Church since the Apostles is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the Scripture This assertion is Antichristian and impudent for can any thing be more fundamentall than the foundation or of greater authoritie than the word of God S. Peter speaking of the Propheticall Scriptures equalleth the same to the sensible voice of God which was vttered in the Apostles audience from heauen Math. 3.17 c. 17.5 saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We haue the most sure word of Prophesie c. vpon these words S. Augustine d. verb. Apostoli serm 29. commenteth as followeth Et cum dixisset hanc vocem audiuimus de Coelo delatam subiunxit atque ait habemus certiorem propheticum sermonem sonuit illa vox de Coelo certior est propheticus sermo when the Apostle had said We heard this voice from heauen he addeth further and saith We haue a more sure word of prophesie That voice sounded from heauen and yet the propheticall word is more sure he said more sure not better or truer because that word from heauen was as good and as profitable as the word of prophesie Why therefore more sure Because the hearer was more confirmed by it Our Sauiour himselfe in the Gospell examineth the Traditions of the Pharises and of the Iewish Church then being by the Scriptures Math. 5.6 and 7. Ch. 12.5 c. 15.4 19.4 And the holy Ghost in the new Testament both in the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles confirmeth the Truth which was taught by the authoritie of the Scriptures and Christ Iesus perpetually submitteth himselfe and his doctrine to the triall of the Scriptures and the Apostles after him did the like Acts 26.22 The antient Fathers affirme that the Scriptures are of most eminent authoritie and that wee are aboue all things to giue credit to them and that they are the mouth of God and the verie hand of God and Paul and Peter and Iohn and the whole companie of the Prophets do speake with vs by them and that Faith it selfe by which a iust man liueth is conceiued by them and the Church it selfe is demonstrated to wit tanquam à priori by them But on the contrarie Traditions receiue their authoritie from the Scriptures and may not be admitted vnlesse they agree with the Scriptures And in our Aduersaries Tenet men must first beleeue the authoritie of the Church before they can receiue or beleeue Tradition from all which it followeth that Tradition of the present Church is neither the prime originall ground of Faith nor yet more fundamentall concerning Faith than the Scripture The Trident Councell held it sufficient to equall Tradition with the Scriptures This new master with Baronius Pighius preferreth them before the Scriptures These men perceiue that the Roman Faith cannot subsist vnlesse they depresse the written word of God and exalt the prophane bastardly and Apocriphall Traditions of the Pope They say the Scripture is a breathlesse lumpe a nose of wax a leaden rule Andradius writeth That in the Books of the Scriptures themselues there is no diuinitie or any thing else binding vs to beleeue Stapleton saith That being considered as written it can no way be called the Temple or Tabernacle of the holy Ghost Bosius saith The holy Ghost resideth in the Church more effectually and nobly than in the Bookes of the Scripture And Majoranus hath these words The consent of the Church alone which neuer wanted the spirit of God ought to be of greater esteeme with vs than all mute and tonguelesse Bookes and than all the written volumes which are or euer were and which haue in all ages ministred fuell of contention to the wits of men And Gretsar the Iesuit There would haue beene fewer contentions in the world as I supose if there had beene no Scripture at all Iacob Brower a Reader of Doway saith I would not beleeue the Gospell did not the authoritie of Pope Paul the fift mooue me And lastly it is one of the dictates of Pope Hildebrand canonised by Baronius That no Chapter or Booke of Scripture must bee esteemed canonicall without his authoritie I doubt not but that Romists are able with faire glosses and distinctions to salue these blasphemies and to reconcile dark nesse with light but he that diggeth a pit for people to fall into althought he couer the same with some superficiall tecture is accused by the antient sentence of diuine Law Exod. 21.33 Towards the end of this Section the Iesuit addeth First That the Scripture is not knowne to bee Apostolicall but by Tradition This is false for the Scripture is knowne to come from the Apostles by inward grounds and testimonies contained in it selfe and by the vertue and effects of it as well as by the Tradition of the Church Secondly it is most vntrue that Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by it owne light but not Scripture for what internall light hath Tradition more than or aboue the Scripture If it haue then the articles of Popish Tradition Purgatorie adoration of Images c. are more manifest than the articles which Scripture teacheth concerning the incarnation and resurrection of Christ than Heauen and Hell c. Also sacred Scripture is receiued as diuine by all Christians Popish Tradition onely by some The Catalogue of Romish Tradition could neuer to this day be specified and distinctly assigned but the Canon of holy Scripture may Moreouer holie Scripture hath the perpetuall and vnanimous consent of the Primitiue Church Popish Tradition hath not Againe Bellarmine confesseth that nothing is better knowne and more certaine than holy Scripture but if nothing be better known then nothing hath clearer light Thirdly the confirmation of the former to wit What more euident c. is insufficient because that which is known to come from the Apostles by their owne immediat testimonie in writing is more euidently knowne to come from them than that which is affirmed to come from them onely by the report of men which are deceiueable Diuine testimonie maketh things more certaine and infallible than humane The testimonie of the Apostles extant in writing is totally diuine the report of Bishops is in part humane IESVIT And this may bee clearely prooued to omit other pregnant testimonies by the words of our Sauiour in the last of Matthew Going into the whole world teaching all nations baptizing them In the Name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost teaching them to keepe all that I haue commanded you all dayes euen to the consummation of the world A promise of wonderfull comfort vnto them that pawne their soules and saluation vpon Gods word deliuered by perpetuall Tradition For in this sentence appeare these fixe things First That there is still a Christian Church all dayes not wanting in the world so
and magnifie the antient Oecumeniall Councells affirming that they honour them as the holy Euangelists yet when they make against them they regard them no more as one of their owne part affirmeth than a couent of women pratling and chatting in a common bath stoue or Weauers shop And this is apparant by their 〈◊〉 or falsifying the Councells of Nice Constantinople and Chalcedon when the same equal the Patriarke of Constantinople or other Patriarchall Seas to the Roman or forbid the imposition of single life vpon the Clergie as also by the Councells of Basill and Constance decreeing that the Popes sentence is fallible Cardinall Cusanus treating of generall Councells deliuereth these ten Positions following First That a perfect or compleate generall Councell consisteth of all the Patriarckes and prime Gouernours of the Church Secondly That a Councell which is celebrated by the Romane Pontife and those which are subiect to him onely or excluding others is a particular Councell Thirdly A generall Councell may bee celebrated although the Pope refuse to ioyne and concurre by his presence and consent Fourthly All which meet in Councells ought to haue free audience and libertie orderly to debate and determine matters in question Fiftly Whatsoeuer must oblige as diuine vpon the determination of Councells ought to be confirmed by the authoritie of holy Scripture Sixthly No Councells are legitimate wherein priuate respects are maintained vnder pretext of Faith and Religion Seuenthly The Romane Bishop hath not that power which many flatterers heape vpon him to wit that he alone is to determine and others onely to consult or aduise Eightly It is without all question That a generall Councell properly taken is both superiour to the rest of the Patriarchs and also to the Romane Pope Ninthly Experience of things doth manifest That a plenarie vniuersall Councell may be deficient and wee reade that many Councels lawfully assembled haue erred Tenthly Whiles we defend That the Pope is not vniuersall Bishop but onely the first Bishop ouer others and whiles wee ground the power of sacred Councels vpon the consent of the whole Assembly and not vpon the Pope we maintaine Truth and giue to euerie one his due honour And then concluding the former Positions the Cardinall saith I obserue little or nothing in antient Monuments which agreeth not to these my Assertions With this Cardinall agree many other famous Papists Occham Panormitan Almaine Cassander Ferus c. and among the rest Occham deliuereth these Positions First That all generall Councels are inferiour to the holy Scriptures and that when S. Gregorie saith That he honoureth the foure first generall Councels like as the foure Euangelists this must be vnderstood not of equalitie but of similitude Matth. 5. 48. Secondly Councels are not called generall because they are congregated by the authoritie of the Romane Pope and that if Princes and Lay-men please they may be present and haue to deale with matters treated of in generall Councels Thirdly Ecclesiasticall Dignitie as it maketh not men holy so it conferreth not infallibilitie of Iudgement Fourthly A generall Councell or that Congregation which is commonly reputed a generall Councell by the World may erre in matters of Faith Ioh. Ferus commenting vpon the Acts chap. 15. compareth the Apostles Councell with moderne and saith In matters of Faith and things which concerne the Conscience it is not sufficient to say We will and command but you must consider in what manner the Apostles deale in their Assembly They come together in simplicitie of heart seeking onely Gods glorie and the saluation of others no meruaile therefore if the Spirit of God was in this Councell But our meeting is in another manner namely with great pompe and seeking our selues and promising to our selues licence vpon fullnesse of Power to doe any thing And this being so how is it possible for the Spirit of God to approue such Assemblies Seeing therefore by the confession of these learned Papists latter Councels celebrated by the meere and absolute authoritie of the Pope are neither vniuersall nor of infallible Iudgement and as experience testifieth Papall Councels are neyther free nor proceed in debating and deciding matters controuerted according to the authoritie of the holy Scripture and that of later yeeres and especially since Pope Gregorie the seuenth they haue wholly intended their owne priuacie it is a malicious Censure which this Lojolist casteth vpon the Protestants in charging them with fundamentall Heresie for opposing the infallible authoritie of such Councels and consequently with deiecting the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church Protestants haue alwayes desired a lawfull generall Councell for the concluding of differences in Religion and they are most readie and resolute to submit themselues to the determination thereof and they yeeld the same honour and authoritie to all such Councels which the antient Church in the dayes of Constantine the Great Theodosius and Martianus and which S. Augustine did yea which the more impartiall Romanes themselues in precedent Ages haue done But the present Papalls will not endure a lawfull and impartiall Councell and vnlesse themselues may be both Accusers and Iudges and proceed as their forefathers the Pharisees did against the Apostles determining all things by the Modell of their owne Cabala they will admit no tryall by Councels nor any other meanes of Pacification for restoring the common Vnitie of the Christian Church IESVIT THirdly their denying of the Primacie of S. Peter and his Successor the Foundation which Christ laid of his Church necessarie for the perpetuall gouernment thereof Matth. 16. 18. ANSWER PRotestants deny not the Primacie of S. Peter but they yeeld vnto him both as he was an Apostle Primacie of Spirituall Authoritie and Iurisdiction ouer the Vniuersall Church Matth. 28.20 Ioh. 20.21 And also respectiuely to the other Apostles which were his Compeeres and Equals in regard of all Apostolicall Authoritie Primacie of Calling Order Grace Gifts c. And the place of Saint Matthew chap. 16.18 prooueth not Saint Peter to haue beene a visible Monarch ouer the whole Church First Our Sauiour affirmeth not plainely and literally that hee will build his Church vpon him but vpon the Rocke which hee confessed verse 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vpon this Rocke and not vpon this Peter Non dictum est illi Tu es Petra sed Tu es Petrus Petra autem erat Christus It was not said vnto him Thou art the Rocke but Thou art Peter for the Rocke was Christ. August Retract Lib. 1. cap. 21. Secondly If hee had affirmed expressely That hee would build his Church vpon him yet hee saith not exclusiuely that hee would build the same onely vpon him but in other places hee conioyneth the
rest of the Apostles with him Iohn 20. 23. Eph. 2.20 Apoc. 21.14 Matth. 28.19 Thirdly To be a Ministeriall Rocke and foundation of the Church is not to be the sole Monarch of the Church because St. Peter might bee such in regard of his Preaching and Doctrine as the other Apostles were and not in respect of Monarchicall dominion Heereupon Turrecremate in his Sum. d. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 11. saith Non argumentati sumus Petrum primatum habuisse quia dictus fuit fundamentum aut Petra Ecclesiae sed quia singulariter c. Wee argue not Saint Peter had the Primacie because he was called the Foundation or Rocke of the Church but because he was in a singular manner so called But if the name of Rocke argueth not St. Peters supremacie the singular applying thereof in one Text of Scripture will not doe it both because the speaking to him in particular is onely a circumstance and relation of a matter granted by the words of Rocke and Keyes but no addition of any other essentiall gift and also because the same Title in tearmes equiualent is elsewhere made common to other Apostles The Iesuit addeth That we denie the primacie of Peters Successour and that this Successour is the foundation of the Church laid by Christ and necessarie for the perpetuall gouernment of the same I answere First St. Peter in one respect to wit in regard of his Apostolicall function had no successour for the Office of Apostles was extraordinarie appointed by Christ for the first planting of Faith and consequently it ceased with the Apostles Immediate calling Propheticall inspiration the gifts of Miracles and Languages authoritie ouer the whole Church and all the ordinarie Pastours thereof were proper to the holy Apostles and if none succeed them in these gifts and prerogatiues then it is manifest that in respect of their Apostleship they haue no Successours Secondly In respect of ordinarie Ministerie and in regard of the power and order of iurisdiction St. Peter hath successours in the same manner as the rest of the Apostles to wit all Bishops and Pastours teaching either where hee planted Churches or in any other part of the world the same Faith and Religion which himselfe and his fellow Apostles did Thirdly That St. Peter hath a speciall Successour differing in kinde from the Successours of the rest of the Apostles and which is to bee for euer a visible Head and Monarch ouer the vniuersall Church from whom all Ecclesiasticall power is deriued and to whose sentence in things diuine euery Chrstian must submit himselfe and that the Romane Bishop is the man is deliuered as a prime Article of Christian Faith by Papals but it is neither confirmed by the holy Scripture nor by any diuine Reuelation neither is the same deliuered in the holy Apostles Creed or by any antient generall Councell or by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers And sundry Romists themselues haue made question of it and later Pontificians doe with so many subtill sleights and inuentions propugne it that all intelligent and impartiall men may plainely discerne That this Doctrine of Papall Supremacie is builded vpon the sand For if the Romane Bishop had beene appointed and established the perpetuall Successour of Saint Peter in manner before mentioned either our Sauiour himselfe would immediately expreslly and manifestly haue reuealed the same to his Church or the holy Apostles would haue taken notice thereof and declared the same to others Also Saint Peter must haue carried himselfe as a Monarch among the other Apostles and exercised the actions of Soueraigntie in the visible Church But we find in the holy Scripture no supereminent iurisdiction or Monarchicall actions exercised by him no vassallage and subiection yeelded him by the rest of the Apostles And if hee must haue had a Successour in his Monarchie the Apostles suruiuing him should rather haue beene his Successours than the ordinarie Pastours of one Diocesse The Spirit of God also together with so eminent authoritie would haue conferred vpon 〈◊〉 Successours extraordinarie graces of Learning Wisedome Holinesse c. necessarie for so high a calling Also it is not probable that Eusebius and other antient Ecclesiasticall Historians would altogether haue been silent of this Monarchicall authoritie of the Romane Bishop neither would any Orthodoxe Father or generall Councell haue confined the Romane Pontife to equall bounds with other Patriarkes But the antientest Ecclesiasticall Stories are absolutely silent of such a swelling preheminence as moderne Papals claime and the Fathers and Councells contest the same Pope Stephan was slighted by St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Affrica when he enterposed in their affaires and Pope Victor by the Bishops of the East The Oecumenicall Councell of Chalcedon equalleth the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome Gregory the Great himselfe giueth the Papacie a deadly blow And a great part of Christianitie hath euer to this day opposed the Papall Primacie Therefore it is most improbable that this doctrine should be fundamentall veritie which hauing no 〈◊〉 or infallible grounds in diuine Reuelation wanteth also the suffrages of all antient Ecclesiasticall Testimonie IESVIT FOurthly Their denying the foundation of true 〈◊〉 which is one true Catholicke Christian faith about reuealed Mysteries bringing in a fantasticall faith pretending That euery man is iustified by beleeuing himselfe to be iust or one of Gods Elect. ANSVVER YOu ought first to haue weighed our Doctrine concerning the definition of Faith and haue compared the same with the Tenet of sundrie of your owne Doctours before you had accused vs of fundamentall Errour about the same First We maintaine that true Christian Catholicke Faith is a 〈◊〉 and foundation to wit on mans part of Iustification Heb. 11.6 Rom. 1.17 Iud. v. 20. Secondly We denie that euery man is iustified by only beleeuing himselfe to be iust for he must be truely iust before he can or ought to beleeue himselfe to be so The promise of remission of sinnes is conditionall Esa. 1.16 17 18. Ezec. 18. 21. Pro. 28. 13. Math. 6.14 15. Iohn 15. 10. 16 27. Heb. 5.9 and the same becommeth not absolute vntill the condition be fulfilled either actually or in desire and preparation of mind and the full assurance of remission of sinnes succeedeth Repentance Faith Obedience and Mortification 1. Iohn 3.19 20 21 22. Thirdly We denie that it is an action of Christian Faith praeuious or fundamentall to Iustification for a man to beleeue himselfe to be one of Gods elect and admitting that one do not attaine the certainetie of Faith but of Hope onely that he is elected if there be no other impediment found in him besides this we make no question but such a person may be 〈◊〉 Wherein then lyeth the fundamentall errour concerning Faith and Iustification wherewith we are reproched If it be answered That
so plaine set downe in the Scripture If about the sense and true meaning of these or necessarie deduction out of these prime Articles of Faith Generall Councels determine any thing as they haue done in Nice and the rest there is no inconueuience that one and the same Canon of the Councell should be beleeued as it reflects vpon the Articles and Grounds indemonstrable and yet knowne to the Learned by the Meanes and Proofe by which that deduction is vouched and made good And againe the Conclusion of a Councell suppose that in Nice about the Consubstantialitie of Christ with the Father in it selfe considered is or may be indemonstrable by Reason There I beleeue and assent in Faith but the same Conclusion if you giue me the ground of Scripture and the Creed and somewhat must be supposed in all whether Faith or Knowledge is demonstrable by naturall Reason against any Arrian in the World And if it be demonstrable I may know it and haue a habit of it And what inconuenience in this For the weaker sort of Christians which cannot deduce when they haue the Principle graunted they are to rest vpon the Definition onely and their assent is meere Faith yea and the Learned too where there is not a Demonstration euident to them assent by Faith onely and not by Knowledge And what inconuenience in this Nay the necessitie of Nature is such that these Principles once giuen the vnderstanding of man cannot rest but it must be thus And the Apostle would neuer haue required a man to be able to giue a reason and an account of the Hope that is in him if he might not be able to know his account or haue lawfull interest to giue it when he knew it without preiudicing his Faith by his Knowledge And suppose exact Knowledge and meere Beleefe cannot stand together in the same person in regard of the same thing by the same meanes yet that doth not make void this Truth For where is that exact Knowledge or in whom that must not meerely in points of Faith beleeue the Article or Ground vpon which they rest But when that is once beleeued it can demonstrate many things from it And Definitions of Councels are not Principia Fidei Principles of Faith but Deductions from them 7. And now because you aske Wherein wee are neerer to Vnitie by a Councell if a Councell may erre Besides the Answer giuen I promised to consider which Opinion was most agreeable with the Church which most able to preserue or reduce Christian Peace the Romane That a Councell cannot erre orthe Protestants That it can And this I propose not as a Rule but leaue the Christian World to consider of it as I doe 1. First then I consider Whether in those places of Scripture before mentioned or other there be promised and performed to the present Church an absolute infallibilitie or whether such an infallibilitie will notserue the turne as Stapleton after much wriggling is forced to acknowledge One not euerieway exact because it is enough if the Church doe diligently insist vpon that which was once receiued and there is not need of so great certaintie to open and explicate that which lyes hid in the Seed of Faith sowne and deduce from it as to seeke out and teach that which was altogether vnknowne And if this be so then sure the Church of the Apostles required guidance by a greater degree of infallibilitie than the present Church which if it follow the Scripture is infallible enough though it hath not the same degree of certaintie which the Apostles had and the Scripture hath Nor can I tell what to make of Bellarmine that in a whole Chapter disputes 〈◊〉 Prerogatiues in certaintie of Truth that the Scripture hath aboue a Councell and at last concludes That they may be said to be equally certaine in infallible Truth 2. The next thing I consider is Suppose this not Exact but congruous infallibilitie in the Church Is it not residing according to power and right of Authoritie in the whole Church and in a Generall Councell onely by power deputed with Mandate to determine The places of Scripture with Expositions of the Fathers vpon them make me apt to beleeue this S. Peter saith S. Augustine did not receiue the Keyes of the Church but in the person of the Church Now suppose the Key of Doctrine be to let in Truth and shut out Error and suppose the Key rightly vsed infallible in this yet this infallibilitie is primely in the Church in whose person not strictly in his owne S. Peter receiued the Keyes Here Stapleton layes crosse my way againe He would thrust me out of this Consideration He graunts that S. Peter receiued these Keyes indeed and in the person of the Church but that was because he was Primate of the Church 〈◊〉 therefore the Church receiued the Keyes finally but S. Peter formally that is if I mistake him not S. Peter for himselfe and his Successors receiued the Keyes in his owne Right but to this end to benefit the Church of which he was made Pastor But I am in a Consideration and I would haue this considered where it is euer read That to receiue a thing in the person of another is onely meant finally to receiue it that is to his good and not in his right I should thinke he that receiues any thing in the person of another receiues it indeed to his good and to his vse but in his right too And that the primarie and formall right is not in the receiuer but in him whose person hee sustaines while he receiues it This stumbling-blocke then is nothing and in my Consideration it stands still That the Church in generall receiued the Keyes and all Power signified by them and by the assistance of Gods Spirit may be able to vse them and perhaps to open and shut in some things infallibly when the Pope and a Generall Councell too forgetting both her and her Rule the Scripture are to seeke how to turne these Keyes in their Wards 3. The third thing I consider is Suppose in the whole Catholike Church Militant an absolute infallibilitie in the prime Foundations of Faith absolutely necessarie to saluation and that this power of not erring so is not communicable to a Generall Councell which represents it but that the Councell is subiect to error This supposition doth not onely preserue that which you desire in the Church an Infallibilitie but it meets with all inconueniences which vsually haue done and doe perplexe the Church And here is still a remedie for all things For if priuate respects if Bandies in a Faction if power and fauour of some parties if weakenesse of them which haue the managing if any mixture of State-Councels if any departure from the Rule of the Word of God if any thing else sway and wrinch the Councell the whole Church vpon euidence found in expresse Scripture or demonstration of this
cannot vse it so the Scriptures are a meanes to conuict proteruious 〈◊〉 as they were vsed by Christ and his Apostles and by the 〈◊〉 Councels or Papall Councels and the Bishops and Doctors of the Roman Church c. Answ. First Our Sauiour and his Apostles did both vse the Scriptures themselues and commanded others euen simple men to vse them Iohn 5 39. Ephes. 6 17. and they are commended who examined Doctrine by them Acts 17 11. Secondly they which vnderstand and applie the Scriptures truely vse them as Christ and his Apostles did and so the Scripture in their vse is a word of power and not as a sword in a childs hand Thirdly Scriptures were meanes to conuict Hereticks as they were vsed by the Fathers of the Church and other holie Persons before any generall Councells were gathered to wit the first three hundred yeares and before the Papall Supremacie was aduanced in the Church Fourthly it is ridiculous to imagine that the present Roman Church and the sole Adheres thereof according to the Trident Creed are the only true expositors of holy Scriptures or that 〈◊〉 exposition of Scripture repugnant and diuers from the present Roman Creed is false or Haereticall for neither hath the holie Ghost by expresse testimonie or euident demonstration appropriated the key of knowledge to this Church and few Heretickes haue more fouly corrupted and abused the Scriptures And the pillars of this Church 〈◊〉 sundrie times been vnskilfull Ideots vnlettered Gulls Monsters of mankind with whom the holie Spirit vseth not to haue commerce Wisdom 1. 2. Cor. 6. 15. Fiftly the place of Tertul. d. Praescript c. 19. doth not 〈◊〉 the imperfection of holie Scripture to conuict proteruious error according to the latter part of my former distinction for then he could not haue said Scripturae plenitudinem adoramus We adore the plenitude of the 〈◊〉 and Let Hermogenes teach that it is written and if it be not written let him feare the Wo denounced against them which add or detract any thing from the word of God but be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures according to the first part of my distinction to wit That Heretickes blinded with malice and either denying or corrupting the text of the Scriptures cannot be so conuicted by them but they will still vse cauils and by Sophisticall slights borrowed from Philosophers elude the euidence of the plaine Texts of Scriptures But if this argue the Scriptures of imperfection it will also prooue the Authoritie of the Church and of Tradition to be insufficient as appeares in the Arrians and Donatists And Heretickes may with no lesse pretext take exception against Tradition and Ecclesiasticall Authoritie than against the Scripture Ireneus li. 3. ca. 2. When they are confuted by Scriptures they accuse them as being not well written and destitute of Authoritie or else so ambiguous that one cannot find the Truth by them c. And in like manner when we prouoke them to stand to triall by Tradition which came from the Apostles c. they oppose the same c. And thus they will consent neither to Scripture nor Tradition And Gregorie Valence himselfe saith The infallible teaching and proposition of the Church is no lesse obscure vnto vs than any other Article which we are to beleeue Sixtly we acknowledge the lawfull Power and Authoritie of the Church about expounding holy Scriptures and for maintaining Vnitie in right Faith and appeasing contention repressing proteruious Errants Heb. 13.17 Math. 18.17.1 Timoth. 3.15 2. Thessal 5.12 And in particular first wee beleeue the authority of Councels General and Nationall lawfully assembled and accordingly proceeding to be sacred And all Councels of this nature we reuerence with the same honour the ancient Church did affirming that priuate Christians and particular Churches are to submit their iudgement to the authority of the same except it bee manifest that they depart from Truth Secondly wee highly and reuerently esteeme exposition of Scripture deliuered by the vnanimous consent of the Primatiue Fathers and although wee yeeld eminent and supreme Authoritie to the holy Scriptures because the same is absolutely diuine yet when any question ariseth concerning Expositions we allow not priuate persons vpon vncertaine or probable reasons to reiect the sence which hath bin antiently and commonly receiued and against which no strong or solid exception can be produced Now this being obserued and other helps of expounding Scripture vsed there followeth nothing from our Tenet whereby Christianitie should be made vncertaine and Disputation from sole Scripture prooue fruitles or which may hinder apparent Victorie by the same against proteruious Error IESVIT The Preface ended our Aduersarie descendeth to his disputation and herein first he setteth downe a maine proposition which hee intendeth to prooue to wit The Roman Church is the onely true Church Secondly He deliuereth fiue Principles manifest in themselues and presupposed and confessed by Papists and Protestants Principle 1. No man can be saued without firme and sure apprehension of supernaturall Truth concerning his last end and the meanes to attaine thereunto Secondly Assurance of this kind is not had by cleere sight Demonstration humane Discourse or humane Authoritie but by Faith grounded vpon Gods Word reuealing things vnknowne by other meanes Thirdly God reuealed all Supernaturall Truth to Christ and Christ reuealed the same to the holy Apostles partly by vocall Preaching but principally by the immediate teaching of his holy Spirit to this end that they should deliuer them to mankind to bee receiued and beleeued euerie where ouer the World euen to the consummation thereof Fourthly the Apostles fulfilled this preaching to all Nations and deliuering partly by writing and partly by word of mouth the whole entire Doctrine of Saluation planted an vniuersall Christian companie and to deliuer vnto 〈◊〉 all they had 〈◊〉 from them Fiftly though the Apostles and their Primatiue Hearers be deceased yet there still remaines in the World a meanes by which men may assuredly know what the Apostles preached andthe Primatiue Church receiued of them because the Church euen to the endof the World must be founded on the Apostles and beleeue nothing as matter of Faith but that which was deliuered by them The former grounds being confessed a question remaineth to be examined What is the principall infallible meanes whereby a Christian may know what was and is the Doctrine of Faith originally preached by the Apostles Whether holy Scripture of the Apostles and Euangelists bee that meanes or perpetuall Tradition vnwritten deriued by Succession from the Apostles ANSVVER The Iesuit affirmeth the latter and produceth foure Arguments to prooue his Tenet and then supposing that he hath prooued the Question inferreth that the Roman Church is the only true Church because it is the only faithfull keeper and teacher of this Tradition IESVITS 1. Argument If the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are
beleeued to bee Apostolicall because written in the Scripture of the New Testament and the Scriptures of the New Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voice of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten then our resolution That our Faith is Apostolicall stayeth finally vpon Tradition vnwritten But the maine and substantiall points of our Faith are beleeued to be Apostolicall because they are written in Scriptures and the Scriptures c. are beleeued to come from the Apostles by perpetuall Tradition vnwritten Ergo Our resolution that our Faith is Apostolicall resteth finally vpon Tradition vnwritten ANSVVER If the second part of the Antecedent to wit And the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten bee vnderstood without any further explication or addition then the sequell of the Maior is denied and if onely or principally bee added to vnwritten Tradition then the Assumption is false First although the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall Tradition yet because they are not beleeued thus to descend by the said voyce as vpon the onely or principall ground therefore it is inconsequent to inferre our resolution that our faith is Apostolicall stayeth lastly and finally vpon Tradition If the Argument be reduced to a Categoricall forme the defect will easily appeare That vpon whose voyce the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles is the grouud whereupon our faith lastly and finally stayeth Perpetuall Tradition is that vpon whose voyce the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles Therefore perpetuall Tradition is the ground whereupon our faith lastly and finally stayeth In this Argument the Maior proposition is false for that is not alwayes the last ground of Resolution vpon whose voyce and testimony we doe first of all or prioritate or dinis vel temporis in priority of time or order beleeue things because there may be other grounds of beleefe equall or of greater authoritie than the first voyce and the first voyce vpon which we beleeue may be only an introduction or motiue of credibility For example One may beleeue that Moses or the Prophets were the Authors of the Scriptures of the old Testament vpon the voyce and testimony of the Iewes yet this testimony is not the last ground of resolution c. One may beleeue vpon the testimony of Iosephus That Iesus Christ was a wise man yea more than a man and that hee wrought many great miracles and was crucified and appeared againe the third day aliue and was honoured by Iewes and Gentiles yet this voyce and Testimony of Iosephus is not the finall ground of faiths resolution If 〈◊〉 bee taken to these 〈◊〉 that they proceed 〈◊〉 from humane 〈◊〉 whereas the voyce of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 I 〈◊〉 ere two things First that the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of faith is not alwayes made into that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vpon whose voyce and 〈◊〉 as appeareth by St. Iohn Baptist for vpon his voyce and 〈◊〉 which did not finally and principally 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but into the voyce of Christ himselfe Iohn 5. 33 36. Secondly although the vocall Tradition of the Apostles themselues concerning the Scriptures of the new Testament when they deliuered or commended the same to their immediate hearers was totally and perfectly diuine both in regard of the matter testified and in respect of their owne persons who were witnesses immediatly sent and inspired of God yet the subsequent History and report of this former made by those which were remote from the Apostles age is not simply and perfectly diuine but onely in part for when it faithfully reporteth that which the Apostles said and did it is diuine in regard of the matter and thing testified but is humane in regard of the quality of the witnesses and the manner of testification because these succeeding witnesses were not equall in verity to the holy Apostles 〈◊〉 free from possibility of errour nor such as immediatly heard the Apostles Hereupon Aquinas himselfe holdeth that our faith doth onely rest vpon those reuelations which the Authours of the holy Scriptures published and Durand with many other Schoolemen saith that the faith which is grounded vpon the approbation of the Church is onely acquisite And if this be true then because the credit of vnwritten Traditions dependeth in respect of vs vpon the authority of the Church since the Apostles which Churches voyce being not formally diuine can of it selfe onely produce acquisite faith the last and finall resolution of diuine faith cannot bee made into the voyce of Tradition vnwritten And thus much concerning the sequel of the Maior proposition But if the Iesuite when he saith the Scriptures of the new Testament are beleeued to come from the Apostles vpon the voyce of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten doe means that the said Scriptures are beleeued to 〈◊〉 from the Apostles vpon the voyce of vnwritten Tradition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the assumption is false for they are 〈◊〉 to come from the Apostles by written Tradition as well as by vnwritten and more principally vpon the voyce of the Apostles speaking in and by their Scriptures than vpon the onely testimony of vnwritten Tradition It is vsuall and common for one man to certifie another of such matters as he desireth he should know by an Epistle or writing So likewise the holy Apostles desiring that all the world for whose instruction they wrote should know that these Scriptures are their worke haue declared the same by their owne testimonie recorded in those bookes St. Iohn affirmes that hee is the Author of his Gospell and of the Reuelation Iohn 21 24. Reuel 1 4. St. Paul and other Apostles doe the like concerning the Epistles Rom. 1 1. 2. Cor. 10 10. Collos. 4. 18. 1. Pet. 1 1. Iam. 1 1. Iude v. 1. And that the holy Apostles and Euangelists doe speake vnto people of all ages by their bookes and writings is affirmed by the Fathers St. August saith Ipsum Paulum audi c. Heare thou euen Paul himselfe St. Chrysost. If thou desirest thou mayest heare Paul Peter Iohn and the whole company of the Prophets speaking vnto thee take the bookes of these blessed ones into thine hands reade their Scriptures and thou mayest heare not Paul onely but euen Pauls Lord speaking vnto thee by Pauls mouth But it is obiected against this by Bellarmine and others that counterfeit Authours may speake in the name and person of the Apostles to wit a Bastard Hereticke in the name of St. Bartholomew or St. Peter c. I answere with St. Augustine the same may be done in all humane and ecclesiasticall writings and yet sufficient meanes are found partly in the History of times partly in the writings of euery Authour to confute Impostors And concerning the holy Scriptures wee haue two
expressed are sufficient to prooue that the holy Apostles were the Authors or Approuers of all the Scriptures of the New Testament and if these with other humane motiues of credibilitie be not the same doubt which is made concerning them may with greater probabilitie be made concerning vnwritten Traditions And secluding the authoritie of the Scripture it selfe no other diuine testimonie can be produced to satisfie them which are doubtfull touching the veritie of vnwritten Tradition and the authoritie of the present Church If one will not beleeue the Scriptures because of the authoritie of God speaking in them neither will he beleeue the present Church consisting of persons in whom is possibilitie of error IESVIT For we may distinguish three properties of the Doctrine of Faith to wit to be true to be reuealed of God to be preached and deliuered by the Apostles The highest ground by which I am persuaded and resolued that my Faith is true is the authoritie of God reuealing it the highest ground on which I am resolued that my Faith is reuealed is the credit and authoritie of Christ Iesus and his Apostles who deliuered the same as diuine and sacred but the highest ground that mooueth me to beleeue that my Faith was preached by the Apostles is the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles that so teacheth me ANSVVER The last part of the former distinction is denied The highest ground meaning diuine which mooueth vs to beleeue that the doctrine of Faith was preached by the Apostles is not the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles but the holy Scripture of the New Testament for the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles is beleeued because of the authoritie of the said Church and whosoeuer beleeueth that Tradition or Testimonie must first of all know the Church to be an infallible witnesse But the word of God only the greater and most worthie part whereof by our Aduersaries confession is contained in the Scriptures giueth authoritie to the Church for the Church is founded vpon the word of God Eph. 2.20 and the word of God is the immortall seed which produceth and giueth being to the Church Luc. 8.11 Ia. 1.18 it selfe vpon the Apostles 〈◊〉 word and Doctrine which is principally contained in the Scripture 〈◊〉 Into this principle St. Augustine resolued his faith against the 〈◊〉 who pretended the Scriptures were corrupted confuting them by Tradition of the Church affirming that he would not beleeue the Gospell did not the authority of the Catholike Church induce him assigning this as the last stay of his resolution in this point for though he beleeued the Gospel to 〈◊〉 souer aignely certaine and true vpon the authority of God 〈◊〉 it and that it was reuealed of God vpon the authority of the Apostles who as sacred preached it yet that this Gospel as we haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles he could haue no stronger or more excellent 〈◊〉 than the testimony of the present Church descended by continued succession of Bishops from the Apostles neither can we imagine any higher except we flye to particular and to priuate reuelation which is absurd ANSWER St. Augustines words C. Epist. Manichei c. 4. doe not proue that after he was fully conuerted he resolued his faith finally and principally into the authority of the Church succeeding the Apostles First St. Augustine resolued his faith finally and principally into that which he knew to be infallible and totally diuine But he was not so persuaded of the Church succeeding the Apostles because he thought it possible for the principall members of that Church to 〈◊〉 and be deceiued and he prefers the authority of the Scriptures before the iudgement of Councels and Fathers in which some of our aduersaries place the 〈◊〉 of Ecclesiasticall infallibility Moreouer it appeareth by Saint Augustine in the second chapter of this Booke that he did not make the authority of the Church the highest ground of resolution of his faith for he saith that manifest verity is to be preferred before all other tbings whereby he was held in the Catholike Church but that whose authority must be preferred before all other things is the highest ground of faiths resolution Secondly because St. Augustines meaning in this place is obscure and dubious our aduersaries cannot conclude certainely from hence 1. Some Schoolemen hold that he speaketh of acquisite or Historicall Faith which is an introductiō to infused faith and then it is inconsequent to argue that because Saint Augustine at his first conuersion and being a Nouice in Faith did ground his Historicall faith vpon the authority of the Church therefore the authority of the Church is vniuersally and after men are conuerted the highest ground of resolution Most men are at first induced by externall motiues to giue credit to the Scriptures as the people of Samaria were by the testimony of the woman to beleeue that Christ was a Prophet Ioh. 4.42 Altisiodor summa in prolog li. 3. tr 3.9.4 But as these people afterwards beleeued because of Christs owne words so they which by the Churches authority are first persuaded to heare and reade the doctrine of the Scriptures afterwards by the light of grace doe perceiue the diuine Maiestie wisedome efficacie and verity of the said doctrine and resolue their faith into the diuine authority of the holy Ghost manifesting himselfe in the Scripture or doctrine of the Scripture Secondly other learned Papists hold that St. Augustine in the place obiected by the authority of the Church vnderstood the Church wherein the Apostles themselues gouerned and of which they were parts and then no meruaile if he resolued his faith into the authority of the Church because in this notion the Church comprehends the Colledge of the Apostles whose testimony concerning the Scripture was altogether Diuine And although St. Augustine conioyneth the authority of the latter Church with the former wherein were the Apostles yet he did not equally and with the same manner of beleeuing ground his faith vpon both for when a Preacher deliuereth Apostolicall doctrine we beleeue both the Preacher and the Doctrine and we could not haue knowne the doctrine but by the Preacher yet we resolue not our faith finally and principally into the authority of the Preacher but into the diuine verity it selfe preached by him Euery thing by which we are mooued to beleeue and without whose authority we should not haue beleeued is not the principall obiect whereunto diuine faith is finally resolued as appeareth by miracles preaching instruction of Parents c. IESVIT Vpon the former place of Saint Augustine the Iesuit inferreth That because we haue no stronger or more excellent proofe than the testimonie of the present Churcb descended by continuall succession of Bishops from the Apostles to confirme that the Gospell as wee haue it came incorrupt from the Apostles therefore Saint Augustine resolued his faith that
inconsequent to conclude That because the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from the Roman Church therefore they receiued them to wit immediatly from the vniuersall Church The Minor proposition to wit the Protestants receiued the Scriptures from no other Church than from the Romane may be taken in a double sence For either it may be vnderstood originally and by way of authoritie that is The Protestants receiued the Scriptures both originally and deriuatiuely from and by the authoritie of the Romane Church onely or else it may bee vnderstood indicatiuely The Protestants receiued the Scriptures by the hand of the Romane Church and were first of all instructed and told by that Church that the same were diuine Bookes yet they receiued them not onely or principally from that church but also from the Primitiue Church which led them originally to the Apostles themselues And besides the former Tradition by reading and studying the holy Scriptures they learned sufficient matter out of those heauenly bookes to confirme them that they were diuine and of God Philemon receiued S. Pauls Epistle by the hand of Onesimus he did not esteeme Onesimus a seruant who had beene a fugitiue an infallible witnesse in himselfe but the argument and contents of S. Pauls Epistle persuaded him that S. Paul was the Author A man may receiue the Kings Proclamation from off a pillar or his great Seale by the hand of a meane clarke So likewise the bookes of holy Scriptures are first conueyed vnto vs by Ecclesiasticall testimonie and Tradition but they containe heauenly veritie and doctrine within themselues which persuade the diligent readers and learners of them that they are diuine IESVIT The Maior I prooue If Protestants haue not the Text of Scripture by and from the one holy Catholicke and Apostolicke Church they cannot be certaine they haue the true incorrupt Text the Apostles deliuered and recommended as Diuine to the first 〈◊〉 seeing the Tradition of any other Church is fallible and may deceiue And if it may deceiue how can they be certaine that they are not deceiued seeing they themselues liued not in the Apostles dayes to see with their owne eyes what Copies the Apostles deliuered But Protestants as they pretend be certaine that they haue the true incorrupt Apostolicall Text of Scripture Ergo they haue it vpon the Authoritie of the holy Catholike Apostolike Church ANSWER The Argument whereby the Aduersarie confirmeth his Maior is this If the Protestants receiue the Scriptures from any other but the Holy Catholique Church they cannot be certaine that the same are incorrupt because a fallible Witnesse may deceiue Answ. They which receiue the Scriptures from the hands of a corrupt Church may be deceiued if there be not some other infallible meanes besides the Testimonie of that Church to assure them But if that Church be onely a Messenger to deliuer and there be found in the thing deliuered that which is certaine and infallible in it selfe to wit the Testimonie of the Apostles and of the Spirit of God speaking in and by those Scriptures Acts 24. 25. then they which immediately receiue the Text of the Scripture from a fallible Church may be certaine that they are not deceiued It is not necessarie that the Messenger by and from whose hands wee receiue immediately the Text of the Scriptures should be infallible in all things for then wee must receiue them from the hands of no particular Church or particular Councell vnconfirmed by the Pope or from any particular Pastour of the Church because these are fallible And according to our Aduersaries Tenet infallibilitie of Iudgement is found onely in the Pope and Councell confirmed by him And from hence it will in like sort follow that for the first two or three hundred yeeres beginning from the death of the Apostles in which time there was no generall Councell yea for certaine Ages after generall Councels began vntill the Canon of the Scripture was expressely assigned by some generall or particular Councell confirmed by the Pope Christians should haue remained vncertaine touching the sacred Authoritie of Diuine Scripture because the meanes by which they receiued them immediately were fallible The Authoritie of the holy Scripture dependeth vpon the immediate Messenger which deliuereth the Bookes vnto vs no more than the Authoritie of the Kings Proclamation dependeth vpon the Sergeant who proclaymes it or sets it vpon a Pillar to be read of all men but vpon the first Diuine Witnesses which wee know to be the Authors of the Scripture not because Pope Paul the fifth or Clement the eight say so but because the Witnesses themselues affirme it in their Scripture or deliuer that in their Scripture by which it is prooued to such as are eleuated by Grace and taught of God IESVIT Now the Minor That they haue the Scripture from the Romane is apparent For what other Church did deliuer vnto Luther the Text of the Bible assuring him that they had it by Tradition of Ancestors time out of mind as giuen originally by the Apostles which is accordingly acknowledged by M. Whitaker and others but particularly by Luther himselfe Ergo the Romane Church is the one holy Catholike Apostolike Church whose Tradition doth deliuer infallibly vnto vs the Text of Scripture ANSVVER The Protestants receiuing the Bookes of holy Scripture by the hand of the Roman Church proueth not the said Church to be the onely holy Catholike and Apostolike Church any more than the receiuing of Baptisme by Heretikes or the Old Testament by the Synagogue of which the Pharisees were a part proue the same to be the true infallible Church IESVIT And if the true Apostolicall Text then also the true Apostolicall Sense ANSWER The sequele is denyed For it is not necessarie that they which truly deliuer the Text shall also truly deliuer the Apostolicall sense and on the contrarie a lying sence may be deliuered by them which retaine the true and incorrupt Letter of the Text as appeareth by the Pharisees Arrians Donatists and many other Heretikes IESVIT This I proue If the Apostles did not deliuer the bare Text but together with the Text the true sense of Scripture to be deliuered perpetually vnto posteritie then they who by Tradition receiue from the Apostles the true Text must together receiue the true sense But all principall Protestants affirme No man doubteth but the Primitiue Church receiued from the Apostles and Apostolicall men not onely the Text of Scripture but also the right and natiue sense which is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers that from the Apostles together with the Text descends the Line of Apostolicall interpretation squared according to the Ecclesiasticall and Catholike sense ANSVVER The Assumption of the former Argument to wit The Apostles together with the Text deliuered the true sense of all their Scriptures to those people to whom they wrote is vncertaine They deliuered no doubt the sense of the Scriptures
though he lead vs to hell bring something euident and manifest out of the holy Scripture Si diuinarum Scripturarum earum scilicet quae canonicae in Ecclesia nominantur perspicua firmatur Authoritate sine vlla dubitatione credendum est 〈◊〉 vero testibus vel testimonijs quibus aliquid credendum esse suadetur tibi credere vel non credere liceat c. If saith S. Augustine it be confirmed by the perspicuous authoritie of those diuine Scriptures which are Canonicall it must without all question be beleeued but as for other witnesses and testimonies by which any thing is persuaded to be beleeued it is lawfull for thee to beleeue or not beleeue them as thou shalt perceiue them to deserue credit IESVIT Fundamentall errours of the first kinde Protestants haue 〈◊〉 particularly these Nine ANSWER Malice alwayes fighteth against Vertue and laboureth to impose and rub off her owne faults vpon it and all they whose brests and minds are inhabited by Satan testifie their venemous rage with furious words If this Traducer be able to conuince the Protestants of Nine or of any one fundamentall errour wee must acknowledge that we are in a perillous state but if hee onely depraue and falsifie our doctrine or affirme that to be fundamentall errour which is diuine veritie then he prooueth himselfe to be one of his Ministers of whom S. Gregory speaketh Perfidious dealing is in the Tabernacle of Antichrist whereby he gainesayeth the faith of the Redeemer IESVIT First their Doctrine against Traditions vnwritten whereby the foundation is ouerthrowne on which wee beleeue all other substantiall and fundamentall points as hath beene shewed ANSVVER Either you wilfully falsifie or ignorantly mistake the Protestants Doctrine concerning vnwrttten Tradition First we admit in generall all vnwritten Traditions agreeing with the holy Scripture which are deriued from the Apostles and deliuered vnto vs by the manifest and perpetuall testimonie of the Primitiue Church and by the vniforme consent of succeeding Churches in all ages Secondly we beleeue in particular the historicall Traditions of the Primatiue and succeeding Churches concerning the dignitie authoritie perfection authors number and integritie of the bookes of Canonicall Scripture and also the Historicall Tradition of the said Church concerning the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed Virgin Marie and concerning the baptisme of infants and all other genuine Traditions which maintaine the Faith and Doctrine contained expressely or by consequent in the Scripture Thirdly we embrace such exposition of holy Scripture as being consonant to the rule of Faith and to the text of Scripture is affirmed by antient Tradition to haue descended from the holy Apostles Fourthly we beleeue the rule of Faith contained in the Apostles Creed both vpon the authoritie of Christs written word and also vpon the voice and testimonie of vnwritten Tradition If it shall then be demanded Wherefore do the Romists and you so eagrely contend about the question of Traditions and wherein lies your difference we answer as followeth First we yeeld the highest and most soueraigne authoritie to the sacred Scripture and make the voice and sentence thereof a supreame rule and iudge of supernaturall Veritie and we make Tradition vnwritten subordinate and ministeriall to holy Scripture admitting the same so farre forth only as it is conformable to the Scripture and reiecting the contrarie Secondly we affirme that the Canonicall Scriprure containeth all supernaturall Veritie necessarie to saluation and being receiued and vnderstood is a sufficient and perfect rule of Faith and the sole doctrine thereof is sufficient to instruct the whole Church and euery member thereof to saluation And that Tradition vnwritten maketh no addition or increase of new Articles of Faith but is only an helpe and instrument to deliuer applie and interpret the doctrine expresly deliuered or intended by the holy Ghost in the Scripture Thirdly we receiue no Tradition as diuine or apostolicall but such as hath the plaine manifest and vniforme testimonie and approbation of the Primatiue Church But our Aduersaries either equall or preferre vnwritten Tradition before the Scripture and they make Tradition a diuers and larger part of the rule of Faith containing many Articles which are neither expressely nor inuoluedly reuealed in the Scripture and they make the present Roman Church an infallible witnesse of such Tradition affirming that we are bound to beleeue euerie Article which the said Church deliuereth as a Tradition with the same assurance of Faith wherewith we beleeue any written testimonie of S. Paul or the holy Euangelists And many of them teach That it is not necessarie to deriue Tradition by a perpetuall descent and current through all ages but the voice of the present Church is sufficient to make any Article ctedible and authenticall to vs Lastly many particularopinions of antient Fathers which they deliuered coniecturally or probably onely and concerning which they haue not affirmed that they were diuine or apostolicall Traditions are ranked by latter Pontificians in the number of diuine 〈◊〉 and made parts of the vndoubted word of God And thus the present Roman doctrine concerning Traditions vnwritten is a Seminarie of Errour and by pretext hereof Pontificians obtrude vpon the Church many prophane fabulous and superstitious 〈◊〉 fansies and nouelties repugnant to holy Scripture and the antient Catholicke Faith Let therefore impartiall Readers consider whether this Romish doctrine debasing the sacred Scripture and aduancing humane Traditions tendeth not to the corrupting of Christian Faith and consequently whether the same be not rather a fundamentall Errour than an Orthodoxall Veritie And on the contrarie whether the doctrine of the Protestants maintaining the supreame authoritie of the sacred Scripture which is Gods vndoubted word and withall yeelding to genuine Tradition the credit and honour which the antient Church gaue thereunto is not fundamentall Veritie and a soueraigne meanes to preserue right Faith IESVIT Secondly their questioning the infallibe authoritie of lawfull generall Councels thereby casting downe the foundation of Vnitie in Gods Church ANSWER They which will not permit generall Councels to assemble or to proceed lawfully and which oppose the decrees of antient Councels are the Romists and not the Protestants First The moderne Popes vsurpe the whole right and authoritieof calling and conuocating Councells contrarie to the antient custome and practise of the Church Secondly They receiue and admit no Assessors and Iudges in Councels but onely their fast friends to wit men aforehand oblieged by solemne oath to proceed according to the will and purpose of the Pope Thirdly The Pope alone is appointed the authenticall Iudge of all causes and matters which are concluded in Councels he approoueth or refuseth whatsoeuer himselfe pleaseth and all other Iudges and Assessors are onely his shadowes and creatures Fourthly Whereas in words and tearmes they seeme to aduance
Cup the Blood of Christ. And Paschasius after him saith That the Flesh or Bread is not lawfully receiued without the Cup or Blood But whatsoeuer our Sauiour himselfe and his Apostles and their successours and the antient Church by perpetuall succession taught and practised a thousand yeeres and vpward yea euen the Latine Church it selfe and the Easterne Churches to this day the Romish generation exalting it selfe aboue God not onely presumeth to commit Sacriledge at home but it censureth the followers of Christs Testament of damnable Heresie Now that they may with some colour aduance their owne Tradition against the Ordinance of Christ they prie into euery corner and inuent friuolous Glosses and Pretexts as wee shall further perceiue by that which followeth in our Aduersaries Discourse IESVIT Hence wee may probably inferre That Christ gaue no speciall Precept thereof because Christ hath commanded no more concerning the vse of the Eucharist than what by the substance of the Institution and nature of the Sacrament we are bound vnto leauing accidentall circumstances belonging thereunto to be ordained by the Apostles and Pastours of the Church as S. Augustine noteth saying Our Lord did not appoint in what order the Sacrament of the Eucharist was to be taken afterward but left authoritie to make such appointments vnto his Apostles by whom he was to dispose and order his Church So clearely doth S. Augustine speake that Christ gaue no commandement to his Church concerning the vse of the Sacrament besides such as are contained in the substance of the Institution of the Sacrament of which kinde Communion vnder both kinds cannot be as hath beene prooued which will farther appeare by pondering the places alleadged to prooue a Precept ANSVVER Ecclesiasticall power to adde detract or alter any thing about Sacraments is confined to things adiaphorous and Saint Augustine in the place obiected speaketh expresly of these but the materiall parts of Sacraments belong to their substance euen as the matter of the heauens is of the substance of the heauens and the matter of the Scripture is of the substance of the Scripture And if in the holy Eucharist the Element of Wine is not of the substance thereof then the Eucharist may bee administred without wine also the kinde of the Element may be changed and milke or broath substituted in the place of wine and the Communion may be celebrated in wine without bread In all compounded things the moitie of the matter is the moitie of the substance and whatsoeuer Iesuited Romists teach I see not how their Laickes can truely say that they haue at any time in all their liues beene partakers of this Sacrament for if halfe a man be not a man then likewise halfe a Communion is not a Communion If they except That they receiue the Blood of Christ Consecutiue or by Concomitancie I reply This Answere solueth not the difficultie for I dispute of the materiall Element and the direct receiuing thereof and not of receiuing the blood of Christ spiritually or any other way Now the wine is a moitie of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and therefore if they receiue not the wine they receiue not the one halfe of the substantiall outward matter of the Eucharist and consequently they receiue no Eucharist for as the poope of a ship the prowe being broken away is no ship and as halfe a cloake is not a garment to keepe a man warme so likewise halfe a Communion is no Sacrament And concerning the being of Christs Blood in the bread by Concomitancie I answere If this were granted they receiue not Christs blood Sacramentally but some other way for nothing is receiued Sacramentally but that which is caused by the words of consecration Ergo It is not there Sacramentally and consequently it is not receiued Sacramentally IESVIT The words of Christ Doe this in remembrance of me doe no wayes inferre a Precept of both kinds First because he said Doe this in remembrance of me onely of the Sacrament in forme of bread of the forme of wine not absolutely but conditionally Doe this as often as you drinke in memorie of me that the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue any the least plausible shew to complaine of her neglecting Gods Precept For this Precept Doe this being the onely Precept giuen by Christ to his Church as shall afterwards appeare and giuen absolutely of the forme of Bread conditionally of the forme of Wine there is no colour to accuse the Church of doing against Christs Precept by Communion vnder one kinde ANSWER The first reason vpon which you presume that our Sauiours words Doe this in remembrance of me are not Preceptiue in regard of Communion in both kinds is an emptie shadow without substance of matter Our Sauiour in your Tenet saith not Doe this as often as you Lay men communicate but whensoeuer you receiue the cup and drinke then doe it in remembrance of me But if this be the whole sence then Christs words must be resolued against sence in this manner As often as you Lay people drinke which needeth neuer to be done by you according to Romish Diuinitie Doe this nothing in remembrance of me Secondly Quotiescunque biberitis as often as you drinke maketh not the Precept conditionall in respect of the cup more than of the bread for in the very next verse it followeth Quotiescunque ederitis panem hunc as often as you shall eate this bread and therefore if as often as you shall drinke restraineth the speech in regard of the cup then as often as you shall eate restraineth the Precept in regard of the bread And Haimo saith Idem sensus est c. There is the same sence of Doe this being referred to the cup as of Doe this being referred to the bread But Doe this referred to the bread is a Precept Ergo Doe this referred to the cup is also a Precept But the Romanist infatuated with this conceit croweth as followeth That the Aduersaries of the Church might not haue the least plausible shew c. The Vermine is deceiued in calling vs Aduersaries of the Church for wee are fast friends to the true Catholicke Church and we are Aduersaries to Romists an vnsound Church no otherwise than Saint Paul was to the Galathians when he said Am I therefore become your enemie because I tell you the truth Gallat 4. 16. And touching the fancie of this Obiectour I adde That euen as when Saint Paul said 1. Cor. 10. 31. Whether yee eate or drinke or whatsoeuer thing else ye doc doe all to the glorie of God If these words should be resolued in this manner As often as ye eate and drinke doe this to the glorie of God the placing of this word As often restraineth not the speech from being a Precept so likewise when Saint Paul saith As often as ye shall drinke doe this in remembrance of me this manner of speaking altereth not his words from
vnto vs confusion of face v. 9. To the Lord our God belongeth mercy and forgiuenesse though we haue rebelled against thee and v. 18. O my God encline thine eare and heare open thine eyes and behold our desolations c. for we doe not present our supplications before thee for our owne righteousnesse but for thy great mercies Three things are remarkeable in this Scripture First Daniell was a sanctified person and a Prophet one of those which according to our Aduersaries Tenet communicates Satisfactions to fill vp the Churches Treasurie Secondly he prayeth to God not onely for the remission of the eternall guilt of sinne but also for the pardon and release of temporarie punishment Thirdly he presenteth not his owne Satisfactions neither yet the superabundant Passions of any other of the Patriarchs or Prophets but he resteth wholy vpon the free mercy of God and the future satisfaction of the Messiah to come Therefore I conclude that they which conioyne the passions of Saints with the sufferings of Christ to make condigne Satisfaction for the temporarie punishment of sinne are iniurious to the All-sufficient Passion of Christ and attribute that vertue to the actions of men which is proper to the Sacrifice of the Sonne of God Now if the Aduersarie in his answer relye vpon the distinction of eternall and temporall paine affirming that Christ alone and by himselfe hath fully satisfied the iustice of God for the first but not for the latter he must remember That it is not sufficient in a matter of such consequence to affirme but he must confirme by diuine Testimonie the veritie of his answer And if the former Principles and the arguments deduced from them when they are propounded in a due forme conclude not his assertion then his distinction is a begging of the question and not a solution of the Obiection Lastly if the Iesuit will be so rigide as to admit no argument on our part which may receiue any colourable answer I must require him likewise to confirme his owne positions at leastwise with probable reasons and not pester his papers with Illations ridiculous to children But among other things I intreate him to deliuer so much as one probable Argument in due forme I will not require a demonstration proouing that the Roman Bishop or any Prelate vnder him haue power ouer soules in Purgatorie for if his Monarchy be onely ouer the Church Militant and the Church Militant is onely vpon earth by what authoriy doth the Roman Bishop intermeddle with soules in Purgatorie Also how doth his holynesse or his Emissaries the Iesuits and Fryars know which soules are in Purgatorie gatorie and how long they continue in the same and the time and season when it is expedient to apply suffrages and indulgences to them Dominicus Soto and Thomas Zerula say That soules continue not in Purgatorie ten or twentie yeeres and yet the Pope granteth Pardons for many thousands of yeeres Also by what experience or testimonie doe Papists vnderstand the state of soules in Purgatorie the qualitie of their paine their ingresse and egresse from that place of torment or the meanes to apply remedie to them Now let them answere what they please touching the difference of the yeeres of Penance in this life with the measure of Purgatorie paines or concerning any of the former assertions and withall let them be intreated to confirme their Tenet with any probable Argument and wee shall thinke they are lesse partiall when they admit no proofe as sufficient on our part which can be euaded by any straine of wit THE NINTH POINT THE OPINION OF DEPOSING KINGS AND giuing away of their Kingdomes by Papall power whether directly or indirectly IESVIT THe Question proposed in the ninth place being a Controuersie betweene two powers both each in his kind Soueraigne and Supreame both instituted and appointed of God both necessarie for the preseruation of Religion and gouernment of the Christian world both Sacred Venerable Honoured and reuerenced of me in the inmost affections of my soule for me to vndertake the discussion thereof betweene them were to put my selfe into imminent danger of incurring their offence whose fauour J desire and esteeme aboue all worldly blessings ANSVVER IN your entrance into this ninth Question you deliuer these Particulars First That the question is concerning two Powers in their seuerall kinds supreame Secondly Both these Powers Regall and Papall are vnfainedly honoured by you Thirdly You professe your owne vnwillingnesse to discusse this question because of offence To the first I answer That Papall iurisdiction is not supreame in Spirituals by Diuine institution whereas regall is by diuine naturall and ciuill in things ciuill and temporall Gregorie the Great a Roman Pope saith as followeth None of the Romane Bishops my predecessours assumed to himselfe the name of Vniuersall Bishop and if any man else assume the same I say It is a swelling of arrogancie a prowd nouell pompous peruerse temerarious superstitious prophane and impious title A name of Singularitie a title of Errour a word of Vanitie and Blasphemie and whosoeuer taketh vpon him or desireth this arrogant title by this exalting himselfe he is a forerunner of Antichrist and if he be permitted to vsurpe the same it will prooue the bane of the Faith of the vniuersall Church Also if the Roman Monarchie were of Diuine institution how could an Oecumenicall Councell one of those foure which Pope Gregorie himselfe honoured as the foure Euangelists appoint equall dignitie iurisdiction and priuiledges to the Episcopall See of Constantinople and to the See of Rome Againe other Bishops in auntient time stile the Romane by the name of Brother Colleague fellow Priest fellow Bishop c. They resist him and controll his Actions And that which is principally to be considered It appeareth not by diuine Reuelation that our Sauiour or his Apostles granted any Monarchie to the Romane Pope or that he is the onely Successour of S. Peter or that S. Peters authoritie and priuiledges are deuolued vpon the Romane Bishops onely Yea it is not infallible that S. Peter himselfe was a Monarch Luc. 22.24 for in the whole diuine Historie no Monarchicall actions of his are reported He is sent vpon a message by other Apostles Acts 8.14 he giues the right hand of fellowship to S. Paul and Barnabas Gal. 2. 9 and many of the Fathers say the rest of the Apostles were his Compeeres Secondly Your protestation that you honour Papall and regall dignitie must be vnderstood Iesuitically with mentall limitation to wit that you hononr the Pope as an earthly God yea so farre as that if he lead you to Hell you are readie to follow him But you honor Kings as the Popes vassals or in a subordination to the Pope and so farre onely as the Pope will licence you And if you speake plainely and from your heart concerning your loyaltie
Church assembled in Gods feare and not factiously for their owne ends shall iudge aright than Popes which referre all things to their owne worldly ends Also it is one thing to contradict a Church defining and speaking of it selfe and another when it deliuereth the doctrine of Christ. Now whensoeuer the preaching of the Church is according to the rule of holy Scripture the voice thereof is the voice of Christ and all people learned and vnlearned are bound to heare and obey the same IESVIT If wetake out of the world a Church infallible whence shall ignorant men learne which is the Doctrine of saluation the Apostles deliuered It is as euident as the Sunne shining at noone day and the euidence of the thing hath forced some Protestants to acknowledge That the Controuersies of Religion in our time are growne in number so many and in nature so intricate that few haue time and leasure fewer strength of vnderstanding to examine them so that nothing remaines for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the societies of men in the world is the Church of the liuing God the Pillar and ground of Truth that so they may imbrace her Communion follow her Directions rest in her Iudgement ANSWER If the rule be infallible and the Preaching of Pastours according to that rule ignorant persons by the assistance of Grace may learne the doctrine of saluation from their teaching without the least thought or reference more to the Romane Church than to any other Church for although Saint Augustine and Saint Cyprian were subiect to errour yet the vnlearned people of Hippo and Carthage receiued right Faith by their Ministerie with assurance that the same descended from the Apostles And it is as euident as the Sunne shining that the Word of Christ is the sole authenticall ground of Faith and the onely infallible rule to decide Controuersies and the Pastours of other Churches if they vse the meanes and haue sufficient knowledge and the assistance of ordinarie Grace may bee as infallible in their Doctrine as Romane Prelates And although vnlearned people depend vpon their Pastours like sicke men vpon their Physitions yet where they inioy the free vse of the holy Scripture as in antient times all people did and if they be carefull of their owne saluation and desire to know the truth God blesseth his owne ordinance and ordinarily assisteth them by his grace in such sort as that they shall not be seduced to damnation Math. 24.24 And if they be distracted in smaller points by the dissentions of Teachers their Errour in this case is excuseable But howsoeuer the Roman Church can be no greater stay to them than other Churches but onely by leading them to a blind obedience like as Pagans are led in another kind Dr. Fields testimonie concerning the necessitie of learning which is the true Church the ground and Pillar of Truth c. serueth not to prooue That the definition of any moderne Church is absolutely and vniuersally the rule of Faith and supreame Iudge of all Controuersies or free from all Errour for this learned Diuine speaketh of the Catholike Church in generall as it containes the holy Apostles and those which succeeded them in all ages in the teaching of the doctrine which they deliuered to the world And concerning the present Church he ascribeth no more vnto it but to be a manuduction and guider to sauing veritie confirmed and grounded vpon the holy Scripture neither maketh he the authoritie and definition thereof absolute but dependant vpon the word of God IESVIT Jf there be no Church besides the Roman in the world that can with any colour pretend infallibilitie of Iudgement Jf the most part of men cannot by their examining of Controuersie be resolued in faith and therefore must perish eternally except they find a Church that is an infallible Mistresse of truth in whose iudgement they may securely rest certainely those that haue bowells of charitie will accept of any probable answer vnto Protestants Obiections and accusations rather than discredit the authoritie of so necessarie a Church which being discredited no Church remaines in the world of credit sufficient to sustaine the waight of Christian that is infallible beleefe ANSWER Vnlearned people must relye vpon the Ministerie of some moderne Church not as a ground and rule of their faith but as an helper of their faith and although the Ministerie of the Church whereupon they depend is not absolutely infallible or free from Errour yet their saluation is not by this meanes impeached neither doe they perish eternally For it is not necessarie That a Church subiect to errour as Hippo Carthage Lions c. in the dayes of S. Augustine S. Cyprian S. Ireneus shall at all times actually erre or grieuously erre at any time and when it deliuereth the doctrine of holy Scripture it is herein free from errour and Christian people by comparing the doctrine thereof with the Scripture may certainely know that it erreth not Act. 17. 11. And touching the Roman Church Vpon what grounds are Christian people able to know by assurance of faith That the doctrine thereof is more infallible than the doctrine of other Churches But if Rome is Babylon described Reuelat. ca. 14. 8. 17 5. 18. 2. as weightie motiues induce some men to thinke then it is most safe for people to renounce the Communion of this Church as it now beleeueth and to liue in the fellowship of that Church which groundeth her faith on holy Scripture and not vpon the traditions of men Apoc. 18.4 IESVIT What amiserie will it be if it fall out as it is most likely it will fall out That at the day of Iudgement the most part of English Protestants be found to haue beleeued points of Doctrine necessarie to saluation not out of their owne certaine skill in Scripture as they should by the principles of their Religion but vpon the credit of the Church that teachech them which doth acknowledge her selfe to be no sufficient stay of assured beleefe for without question men cannot be saued who although they beleeued the truth yet beleeued it vpon a deceiueable ground and consequently by humane and fallible persuasion and not as need is by a diuine most certaine beleefe grouuded vpon aninfallible foundation which cannot be had without an infallible Church ANSWER What a miserie will it be if it fall out as it is certaine it will That at the day of Iudgement the greatest part of English Romists be found to haue renounced the expresse and manifest word of Christ and the sincere faith of the Primitiue Church and in stead thereof to haue imbraced lying vanities and the deceiueable Traditions of the man of finne the sonne of perdition who exalteth himselfe aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped 2. Thes. 2 3 4. For out of all doubt men cannot be saued
Text of God is a verie credible Text. Well these are the foure by most of which men offer to prooue the Scripture to be the Word of God as by a Diuine and infallible warrant and it seemes no one of these doth it The Tradition of the present Church is too weake because that is not absolutely Diuine The Light which is in Scripture it selfe is not bright enough it cannot beare sufficient witnesse to it selfe The Testimonie of the Holy Ghost that is most infallible but ordinarily it is not so much as considerable in this Question which is not how or by what meanes we beleeue but how the Scripture may be proposed as a credible Obiect 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 And for Reason no man expects that that should 〈◊〉 it it doth seruice enough if it enable vs to disprooue that which misguided men conceiue against it If none of these then be an absolute and sufficient meanes to prooue it eyther wee must find out another or see what can be more wrought out of these For the Tradition of the Church then certaine it is we must distinguish the Church before wee can iudge right of the validitie of the Tradition For if the speech be of the Prime Christian Church the Apostles Disciples and such as had immediate Reuelation from Heauen no question but the Voice and Tradition of this Church is Diuine not aliquo modo in a sort but simply and the Word of God from them is of like validitie written or deliuered And against this Tradition of which kind this That the Bookes of Scripture are the Word of God is the most generall and vniforme the Church of England neuer excepted And then here 's the Voyce of God of which no Christian may doubt to confirme his Word For the Apostles had their Authoritie from Christ and they prooued that they had it by apparant Miracles which were beyond exception And when S. Augustine said I would not beleeue the Gospell vnlesse the Authoritie of the Catholike Church mooued me whichplace you vrged at the Conference though you are now content to slide by it some of your ownewill not endure should be vnderstood saue of the Church in the time of the Apostles onely and some of the Church in generall not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but sure to include Christ and his Apostles the 〈◊〉 is there But this will not serue your turne The Tradition of the present Church must be as infallible as that of the Primitiue But the contrarie to this is prooued before because this Voyce of the present Church is not simply Diuine To what end then serues any Tradition of the present Church To what Why to a very good end For 〈◊〉 it serues by a full consent to worke vpon the minds of vnbeleeuers to mooue them to reade and to confider the Scripture which they heare by so many wise learned and 〈◊〉 men as of no meaner esteeme than the 〈◊〉 of God It 〈◊〉 among Nouices Weakelings and Doubters in the Faith to instruct and confirme them till they may acquaint themselues with and vnderstand the Scripture which the Church deliuers as the Word of God And thus againe some of your owne vnderstand the fore cited place of S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gospell c. For he speakes it eyther of 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 in the Faith or else of such as were in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You as the B. tells me at the Conference though you 〈◊〉 it here would needs haue it that S. Augustine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Faithfull which I cannot yet thinke For hee speakes to the 〈◊〉 and they had a great part of the 〈◊〉 in them And the words immediately before those are If thou shouldst find one Qui Euangelio nondum credit which did not yet beleeue the Gospell what wouldst thou doe to make him beleeue Ego vero non Truly I would not c. So to these two ends it serues and there need be no question betweene vs. But then euerie thing that is the first Inducer to beleeue is not by and by either the principall Motiue or the chiefe and last Obiect of Beleefe vpon which a man may rest his Faith The first knowledge that helpes to open a mans vnderstanding and prepares him to be able to demonstrate a truth and make it euident is his Grammar but when he hath made a Demonstration he resolues the knowledge of his Conclusion not into his Grammar Rules but into the immediate Principles out of which it is deduced So in this particular a man is probably led by the Authoritie of the present Church as by the first informing inducing persuading meanes to beleeue the Scripture to be the Wordof God but when hee hath studied considered and compared this Word with it selfe and with other Writings with the helpe of ordinarie Grace and a mind morally induced and reasonably persuaded by the voyce of the Church the Scripture then giues greater and higher reasons of credibilitie to it selfe than Tradition alone could giue And then he that beleeues resolues his last and full assent That Scripture is Diuine Authoritie into internall Arguments found in the Letter of it selfe though found by the helpe and direction of Tradition without and Grace within And the Resolution that is rightly grounded may not endure to pitch and rest it selfe vpon the helpes but vpon that Diuine Light which the Scripture no question hath in it selfe but is not kindled till these helpes come Thy Word is a Light so Dauid A Light therefore it is as much manifestatiuum sui as alterius a manifestation to it selfe as to other things which it shewes but still not till the Candle be lighted not till there hath beene a preparing instruction what Light it is Children call the Sunne and Moone Candles Gods Candles They see the Light as well as men but cannot distinguish betweene them till some Tradition and Education hath informed their Reason And animalis homo the naturall man sees some Light of Morall counsaile and instruction in Scripture as well as Beleeuers but he takes all that glorious Lustre for Candle-Light and cannot distinguish betweene the Suune and twelue to the pound till Tradition of the Church and Gods Grace put to it haue cleared his vnderstanding So Tradition of the present Church is the first motiue to Beleefe but the Beleefe it selfe That the Scripture is the Word of God rests vpon the Scripture when a man finds it to answere and exceed all that which the Church gaue in Testimonie And as in the voyce of the Primitiue and Apostolicall Church there was simply Diuine Authoritie deliuering the Scripture as Gods Word so after Tradition of the present Church hath taught and informed the Soule the voice of God is plainely heard in Scripture it selfe And then here 's double Authoritie and both Diuine that confirmes Scripture to be the Word of God Tradition of the Apostles deliuering it and the internall worth and argument in the Scripture obuious
whole Councell depended vpon him and his confirmation was then vnknowne and I verily thinke at this day not beleeued by your selues 5. Fiftly it must be considered If a Generall Councell may erre Who shall iudge it S. Augustine is at priora à posterioribus Nothing sure that is lesse than a Generall Councell Why but this yet layes all open to vncertainties and makes way for a Whirlewind of a priuate spirit to ruffle the Church No neither of these First all is not open to Vncertainties For Generall Councels lawfully called and ordered and lawfully proceeding are a great and an awfull Representation and cannot erre in matters of Faith if they keepe themselues to Gods Rule and attempt not to make a new of their owne and are with all submission to be obserued by euerie Christian where Scripture or euident Demonstration come not against it Nor doth it make way for the Whirlewind of a priuate spirit For priuate spirits are too giddie to rest vpon Scripture and too headie and shallow to be acquainted with demonstratiue Arguments And it were happie for the Church if shee might neuer be troubled with priuate spirits till they brought such Arguments I know this is hotely obiected against Hooker The Author calls him a wise Protestant yet turnes thus vpon him If a Councell must yeeld to a demonstratiue proofe Who shall iudge whether the Argument that is brought be a Demonstration or not For euerie man that will kicke against the Church will say the Scripture he vrges is euident and his Reason a Demonstration And what is this but to leaue all to the wildnesse of a priuate spirit Can any ingenuous man reade this passage in Hooker and dreame of a priuate spirit For to the Question Who shall iudge Hooker answers as if it had beene then made An Argument necessarie and demonstratiue is such saith hee as being proposed to any man and vnderstood the mind cannot chuse but inwardly assent vnto it So it is not enough to thinke or say it is demonstratiue The light then of a Demonstratiue Argument is the euidence which it selfe hath in it selfe to all that vnderstand it Well but because all vnderstand it not If a Quarrell be made who shall decide it No question but a Generall Councell not a priuate spirit first in the intent of the Author for Hooker in all that discourse makes the Sentence of the Councell binding and therefore that is made Iudge not a priuat spirit And then for the Iudge of the Argument it is as plaine For if it be euident to any man then to so many learned men as are in a Councell doubtlesse And if they cannot but assent it is hard to thinke them so impious that they will define against it And if that which is euident to any man is not euident to such a graue Assembly it is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Nor is this Hookers alone nor is it newly thought on by vs It is a ground in Nature which Grace doth euer set right neuer vndermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councell at Carthage would haue presently yeelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authoritie confirmed by Miracles and Antiquitie S. Peters Chaire and Succession from it Motiues to keepe him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearely monstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an euident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place euerie where but where these cannot be had there must be submission to Authoritie And doth not Bellarmine himselfe graunt this For speaking of Councels he deliuers this Proposition That Inferiors may not iudge whether their Superiors and that in a Councell doe proceed lawfully or not But then hauing bethought himselfe that Inferiors at all times and in all causes are not so to be cast off hee addes this Exception Vnlesse it manifestly appeare that an intollerable Error be committed So then if such an Error be and be manifest Inferiors may doe their dutie and a Councell must yeeld vnlesse you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a priuate spirit for neither doth hee expresse who shall iudge whether the Error be intollerable This will not downe with you but the Definition of a Generall Councell is and must be infallible Your fellowes tell vs and you can affirme no more That the voyce of the Church determining in Councell is not Humane but Diuine That is well Diuine then sure infallible Yea but the Proposition stickes in the throat of them that would vtter it It is not Diuine simply but in a manner Diuine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speake loudest in that manner in which it is not Diuine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in a higher kind than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in testimonie and matter to be beleeued but the Church as the efficient cause of Faith and in some sort the verie formall Is not this Blasphemie Doth not this knocke against all euidence of Truth and his owne grounds that sayes it Against all euidence of Truth For in all ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians doe doe with the same breath graunt it most vndoubted and infallible But all men haue not so iudged of the Churches Definitions though they haue in greatest obedience submitted to them And against his owne grounds that sayes it For the Scripture is absolutely and euerie way Diuine the Churches Definition is but suo modo in a sort or manner Diuine But that which is but in a sort can neuer be a Foundation in a higher degree than that which is absolute and euerie way such Therefore neyther can the Definition of the Church be so infallible as the Scripture much lesse in altiori genere in a higher kind than the Scripture But because when all other things faile you flye to this That the Churches Definition in a Generall Councell is by Inspiration and so Diuine and infallible my hast shall not carrie me from a little Consideration of that too 6. Sixtly then If the Definition of a Generall Councell be infallible then the infallibilitie of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Meanes that prooue it or in the Conclusion not the Meanes or in the Meanes not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Meanes For there are diuers deliberations in Generall Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Meanes by which they prooue it not firme therefore not infallible Not
in the second The Conclusion and not the Meanes For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if they be sometimes vncertaine as is prooued before the Conclusion cannot be infallible Not in the third The Meanes and not the Conclusion For that cannot but be true and necessarie if the Meanes be so And this I am sure you will neuer graunt because if you should you must denie the infallibilitie which you seeke to establish To this for I confesse the Argument is old but can neuer be worne out nor shifted off your great Maister Stapleton who is miserably hampered in it and indeed so are yee all answers That the infallibilitie of a Councell is in the second course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be vncertaine and fallible in the Meanes and proofe of it How comes this to passe It is a thing altogether vnknowne in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Well that is graunted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes knowledge But wee shall haue Reasons for it First because the Church is discursiue and vses the weights and moments of Reason in the Meanes but is Propheticall and depends vpon immediate Reuelation from the Spirit of God in deliuering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appeare and all Controuersie is at an end Well I will not discourse here to what end there is any vse of Meanes if the Conclusion be Propheticall which yet is iustly vrged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Propheticall in the Conclusion I speake still of the present Church for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophesie and immediate Reuelation was euer propheticke in the Definition Then since it deliuers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can beare it there must be some supernaturall Authoritie which must deliuer this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flye to immediate Reuelation now the Enthusiasme must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the verie Exposition of all the Primitiue Church neyther say it nor inforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophesie in the Conclusion I know no other thing can warrant it If you thinke the Tradition of the Church can make the World beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that sayes this is an vniuersall Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a Generall Councell are Propheticall and by immediate Reuelation Produce any one Father that sayes it of his owne authoritie That he thinkes so Nay make it appeare that euer any Prophet in that which he deliuered from God as infallible Truth was euer discursiue at all in the Meanes Nay make it but probable in the ordinarie course of Prophesie and I hope you goe no higher nor will I offer at Gods absolute Power That that which is discursiue in the Meanes can be Propheticke in the Conclusion and you shall be my great Apollo for euer In the meane time I haue learned this from yours That all Prophesie is by Vision Inspiration c. and that no Vision admits discourse That all Prophesie is an Illumination not alwayes present but when the Word of the Lord came to them and that was not by discourse And yet you say againe That this Propheticke infallibilitie of the Church is not gotten without studie and Industrie You should doe well to tell vs too why God would put his Church to studie for the Spirit of Prophesie which neuer anie particular Prophet was put vnto And whosoeuer shall studie for it shall doe itin vaine since Prophesie is a Gift and can neuer be an acquired Habite And there is somewhat in it that Bellarmine in all his Dispute for the Authoritie of Generall Councels dares not come at this Rocke He preferres the Conclusion and the Canon before the Acts and the deliberations of Councels and so doe wee but I doe not remember that euer he speakes out That the Conclusion is deliuered by Prophesie or Reuelation Sure he sounded the Shore and found danger here He did sound it For a little before he speakes plainely Would his bad cause let him be constant Councels doe deduce their Conclusions What from Inspiration No But out of the Word of God and that per ratiocinationem by Argumentation Neyther haue they nor doe they write any immediate Reuelations The second Reason why hee will haue it propheticke in the Conclusion is Because that which is determined by the Church is matter of Faith not of Knowledge And that therefore the Church proposing it to be beleeued though it vse Meanes yet it stands not vpon Art or Meanes or Argument but the Reuelation of the Holy Ghost Else when we embrace the Conclusion proposed it should not be an Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge This for the first part That the Church vses the Meanes but followes them not is all one in substance with the former Reason And for the latter part That then our admitting the Decree ofa Councell would be no Assent of Faith but a Habit of Knowledge What great inconuenience is there if it be graunted For I thinke it is vndoubted Truth That one and the same Conclusion may be Faith to the Beleeuer that cannot prooue and Knowledge to the Learned that can And S. Augustine I am sure in regard of one and the same thing euen this the verie Wisedome of the Church in her Doctrine ascribes Vnderstanding to one sort of men and Beleefe to another weaker sort And Thomas goes with him And for further satisfaction if not of you of others this may be considered too Man lost by sinne the Integritie of his Nature and cannot haue Light enough to see the way to Heauen but by Grace This Grace was first merited after giuen by Christ. This Grace is first kindled in Faith by which if wee agree not to some supernaturall Principles which no Reason can demonstrate simply wee can neuer see our way But this Light when it hath made Reason submit it selfe cleares the Eye of Reason it neuer puts it out In which sense it may be is that of Optatus That the verie Catholike Church it selfe is reasonable as well as diffused euerie where By which Reason enlightned which is stronger than Reason the Church in all Ages hath beene able either to conuert or conuince or stop the mouthes at least of Philosophers and the great men of Reason in the verie point of Faith where it is at highest To the present occasion then The first immediate Fundamentall Points of Faith without which there is no saluation they as they cannot be prooued by Reason so neither need they be determined by any Councell nor euer were they attempted they are
meanes to know their Authours the one Ecclesiasticall to wit the perpetuall History of the Church since the Apostles departure whereby is produced a morall persuasion and credibilitie than which none can bee greater in that kinde by reason of the antiquity number consent and sanctitie of the witnesses which testifie this the other totally diuine to wit the matter and forme of Doctrine contained in the the said bookes to be 〈◊〉 and if they be can speake in them And that within those bookes is affirmed by the 〈◊〉 Among which 〈◊〉 are taken from the internall matter and maiesty of the bookes and Gregory Valence contained in the same Scripture c. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 of God is seene by faith in the holy faith The Scripture is a faire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You haue before 2. Pet. 1. 19. And 〈◊〉 August And therefore as a 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others by the same light or 〈◊〉 manifests it selfe so the holy Scripture inlightning the Church demonstrates his owne 〈◊〉 and vertue And thus 〈◊〉 we be first directed and holpen by vnwritten Tradition to know the Scriptures yet the Tradition of the present Church is 〈◊〉 the onely last and principall ground whereunto we resolue 〈◊〉 If the Iesuits Argument be retorted vpon himselfe it will demonstrate that our Faith is finally resolued into holy Scripture and not into vnwritten Tradition for inuerting 〈◊〉 order of the 〈◊〉 and retaining the matter I argue as followeth If the maine and 〈◊〉 points of Faith are 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 because of the 〈◊〉 of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten and 〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten is beleeued to be Apostolicall because of the authoritie of the Scripture then our resolution that our Faith is Apostolicall resteth finally vpon the Scripture But the Antecedent is true Ergo c. The Assumption is confirmed two waies First by the practise of Papals which confirme their doctrine of Tradition by testimonies of Scripture alledging 2. Thess. 2. 15. 1. Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 1. 16. Secondly because the credit of Tradition in respect of vs dependeth vpon the authoritie of the Church and the authoritie of the Church vpon the Scriptures Both these assertions are maintained by the Papals First They say that the authoritie of Tradition in respect of vs dependeth vpon the Church Gretsar def Bellarm. d. verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9. Vitus miletus cont 〈◊〉 loc 27. Error 615. Secondly They confirme the Churches authoritie by the Scriptures 1. Tim. 3.15 Math. 18.17 Eph. 4. 11 12 13 14. Gregorie Valence tom 3. disput 1. punct 1. pa. 40. ibid. punct 7. pa. 327. Driedo d. Eccles. dogm li 2. c. 3. pa. 59. Stapleton triplic c. 15. pa. 179. And thus will they nill they they are compelled to make holie Scripture the last and finall resolution of Faith for if we beleeue Tradition vpon the authoritie of the Church and the Churches authoritie for the Scripture then we must of 〈◊〉 make the Scripture our last and finall resolution of 〈◊〉 which is the Tenet of the Fathers S. Chris. sup Psal. 95. When any thing is deliuered without the warrant of Scripture the hearers thought staggereth sometimes consenting and then againe 〈◊〉 and another while reiecting the same as 〈◊〉 c. but when the testimonie of Diuine Voice is deliuered out of the Scripture it both confirmeth the saying of the Speaker and mind of the Hearer IESVIT So it is that the Scripture of the New Testament 〈◊〉 not be prooued to haue beene deliuered vnto the Church by the Apostles but by perpetuall Tradition vnderwritten conserued in the Church succeeding the Apostles for what other proofe can be imagined except one would prooue it by the titles of the Bookes which were absurd seeing doubt may be made Whether those titles were set on the Bookes by the Apostles themselues of which doubt Tradition only can resolue vs. Besides the Gospell of S. Marke and S. Luke and also the Acts of the Apostles were not written by any Apostles but were by their liuely voice and suffrages recommended vnto Christians as sacred otherwise as also Mr. Bilson noteth they should neuer haue obtained such eminent authoritie in the Church neither should they be now so esteemed but vpon the supposall of Apostolicall approbation but how shall we know the Apostles saw these writings and recommended the same vnto Christian Chnrches but by Tradition ANSVVER The point which the Aduersarie endeauors to prooue is That the Scriptures of the New Testament are beleeued by diuine Faith to come from the Apostles only and principally by the testimonie of perpetuall Tradition vnwritten he endeauoreth to performe this by disproouing other meanes to wit the titles of the Bookes c. The summe of his argument is Either perpetuall Tradition vnwritten is the only ground of this beleefe or else the Titles of the Bookes But the Titles of the Bookes are not the only ground because doubt may be made of their credit c. And some of the Bookes of the New Testament were not penned by the Apostles but by their Suffrages recommended to Christians and so became Authenticall in the Church And this approbation is not expressed in the Titles of the Bookes but is only made knowne by Tradition I answere It followeth not that Tradition vnwritten is the only or principall ground whereupon we beleeue the Scriptures of the New Testament to be Apostolicall although the titles of the Bookes alone are not so for besides the externall Titles there be three other grounds arguing the said Books to be Apostolicall First the inward Subscription 1. Corinth 16.21 and Inscription 1. Rom. 1. 1. of many of these Bookes and namely of all Saint Pauls Epistles except to the Hebrews together with the Reuelations of Saint Iohn and the other Canonicall Epistles Secondly In diuers Bookes there is found apparant testimonie within the same that the Apostles were the Authors Iohn 21. 24. 1. Cor. 15. 10. 1. Tim. 1. 13. Renel 1. 4. Thirdly In those Bookes which want such inward inscription or testimonie the matter and forme of the Bookes their harmonie with the Scriptures of the Old Testament and with those other of the New Testament which haue inscription and the voice of the holy Ghost speaking in them will prooue them to be diuine and if they be diuine then it followeth that they are Apostolicall either by the Apostles owne writing or approbation because the Church of the New Testament is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles Eph. 2. 20. and our Sauiour himselfe did appoint their Doctrine and Ministerie to be the prime rule of Faith Math. 28. 20. Luc. 10. 16. c. 24. 48 49. And whosoeuer in their daies by preaching or writing instructed the Church must receiue approbation from them Gallath 2. 2. 9. The titles prefixed before the Bookes of the New Testament being ioined with these three grounds formerly
it was Apostolicall finally and principally into the authority of the present Church ANSWER Saint Augustine deliuers not the former and therfore the Iesuit cannot inferre the latter we haue indeed no stronger or more excellent morall proofe than the perpetual testimony of the Church succeeding the Apostles but we haue a stronger and more excellent diuine proofe to wit the Prophesie of Christ and his Apostles concerning the perpetuall preseruation of the Gospell vnto the end of the world also that the Aposcolical Scriptures were once incorrupt is manifest because they were giuen by diuine inspiration And it is apparant that they were not afterwards corrupted because no authority or sufficient Argument can be produced to procue them in whole or in part to haue been corrupted Now that which being once knowne by diuine testimony to haue beene incorrupt cannot be prooued afterwards to haue been corrupted doth by diuine testimony appeare to be incorrupt because the first diuine testimony standeth still in force The Text of the Gospell was once knowne by diuine testimonie to haue beene incorrupt and it cannot be prooued to haue beene afterwards corrupted Ergo It doth still appeare by diuine testimonie that the Text of the Gospell is incorrupt and the resolution of Faith finally and principally resteth vpon that diuine testimonie and not vpon the 〈◊〉 of the present Church Lastly the harmony coherence of the Gospel both with the Scriptures of the old Testament Lu. 24.27 Act. 28.23 and of the seuerall parts of the Gospel among themselues do manifest that the text of the new Testament is incorrupt For if the same were corrupted in any part corruption of words would produce alteration and difference of matter but we find at this day a perfect harmonie of all the parts of the Gospell among themselues and a perfect agreement of the same with the Scriptures of the old Testament And from the same being an inward Argument we may collect that the text of the Gospell is at this day incorrupt Now hauing so many Arguments besides the authoritie of the present Church to prooue the integritie of the text of the Gospell we do not flie neither is it necessarie to flie to priuat Spirit or particular Reuelation for assurance and that which our Aduersaries obiect against vs saying that we resolue our Faith and Religion into the priuat Spirit is a foolish calumniation for we resolue our Faith into the authoritie of Gods outward word expounded vnto vs by such helpes and meanes as both the Scripture it selfe and the antient Church require as into the diuine motiue and obiect of beleefe and we affirme that his grace and holy Spirit working by the outward meanes inableth draweth and persuadeth the conscience to assent Iohn 6.45 12.37 38.1 Cor. 2.12 c. 12.3 2. Cor. 3.5 Act. 16.14 1. Iohn 2.20.27 Esay 50.5 And herein we flie to no priuat Spirit or Reuelation but maintaine the ordinarie assistance of diuine grace according to the doctrine of the holy Scripture and of S. Augustine and the common Tenet of the Scholemen themselues IESVITS 2. Argument Secondly J 〈◊〉 that common vnlearned people the greatest part of Christianitie are persuaded about all substantiall points of Faith by Tradition not by Scripture Common vnlearned people haue true Christian Faith in all points necessarie and snfficient vnto Saluation but they haue not Faith of all these maine and substantiall points grounded on Scripture for they can neither vnderstand nor read any Scripture but translated into vulgar languages and so if they beleeue vpon Scripture they beleeue vpon Scripture translated into their mother tongue but before that they can know that the Scriptures are truely translated euen in all substantiall points that so they may build of it they must first know what are the maine and substantiall points and firmely beleeue them so that they would not beleeue the Scripture translated against them for if they knew them not before how can they know that Scriptures in places that concerne them are truely translated if they do not before hand firmely beleeue them why should they bee readie to allow translations that agree with them and to reiect the translations which differ from them Ergo Originally and before they know any Scripture they haue Faith grounded on the Tradition of their ancestors by the light whereof they are able to judge of the truth of Translations about such substantiall points as they firmely beleeue by Tradition ANSVVER The question which the Iesuit vndertaketh to prooue in his foure Arguments is that our resolution of Faith stayeth finally vpon the perpetuall Tradition of the Church and not vpon the Scripture His second argument to prooue this is taken from the manner of vulgar and illiterate people in resoluing their Faith For if these being the greater part of Christianitie do ground their Creed touching all points of doctrine necessarie to Saluation vpon Tradition of their ancestors andif they haue true Faith before they know and vnderstand the Scripture then Christian Faith at least-wise among the greater part of Christians is resolued finally into the Tradition of ancestors and not of the Scriptures And he prooueth that these vulgar people haue Faith touching all points necessarie to Saluation before they know the Scriptures because it is impossible for them to read or vnderstand Scripture vntill it be translated into their mother tongue and they are not able to iudge of translations or know them to be true vnlesse they first beleeue the principall points of Christian Faith and by comparing translations of Scripture with the said doctrines of Faith formerly by them beleeued be inabled to iudge of the Truth of Translations This Paralogisme hath certaine ambiguous or equiuocall termes which must be distinguished and then I will applie my answer First the terme of Scripture may be taken for the letter and text of the Scripture together with the names of the seueral Bookes Authors and Sections and secondly it may signifie the doctrine of the Scripture without mention of the particular Bookes Iohn 7.38 Rom. 1 2 3 4. Secondly Resolution of Faith is either distinct and explicite wherein beleeuers are able to declare the seueral reasons of their Faith and to proceed from one reason of beleeuing to another vntill they ascend by degrees to the principall ground or else Implicit and Vertuall wherein beleeuers cannot proceed distinct ly and with explication of the seuerall reasons and grounds of Faith but resting themselues vpon one prime and radicall ground are readie for the authoritie of the same to beleeue all other particular reasons and verities of Faith when they are declared vnto them Thirdly Tradition may signifie either doctrine of Faith and good manners not contained or written in holy Scripture expressely or inuoluedly or else the same doctrine which is found in holy Scripture deliuered by Ancestors or Teachers by word of mouth These distinctions premised I answer the obiection 1.
persons Heb. 13.5 Our Sauiour granted ministeriall power to remit sinnes by speciall commission to the Apostles and deliuering this commission to them he breathed the holy Ghost into them saying Receiue yee the holy Ghost c. 〈◊〉 20.22 Neuerthelesse our Aduersaries affirme that this authority was not only granted them but to other Ministers of Christ which are not personally qualified as the Apostles were Secondly if the particular circumstance of Timothie his person expressed in the single word Thee 2. Tim. 3.15 do limit S. Pauls doctrine concerning the Scripture in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then where more circumstances are found in Texts concerning Traditions the same may be answered as the Iesuit doth this place of S. Paules For example 2. Thessal 2.15 The Apostle saith Therefore 〈◊〉 stand fast and hold the Traditions which 〈◊〉 haue beene taught whether by word or our Epistle In this Text so vehemently vrged by Papists for vnwritten Tradition is found a personall circumstance Tee 〈◊〉 Thessalonians which haue beene my immediate hearers 1. Thess. 1. 5. and thereby are infallibly assured that the Tradition which I exhort you to hold is diuine Also you 〈◊〉 which haue not receiued as yet a perfect Canon of the New Testament in writing I say to you stand fast and hold both written and vnwritten Tradition Thirdly admitting the Iesuits restraint and it being granted that the Scriptures do onely make those people wise to Saluation which are instructed aforehand and haue formerly beene taught the substantiall points of Christian Doctrine yet this argueth not the insufficiencie of Scripture to be the onely authenticall rule and ground of Faith because the said substantial Doctrines which in the Apostles daies before the Canon of the New Testament was finished were partly contained in Scripture and partly deliuered by their vocall preaching were afterwards when the Canonicall Scripture of the New Testament was finished and the holy Apostles were deceased wholly for matter of substance contained in the same Scripture 〈◊〉 Verily the Apostle in that place speaketh onely of the Scriptures of the Old Testament affirming them sufficient not for euery man but for Timothie and not sufficient for him by themselues alone but per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu that is 〈◊〉 with the Doctrine of Christian Faith which Timothie had heard and beleeued vpon 〈◊〉 liuely voice of Tradition ANSWER The Apostle in this place speaketh of the Scriptures of the Old Testament but not onely Timothie when he was a child learned onely the Scriptures of the Old Testament but after his childhood he read also the Scriptures of the New 1. Tim. 4. 16. This Epistle was written by S. Paul not long before his death 2. Tim. 4.6 at which time the greatest part of the Canon of the New Testament was finished therefore it is not necessarie that we should restraine these words Thou from a child hast knowne the holy Scriptures onely to the Scriptures of the Old Testament because Timothie who in his youth read onely the Old Testament in the progresse of his yeares read the New Testament also And although no Scripture is able to make wise to saluation without Faith in Christ Iesus yet this prooueth not the holy Scripture to be an imperfect Rule because if Tradition be added to Scripture yet both these are not able to make people wise to saluation without Faith Heb. 4. 2. But admitting that the Apostle in the first Clause Thou from a Child hast knowne the holy Scriptures speaketh of the Scriptures of the Old Testament yet adding to the same in the latter part of his speech through Faith which is in Christ Iesus if by Faith wee vnderstand the doctrine of Faith reuealed in the New Testament there is no materiall or necessarie part of doctrine touching Christ Iesus which is not contained in the Scripture 1. Cor. 15. 1 2 3 4. And this was the Tenet of the antient Catholike Church as appeareth by S. Augustine C. Petil. Lib. 3. cap. 6. who saith Proinde siue de Christo siue de Ecclesia siue de quacunque alia re quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit licet si nos sed omnino quod secutus adiecit si Angelus de Coelo vobis annunciauerit praeterquam quod in Scripturis Legalibus Euangelicis accepistis Anathema sit I will not say if wee vnworthie to be compared to him that spake so but if an Angell from Heauen shall teach any thing either concerning Christ or the Church or concerning any other matter pertaining to Faith or good life besides that which you haue receiued in the Legall and Euangelicall Scriptures let him be Anathema IESVIT And in the consequent words of the Apostle so much insisted vpon All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. And if Protestants could so metamorphise the word Profitable as to make it signifie the same with the word Sufficient which is very hard yet were the Text much ouer-short to prooue their intent That Scripture alone is sufficient for euerie man seeing the Apostle speakes not of euerie man but expressely of him who is Homo Dei the Man of God that is one alreadie fully instructed and firmely setled by Tradition in all the maine points of Christian Faith and godly Life such a one as Timothie was The Scriptures for men in this manner afore taught and grounded in Faith are abundantly sufficient who will denie it But this prooueth at the most the sufficiencie of the Scripture ioyned with Tradition not of Scripture alone or of onely onely onely Scripture as Protestants Bookes in great Letters very earnestly affirme ANSWER S. Paul himselfe vseth both the word Profitable Vers. 16. and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are able to make wise to saluation which is equiualent to Sufficient Verse 15. And Protestants alone are not the men which expound the word Profitable by Sufficient for both the Fathers and many learned Papists doe the like Vincent Lirinensis C. Haeres cap. 2. The Canon of the Scripture is sufficient and more than sufficient Cyril of Alexandria C. Iulian. Lib. 7. pag. 150. The Scripture is sufficient to make them wise which are brought vp in it c. Anselm in his Commentarie vpon 2. Tim. 3. 16. They are able to make thee sufficiently learned to obtaine eternall saluation Gerson D. Exam. Doctr. Part. 2. Consid. 1. The Scripture is giuen vs as a sufficient Rule c. Scotus 1. Sent. Prol. q. 2. Supernaturall knowledge necessarie for a wayfaring man is sufficiently deliuered in sacred Scripture The same is affirmed by Espencaeus Commentar 2. Tim. 3. 16. and by Bonauenture Occham Waldensis and Gabriel Thom. Aquinas Lyra Durand c. But the Aduersarie saith That graunting the word Profitable did signifie Sufficient yet S. Pauls Text still falleth short of proouing the Scripture the
Yet wee say after Tradition hath beene our Introduction the Soule that hath but ordinarie Grace added to Reason may discerne Light sufficient to resolue our Faith that the Sunne is there This Principle then being not absolutely and simply euident in it selfe is presumed to be taught vs otherwise and if otherwise then it must be taught in and by some superior Science to which Theologie is subordinate Now men may be apt to thinke out of reuerence That Diuinitie can haue no Science aboue it but your owne Schoole teacheth me that it hath The sacred Doctrine of Diuinitie in this sort is a Science because it proceeds out of Principles that are knowne by the Light of a superior Knowledge which is the Knowledge of God and the blessed in Heauen In this superior Science this Principle The Scriptures are the Oracles of God is more than euident in full Light This superior Science deliuers this Principle in full reuealed Light to the Prophets and Apostles The infallible Light of this Principle made their Authoritie Diuine by the same Diuine Authoritie they wrote and deliuered the Scripture to the Church Therefore from them immediately the Church receiued the Scripture and that vncorrupt And since no sufficient reason hath or can be giuen that in any substantiall thing it hath beene corrupted it remaines firme to vs at this day prooued in the most supreame Science and therefore now to be supposed at least by all Christians That the Scripture is the Word of God And therefore the B. his answere is good euen in strictnesse That this Principle is to be supposed Besides the Iewes neuer had nor can haue any other proofe that the Old Testament is the Word of God than wee haue of the New For theirs was deliuered by Moses and the Prophets and ours was deliuered by the Apostles which were Prophets too The Iewes did beleeue their Scripture by a Diuine Authoritie for so the Iewes argue themselues We know that God spaeke with Moses And that therefore they could no more erre in following Moses than they could in following God himselfe Now how did the Iewes know that God spake to Moses How Why apparently the same way that is before set downe first by Tradition So S. Chrysostome We know Why by whose witnesse doe you know By the Testimonie of oùr Ancestors But he speakes not of their immediate Ancestors but their Prime which were Prophets and whose Testimonie was Diuine into which namely their Writings the Iewes did resolue their Faith And euen that Scripture of the Old Testament was a Light and a shining Light too and therefore could not but be sufficient when Tradition had gone before And therefore though the Iewes entred this way to their beleefe of the Scripture yet they doe not say Audiuimus Wee haue heard that God spake to Moses but Wee know it So they resolued their Faith higher and into a more inward Principle than an Eare to their immediate Ancestors and their Tradition F. And that no other answere could be made but by admitting some Word of God vnwritten to assure vs of this Point B. I thinke I haue shewed that the B. his answere is good and that so no other answere need be made If there were need I make no question but another answere might be made to assure vs of this Point though wee did not admit of any Word of God vnwritten I say to assure vs and you expresse no more If you had said to assure vs by Diuine Faith your Argument had beene the stronger But if you speake of assurance onely in the generall I must then tell you and it is the great aduantage which the Church of Christ hath against Infidels a man may be assured nay infallibly assured by Ecclesiasticall and humane proofe Men that neuer saw Rome may be sure and infallibly beleeue that such a Citie there is by Historicall and acquired Faith And if consent of humane storie can assure me this Why should not consent of Church-storie assure me the other That Christ and his Apostles deliuered this Bodie of Scripture as the Oracles of God For Iewes enemies to Christ they beare witnesse to the Old Testament and Christians through almost all Nations giue in euidence to both Old and New And no Pagan or other enemies of Christianitie can giue such a worthie and consenting Testimonie for any Authoritie vpon which they relye or almost for any Principle which they haue as the Scripture hath gayned to it selfe And as is the Testimonie which it receiues aboue all Writings of all Nations so here is assurance in a great measure without any Diuine Authoritie in a word written or vnwritten A great assurance and it is infallible too onely then we must distinguish infallibilitie For first a thing may be presented as an infallible Obiect of Beleefe when it is true and remaines so For Truth 〈◊〉 tale as it is Truth cannot deceiue Secondly a thing is said to be infallible when it is not onely true and remainesso actually but when it is of such invariable constancie and vpon such ground as that no degree of falsehood at any time in any respect can fall vpon it Certaine it is that by humane Authoritie Consent and Proofe a man may be assured infallibly that the Scripture is the Word of God by an acquired habite of Faith Cui non 〈◊〉 falsum vnder which nor error nor falsehood is But he cannot be assured infallibly by Diuine Faith Cui subesse non potest falsum into which no falsehood can come but by a Diuine Testimonie This Testimonie is absolute in the Scripture it selfe deliuered by the Apostles for the Word of God That which makes way for this as an Introduction and outward motiue is the Tradition of the present Church but that neither simply Diuine nor sufficient alone into which we may resolue our Faith And now to come close to the particular The time was before this miserable rent in the Church of Christ which I thinke no true Christian can looke vpon but with a bleeding heart that you and we were all of one beleefe That beleefe was tainted in tract and corruption of time very deepely A diuision was made yet so that both parts held the Creed and other common Principles of Beleefe of these this was one of the greatest That the Scripture is the Word of God for our beleefe of all things contained in it depends vpon it Since this diuision there hath beene nothing done by vs to discredit this Principle nay we haue giuen it all honor and ascribed vnto it more sufficiencie euen to the containing of all things necessarie to saluation with satis superque enough and more than enough which your selues haue not done doe not And for begetting and settling a beleefe of this Principle wee goe the same way with you and a better besides The same way with you because wee allow the Tradition of the
and be deceiued then the later Church may vpon their reports deliuer some errours together with truth and yet the Tradition thereof concerning matters which are grounded vpon diuine Testimonie is infallible The Church may speake of it selfe and vpon report of them whose Testimonie is humane and fallible And it speaketh also vpon the authoritie of Gods word In the first it may erre and bee deceiued and consequently the Testimonie thereof absolutely bindeth not people to beleeue But when it confirmeth her doctrine and Tradition by diuine Testimonie the Tradition thereof is the Tradition and voyce of God himselfe worthy of all acceptation Neither is her Testimonie fallible and doubtfull in this latter kinde because of errour in the first any more than the Prophesie of Nathan was fallible when he spake by inspiration to Dauid 2. Sam. 7.5 Although when he formerly answered by a humane spirit he was deceiued Balaam is a credible witnesse in all those verities which God put into his mouth Numb 23.5 18. 24. 1. And yet in other matters which proceeded from himselfe he was fallible And Iosephus a Iew is credited in the Testimonie which hee gaue of Christ Antiq. lib. 18. c. 4 although in many other reports he was deceiued The antient Fathers Iustin Martyr Ireneus Origen St. Cyprian erred in some things and yet their authoritie in other matters which they deliuered consonantly to holy Scripture is credible Our Aduersaries confesse that their Popes may erre personally and that their Popes and Councels may erre in the Premises and Arguments from which they deduce conclusions of Faith and yet they will haue their definitiue sentences to be of infallible authoritie Cardinall Iacobatius speaking in the Popes defence saith That it followeth not because one hath erred that therefore his testimonie is altogether inualid and to be refused And hee confirmeth this assertion by diuers Texts of the Canon Law IESVIT And whereas some Protestants affirme that the Church cannot erre in fundamentall points but onely in things of lesse moment The truth is that in her perpetuall Traditions she cannot erre at all If the Tradition of the Church deliuering a small thing as receiued from the Apostles may be false one may call into question her Traditions of moment especially if he please to thinke them not to be of moment for like as if we admit in the Scriptures errours in small matters wee cannot be sure of its infallibitie in substantiall matters So likewise if we grant Tradition perpetuall to be false in things of lesse importance we haue no solid ground to defend her Traditions as assured in other of moment wherefore as he that should say That Gods written word is false in some lesser matters as when it sayes That S. Paul left his cloake at Troas erreth fundamentally by reason of the consequence which giueth occasion to doubt of the truth of euery thing in Scripture Euen so hee that granteth that some part of Traditions or of the word of God vnwritten may bee false erreth substantially because he giueth cause to doubt of any Tradition which yet as I haue shewed is the prime originall ground of Faith more fundamentall than the verie Scripture which is not knowne to be Apostolicall but by Tradition whereas a perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its owne light For what more euident than that that is from the Apostles which is deliuered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Bishops consenting therein ANSWER The true Church in her sounder members erreth not in points fundamentall nor yet in matters of lesse moment maliciously or with pertinacie But the same may be ignorant and also erre in secondarie Articles The reason of the first is because the same should then cease to bee the true Church by corrupting the substance of right faith expresly or vertually and consequently there should remaine no true Church vpon earth which is impossible The reason of the second is because the Church since the Apostles is not guided by immediate inspiration or by Propheticall reuelation but by an ordinarie assistance of grace accompanying the vse of right meanes which remooueth not possibilitie of errour but leaueth space for humane iudgement being regenerate onely in part Heb. 5.2 Gal. 5.17 Aug. Enchir. c. 63. to worke by his proper force and power Secondly the Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such as are either contained in holy Scripture or which are subseruient to maintaine the faith veritie and authoritie of the holy Scriptures and the doctrine thereof Thirdly whereas the Iesuit saith That euen as no vntruth can be admitted in the holy Scripture in regard of such things as are of the least moment without ouerthrowing the totall authoritie thereof so likewise no errour great or small can bee admitted in the doctrine and Tradition of the present Church because vpon the same will follow the subuersion of all her Tradition euen in matters essentiall I answere That there is not the same reason of the Scripture and the Church for the Scripture is totally and perfectly diuine and must alwayes bee so esteemed and to admit any errour or possibilitie thereof in Scripture were to make God a lyar and consequently to ouerthrow all faith But the present Church is onely the seruant of God and of his word Iohn 10.27 and hath no credit or authoritie but from it and although the same may erre in some things yet there remaineth alwaies a higher and more soueraigne Iudge to wit the holy Ghost speaking in and by the Scriptures to whom Christians desirous of truth may appeale and by whose sentence the Doctrine and Traditions of the present Church are to bee iudged Whosoeuer admitteth any errour or vntruth in the holy Scripture taketh away all authoritie from that which is the prime foundation of supernaturall veritie But he that admitteth error or fallibilitie of iudgement in some Traditions and Doctrines of the Pastours of the present Church doth onely make the credit of a secondarie and inferior witnesse subiect to triall and examination of an higher Iudge And euen as in building the rule and measure of proportion must alwaies be euen and right in it selfe but the workemans hand may possibly leane or shake and applie his rule amisse so likewise the holy Scriptures which are the principles of Theologie and the most exact ballance and measure of diuine Veritie as S. Chrysostome speaketh must be free from all obliquitie of error and to admit the least error in the Scripture ouerthroweth the foundation of Faith But the Ministerie and Tradition of the Church is like an Artificers hand which may sometimes leane and goe awrie and yet the foundation of Veritie abideth firme in the prime authenticall rule and by the same the errour of mens Tradition and Doctrine may be corrected Fourthly the Iesuit affirmeth That Tradition to wit of the