The answere vnto the nine points of controuersy, proposed by our late soueraygne (of famous memory) vnto M. Fisher of the Society of Iesus And the reioynder vnto the reply of D. Francis VVhite minister. With the picture of the sayd minister, or censure of his writings prefixed.

A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE RESOLVTION OF FAITH, For the more full cleering of the ensuing Controuersies, about Tradition, Scripture, & the Church.

THIS Treatise is deuided into two Partes. In the first I will set downe, and refute the Protestant forme of Resolution. In the second declare and proue the Catholicke.

The Protestant Resolution of Fayth declared. §. 1.

PROTESTANTS perceaue, that if they pretend to belieue Christian Religion without seing the truth thereof, vpon the sole authority of God reuea∣ling, they must consequently belieue that God reuea∣led it vpon the word and authority of the Apostles, who preached the same to the world as doctrine vnto

them reuealed of God, & then agayne, that the Apostles did thus preach, & publish it by (d) 1.1 the light of the Church succeeding thē, deliuering it hād to hand as frō them; which Traditiō if they admit as a certayne & infallible rule, they are (e) 1.2 brought into streights, and mightily pressed to receaue many doctrines of Tradition, which they are now resolute neuer to belieue.

Therefore to lay the axe to the roote they would fayne build their fayth on an higher ground then the authority of God darkely reuealing, to wit (f) 1.3 on Diuine illu∣mination, whereby they see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued: whereby they are (g) 1.4 con∣uicted in consciēce by the euidence of the thing it selfe, that their Religion is Diuine: by the lustre, and resplendent verity of the matter of Scripture, and maiesty of the doctrine thereof, sensed according vnto their manner.

The former Resolution confuted by six Arguments. §. 2.

THis pretence of Resolution so much (h) 1.5 repeated by our Minister in this Reply, is refelled by 6. arguments as being extremely arrogant, ignorant, disorderly, fond, desperate, the deuise of Sathan.

The first Argument.

First, what more Arrogant then to challenge ordinary illuminations more high, rare, and excellent then the Apostles had? The Apostles, though they had this priuiledge that Christian Religion was to them immediatly reuealed of God, yet did they not see the resplendent verity & shi∣••ing truth of the Doctrine therof, but saw darkely, belieuing what they did not see, as S. Paul doth (i) 1.6 testify. Therefore illumina∣tiō shewing manifestly the truth of things belieued, challendged by Protestants, is more high, rare, and excellent light, then that the Apostles had, what greater (k) 1.7 ar∣rogancy? Swenkfeldians equall themselues vnto the Apostles, pretending immediate reuelation and teaching from God, such as the Apostles had; but Protestants preten∣ding to see manifestly the truth of things belieued, equall themselues vnto the Bles∣sed, whose happines is to see (l) 1.8 what we belieue; specially seing one point of the doctrine Protestants pretend to see, is the blessed Trinity, the true light and resplen∣dent verity whereof a man cānot see ma∣nifestly without being blessed.

The second Argument.

Secondly, what greater Ignorance a∣gainst the Rudiments of Christian Reli∣gion, then to resolue Christian fayth by the euidence and resplendent verity of the do∣ctrine,

& matter, and of things belieued? What is Diuine fayth but to belieue things we do (m) 1.9 not see, vpon the word of God reuea∣ling them, whom we know to be worthy of all credit? so that howsoeuer some lear∣ned men may otherwise see some doctri∣nes reuealed by the light of reason, yet neuer by the light of fayth: for fayth is that vertue, wherby we (n) 1.10 merit and please God, by shewing reuerence to his word; but what merit, or God-a-mercy is it to belieue what we see manifestly (o) 1.11 con∣uicted by the euidence therof? What pious affection to Gods word doth a man shew by seing it to be the truth?

The third Argument.

Thirdly, it is extreamest Disorder, as S. Augustine sayth (p) 1.12 first to see that we may belieue; wheras we ought first firmely to be∣lieue what we do not se, that so we may (q) 1.13 merit to see what wee haue belieued. But Protestants pretend first to see the resplendent verity of Scriptures doctrine, thence concluding (q) 1.14 that the Scripture being so high, and diuine truth, as they, forsooth, see it to be, cannot but be reuealed of God; and if (r) 1.15 reuealed of God, then preached by the A∣postles; if preached by the Apostles, then the full publike tradition of the Church in all subsequent ages, (s) 1.16 though the

Preachers & Professors therof were neuer seene, nor can be named. Thus disorderly they place the Cart before the Horse: they know that their Religion is supernaturall truth, before they be sure that it is either the doctrine of the Church, or of the Apo∣stles, or of God.

The fourth Argument.

Fourthly, it is great blindenes, and (t) 1.17 want of common sense for men that di∣gladiate amongst themselues about Scrip∣ture, and the doctrine therof, which is diuine and heauenly, and which not; to pretend that they are enabled by the spirit to discerne heauenly writings, doctrines, and senses from humane, by the euidence of the thing, as easily as men distinguish light from darknes, hony from gall. Protestants disagree and contend bitterly about the very Scriptures they dayly peruse, see, and behold, which text and sense is diuine and heauenly, which not▪ as (to omit many o∣ther Examples) about (t) 1.18 the Epistle of Iames, and about the sense of these words, This is my body; and yet they (u) 1.19 challenge resolution in these matters by the light of the spirit, making them to see manifestly the truth of the thinge, and to discerne true scripture in text and sense from false,

as easily as the light of the Sunne, from darknes: what can be more fond and ridi∣culous?

The fifth Argument.

Fifthly, if no man be saued without diuine and supernaturall fayth, and if su∣pernaturall fayth be resolued not by the authority of the Church of God, but by the resplendent verity of the Doctrine, what hope of saluation can wise and prudent men expect in the Protestant Church? Without diuine illuminatiō, making them to see the truth of things belieued, they cannot haue supernaturall fayth, nor be saued, if Protestants say true. Wise & pru∣dent men cannot be so fond, as to belieue that they see manifestly the truth of the things they belieue by Christian fayth, as the truth of the Trinity, of the Incarna∣tion, of the Reall presence, of the Resur∣rection of the dead, and other like articles belieued: What (x) 1.20 then can they expect, but most certaine damnation in the Pro∣testant Church, if this Protestant way to resolue supernaturall fayth, be the truth?

The sixt Argument.

Finally, no deuise more proper of Sa∣tan to entrap simple soules, then the pro∣mise of cleare and manifest Truth; this being the very (y) 1.21 meanes of delusion, wherby he deceyued our first parent Eue,

and (z) 1.22 wonne her to tast the forbidden fruite▪ for what more gratefull vnto men that grone vnder the (a) 1.23 yoke of Christian au∣thority, pressing them to belieue what they do not see, thē this (b) 1.24 promise of Heresy, Follow vs & you shal be like vnto God seeing the truth, you shall by following vs not darkly belieue, but know good from bad, truth from falshood in matters of Religion, by euidence & res∣plendant verity of the thing? With these pro∣mises sayth S. Augustine (c) 1.25 the soules of men are naturally ouerioyed, & whilest they gape af∣ter the promised sight of diuine truth whereof as yet they be not capable, the cosening promisers cast into their mouth, & make them deuoure the poysoned morsells of their falshood.

Concerning the light of Scripture. §. 3.

CONCERNING the light of Scrip∣ture, two thinges are euident. First some arguments of probability may be drawne from the Scriptures, to proue they are of God, which serue for the comfort of Belieuers, and may somewhat incline Infi∣dels to belieue vpō other greater motiues, to wit the authority of God & his Church. This probable euidence, & euident proba∣bility is al which the testimonies of Schole∣men brought by the Minister, affirme.

Secondly, the Scripture hath not light to shew it selfe with euident certainty, to be the word of God, but is belieued to be such without being seene, as much as any other

point and mystery of fayth, to wit, vpon the word of God so reuealing deliuered by tradition.

This is demonstrated, because to be the word of God and the rule of fayth, is to be true and certayne, not only in some part•• but also in al, & euery part & particle ther∣of, so that, as sayth our (e) 1.26 Minister, no lyer can speake therein: and if (f) 1.27 one sentence of Scripture be prooued false, the credit of the whole is lost. But it is impossible that any man should know by the light & euidence of the sense and doctrine of Scripture, that the Scripture according to euery booke & chapter, leafe and line, is certayne and as∣sured truth, and that no lye or falshood is contayned therein, as these seauen Argu∣ments euince.

The first Argument.

First, because the (g) 1.28 Fathers teach, and (h) 1.29 Protestants, euen our (i) 1.30 Minister, ac∣knowledge, that there be many darke and obscure passages of Scripture; that the Scripture is full of innumerable difficul∣tyes; that sometimes one (k) 1.31 can hardly so much as giue a probable guesse at their meaning: but these texts and places can∣not be knowne to containe diuine truth & no falshood by the euidēce of the doctrine▪ Therefore we cannot know the Scripture to be the word of God, that is, nothing but truth, by the euidence of the doctrine. Hēce

appeareth, that Protestants teaching that ••he Scripture is known to be the word of God, and that no lye is contayned therein by the euidence and light of the doctrine, cōtradict themselues in saying, that in ma∣ny places it is difficill and darke, as they cannot assuredly vnderstand it. For how can they know by the light of the sense, or doctrine, that the texts not vnderstood containe nothing but truth?

The second Argument.

Secondly the Scriptures are pretended to be known by the maiesty (l) 1.32 & purity of the doctrine, but though some mysteries of the Scriptures carry a maiesty in respect of naturall reason, and a shew of sublimity a∣boue it, as the Blessed Trinity; yet (m) 1.33 other points of Scripture seeme vnto reason ri∣diculous and childish: As that the serpent did speake to the woman; that Adam and Eue were naked without perceiuing them∣selues to be so; that there was day and night before the sunne was created, & the like. Therfore we must haue some other & surer ground then this maiesty of the do∣ctrine, to be certayne that the Scripture is nothing but truth, & Gods infallible word.

The third Argument.

Thirdly, wheras the (n) 1.34 Minister much vrgeth the harmony of Scripture, to proue

the same to be of God. Though this harmo∣ny appeare in diuers thinges, yet who doth not know, that innumerable seeming con∣tradictions are obiected against Scripture, (o) 1.35 many of which are only probably ans∣wered by the Fathers, many answered by thinges assumed without proofe, only be∣cause otherwise we must admit contradi∣ction in Scripture, (p) 1.36 some places not ful∣ly answered, but the Fathers were forced to fly from literall vnto allegoricall senses: how then could the ancient Fathers know the harmony of Scripture by the euidence of the thing, & thereon ground their faith, that the Scripture is of God? Or if they could, not how can we? For what the Mi∣nister boastingly affirmeth (q) 1.37 of himselfe and his fellowes, we find at this day a perfect harmony of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues, and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament: This Ministeriall bragge, I say, of their finding the harmony of all Scriptures at this day, aboue all the Ancients, by the euidence of the thing, is incredible: for men cannot be more sure of the perfect harmony of Scriptures, then they are sure that all contradictions laid to the charge of Scripture, haue true soluti∣ons. But no man liuing euer was, or is sure by euidence, that all the solutions and ans∣weres vsed to reconcile Scriptures, be the truth, no not Protestants. For did they vn∣derstand assuredly euery text of Scripture

and euery seeming contradiction is recon∣ciled, could there be amōgst thē such diffe∣rent and aduerse exposition of Scripture? Therefore no man euer did, or doth know the perfect harmony of all Scriptures by the euidence of the thing, nor consequent∣ly the Scripture to be of God, by the eui∣dence of this harmony.

The fourth Argument.

Fourthly, wheras the Minister pretends the Scripture to be known by the style af∣firming, that seeing God hath bestowed tongues and voyces on men by which they may be known, the Iesuite cannot persuade any reasonable man that God so speaketh in Scripture as men eleuated by grace cannot discerne the same to be his voyce and word. This is spoken with more confi∣dence then consideration. God hath an (s) 1.38 Eternall Increate manner of speaking, to wit, the production of the Eternall Word, by which the Blessed discerne him from all o∣ther speakers, by the euidence of blisse-full learning; but no created manner of spea∣king (t) 1.39 is so proper to God, as it can be knowne to be his speaking by the meere sound of the voyce, without speciall reue∣lation, or els some consequent miraculous effect. Which I declare and proue by this argument. If there were a man that had no proper sound and accent of voyce, but could, and did exactly vse the voyce of eue∣ry man as he pleased; this man could not

be known by his voyce. Likewise if a man had no proper stile in writing, but could perfectly write the stile of any authour as he should thinke good; he could not be knowne from other writers by his phrase. But God hath no proper external sound or accent of voyce, nor any proper stile or phrase in writing, but vseth the prope•• tongue of those men, whome it pleaseth him to inspire, folding vp his heauenly cō∣ceites in the Prophets naturall language, whence ariseth (u) 1.40 such difference of stiles amongst the sacred writers. So that it is great want of discretiō to thinke to know a book to be of God by the stile, abstracting from the matter.

Now the matter is such as it doth not with euidence certainly shew it selfe to be nothing but truth, as hath beene prooued. Learned men, as hath been sayd, may from within Scripture gather arguments that probably perswade that the same is the word of God, but euident probability can∣not be the ground of persuasion certayne and ineuident; it may be a comfortable cō∣firmation, not an assured foundation of Fayth.

The fifth Argument.

If Scriptures be not cleere and euident but only to such as haue the light and fa∣culty of fayth, they cannot be the prime principles of Fayth, euident in themselues,

& not prooued by the principles of faith. This is cleere, because euery faculty suppo∣seth her principles, & by the light of them which the student bringes with him, she sheweth truths pertinēt vnto her skill that were hidden. But the Scriptures are not cleere and euident, but to such only as haue aforehand the light and faculty of fayth, yea they be dark & obscure vnto Infidels, as not only the (x) 1.41 Fathers teach, but also Protestants graunt. Therefore the Scrip∣tures be not the prime principles of fayth supposed before fayth, which Infidells seeing to be true, resolue to belieue the my∣steryes of Fayth; but only are secondary truths darke and obscure in themselues, be∣lieued vpon the prime principles of fayth.

The sixt Argument.

Hence ariseth the sixt argument which is à priori. If Scriptures may be prooued by the light of a superiour principle of Fayth, they are not the prime principles of sayth euident in themselues and indemon∣strable. But Scripture is prooued by a su∣periour & more euident principle of faith. For the doctrine of the Scripture is proued to be true, because God the prime verity authour of Scripture cannot deceaue, nor be deceaued. Now, that prime verity can∣not deceaue nor be deceaued is a principle of fayth superiour and more euident then that the Scriptures be of God and diuine.

Therfore Scripture is not the supreme in∣demonstrable principle of Fayth, but is proued to be truth by the authority of God reuealing it; to be of God by the miracles of the Apostles publishing it; to be the A∣postles by the tradition of the Church, de∣liuering it as such; euen as all as other my∣steryes of Fayth are proued.

The seauenth Argument.

Finally Protestants for this their fancy of finall resolution of fayth by the resplen∣dēt verity of the doctrine, haue not any ar∣gument worth a rush. Their chiefe Ar∣gument are two. First, Scripture is a prin∣ciple of fayth; but principles are to be eui∣dent in themselues, and to be knowne by their own light. This argument (much & often vrged by you, & your (a) 1.42 Brother) is seely, because al principles must not be eui∣dēt in thēselues, but only the first & prime principles of euery faculty or hability of knowledge, as all know. But Scriptures are not (as hath been shewed) the prime prin∣ciples of fayth, but are secondary princi∣ples, which being known, we by the light of them may know many other things.

The second argument. (b) 1.43 The Scripture is light, for the word of God is light, and Scripture is the word of God. But euery light is euident in it selfe, and knowne by the euidence it hath in it selfe. Therefore the Scriptures must of themselues appear••

and shew that they are diuine truth. I Answere, the Minor of this Argument is false, & the whole argu∣ment grounded vpon ignorance, in not discerning a difference betwixt corporall & spirituall light. True it is, that euery corporal light that doth enlighten the eye of body must be euident in it selfe & primely & originally cleere, but not so euery truth that illu∣strates mans vnderstāding. The reason is, because the eye of body cannot by thinges seene, inferre & con∣clude things that are hidden, but only can apprehēd what doth directly and immediatly shew it selfe. But mans Vnderstanding not only apprehends what sheweth it selfe, but by things knowne inferreth & breedeth in it selfe knowledge of thinges hidden.

Hence vnto Vnderstanding, though things shew∣ing themselues directly, and by their owne light, be her prime principles, and meanes to know other thinges; yet also things hidden in themselues be∣ing formerly knowne by the light of authori∣ty, may thereby become lights, that is, meanes to know yet further of things hidden. So that spea∣king of spirituall and intellectuall lights, it is false that all lights enlightening mans Vnderstanding to know other thinges, are euident in themselues; yea some secondary Principles and Lights there are, which must be shewed by superior light, before they become lights. In which kind is the Scripture, being a Light vnto the faythfull, because knowne by the Churches perpetuall Tradition to be from the A∣postles, by the Apostles miraculous authority to be of God, by Gods supreme Verity who cannot de∣ceaue, nor be deceaued, to be the truth.

THE SECOND PART. About the Catholike Resolution of Fayth.

NO doubt but that to the end a man may belieue, diuine inward illuminatiō annointing his hart is necessary. The question is, what is the externall in∣fallible ground vnto which Diuine inspiration mo∣ueth men to adhere, that they may be setled in the true sauing fayth? The answere in few words is this. The Resolution of true Religion is firmely assured about foure Principles, agaynst foure Enemyes, by foure Perfections belonging vnto God, as he is Prima veri∣tas, Prime and Infinite Verity, that cannot deceaue, nor be deceaued. This I declare and proue.

The first Principle prooued. §. 1.

THE first Enemy of true Christian Religion is the Pagan, (a) 1.44 or Prophane (b) 1.45 Philosopher, who is persuaded he may attayne vnto perfect felicity and Sanctity by the knowledge of sole naturall truth. A∣gainst this enemy is the first principle of true Chri∣stian Religion, The Doctrine of Saluation, is that only which was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets. About this Principle true belieuers are resolued by a perfection which in the first place belonges vnto God as he is Prime & Infinite verity, to wit, that he cannot lye nor reueale any vntruth when he speaks immediatly himselfe by secret inspiration. Hēce we thus resolue. God the Prime

verity cannot reueale vntruth, specially about the State-matters of saluation when he speakes by secret inspiration immediatly himselfe. But he reuealed in this manner by inspiration vnto his Prophets, that men cannot serue him truly, nor be saued without knowing supernatural truthes beyond the (c) 1.46 reach of Reason, which truthes in particular he reuealed vnto them. Therfore the doctrine of saluation is su∣pernaturall truth, such as was reuealed of God vnto his Prophets and others, whome he did vouchsafe to teach immediatly by himselfe, and send them to be the teachers of the world.

This the prime and highest principle of Christi∣an resolution Protestants not in expresse words, but in deeds, and by consequence, reiect from being the stay of their fayth. For as they that belieue the do∣ctrine of Aristotle lastly and finally by the light and euidence therof, because it sheweth it selfe to be con∣formable to reason, do not build vpon the authority of Aristotle, nor vpon his bare world; euen so they that belieue the doctrine of Scripture by the light & resplendent verity thereof, because it shewes it selfe to be diuine and heauenly truth, as Protestants pre∣tend to doe, do not build vpon the authority of God the authour and doctour of Scripture, nor his bare, meere, & pure word. This is most euident for who doth not see that it is one thing to belieue the word of some Doctour by the light of the doctrine, and an∣other to belieue his word through reuerence vnto his authority, as knowing him to be infallible in his word? Hence the Protestant fayth is so independent of the authority of God, as though God were not prime verity, but fallible in his words, yet their fayth

might subsist as now it doth. This is cleere, because let one be neuer so fallible and false, yet when his sayings shew themselues to be true, we may (yea we cannot but) belieue his word, in respect of the resplendent verity therof. But Protestants pre∣tend that the sayings of Scripture shew themselues to be true by the light & lustre of the Doctrine belie∣ued therin, & vpon this resplendēt verity they build lastly their fayth: Therfore though God were falli∣ble, & might be false, yet their fayth, that his Scrip∣ture is truth, which sheweth it selfe to be truth by the resplendent verity of the doctrine, might subsist. Is this the true Christian fayth which depends not v∣pon Gods being the Prime and Infallible Verity? which giues no more credit vnto God▪ then men wil giue vnto a lyar, to wit, to belieue him so farre as they see him? To credit the word of his teaching so farre as it sheweth it selfe to be truth by the light of the doctrine? Verily this forme of Fayths resolution is grosse and vnchristian, which I am persuaded Pro∣testants would not mantayne, did they well vnder∣stand what they say, or could they find some other way of Resolution, wherby they might know what doctrine is the Apostles, and therfore Gods, without being bound to relye vpon the Tradition of the Church.

The second Principle demonstrated. §. 2.

SOME will say, God is prime Verity, by whose word we cannot be deceaued: But how prou•• you these pretended diuine reuelations to be truly such? Here cōmeth in the second enemy of true Reli∣gion, who following his blind passion labours to de∣priue

the world of the proofes of diuine reuelations that are more euident then the Sunne. This Enemy is the Iew, who graūting the doctrine of saluation to be supernaturall truth reuealed of God, denies the re∣uealed doctrine of God to be Apostolicall, that is, the do∣ctrine which the Apostles preached to the whole world as the doctrine of saluation. Agaynst this E∣nemy is the second Principle of true Religion, The Doctrine of saluation reuealed of God is no other, but Apo∣stolicall, that is, which the Apostles published to the world. About this principle true belieuers are resolued by a second perfection of the prime Verity, which is, That he cannot with his seale, that is with miracles and workes pro∣per to himselfe, warrant or subsigne falshood, deuised or vē∣ted by any man. Hence we make this resolution. God being Infinite verity cannot by signe and miracle te∣stify falshood deuised and vented by men: God hath by manifest miracles testifyed the doctrine of the A∣postles to be his word and message: Ergo, the same is not a false religion inuented of men, but the doctrin of Saluation reuealed of God.

The miracles by which the Prime verity hath giuen testimony vnto the Apostles doctrine may be reduced vnto foure heades. First the miraculous pre∣dictions of the Prophets, most cleerly & punctually fullfilled in Christ Iesus, his B. Mother, his Apostles, his Church. Secondly, the miraculous workes in all kindes which Christ Iesus, and his disciples haue wrought, which are so many, so manifest, so won∣derfull & aboue nature, as we cannot desire greater euidences. Thirdly, the miraculous conuersion of the world, by twelue poore vnlearned Fisher-men, the world (I say) which thē was in the flowre of hu∣man

pride & glory, in the height of human eruditi∣on and learning bringing them to belieue a doctrine seemingly absurd in reason, to follow a course of dis∣cipline truly repugnant vnto sensuality, to imbrace a way of saluation so contemptible in the eye of men, that verily, the worke of the worlds creation doth not more cleerly discouer God the Authour of Nature, then this of the worlds Conuersion doth shew it selfe to proceed from the Authour of grace. Fourthly, the miraculous cōtinuance of a Christian Catholike Church, spread ouer the world, foretold by our Sauiour, notwithstanding so many persecu∣secutions by the Iewes, Heathens, Heretikes, Politi∣tians, and dissolute Christians.

Against this Principle of Resolutiō, Ministers (d) 1.47 and our Minister (e) 1.48 in particular, obiect, that mira∣cles are only probable, & not sufficient testimonies of di∣uine doctrine, yea (f) 1.49 Bellarmine sayth, we cannot know euidētly that miracles are true, for if we did, we should know euidently that our fayth is true, & so it should not be faith. I Answer, that such euidēce as doth exclude the necessity of pious reuerence, & affection vnto Gods word, euidence I say, enforcing men to belieue, can∣not stand with true fayth. If we knew by Mathema∣ticall or Metaphysicall euidence that the miracles of Christ, and his Apostles were true, perchance this euidence would compell men to belieue, and ouer∣come the naturall obscurity and seeming impossibi∣lity of the Christian doctrine. And therefore, as Bel∣larmine sayth, we cannot be mathematically and altogea∣ther infallibly sure by the light of nature, that mi∣racles are true.

Notwithstanding we must not deny what Scrip∣tures

affirme, (g) 1.50 that miracles are a sufficient testi∣mony binding men to belieue, and consequently that we may know them to be true, (h) 1.51 by Physicall eui∣dence, as we are sure of things we see with our eyes, or of such as being once euident to the world, are by the worlds full report declared vnto vs. Neyther doth this Physicall euidence of miracles take away the merit of Fayth. The reason is, because this eui∣dence not being altogeather, and in the highest de∣••ree infallible by it selfe (for our senses may some∣tymes be deceaued) is not sufficient to ouercome the naturall obscurity, darknes, & seeming falshood of things to be belieued, vpon the testimony of those miracles. For the mystery of the Trinity, of the In∣carnation, of the Reall Presence, and the like seeme to reason as impossible, as any miracle can seeme eui∣dent vnto sense. Hence when fayth is proposed by miracles, ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming eui∣dence of the miracles, and the seeming darkenes and falshood of the Christian doctrine. Agaynst which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by the sole e∣••idence of miracles, except he be inwardly holpen by the light of Gods spirit, mouing him by pious af∣fection to cleaue to the doctrine which is by so cleere testimonyes proued his word. As a man shut vp in •• chamber with two lights, wherof the one maketh ••he wall seeme white, the other blew, cānot be firmly ••esolued what to think till day light enter, & obscu∣ring both those lights, discouer the truth: Euen so a man looking vpon Christian doctrines, by the light of Christian miracles done to proue them, will be mooued to iudge them to be truth; but looking vpon ••hem through the euidence of their seeming impossi∣bilities

vnto reason, they will seeme false: nor will he be able firmely to resolue for the side of faith, vntill the light of diuine grace enter into his hart, making him to preferre through pious reuerence towards God, the so proposed authority of his word, before the seeming impossibility of mans reason.

The third Principle demonstrated. §. 3.

BEING resolued that the doctrine of God is sa∣uing truth, & the Apostles doctrine the doctrine of God, we meete with a third Enemy who labours to driue vs out of the beatē high way, to know what doctrine is the Apostles. This Enemy is the Here∣tike, a domestike Enemy, and therfore more dange∣rous. These men graunt the doctrine of Saluation to be supernaturall and reuealed, the reuealed to be the Apostolicall, and no other; but they will haue the rule of knowing what doctrine the Apostles taught to be speciall illumination of the spirit, not Catho∣like Tradition. For there is a double kind of Tradi∣tion from the Apostles, that may be pretended. The one publicke, by the vniforme perpetuall teaching of Pastours. The other secret by the teaching of some priuate men, pretending to haue been taught more singularly and highly, then other men by the Apo∣stles. The second kind of Tradition hand to hand from the Apostles, by the secret teaching of an in∣uisible Church, Heretikes haue pretended, but neuer the first of publike and Catholike Tradition.

The cause why Heretikes prescribe the course to resolue by illuminations, is, because an Heretike will not admit doctrines deliuered vnto him by the consent of his Christian Ancestors, but with choyce

receaue some, and reiect others, as he findeth good. Whence he hath the (d) 1.52 Name Heretike, that is, one who is his owne caruer, and chooser in matters of Religion, still (e) 1.53 pretending for all his fancyes Scri∣pture, vnderstood by the light of the spirit▪ If Catho∣like Tradition were by him admitted, as a rule infal∣lible to know what doctrine the Apostles preached, he could not haue liberty to choose according to his best liking, but would be bound (f) 1.54 to receaue the forme of Religion, made vnto him by Tradition of Ancestours. Hence, agaynst this way of Catholike Tradition he bandeth with might and mayne, char∣ging the same to be fallible, that errours may secret∣ly creep into it, teaching men to retyre vnto the in∣ward teaching of the spirit, as the only secure meanes to know which be the Apostolicall Scripturs, which the Apostolicall interpretation of them.

Agaynst this Enemy is the third principle of true Christian Religion, The Apostolicall doctrine is the Ca∣tholike, to wit, the doctrine that is deliuered from the Apostles by the Tradition of whole Christiā worlds of Fathers, vnto whole Christiā worlds of Childrē, that in matters of Christiā Religion, Heresy, that is, priuate election and choyce may haue no place. A∣bout this principle, faith is resolued and assured by a third perfection belonging to God, as he is Prime Veri∣ty. This is, that he cannot so much as conniue vnto falshood whereby he become any way accessory of deceauing then that simply, readily, religiously belieue what they haue iust reason to thinke to be his word. But there is iust and suffi∣cient reason to belieue that doctrine deliuered by ful and perpetuall Tradition, hand to hand from the A∣postles, is verily their doctrine, and therefore Gods.

Ergo God being the prime verity cannot permit Ca∣tholicke Christian Tradition to be falsifyed.

How the Churches Tradition is proued infallible, independently of Scripture. §. 4.

HENCE is answered the common Obiection which Protestants make, that Tradition of do∣ctrine from hand to hand made by men, is fallible, & subiect to errour, for they may deceaue, or be de∣ceaued. If We answere, that Christian Catholicke Tradition of doctrines is infallible, through Gods speciall assistance, They reply, this infallibility of traditiō through diuine assistāce cannot be knowne but by the Scripture, and so before we can build our fayth on Tradition as infallible, we must know the Scripture to be the word of God, and consequently we cannot build our persuasion of the Scriptures being Apostolicall and diuine, on Tradition, except we comit a Circle.

I Answere. First, that Catholicke Tradition is proued to be (m) 1.55 simply infallible, by the very natu∣re thereof. For Traditiō being full report about what was euident vnto sense, to wit, what doctrines and Scriptures the Apostles publickly deliuered vnto the world, it is impossible it should be false. Worlds of men cannot be vniformely mistaken and decea∣ued about a matter euident to sense, and not being deceaued, being so many in number, so deuided in place, of so different affectious and conditious, it is impossible they (n) 1.56 should so haue agreed in their tale, had they maliciously resolued to deceaue the world. Wherefore it is impossible that what is deli∣uered by full Catholicke tradition from the Apo∣stles,

should be a thing by the traditioners first deui∣sed. Secondly, I say, that how soeuer human Tradi∣tion may be by nature fallible, yet the Christian Ca∣tholicke is assisted of God that no errour can creep into the same. Which diuine assistance to be due vnto it, is demonstrated by the perfection of Diuine verity, & by the nature of tradition, precedently & independently of Scripture, and therefore without any Circle by two Arguments.

The first is the same we before touched. God be∣••ng Prime Verity cannot conniue, that the meanes of conueying the Apostles doctrine vnto posterity which bindeth Religious belieuers to receaue the same as his word, should secretly be infected with damnable Errour. For being Infinit Verity in his knowledg, this cannot be done without his priuity. Knowing thereof, being infinit veracity in his tea∣ching the truth, he cannot yield that the meanes of conueying his truth obliging men to belieue, should ••mperceptibly be poysoned, whereby men for their deuotion vnto his Verity incurre damnation. This being so, I assume: But the Catholicke tradition of doctrine from the Apostles bindeth Christians to whome it is deliuered, to belieue the same as Gods word. This I proue. When doctrine is sufficiently proposed as Gods word, men are bound to belieue it. But that is sufficiently proposed as Gods word vnto Christians which is vnto them sufficiently proposed ••s Doctrine of the Apostles. Now, that Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is sufficient proposition and proofe, that that Doctrine is the A∣postles, is proued; first because Catholicke tradition of doctrine is by nature simply infallible, as hath bin shewed,

but proposition knowne simply to be infallible, is sufficient to bind men to belieue. Secondly, Catho∣licke tradition, that is, the report of a world of An∣cestors cōcerning sensible matters of fact, is so preg∣nant and obligatory, as it were insolent madnes to deny it. In so much, as euen (o) 1.57 Caluin sayth, that such as deny the tradition of Ancestors concerning the authors of the Canonicall bookes, are rather to be reformed with a Cudgell, then refuted by Argu∣ment. Thirdly, God himselfe sendeth children vnto the tradition of their Ancestors to learne of them the sensible workes of his miraculous power done in former ages, (p) 1.58 Aske thy Father and he will tell thee, thyne Auncestors and they will certifye thee. Fourthly, the proofe of tradition is so full and sufficient as it conuinceth infidels. For though they be blind not to see the doctrine of the Apostles to be Diuine, yet are they not so voyd of common sense, impudent and obstinate as they will deny the doctrine of Christian Catholicke tradition to be truly Christian & Apo∣stolical. Whence two thinges are euident. First, that Catholicke tradition from the Apostles is an exter∣nall sufficient proposition, and a conuincing argu∣ment that the doctrin so deliuered is Apostolicall, & consequently Diuine reuealed Doctrine. Secondly, that Heresy which stands agaynst this tradition, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 willfull obstinacy and madnes, and worse then Pa∣ganisme.

The second argument. God being Prime verity binding all men that will be saued to know and fir∣mely belieue the Apostles doctrine, euen vntill the worlds end, cannot conniue that the only Meanes to know this doctrin perpetually, and euer after the

••postles decease, be secretly & insensibly poysoned with errours agaynst the truth of Saluation. This is ••eere. The only meanes whereby men succeeding ••he Apostles may know assuredly what Scriptures ••nd doctrins they deliuered to the Primitiue Catho∣••icke Church, is the Catholicke tradition by worlds ••f Christiā Fathers & Pastors, vnto worlds of Chri∣••tian children and faythfull people, Ergo, Catholike Tradition is by God the Prime verity, so defended, ••reserued, & assisted as no errour agaynst Saluation ••an be deliuered by the same, & consequently it ap∣••eareth by the very notion of prime Verity indepen∣••ently of Scripture, that Catholicke tradition is ••roued to be infallible, through Gods speciall assi∣••tance.

••he difference between Propheticall, and ordinary Diuine Illumination, by which Protestants Cauills are answered. §. 5.

AGAYNST the Minor of the former argument, Protestants obiect first, that though the testi∣••ony of tradition be a good (q) 1.59 morall, human, and pro∣••able proofe, that these Scriptures were by the Apo∣••tles deliuered; yet the chiefe ground of fayth in ••his poynt, is inward illumination, & the testimony ••f the spirit speaking within our hart, and assuring 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the truth. I answere, God may assure men of ••ruth by inward inspiration two wayes; first, by the ••••ght of inward teaching and inspiration, without ••he mediation and concourse of any externall in∣••allible ground of assurance. Secondly, by the light ••f his spirit inwardly mouing the heart of man to ••dhere vnto an infallible externall ground of assu∣rance

proposed vnto him, God by the helpe of his grace making him apprehend diuinely of the autho∣rity thereof. This second manner of inward assu∣rance is ordinarily giuen vnto euery Christiā, with∣out (r) 1.60 which no man is able to belieue supernatu∣rally, and as he ought vnto Saluation. The first man∣ner of assurance is extraordinary, and immediate re∣uelation, such as the Prophets had. Wherfore Prote∣stants, if they callenge this first manner of inward teaching & assurance, they approue Enthusiasme, & immediat reuelatiō, which in the Swenkfeldians they seeme to condemne. If they challenge only the se∣cond manner of inward teaching and assurance, then besides inward light, they must assigne an ex∣ternall sufficiēt ground why they belieue these Scrip∣tures to be the Apostles, & then I aske what ground this is besides Tradition?

Secondly, they wil obiect, that though they haue no infallible ground besides the teaching of the Spi∣rit, yet they are not taught immediatly in Propheti∣call māner because they are also taught by an exter∣nal probable motiue, to wit the Churches tradition. I Answere, that except they assigne an externall in∣fallible meanes besides Gods inward teaching, they cannot auoyde, but they challenge immediate reue∣lation. For whosoeuer knoweth thinges assuredly by the inward teaching of the spirit, without an ex∣ternal infallible motiue vnto which he doth adhere, is assured prophetically, though he haue some exter∣nall probable motiues so to thinke. S. Peter had some coniecturall signes of Simon Magus his per∣uersity & incorrigible malice; yet seing (s) 1.61 he knew it assuredly, we belieue he knew it by the light of

prophesy, because besides inward assurance he had no externall infallible ground. If one see a man giue publickly almes▪ though he perceaue probable tokēs & signes that he doth it out of a Vayne-glorious in∣tention; yet cannot he be sure therof but by the light of immediat reuelation, because the other tokens are not grounds sufficient to make him sure. For if a man be sure, & haue no ground of this assurance in any thinge out of his owne hart, it is cleere, that he is assured immediatly, & only by Gods inward spea∣king. Wherfore Protestāts, if they will disclayme in truth, and not in wordes only from immediate reue∣lation and teaching, they must eyther grant tradi∣tion to be infallible, or else assigne some externall in∣fallible ground besides Tradition, whereby they are taught what Scriptures the Apostles deliuered.

Thirdly, they will say they know the Scriptures to be from the Apostles, by an externall infallible ground besides Tradition, to wit, by certayne lights, lustres, euidences of truth, which they see to blaze, & emane from the thinges reuealed in Scripture, by which they are sure that the doctrin thereof is heauenly. I Answere, If they did see such lustres and lights that cleerly, & not only probably, conuince the doctrine of Scripture to be heauenly truth, they be not indeed assured by immediate darke reuelation, but by an higher degree of heauenly knowledge, to wit, by the supernaturall light and euidence of the thinge be∣lieued, which is a paradox, and pretence farre more false, and sensibly absurd, then is the challenge of immediate reuelation, or Enthusiasme, as hath beene shewed. Wherefore, seing that God hath chosen no externall meanes besides Catholicke Tra∣dition

to make men know perpetually, vntill the consummation of the world, what doctrins & Scrip∣tures the Apostles published, it is cleere vnto euery Christian, that this is the meanes by him chosen, & which he doth assist, that it cannot be obnoxious vnto errour: so that precedently and independently of Scripture, the Catholicke tradition of Christian pastors & fathers is proued to be infallible, through Diuine speciall assistance, and therefore a sufficient ground for Fayths infallible assurance.

The Fourth Principle proued. §. 6.

IF we be resolued, that sauing truth is that which God reuealed, that he reuealed that which the Apostles published, the doctrine published by then the Catholicke Christian Tradition, our search is ended, when we haue found the Christian Catho∣licke Church. Heere the fourth Enemy of true Chri∣stian Religion offers himselfe, to wit, the Willfull Ig∣norant. These kind of men not only hold agaynst Pa∣gans, the doctrine of saluation to be that only which was reuealed of God; agaynst Iewes, the reuealed of God to be only the Apostles, but also in wordes they condemne the Heretikes & professe that no doctrine is truly Apostolicall but the Catholick; yet in resol∣uing what doctrin is the Catholicke, they follow the partiality of their affections. These are tearmed by (t) 1.62 S. Augustine, Credentes haereticorum, Belieuers of Heretikes, building vpon the seeming learning and sanctity of some men; being therein so willfull, as to venture their soules that such doctrine is Ca∣tholike, not caring nor knowing what they say, nor what the word Catholicke put into the Creed by the Apo∣stles

doth import. Some be so ignorant, as to thinke that the word Catholicke doth signify the same, as conforme vnto Scripture. And so what doctrine is Catholicke, they resolue by the light and lustre of the doctrine, or by the in ward teaching of the spirit, whereby they fall vpon the principle of Heresy, and become not so much belieuers of Heretikes as Here∣tikes. Some vnderstand by the word Catholicke, Doctrine truly Catholicke, that is, deliuered frō the Apostles by Christian worlds of Fathers, vnto Chri∣stian worlds of children, yet are so blind as to giue this Title vnto Sects lately sprung vp, which through pretended singular Illuminations, gotten by per∣using the Scripture, haue chosen formes of fayth op∣posite one agaynst another, reformed agaynst the forme to them deliuered by their Ancestors: These Sects I say, they tearme Catholicke, which not to be Catholicke in this sense, is as euident as that night is not day.

Some through willfull ignorance, no lesse gros∣sely deuide the name of Catholicke according to the diuision of Countryes, naming the Catholicke do∣ctrin of the Church of France, of the Church of En∣gland &c. Which speach hath no more sense, then this: A fashion euer since Christ vniuersally ouer the world, newly begun, and proper vnto England.

Agaynst this Enemy true Religion is resolued in this fourth principle, The Catholicke Tradition of doctrine from the Apostles is the Roman. By Roman we vnderstand not only the Religion professed within the Citty & Diocesse of Rome, but ouer the whole world by them that any where acknowledg the pri∣macy of Peter and his successours, which now is the

Roman Bishop. About this principle fayth is assu∣red by a fourth perfection belonging vnto God, as he is prime Verity reuealing truth, which is, that he cannot permit, that the knowing of sauing doctrine be impossible.

Hence I argue: God being Prime Verity reuea∣ling, cannot permit the meanes of knowing his sa∣uing truth to be hidden, nor a false meanes to be so adorned with the markes of the true, as the true become indiscernable from it. But if the Roman be not the true Catholicke Tradition, the true Catho∣licke Church and Tradition is hidden, yea a false Church hath so cleerly the markes of Catholicke, that no other can with any colour pretend to be rather Catholicke then it, that is, to haue doctrin de∣liuered from the Apostles, by whole worlds of Chri∣stian Fathers vnto whole worlds of Christian Chil∣dren Hence eyther there is no meanes left to know assuredly the sauing truth, or else the meanes is im∣mediat reuelatiō, that is, inward teaching of the spi∣rit, without any externall infallible meanes, or else Scripture knowne to be the word of God, and truly sensed, by the light, lustre, and euidēce of the things: which wayes of teaching, it is certayne, God doth not vse towards his militant Church succeeding the Apostles. For teaching of diuine and supernaturall truth by the light, lustre, and shining of the thing or doctrin, is proper vnto the Church triumphant. In∣ward assurance without any externall infallible ground to assure men of truth, is proper vnto the Prophets, and the first publishers of Christian Reli∣gion. Hence I conclude, that if God be the Prime Verity, teaching Christian Religion darkely without

making men see the light, and lustre of thinges belieued, and mediatly by some externall infallible meanes, vpon which inward assurance must rely; then he must euer conserue the Catholicke tradi∣tion, and Church, visible and conspicuous, that the same may without immediat reuelation, and other∣wise thē by the lustre of doctrin be discerned, to wit, by sensible markes.

If any obiect, that the senses of mē in this search may be deceaued through naturall inuincible fallibi∣lity of their organs, and so no ground of fayth that is altogether infallible. I Answere, that euidence had by sense being but the priuate of one man, is natural∣ly and physically infallible; but when the same is also publicke and Catholicke, that is, when a whole world of men concurre with him, then his euidence is altogether infallible. Besides, seing God hath resol∣ued not to teach men immediatly, but will haue them to cleaue vnto an externall infallible meanes, & to find out this meanes by the sensible euidence of the thinge, he is bound by the perfection of his Ve∣racity to assist mens senses with his prouidence, that therein they be not deceaued when they vse such di∣ligence as men ordinarily vse, that they be not de∣ceaued by their senses. Now, what greater euidence cā one haue that he is not deceaued in this matter of sense, that the Romā Doctrine is the Catholicke, that is, Doctrine deliuered from the Apostles by worlds of Christian Ancestors, spread ouer the world, vna∣nimous amongst themselues in all matters they be∣lieue as Fayth; what greater assurance I say, can one haue, that herein he seeth aright, then a whole world of men professing to see the same that he doth?

Some may agayne obiect, I belieue the Catholicke Church is an Article of Fayth set downe in the Creed, but Fayth is resolution about thinges that are not seene. I Answere, An article of Fayth may be visible according to the substāce of the thing, & yet inuisible according to the manner it is belieued in the Creed. The third article, He suffered vnder Pontius Pilate, was crucifyed, dead and buried, according to the substance of the thinge, was euident vnto sense, and seen euen of the Iewes, and is now belieued of their posterity. But according to the manner as it is belieued in the Creed, to wit, that herein the Word of God by his auncient Prophets was fulfilled, that this was done in charity for the saluation of Man; in this manner (I say) that visible Article is inuisible, and belieued in the Creed. In like māner that there is in the world a Catholicke Church, and that the Roman is the Catho∣licke Church, Pagans, Iewes, & Heretikes (if they shut not their eyes agaynst the light) do cleerly behold: But that herein the word of God about the perpe∣tuall amplitude of his Church is accomplished, that this is an effect of Gods Veracity, to the end that the meanes to learne sauing truth may not be hidden; this is a thing inuisible, & according to this notiō the Catholicke Church is proposed in the Creed. Se∣condly, propositiōs of fayth must be inuisible accor∣ding to the Predicate, or thinge belieued; but not euer according to the subiect or thing wherof we belieue. The thinges the Apostles belieued of Christ, to wit that he was the Sauiour of the world, the Son of God, were thinges inuisible; but the subiect and person of whome they did belieue, was to them visible & seen; yea God did of purpose by his Prophets fortell cer∣tayne

tokens, whereby that subiect might by sense be seen and discerned from all other, that might pre∣tend the name of Christ or els his coming into the world to teach the truth, had been to no purpose. In this sort the Predicate, or thing belieued in this article the holy Catholicke Church, to wit Holy is inuisi∣ble, but the Subiect, to wit, the Catholicke Church which we affirme and belieue to be holy in her do∣ctrine, is visible and conspicuous vnto all. Yea God hath of purpose foretold signes and tokens whereby the same by sense may be cleerly discernable from all other that may pretend the title of Catholicke. For were not this subiect, the Catholicke Church, we belieue to be holy and infallible in her teaching, visible and discernable from all other that pretend the name; of what vse were it to belieue that there is such an infallible teaching Church in the world, hidden we know not where, as a needle in a bottle of hay?

The End of the Resolution of Fayth.

THESE thinges supposed, the Reader will haue no difficulty to discerne how friuolous the Mi∣nisters exceptions are agaynst the resolutiō of fayth in respect of belieuing doctrines to be the Apostles into Perpetuall Tradition; and how solide the Ie∣suits discourse was, which here ensueth.

Notes

• (d) 1.1

  Quid Apostoli prae∣dicauerint praescribam, non aliter probari de∣bere, quàm per easdem Ecclesias quas ipsi con∣diderunt. Tertull. de praescrip. c. 19.
• (e) 1.2

  To this purpose they say: So long as we stay vpon the Fathers, we shall still continue in our old (Popish) errors. Peter Martyr. de votis pag. 476. Luther de ser••uo Arbitrio. Tom. 2. Wit∣temberg. pag. 434. Pome∣ran. in Ionam. Napier vpon the reuelations, Calius Cu∣rio & alij.
• (f) 1.3

  Iohn White defence pag. 309. None can be∣lieue except God illu∣minate their hartes, but such as haue this illumi∣nation do SEE MA∣NIFESTLY the truth of thinges belie∣ued.
• (g) 1.4

  Francis White Or∣thodoxe, pag. 108. ad∣ding, that Protestants herein are like to a man that sees a farre off an obscure glimmering, but cōming to the place, beholds the light it selfe. And the same is taught by Caluin, Institut. l. 1. c. 7. n. 2. and the rest.
• (h) 1.5

  Pag. 19. lin. 4. & pag. 28. lin. 3. & ibid. lin. 28. & pag. 68. lin. 20. The Maiesty and lustre of Heauenly doctrine is such, as it appeares illustrious though propounded by meane and obscure persons, as a rich Iewell doth manifest his owne worth.
• (i) 1.6

  1. Cor. 13.12. Vide∣mus nunc in speculo in aenigmate: we se through a glasse darkely, that is, we be sure, by belieuing Gods word of what we do not see.
• (k) 1.7

  Innumerabiles sunt qui se Videntes non so∣lùm iactant, sed & à Christo illuminatos vi∣deri volunt. Sunt au∣tem haeretici Augustin. tract. 43. in Ioan.
• (l) 1.8

  Fides est credere quod nondum vides, cuius Fidei merces est videre quod credis. Au∣gustin. de verb. Apostol. Serm. 29.
• (m) 1.9

  Argumentum non apparētium. Hebr. 11.1. Fide credimus ea quae non videmus. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. l. 12. c. 31. Et Enchirid. c. 8. Fides quam diuina eloquia docent, est earum rerum quae non videntur.
• (n) 1.10

  Fides inchoat meri∣tum. Aug. l. 1. retrac. c. 23. Et epist. 106. Fides meretur gratiam bene operandi.
• (o) 1.11

  Augustin. tract. 79. in Ioan. Laus fidei est si quod creditur non vide∣tur. & Gregor. hom. 26. in Euang. Cyprian. Serm. de Natiu. Christi, Haec fides non habet meritum.
• (p) 1.12

  August. de vtilit. cre∣dendi c. 14. Pri••s videre velle vt animum pur∣ges, peruersum at{que} prae posterum est.
• (q) 1.13

  See this Ministers reply pag. 16. The matter and forme of the Bookes shew themselues to be Diuine.
• (q) 1.14

  See this Ministers reply pag. 16. The matter and forme of the Bookes shew themselues to be Diuine.
• (r) 1.15

  If Diuine then Apo∣stolicall. Reply pag. 19.
• (s) 1.16

  Pag. 105. the Mini∣ster sayth; If we can de∣monstrate we mantayne the Religion which the holy Apostles taught this alone is sufficient to proue we are the true Church, though we could not nominate any visible Church of our Religion out of History.
• (t) 1.17

  Field appendix part. 2. pag. 20. doth acknow∣ledge, that they who see not this light of Scripture, and yet pre∣tend it, must be brayne, sicke and franticke.
• (t) 1.18

  Luther praefat. in Epist. Iacobi edit. Ienensi. Chem∣nitius Enchyrid. pag. 63. The Epistle of Iames, the second of Peter, the second and third of Iohn, the Epi∣stle of Iude, the Apocalyps of Iohn are Apocryphall.
• (u) 1.19

  Iohn White sayth, they know the senses of Scriptures to be diuine by their owne light shyning, and by their owne shewing it selfe in them, as sweetnes is knowne by it owne tast. Caluin lib. 1. Institut. c. 7. §. 2. in fine. Non obscuriorem veritatis suae seipsum scriptura vlt••ò praese fert, quàm coloris suires albae & nigrae, saporis res suaues & amarae.
• (x) 1.20

  Protestants are for∣ced by this argument to contradict themselues. For, sometymes they teach, that fayth buil∣ded on the authority of the Church, is but hu∣man, and acquisite, not sufficient vnto Salua∣tion. Thus our Mini∣ster pag. 14. And yet at other tymes, they teach that Nouices and weakelings haue fayth sufficient vnto saluatiō whose sayth is built vpon the authority of the Church: this also is taught▪ by the Minister pag. 22. saying: Nouices in fayth ground their histo∣ricall fayth vpon the autho∣rity of the Church.
• (y) 1.21

  Timeo, ne sicut Ser∣pens Heuam seduxit a∣stutiâ suâ, ita corrum∣pantur sensus vestri & excidāt simplicitate quae est in Christo. 2. Cor. 11.3.
• (z) 1.22

  Gen. 3.4.
• (a) 1.23

  Augustin. de vtil. cred. c. 9. Vera Religio sine quodam graui authori∣tatis imperio iniri rectè nullo pacto potest.
• (b) 1.24

  Haeretici non se iu∣gum credendi impone∣re, sed docendi fontem aperire gloriantur. Au∣gustin. Ibid.
• (c) 1.25

  Quâ promissâ anim•• naturaliter gaudet hu∣mana, & sanorum escas appetendo, irruit in v••∣nena fallentium. Augu∣stin. Ibid.
• (e) 1.26

  Pag. 16. lin. 2.
• (f) 1.27

  Augustin. epist. 9. Si ad scripturas admittatur mēdacium, quid eis au∣thoritatis remanebit?
• (g) 1.28

  Hieron. epist. ad Aug. 19. inter epist. Aug. Scri∣pturae obscurissimae sunt. Iren. l. 2. c. 47. Origen. lib. 7. contra Celsum. Reuerà multis locis obscurae. Vi∣de Bellarm. de Script. l. 3. c. 1.
• (h) 1.29

  Field. Church l. 4. c. 15. No question but there be manifold obscuri∣tyes in Scripture.
• (i) 1.30

  Reply pag. 35.
• (k) 1.31

  Quid vel falsò suspi∣centur non inueniunt. Aug. l. 2. de doctr. Christ. c. ••. Whitaker. de Eccles. pag. 220. Quaedam loca de quibus nihil certo statui potest.
• (l) 1.32

  Reply pag. 16. Internall matter & maiesty of the bookes. Item pag. 30. & 68. Field. appendix. 34. Caluin. Instit. l. 1. c. 7.
• (m) 1.33

  Sunt quaedā in sacris litteris quae quia subof∣fendunt animos ignaros & negligentes sui (quae maxima turba) populari∣ter accusari, defendi au∣tem populariter propter mysteria quae in illis cō∣tinentur, non à multis admodum possunt. Aug. de vtil. cred. c. 1.
• (n) 1.34

  Reply pag. 19.
• (o) 1.35

  This is euident vnto al that haue read the cō∣mētaryes of the Fathers.
• (p) 1.36

  This appeareth par∣ticularly in the foure first chapters of Genesis, and in the Genealogy of our Sauiour. And in con∣cording the Chronolo∣gyes of the Booke of Kings.
• (q) 1.37

  Reply pag. 24. lin. 15.
• (s) 1.38

  Ioan. 1.
• (t) 1.39

  This is also true whē God speaketh inwardly to the soule. For in that speaking he vseth the natiue intellectuall ton∣gue, that is, the vn∣derstanding Faculty of the soule, his diuine in∣spirations being appre∣hensions of vnderstan∣ding of the will and af∣fections. Hence this in∣ward speaking is not by the meere soūd knowne to be Diuine, but by the coniecture of some ef∣fects, or by speciall re∣uelation.
• (u) 1.40

  The differēce of stile betwixt the Apocalyps and the Ghospell of S. Iohn is noted by Diony∣sius Alexandrinus apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 10. And Caluin Institut. l. 1. c. 8. noteth variety of stile amongst the Euangelists & Pro∣phets: Dauidi & Isaiae ••ucunda & suauis fluit ora∣tio: Apud Amos Pastorem Ieremiam & Zachariā as∣perior sermorusticitatem sa∣pit.
• (x) 1.41

  Verbum eius infide∣libus nox est. Hilarius in cap. 10. Matth. 2. Caluin l. 1. Iustit. c. 8. n. 9.
• (a) 1.42

  Way pag. 37. Defence cap. 20.
• (b) 1.43

  This argument is vr∣ged by the Minister pag. 16. and often elswhere.
• (a) 1.44

  Dicunt pagani, Ben•• viui∣mus.
• (b) 1.45

  Fuerunt Philoso∣phi de vir∣tutibus & vitijs subli∣mia multa tractantes. Aug. Tract. 45. in Ioan.
• (c) 1.46

  As mans felicity, the blissfull vi∣siō of God, is aboue the forces of Nature: so it was con∣ueniēt God shold bring him vnto it by belie∣uing truth aboue the reach of his reason.
• (d) 1.47

  Chalenour in his Cre∣do Ecclesi∣am Catho∣licam. p. 1. c. 6. Field l. 3. cap. 15.
• (e) 1.48

  Reply pag. ••16. citing
• (f) 1.49

  Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccl. cap. 14.
• (g) 1.50

  Ioan. 5•• 36.
• (h) 1.51

  Suarez de fide disput. 4. sect. 3. n. 9. Videntibus cōstare po∣terat euidē∣tia naturali vera esse quae age∣bantur.
• (d) 1.52

  Tertull. de praescript. cap. 6. Hae∣reses dictae Graeca voce exinterpre∣tatione Ele∣ctionis.
• (e) 1.53

  Augustin. l. 7. de Gen. ad lit. c. 9. Ne{que} enim non omnes Haeretici Scripturas Catholicas legunt.
• (f) 1.54

  Nobis nostro ar∣bitrio non licet indul∣gere, sed q̲ Apostoli fi∣deliter con∣signarunt accipere.
• (m) 1.55

  Est sū∣mus gradus certitudinis humanae de qua SIM∣PLICITER dici potest, nō posse illi falsum sub∣esse. Suarez de gratia l. 9. c. 11. n. 11. Et hoc ibid. probat.
• (n) 1.56

  Negle∣xerit officiū suum Villi∣cus Christi &c. Quî ve∣risimile, vt tot & tantae Ecclesiae in vnam fidem errauerint? variasse de∣buerat error Ecclesiarū. Caeterùm, quod apud multos vnū inuenitur, non est er∣ratū sed tra∣ditum. Ter∣tullian. de praescript. c. 28.
• (o) 1.57

  Caluin. Institut. l. 1. c. 8. n. 9. Quaerunt quis nos cer∣tiores fece∣rit à Moyse & aliis Pro∣phetis haec fuisse scripta quae sub eo∣rum nomi∣nibus legū∣tur &c. quis non cola∣phis & fla∣gellis casti∣standum il∣lum insa∣num dicat? Certô cer∣tiùs est ipso rum scripta non aliter peruenisse ad posteros, quàm de manu in manū TRA∣DITA.
• (p) 1.58

  Deute∣ron. 32.7.
• (q) 1.59

  Reply pa. 15. lin. 32.
• (r) 1.60

  Triden. sess. 6. Can. 3. Arausican. 2. Can. 6.
• (s) 1.61

  Act. 8.32. In felle a∣maritudinis & obliga∣tione pec∣cati video te esse.
• (t) 1.62

  De vtil. cred. c. 1.