient satisfaction to all men of their diuine truth. This is the summe of all that hee hath of traditions. For where hee saith, I affirme that without the Creed of the Apostles, wee cannot know the Scriptures to bee of God; hee sheweth himselfe to care little whether that hee writeth bee true or false. For I no where haue any such thing; but where hee saith, I affirme that Papists make tra∣ditions Ecclesiasticall, equall with the written word of God, and that this is one of my ordinary vntruths, hee deserueth a sharper censure: For if the Reader be pleased to peruse the place cited by him, hee shall finde that I say no such thing, nor any thing that the Pope himselfe can possibly dislike. For, deliuering the opinion of Papists * 1.46 touching traditions, their diuerse kindes, and the credit that is to bee giuen vnto them, I shew; that they make diuine traditions equall with the words, precepts and doctrines of Christ, left vnto vs in writing, apostolicall, with the written precepts of the Apostles; and ecclesiasticall, with the written precepts of the Pastours of the Church; confessing, that there is no reason why they should not so doe, if they could proue any such vnwritten traditions. Is this to say that Papists make Ecclesiasticall traditions equall with the written Word of God? Is this one of my ordinary vn∣truthes? or rather is not this a bewraying of an extraordinary impudency in him that so saith? Surely I feare the Reader will haue a very ill conceipt of him, vpon the * 1.47 discerning of this his bad dealing. Yet hee goeth forward, charging Mee, that
I make the baptisme of Infants to be an vnwritten tradition; whereas yet he knoweth right well, that howsoeuer I grant it may be named a tradition, in that there is no ex∣presse precept or example of it in Scripture; yet I affirme that it is no vnwritten tra∣dition, in that the grounds, reasons, and causes of the necessity of it, are there contai∣ned, & the benefites that follow it. Neither doth the place alledged by him out of Au∣gustine * 1.48 proue the contrary: the words of Augustine as commonly we reade them, are these: the custome of the Church in baptizing infants; which is not to be despised or lightly regarded, were not to be beleeued, were it not an Apostolique tradition. But, whosoeuer shall consider the place, will soone perceiue that Augustines meaning is, that the custome of the Church in baptizing Infants, which he saith, is not to be despi∣sed, or lightly regarded, is to be beleeued to be no other but an Apostolical tradition; & not that it were not to be beleeued if it were not an Apostolicall tradition; howsoeuer, as it seemeth esset in stead of esse is crept into the text. For it is something harsh to say, the custome of the Church in baptizing infants is not to be beleeued, vnlesse it were an Apostolicall Tradition. Seeing such a custome might be beleeued, though it were not an Apostolicall Tradition. And besides, the drift of Augustine in that place, is to vrge the necessitie of this custome, and to haue it beleeued to be Apostolicall; and not to weaken it, as if it had no support, but bare tradition: which can neither stand with the opinion of Augustine, the truth of the thing it selfe, nor the iudgement and resolu∣tion of our Adversaries themselues, who d 1.49 thinke that the Baptisme of Infants may be proued vnanswerably out of Scripture, in that CHRIST saith, the Kingdome of Hea∣uen belongeth to litle children, and yet pronounceth, that except a man bee borne a new of water, & of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heauen. Where∣in yet they contradict themselues, as they doe likewise in some other things, which they produce as instances of vnwritten traditions, and yet goe about to proue them by Scripture. Neither will the Treatisers evasion serue the turne, that they goe not a∣bout to proue any thing necessarily out of Scripture, that they pretend to be holden by vnwritten tradition, but probably only; for we know they bring Paedobaptisme as an instance of vnwritten traditions: and yet say, it may bee vnavoydably proued out of Scripture, as they propose the testimonies of it. The like may be said of the consub∣stantiality of the Sonne of God with the Father, and the proceeding of the Holy Ghost from them both, brought by them as instances of vnwritten verities, and yet prooued as strongly by them out of Scripture, as any other point of Faith. For if they shall say, an Heretique will not yeeld himselfe convinced by such proofes: it will bee answered, that no more he will by any other in any other point; nor by the tradition of the Church neither; which yet I suppose they will not make to be a weake proofe in that respect.
THe next exception taken against Me is, that I haue not well said, that a man may still doubt and refuse to beleeue a thing defined in a Generall Councell, without * 1.50 Hereticall pertinacie, and that Generall Councels may erre in matters of greatest consequence. What I haue written, I will make good against the Treatiser. For it is not so strange a thing, as he would make vs beleeue, to thinke, that Generall Councels may erre, & that a man may doubt of things defined in thē, without heretical pertina∣cie, seeing not onely our Diuines generally so thinke, but sundry of the best learned in the Romane Church informer times, were of the same opinion, as I haue else-where shewed at large. Neither were it hard to answere the authorities hee bringeth to prooue, that Generall Councels cannot erre; if a man would insist vpon the particu∣lar examination of them. But this may suffice in a generalitie, that the Fathers produced by him, blame and condemne in particular, the calling of things in que∣stion, that had beene determined in the Councell of Nice, and some other of that sort: and not generallie the doubting of any thing determined in any Coun∣cell, how disorderly soeuer it proceeded, a 1.51 In the second Councell of
Ephesus, there wanted not a sufficient number of worthy Bishops, yet because hee that tooke on him the Presidentship, vsed not accustomed moderation, neither permitted each man, freely to deliuer his opinion, it was not accepted, nor the Decrees of it re∣ceiued. From the not erring of Councels, the Treatiser passeth to the question con∣cerning * 1.52 the Churches authority, in making new Articles of faith: and seeketh to cleare the Romane Church from the imputation of challēging any such authority by my con∣fession: my words alleadged by him to this purpose are these. Our aduersaries con∣fesse, that the approbation and determination of the Church, cannot make that a truth which was not: nor that a Diuine or Catholique truth, that was not so before. But the good man hath vsed this poore sentence of mine, b 1.53 as Hanun vsed the messengers of Dauid, whose garments he cut off in the middle: a wrong afterwards seuerely, and yet most iustly, reuenged by Dauid. For it followeth in the same sentence, that Papists do thinke, that the Church, by her sole and bare determination may make that veritie to be in such sort Catholique, that euery one must expressely beleeue it, that was not soe, and in such degree Catholique before. Whereby it appeareth, that they attri∣bute a power to the Church, in a sort, to make new Articles of faith, in that shee may make things formerly beleeued, onely implicite, to bee necessary to bee expressely beleeued; not by euidence of proofe, or apparant deduction, from thinges expresse∣ly beleeued, but by her bare and sole authority; which not onely wee, but sundry right learned, godly, and wise, in the middest of the Church of Rome euer deni∣ed. Wherefore, let vs passe from this imagined aduantage, to consider the rest of his exceptions.
IN my third booke, and first Chapter, speaking of the Patriarche of Constantinople, I haue these words: In the second generall Councell holden at Constantinople, he was preferred before the other Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishoppe of Rome; in the great Councell of Chalce∣don, hee was made equall with him, and to haue all equall rights, priuiledges, and prerogatiues: because hee was Bishoppe of new Rome, as the other was of old. Hereupon the Treatiser breaketh out into these wordes: I cannot doe otherwise, but maruaile, that a man of his place and learning, doth not blush to committe such a noto∣rious * 1.54 vntrueth, to the Print and view of the world. For not to speake of the fals∣hood of the first part of his affirmation, because it is in some sort impertinent, that which hee saith of the Councell of Chalcedon, is most vntrue, repugnant to all antiqui∣ty, and not onely contrary to all proceedings, and the history of the sayd Councell, but also to the wordes of the Canon by him alleaged. Who would not thinke that there were some grosse ouersights committed by Mee, in these passages, vppon such an out∣crie? Wherefore, lette vs consider the seuerall parts of this his exception against Mee.
First, hee sayth, the Bishoppe of Constantinople was not preferred before the other two Patriarches, of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome, in the first Councell of Constantinople, as I haue sayd; and that I say vntruly, when I say hee was. Let vs therefore, heare the wordes of the Canon it selfe, and then let the Reader iudge betweene vs. The words of the third Canon of that Councell are these; Constantinopolitanus Episcopus obtineat praecipuum honorem ac dignitatem, secundum ac post Episcopum Romanum, ideo quòd Constantinopolis noua Ro∣ma est, that is: Let the Bishop of Constantinople, haue the chiefest honour and dignity after the Bishoppe of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome. If the words of the Canon suffice not to iustifie my assertion, let vs heare the Treatiser himselfe; in the same page hee citeth these words of the Bishoppes assembled in the Councell of Chal∣cedon, in their Synodall Epistle to Leo Bishoppe of Rome: Wee haue confirmed the rule of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers, which were gathered together at Con∣stantinople, vnder Theodosius of happie memory, which commaunded, that the See of Constantinople which is ordained the second, and to haue second honour after your most holy and Apostolique See, &c. Is not here as much sayd as I haue
written? Did not the holy Fathers, assembled at Constantinople, decree, that the Bishoppe of Constantinople, shall bee preferred before the Bishoppes of Alexandria and Antioch, and set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishoppe of Rome? and doe not the Fathers in the Councell of Chalcedon say they decreed soe? Haue all these holy Fathers committed notorious vntrueths to the Print and view of the world? It is well the Treatiser concealed his name, for otherwise hee must haue heard further from Mee.
But happily I mis-reported the Councell of Chalcedon when I sayd that in that Councell, the Bishoppe of Constantinople, was made equall with the Bishoppe of Rome, and to haue equall rights, priuiledges, and prerogatiues, because hee was Bishoppe of new Rome, as the other of old. Let vs therefore heare the words of the Bishoppes assembled in that Councell. The a 1.55 Fathers, say the Bishops of that Councell, did rightly giue preeminences, and priuiledges, to the Throne of old Rome, because that •…•…ittie was Lady and mistresse of the world, and the hundred and fifty Bishops, most dee•…•…ely beloued of God, moued with the same respect, gaue equall preeminences, and priui∣ledges to the most holy throne of New Rome, thinking it reasonable that that Cittie honoured with the inperiall seate, and Senate, and enioying equall preeminences, and priuiledges, with the elder Princely city, should bee made great as the other, in ecclesi∣asticall affaires, being second after it. Out of this decree, b 1.56 Nilus, in his booke of the Primacie of the Pope, obserueth first, that in the iudgement of these holy Bishoppes, the Pope hath the primacie from the Fathers, and not from the Apostles. Secondly, that he hath it in respect of the greatnesse of his Citty, beeing the seate of the Em∣pire, and not by reason of his succeding Peter, which vtterly ouerthroweth the Pa∣pacie. And therefore this good man, after all this outery raised against Mee, as if I had * 1.57 mis-reported the Councell, is forced to deny the authority of the Canon, as not beeing confirmed by the Bishoppe of Rome. See then how hee demeaneth himselfe. First, hee vrgeth, that the Bishoppe of new Rome, or Constantinople, could not haue e∣quall priuiledges with the Bishoppe of old Rome; because hee was to bee second, and next after him; where-unto Nilus answereth, that if that reason did hold, the Bi∣shoppe of Alexandria, could not bee equall to the Bishoppe of Constantinople in power and authority: nor the Bishoppe of Antioch vnto him: one of these beeing after another in order and honour: and thence concludeth, that if the Bishop of An∣tioch, might bee equall to the Bishoppe of Alexandria, and the Bishoppe of Ale∣xandria to the Bishoppe of Constantinople, notwithstanding the placing of one of them, in order and honour, before another, the Bishoppe of Constantinople might bee equall to the Bishoppe of Rome, though he were the second and next after him. Soe that, that which this Treatiser alleageth, that by the confession of these Fathers, the Bishoppe of Rome had alwaies the Primacy, is to no purpose; seeing the Primacie hee had was but of order and honour, which may bee yeelded to one amongst them that are equall in power; in which sense the Bishoppes assembled in the Councell of Chalcedon, in their relation to Pope Leo, call him their head. Secondly, hee confes∣seth, it may be gathered out of some Greeke copies of this Councell (hee might haue sayd, out of all copies, Greeke and Latine) that by this Canon, the Bishop of new Rome, or Constantinople, was soe made second, after the Bishop of old Rome, that equall pri∣uiledges were giuen vnto him. But addeth, that they were onely concerning iuris∣diction, to ordaine certaine Metropolitans of the East Church, as the Bishoppe of Rome had the like in the West: which euasion serueth not the turne. For the Bishops in this Councell, supposing that the reason why the Fathers gaue the preeminence to the Bishoppe of Rome, was the greatnesse of the Citty, doe the •…•…pon giue him the like preheminences. Soe that they meant to make him equall generally, and not in some particular thinges onely. Besides, if they did equall him in iuris∣diction, and in the ordination and confirmation of Metropolitans, it will follow, that they equalled him simply, and absolutely. For in the power of Order, there canne bee noe inequalitie betweene him and any other Bishoppe. Thirdly, hee sayth, That the Canon of this Councellis of no authority: and the
like he must say of the Canons of the first Councell of Constantinople, and that in Trul∣to, and so beare downe all that standeth in his way, as c 1.58 Binnius, and other of his fel∣lowes do, who feare not to charge these holy Fathers and Bishops, with lying & fals∣hood. But how doth he proue that this Canon is of no authority? Surely, the one∣ly reason he bringeth, is, because the Legates of the Bishop of Rome, resisted against it, and the Bishop himselfe neuer confirmed it, which is of litle force. For we know, that notwithstanding the long continued resistance of the Romane Bishops, yet in the end they were forced to giue way to this constitution. So that after the time of d 1.59 Iu∣stinian the Emperour, who confirmed the same, they neuer made any word about it any more. The words of Iustinians confirmation are these. Wee ordaine, according to the decrees of the holy Councels, that the most holy Bishop of olde Rome, shall be the first of all Bishops: And the most blessed Bishop of Constantinople, which is new Rome, shall haue the second place after the See of olde Rome, and shall be before all the rest in order and honour. Neither did Martian the Emperour, as the Treatiser most vntruely avoucheth, voide the Canons of these Councels, which in this sort were confirmed afterwards by Iustinian. Wherefore seeing it is evident, that almost the whole Chri∣stian world, in diuerse Generall Councels, feared not to make another Bishop, the Bi∣shop of Romes Peere: I hope the Reader will easily discerne, that I haue not passed the bounds of modestie, nor fallen into any vnseemely scoffing and railing vaine, as the Treatiser chargeth M•…•…, when I taxe the Antichristian and Lucifer-like pride of the Romish Antichrist, who, not-with-standing the contradiction of the greatest part of the Christian world, sought to subject all the members of Christ to himselfe; and pro∣nounced them all to be in the state of damnation, that bowe not downe before him as Vice-God, and supreame commaunder on earth. But, it seemeth, hee had a great desire, at the least to seeme to say some-thing against Me. For other-wise hee would not so shamelesly be-lye Me, as he doth, when hee saith: I would deriue the beginning of the * 1.60 Popes superioritie from Phocas, whereas in the place cited by him, I haue no such thing, but the contrary. For I affirme, that in the first Councell of Constantinople, the Bishop of that citty was set in degree of honour next vnto the Bishop of Rome, and before the other two Patriarches of Alexandria and Antioche, thereby confessing. that the Bishop of Rome had the first place at that time: Which when the Constan∣tinopolitan Bishop sought to haue, Phocas so concluded matters betweene these two Bishops, that the Bishop of Rome should haue the first and chief place in the church of GOD, and Constantinople the second; so that the praeeminence & chieftie which the Pope claimeth lawfully, was ancient, and not deriued from Phocas, howsoeuer he might, and happily did enlarge and extend it farther then was fit, giuing him a kinde of vniversalitie of jurisdiction.
FRom the Primacie of the Bishop of Rome, the Treatiser passeth to the infallibilitie of his judgment, and affirmeth that his Decrees, though he define without a Gene∣rall * 1.61 Councell, are that firme Rocke, and sure ground, vpon which our Faith is to bee builded; and that a man may well admit his definitions, as a ground of supernaturall Faith; and prudently builde an act of such supernaturall Faith vpon it. And yet in the same place confesseth, it is not yet authentically defined, that the Pope, in this sort, cannot erre. Which thing also a 1.62 Bellarmine, and b 1.63 Stapleton acknow∣ledge, professing expressely, that it is no matter of faith, to beleeue that the Pope cannot erre, if hee define without a Generall Councell: In which passages there is, as I suppose, a most grosse contradiction. For how can the infallibilitie of the Popes iudgement bee to them a Rocke to builde an act of supernaturall Faith vpon, who neither know nor beleeue, that his iudgement is infallible, but thinke so onely. Can a man certainely and vndoubtedly builde his perswasion of any thing vpon his sayings, whome hee neither knoweth, nor beleeueth to bee
free from errour. Wherefore, for the cleering of this poynt: First the Treatiser saith; Though the Church haue not authentically defined, that the Pope cannot erre, yet the Scriptures, and other arguments, brought to proue it, are so plaine, and there are so many that thinke so, that a man may very well admitte his definitions to be a ground of fayth. Whence it will follow, that a man may build his fayth vpon the Scriptures, and other arguments and reasons, without expecting the resolution of the Church, for the vnderstanding of the one, and discerning of the force and validity of the other. • Whereas else-where hee professeth, that without the resolution of the present Church, the letter of holy Scripture, and the workes of Antiquity, yeeld no certaine * 1.64 and diuine argument. Secondly, hee contradicteth himselfe, and denieth the sup∣posed infallibility of the Popes judgement, to bee the Rocke, on which the Church is builded, and maketh that rocke to be onely the consenting iudgement of the Pope, & other Bishoppes in a Generall Councell; contrary to the opinion of almost all learned & pious men, as he telleth vs himselfe, who thinke that that infallibility of judgment, and assurance of trueth, vpon which our faith is to be builded, is not partly in the Pope, and partly in other Bishops, but altogether in the Pope. Thus seeking to avoyd one contradiction, hee runneth into many.
Pag: 50: 51:
Pag 52.
Bell. Tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. contro. 4. l. 4 c. 7.
Relect. con∣tro. 1. de Eccl. in se q. 4. art. 5.
Pag. 53. 54.
Pag. 54. 55.
Aduersus Pro∣phanas here se∣on nouatio∣n•…•…. cap. 6.
Epist: ad soli∣tariam vitam agentes.
Catal. script. Eccles. in For∣tunatiano.
Relect. con. 3. quaest. 4.
De Roman. Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 4.
Contr. haeres. cap. 6.
Part 1. 56.
Pag. •…•…6.
Pag. 6•…•….
Pag. 66.
a Contra Fau∣stum Ma•…•…chae∣um. lib. 11. ca. 2.
Part. 3. lect. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. de vita spiritu∣ali animae. co∣rol. 7.
De dogmati∣bus extra cano∣nem Scripturae constit l. 4. c. 4.
d De via inve∣stigandae verae intelligentiae sacrae scripturae l. 2. c. 7.
Dial. l. 1. part. 2. c. 4.
Doctrin fid. l. 2. art. 2. c. 21
Contra epist. Manichei ca: 4.
Hugo de san∣cto victore in sententiis.
Vbi supra.
Pag. 78.
Pag. 81.
Triplication. pag. 188.
Pag. 179.
Pag. 88. & 89.
Act. 1. Luke 2.
b Annal. tom. 1. 34. 223.
Catal. scrip∣tor. in Iohanne Baron. Annal. tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 99. 5.
Cap. 20. 30. 31.
Cap. 24. 25
Annal. tom. 1. 34. 223.
Pag. 89.
In Epist. ad Colos. Homil. 12.
In Epist. ad. Colos. in princ. citat. à Baro•…•…: Annal. Tom. 1. 60. 13.
g Catal. script. Ecclesiast. in Paulo.
Ibid. Pag. 94.
In examin▪ Concili•…•… Tri∣dentini decrer. pri•…•…: se•…•… 4.
Part. 1. pag. 83. & seqq.
Epist ad Ne∣potem.
Pag. 96.
Booke 4 cap. 20.
Pag. 96.
c De Genesi ad literam. l. 10. c. 23.
Bell. de sacr; bapt. l. 1. c. 8.
Pag. 9•…•….
Leo ep. 2•…•….
pag. 106.
2. Sam. 10. 4.
Pag. 73•…•….
Synodus Chalcedon. actio. 16.
De primatu Papae. lib. 2.
Pag. 123.
In notis in conc. Chalced.
Novella 100.
Pag. 1•…•…9
Pag 1•…•…9
De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2.
Relect. contr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. q. 4.
Part. 1. 56.