understand and think to be according to Truth unless he shall shew them to be holy out of that which is contained in the Divine Scriptures as in the certain Temples of God what can be more to our purpose Then the Scripture is the Ground of Doctrines then of Faith As for Athanasius we need not his words knowing his practice of holding the equality of the Divine Nature in the second Person the Son of God against all the World Yet he speaks as he did if you will look upon him about the Incarnation of the Word at the latter end But then having taken occasion by these if thou wilt read the Divine Books and wilt apply thy minde to them shalt learn out of them more plainly and more perfectly the truth of what we have said So he Now where the Truth is learned more plainly and perfectly there is the ground of Truth In the Divine writings is the truth of those things more plainly and more perfectly learned After the same manner doth Tertullian bring in his suffrage in his Book of Praescriptions a little after the beginning of it thus Do we prove the Faith by the Persons or prove the Persons by the Faith And again Faith consists in the rule You have the Law and Salvation by the observation of it And soon after To know nothing against the rule is to know all things And again That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you So he besides other passages wherein he witnesseth for us Saint Ambrose giveth us also his voice in his first Book to Gratian chap. 4. in the beginning thus But I will not that you believe an Argument O holy Emperour and our disputation let us ask the Scripture let us ask the Apostles let us ask the Prophets Then we are to be determined in our Belief by the Scriptures Saint Cyprian also who for order of time should have been put before gives his verdict for us in the beginning of his sixth Sermon concerning the Lords Prayer thus The Evangelical Precepts most beloved Brethren are nothing else but the Divine Magisteries the foundations of building our Hope the firmaments of corroborating our Faith the nutriments of chearing our heart the Gubernacles of directing our journey the safegards of obtaining Salvation which while they do instruct the Docile mindes of Believers upon Earth bring them to the Kingdome of Heaven So the Father Where you see the Scriptures are asserted immediately to be the Ground and Firmanent of Faith Yea neither doth Saint Austin seem to speak onely for your cause In the seventh Tome in the third Chapter of the Unity of the Church against the Epistle of Petilianus in the beginning he hath these words But as I began to say let us not hear these things I say these things thou sayest but let us hear these things the Lord saith There are certainly the Books of the Lord whose authority we both consent unto we both believe we both are obedient to there let us seek our Church there let us discusse our cause And soon after Let those things be taken out of your way which against one another we recite not out of the Divine Canonical books but otherwise And soon after Some may ask why I would have these things taken out of the way since if they brought forth your Communion is invincible he answers because I would not have the Church demonstrated by Humane Documents but by Divine Oracles and so to the end of the Chapter which he concludes thus therefore let us seek it the Church in the Holy Canonical Scriptures I have now made good my words to give you Catholick Testimonies on our side Amongst which Saint Austins authority gives advantage to plant Arguments upon thus If in businesses of dispute we must hear what the Lord saith not what man saith then the Scripture is the ground not humane authority But let us not hear what I say or thou saist saith the Father but what the Lord saith Again Where we must seek the Church there we must resolve our Faith But we must seek the Church in the Scriptures as the Father saith If the Church is to be proved by the Scriptures then the Scriptures are the ground of Faith because they are the ground of the Church there is no resolution of Faith but in that which is indemonstrable therefore not in the Church because that is demonstrated by the Scriptures as he saith Again Divine Oracles are the ground of Faith the Scriptures are the Divine Oracles as he saith as the Scripture saith as Saint Ignatius saith in his Epistle to the Church of Sâ—â—yrna Indeed the proper object of Faith Catholick is the Word of God not the Word of Man And proportionable the cause of this Faith must be divine authority not any authority of Man As demonstrative reason makes Science so humane authority make Opinion but Faith is an assent to that which is spoken by God as true because he speaketh it therefore the authority of the Church is not a mean apt to beget Faith because it is of another kinde and cannot exceed the nature of humane authority although it be the highest in the kinde if it be represented in a lawful General Council Yet even General Councils have erred and therefore they cannot he the Ground of Faith This is the prerogative of the Canonical books as the Father and all Antiquity calleth them but never did we hear of a Canonical Church The Scripture is the Canon is the rule not the Church The Church witnesseth Truth The Church keepeth Truth The Church defendeth Truth The Church Representative in a Council determineth Controversies authoritatively not infallibly and therefore bindes not unto Faith but to Peace not to Faith in the Conscience but to Peace in the Church not affirmatively that we should say it is true because they say it but negatively that we should not rashly oppose it as false because they define it as true Hitherto we go for the honour of the Church Catholick not Roman And now I have given you some reason of our Faith It followes now in your Reply or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Curch Answ I say so too But what from thence To professe a belief that there is a Catholique Church whereof part is triumphant in Heaven part on Earth expectant and to professe my self to belong to the Catholique Church is not inclusive of your sense that the Catholique Church is the ground of our belief We believe the Catholique Church grounded in the Scripture or built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone as Saint Paul speaks Ephes 2.20 Secondly This is not to your purpose because the Catholique Church as it is an object of Belief must be considered as invisible whereas you intend the
will not hear the Church Let him be unto thee as a Heathen and Publican Here you see all Causes of greater Importance are to be brought to this Judge for if even private complaints are to be brought into her Tribunal and if for disobedience after her Judgement given of them a man be to be hold for a Publican or Heathen much more are enormiously hurtful crimes such as are the crimes of Heresie to be carried to her Tribunal and those who in so much more Importing matters disobey are also much more to be held for Publicans and Heathens And that no man may think that after this his condemnation he may stand well in his Interiour persisting still in the same judgement and doing so stand right in the sight of God it followeth Amen I say unto you Prelates of my Church VVhatsoever ye shall bind upon Earth shall also be bound in Heaven You see I have found a Judge so securely to be followed in his Judgement and so unsafely to be disobeyed that his Sentence given upon Earth is sure to be ratified in Heaven This also could not be true if this Judge were fallible in such prime causes as most concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring in damnable Errors Conformably to this doctrine of the Church her being our Judge Saint Austin de Civit. l. 20.9 expounds to our purpose those words of the Apocalypse or Revelation cap. 20. ver 4. I saw Seats and they sate upon them and Judgement was given them It is not to be expounded of the last Judgement but of the Seats of Prelates and the Prelates themselves by which the Church is now governed are to be understood All this which I have said out of the New Testament you will the lesse wonder at if you Note that even in the Old Law it is said The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge and they shall require the Law from his Mouth because he is the Angel of the Lord God of Hosts Mal 2. Note here a grosse corruption of the English Bible which readeth these words The Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the Law at his mouth whereas the Originals speak clearly in the future Tense Here by the way I must tell you that though the Scripture were to be Judge yet your most corruptd English Scriptures cannot be allowed for Judge Whence it followeth that those who do understand onely English can judge of nothing by their Scripture And so they must trust their Ministers to the full as much even in this highest point as we do our Priests in any point But let us proceed You see first that I have found a way so direct that fools cannot erre by it for any man may ask the Priests of the Church what is the known Doctrine of the Church and then let him rest securely when he knoweth that Secondly you see I have found such a Judge as all true believers had for all their Controversies for more then two thousand years together before Moses did write the first Books of Scripture all which time you must needs make the Tradition of the Church the infallible Rule of Faith for here was no written Word of God upon which their Faith could be built and yet Saint Paul 2 Cor. 4. speaking of those who lived in those Ages before all Scripture saith They had the same Spirit of Faith And the reason is clear for the Word of God is the same whether it be revealed by the Pen or by the Tongue written or not written And what saith St. Irenaus l. 3. c. 4. if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures Must we not have followed that order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whose Charges they left the Churches to be governed To this order of Tradition by the unwritten word many of those barbarous Nations do assent who have believed in Christ without any writing or Inke having Salvation written in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and keeping diligently the ancient Traditions So St. Irenaeus who you see holdeth manifestly unwritten Traditions of the Church to be a sufficient Ground of Faith It is most manifestly true which he saith that upon this ground the Faith of whole Nations have relyed This ground therefore is infallible all Nations Faith relying on this even two Thousand years and more before the first Scriptures were written and the Faith of many other Nations who since their writing have believed and do believe the true Faith For how many of them never did see the Scriptures at all or never did see them in a Language which they could understand Neither did the Apostles or their Successors take any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as they could all or the greater part understand They thought the Tradition of the Church a sufficient Rule of Faith for all which they could not do if this Rule were fallible We must therefore confesse it to be Infallible Thirdly I have not onely found a Judge so clearly pointing out the way that fools cannot erre by it but such a Judge as no exception can be taken against his sufficiency for no other Judge was in the Church for some Thousands of years amongst the most true Beleevers and afterwards amongst whole Nations Fourthly I have found a Judge to whom Christ hath given a certain Promise to teach no damnable error by which Doctrine the Gates of Hell should prevail against her Fiftly I have found a Judge whom All men are obliged I say obliged by Interiour Assent in point of Faith to obey under pain of being held here for Heathens or Publicans and looked upon as such by the Judgement of Heaven binding what the Church bindeth Sixtly I have found a living Judge who can be informed of all Controversies arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor You can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible can neither hear a Thousand new Controversies which arise daily nor be heard clearly to give any certain Sentence in them but onely say the same still which she said even before the Controversies began and about which Sentence of hers all the Controversie did arise neither doth the Bible give any such Judgement as will suffice to hold these and these men who teach these and these errors for Heathens and Publicans which the Church doth so clearly and so manifestly that they themselves cannot deny themselves to be condemned by the Church together with their Doctrine but all they can do is to raile against their Judge which the damned shall do against Christ their Judge I see no exception there can be made against this Judge Onely you will tell me that Infallibility is wholly necessary for the Judge of Faith which I
the Pope to be head of the Universal Church and therefore are they not compared ad idem Thirdly Is it determined in Scripture whether the Pope be Head of the Church or not You say it is for if you say it is not you are all lost Well if it be determined by Scripture then consequently it is determined in Scripture that the King is not and so this your Controversie is one of those which is decided and concluded negatively in or by Scripture So this exception against us doth not thrive Another point of this kind you make in your eleventh Number about the Canon of Scripture your Argument seems to be thus that we should know the Canon is necessary we do not know it by Scripture therefore by the Church Is it not thus you cannot make your matter shorter without any detriment to you And therefore we answer first as at first which you give us the occasion to put you in mind of that if the Church were Infallible Judge of all Canonical books yet would it not follow from hence that it should be Infallible Judge in all points of Faith and Manners which you would fain have as very â—seful for you unlesse caâ—â—ally for we might suppose more assistance to the Church in this particular then in other cases since also when that is made sure that there are the books of Scripture we should look for no other directions for Life and Salvation but this Therefore if you argue that because it is Judge Infallible of Canonical books it is Judge of all matters you do not rightly proceed from a particular You are in that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore you do not conclude in your first Universality Secondly We are not to be assured by Divine Faith that there are Canonical books from the authority of the Church and therefore is not the Church the Infallible Judge herein We must beleeve them to be Canonical by their own Authority otherwise we shall never believe them to be so so that you see we deny the Assumption and we say we may know the Canonical books by Scripture we have no other Divine Authority to know them by They bear witnesse of themselves they carry their own light which we may see them by as we see the Sun by its own light For let me put you to this Dilemma either the Scripture is to be believed for it self or the Church is to be believed for it self If the Scripture be to be believed for it self then have we our cause if the Church be to be believed for it self then must we know this by a Revelation beside Scripture which your Bellarmine disputes against in the beginning of his Controversies and whether that Revelation be not Anabaptistical and more uncertain then the word of God judge you And I pray is it not more fiâ— that the Scripture should be believed in its own cause then the Church but if you say that the Authority of the Church is evidenced by Scripture concerning it then that is to be believed for itself as towards the Church and why not then other parts of it Thirdly If the Church be the Judge Infallible of Canonical books how came Saint Hierome to be repugnant to the Church in the debate about Books Apocryphal as you know and may see by your Bellarmin in his second Book De verbo Dei cap. 9. amongst which Apocryphal books the Maccabees are numbred to be by him accounted such and therefore Saint Jerome did not in his Latin Edition translate them and then let S. Jerom's authority justifie Lâ—ther upon your principles for you account the Maccabees to be as well Canonical as you and we do the Apocalyps That the Scripture is silent of its own Canon and that we cannot prove a book to be infallibly Canonical by it self without begging the question hath litle of iudiciousness in it for how do we see light how do we prove first and indemonstrable principles how do we prove that which we apprehend by natural light after this manner is the understanding irradiated to see the authority of Scripture in it and by it well and how do we prove the Church to be infallible by it without begging the question therefore you must come about to Scripture And again if you prove the Church to be infallible Judge herein because the Scripture is not you beg the question who are to dispute not I who am to answer Your twelfth number goes upon a false supposition at least in part of it namely that we are bound to believe that the Gospel of Saint Matthew was written by him as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark We deny it We are bound indeed to believe that the Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Mark as we distinguish them are the word of God but we are not bound to believe that they were written by them It is no part or duty of my faith to believe the Penman of any part of Scripture save onely so far as it is declared in the body of Scripture for it is not Scripture because Saint Matthew wrote it but Saint Matthew wrote it as being inspired that it was the word of God in the matter of it If then your discourse goes upon the matter of it it was answered before if upon the title it is not allowed to be de fide or any point of faith that such was writer of any piece of Scripture And whereas you urge that some have denied this Gospel and some or other have denied other books to be Canonical how then shall we end this Controversie or others about the Canon by Scripture I answer And do not Hereticks deny your Church to be infallible will you therefore quit your opinion So then either this argument is not good against us or it is also good against you Secondly If Hereticks reject some books we may be disposed by the authority of the Catholick Church to our faith of them by their own authority And this seems to be as much as Saint Austin would have us to attribute to the Church in this particular as we have his advice in his second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ cap. 8. where he says in Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam-plurimum sequatur authoritatem In Canonical Scriptures let him very much follow the authority of the Catholick Churches amonst which surely these are they which merited if you will construe it so to have Apostolick seats and to receive Apostolick Epistles Observe that he saith let him follow the authoritie very much which doth not conclude that we should wholly rely upon it and of the Catholick Churches in the plural not one only Then there are more Catholick Churches in his judgement and such are they which merited to have Apostolick Seas and Epistles then your Church onely is not to be called the Apostolique Sea And whereas afterward in this Church he doth reckon Apocryphall Books yet is
from erring damnable by it Now by what Logick do you inferre that because the Church is secured from all damnable errour therefore according to my doctrine shee is not secured from other errours All you build upon this consequence falls to the ground Going on I find you by the way quarelling with one of the Cardinall vertues even Prudence her self which you intimate then only to have place when Religion is chosen by interest I pray do you thinke in earnest that men cannot proceed prudently in the choise of their Religion Then you conclude that all the force my former argument hath it hath from Scripture Is not my argument the better for this against you who professe to believe Scripture to be Gods undoubted word independently of the authority of the Church because it is clearly manifested to you to be so by its light as the Sun by his light Is it not a convincing argument which is strengthened with an authoritie acknowledged so firme Against a Heathen untill I had proved Scripture to him I would not use this argument 4. Presently I find you again stumbling at the sense in which I took the word damnable as if I should allow the following of the Church in other errours No Sir you cannot follow her in other errors because she cannot go before you in any errour not in any damnable errour as your own selves teach no nor in any other errour as in this very next argument is proved if you mark the force of it 5. The force then of my next Argument is this God commandeth us to obey the Church and hear her in obeying her and hearing her we follow Gods Command But no kind of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods Command therefore we can be lead into no kind of errour by following the Church Again you your selves say it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not a damnable errour Wherefore if I can prove that we are obliged to follow the Church I shall prove also that shee cannot guide us into any kind of errour This I prove by that text Matthew 18. verse 18. If he will not hear the Church let him be unto thee as a publican or a Heathen Therefore meerly and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held and truely according to Gods judgment deserving to be held a publican or Heathen but all we are obliged not to deserve to be held by Gods judgement Publicans or heathens Therefore all are obliged to hear the Church being that meerly and purely for not hearing her they are to be held and deservingly held according to Gods judgment Publicans and Heathens as is also further insinuated in the next verse where it is said this sentence shall be ratified in Heaven Now if any man reply that we are to heare the Church so long as she swerveth not from Gods word my answer is that to swerve from Gods word is to erre but this text proveth she cannot erre Ergo it proveth that she cannot swerve from Gods word and indeed if she could the meerly not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgement a Publican or Heathen But you tell me this text is to be understood not of matters of faith or unbelief but of matters of trespasse between brother and brother and refractoriness in the person And that it respects excommunication by censure in which also it may erre Neither is a man bound to believe the censure is just unless it appears to be so This last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine for the unanimous opinion of learned men is That a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just unless the contrary appears evident See your own Doctors Chillingworth P. 308 N. 108. Hooker P. 310 311. N. 110. Laud P. 226. And indeed you bring all to this that when all comes to all you are the last judge to whose sentence finally all comes to be referred and not to the sentence of the Church for you reserve to your selfe the last judgement of her sentence to see whether it be just or no in your own private opinion Sir if the contrary be not evident the Church who is Superior is to be followed and obeyed If the contrary be evident it is impossible such a superior as the Church is assembled in a general Council should not mark that evidence without we will call that evident or not evident which is for our present turn to call evident or not evident That which is truly evident will of it selfe appear to be so at least to the most judicious upright and best instructed Prelates of the Church And this is to be said according to human Reason although they had no infallible promise of a more then humane assistance from the Holy Ghost Moreover Sir let us if you please not passe so farre as the Censure but let us make a stay in the mere consideration only of the cause for which the censure is given that the cause is not hearing the Church for this and meerly for this only cause according to the text this man is according to Gods judgement deservedly to be held as a Publican or Heathen and therefore if for this act of not hearing the Church the censure cometh to be after wards pronounced against him that censure will be made good in Heaven as the next verse clearly saith Wherefore it is impossible that this Censure should be unjust if he truly be guilty of not hearing the Church It is true that a man may by false information or some such way be judged to be guilty of not hearing the Church when really he is not guilty and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact and thus Clave errante in mater of fact the sentence will not be ratified in Heaven But this is nothing to the purpose for still he who is truly guilty of not hearing the Church is for that only fact and meerly for that cause to be held deservedly according to Gods judgment as a publican or Heathen And so the Church cannot errour in denouncing Excommunication against such a person And hence you see how truely miserable such a person is and how it must needs be damnable unto him not to heare the Church which not to hear maketh a man to be held as a Publican or Heathen most deservedly and according to Gods owne judgement To hold himself not to deserve this punishment is to hold against Scripture You highly wrong Saint Athanasius to say he heard not the Church See my 9. Number These my Premisses being made good it followeth clearly that no man is secure in conscience who will not obey the Church And hence again it followeth that this Church cannot erre at least damnably for else a Man might in Conscience be bound to follow a damnable errour No she cannot erre in an
those who have not Bishops some of them would have them if it were in their power as Bogerman said in the Council of Dort when that Government was commended to him Domine nos non sumus adeo felices And as for those who are ordained without Bishops were this our case we may be as sure they are true Ministers as the Papists can assure themselves that they have true Priests in respect of the uncertainties they are under of the due intention of the Priest in Baptism and of the Bishop in Ordination As to Deacons they might have been left out of the rank with Priests as to true Sacraments for it will not appear that Deacons are appointed jure Divino to assist the Ministers in the Sacraments and if so yet not to be necessary to true Sacraments that they do assist otherwise no true Sacraments What shall this also with the Romans goe into the account of articles of faith And shall this be as necessary to be believed as that Jesus is the Christ Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men This we have spoken to before and it comes in here under a simple diction and not positively as it may be interpteted affirmed or if so necessary be to be taken signanter then is it more easily denied as to all men Our former distinction is yet good necessary by necessity of precept not by necessity of mean Neither is the other Sacrament so necessary as that and yet are they put together upon equall necessity The Sacraments bind us not God to work only by them And also are they administred as duely with us as elswhere Then he brings in a Syllogism against us out of my own words What is not plainly delivered in Scripture is thereby signified not to be necessary but it is not plainly delivered in Scripture that the Church should be governed by Bishops with such and such authority Thus he would bring in some of those who differ from them and us in this point disputing against Bishops But how would he conclude Therefore not necessary to salvation unlesse he concludes thus it doth not contradict us in our debate And if he does conclude so he concludes beside their intention for they would conclude no more than that they are not necessary to the Government of the Church because it is not held by others that this Government with such and such authoritie is simply necessary to salvation But to the assumption we say dato that the Government of the Church by Bishops with such and such power is not plainly set down in Scripture yet let them shew as much out of Scripture with the practice of the Church for the Bishop of Rome his being universall Bishop as we can shew out of Scripture for Bishops with some authority superior to Presbyters and I shall think better of their cause And therefore let them remember Parvi sunt foris Arma nisi est Consilium domi Let them make sure at home before they combate us with our own contentions For secondly as for such and such authority if he takes it for the Mathematicall point and indivisible degree which the Bishop must have of authority over the rest of the Clergie who is there that so contends it but the Roman Some superiority in the latitude may be able to conserve the form and this is more easily proveable out of Scripture with the practice of the Church But thirdly since he hath brought the Antepiscoparians upon the stage to make sport for them what will the Pontificians say if this argument be in earnest brought against them whatsoever is necessary is plainly set down in Scripture Government by Bishops with such and such authoritie is not plainly set down in Scripture therefore not necessary The major proposition is yet true and good against all his batteries The minor is to have their advice whether they will affirm it or deny it let them speak categorically is it plainly set down or not If it be plainly set down then this instance is against them if it be not plainly set down then they have nothing plainly set down for the Bishop of Rome upon the former rule if there be no Bishop plainly set down then not the Bishop of Rome This he gets by our contentions As for the form of ordaining Priests or Presbyters it is sufficiently set down and we have it practised with us without the Patin and the Chalice and that none but those who are Priests formally or eminently as being more should blesse the bread and consecrate the Sacrament this is clearly enough set down and what kind of bread for the Sacrament as much as is necessary is set down The Pontifician hath no reason if he considers himself to urge all particularities about the Sacraments since he accounts them so necessary would God pinch that which is necessary under so many contingences which he doth not ordinarily provide against Therefore either they are not necessary and then why are they insisted in Or if necessary yet not in all the severall circumstances for then under how many accidentalities should salvation be included He says then he could add many more particulars to the former kind no lesse necessary to be decided If no more necessary it is not like to trouble us Or if necessary they should be decidable by plain Scripture Yes if necessary to salvation And then your Doctors could not jarr about them This I deny and he had better have taken our grant that those of this sort are not plainly set down in Scripture unlesse he had proved it more strongely than by our differences It is possible to differ in plain things but we need not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Mark the 6. 53. And again this is retorted Many things might be named which were in the opinion of some Pontificians no lesse necessary to be decided than the point of originall sin the immaculate conception of the Virgin the point of Residence and of Bishops whether by Divine right and yet are they not determined in the Trent Council no nor those neither positively But it may be they are not necessary for if necessary they should be decidable by plain Decree of Council and then the Doctors could not jarr about them But to give a further check to this unreasonable exacting of such particularities to be plainly decided by Scripture let them consider generally how little was affirmatively defined and clearly in the Council of Trent Yea for further instance are these severals which he hath pointed at more necessary to be decided than the point of Indulgences which was the main point which occasioned the divisions of the Council consequently And yet was not this sufficiently handled yea as the Author of the History says the Protestants complained that the Synod had passed it over without clearing any doubt or deciding any Controversie If they could not or would not how shall we be bound under pain of damnation to take
an infallible assent no more than the first principles which are the object of intelligence And also therefore upon the premisses that which concludes the number might have been forborn Indeed you have brought your whole Religion to as pitifull a case as your Adversaries could wish it These braving words do not hurt a solid cause they are to be returned to the place from whence they came who hath brought Religion to so pitifull a case as the Pontifician who must have religion made accomodable to their pride and covetuousness No case of Religion so pitifull as uncertainty no such uncertainty of Religion as with them For if they ground their Religion upon the determination of Councils wherein onely Bishops have their vote and the Bishop of Rome his confirmation thereof no man can according to their principles be certain whether there be a true Pope or true Bishop as hath been said Moreover we can make use of intrinsecall arguments for the truth of Scripture to be the word of God as well as they We can make use of extrinsecall arguments better for we make use of the authority of the whole Church and do give it in this point as much reverence as is due thereunto But therefore till that which is here said for the setling of our faith be disproved and also till it be proved that we do not make use of these arguments towards our faith of Scripture because we do not pitch our finall resolution in them our ground of faith and of Religion is as good and sound as theirs yea in respect of our own subjective faith more Yea the Romanist might know that he hath been told that Estius doth differ from them upon this point and says that it is not necessary to faith to be begotten by the proposall of the Church in the third B. of senten 23 dist Yea also Stapleton in his Triplication against Whitaker saith p. 103. Ego igitur quicquid in haec causa Spiritui sancto tribuendum est plenissime assignavi c. I have most fully assigned what is to be attributed to the Holy Ghost in this cause asserting these two things both that by faith infused alone or by the testimony of the Holy Spirit alone all faith may be begotten when it pleaseth the Spirit of God to teach any extraordinarily immediately and also although ordinarily a thing is delivered by the testimony and authority of the Church yet no faith doth efficaciously follow without the gift of faith infused by God or without the internall testimony of the Spirit of God And again the same in the next page to the same purpose to clear himself of the suspition of giving no more to the Holy Ghost in this point than those who put the last reason of believing in the testimony of the Church he says disertly Ego enim c. For I have denied and do deny that the last reason of believing is to be put in the testimony of the Church not onely upon that head that that last proposition or resolution I believe the Church to be governed by the Holy Ghost is not had without the inward gift of faith or that he who believeth this believeth this by a gift of faith and not by humane faith or acquisit but especially upon that head that without any testification of the Church or notice of the Church or of the knowledge of that proposition That the Church is governed by the Spirit of God by the onely Magisterie of the Spirit of God one may believe all that is to be believed as the Prophets and Apostles being taught by the Spirit of God alone did believe many things for from hence it follows invincibly against Durandus and others since there can be but one formall reason of our faith and some believe without the testimony of the Church but none can believe without the testimony of the Spirit that the proper and formall reason of faith is not the voice of the Church but must be the testimony the Doctrine the Magistery of the Spirit of God So he And therefore there is lesse between Stapleton and me than betwixt my Adversary and me When all is done therefore we must come to this of the Father Cathedram habet in coelis qui corda docet in terris He hath his Chair in Heaven that teacheth hearts on earth and with the heart man believeth unto salvation Rom 10.10 Num. 21. Therefore in the following number he needed not to take notice of my differing from others of our own Church in this point let them agree with their own men Let Bannes and Stapleton agree with Durand or if they cannot be reconciled let them never hereafter make any difference amongst our selves a prejudice to the cause It is then no more reproach to me to differ from others than for some of them As for the three then whom he says I differ from Mr. Chillingworth Dr. Cowell and Mr. Hooker if they do not agree it it is no infallible argument against me even in the opinion of those three But also as to the first I say and my Adversaries might have known that he held not faith in the high notion of a Divine assent as they do But that a morall assurance was sufficient to it and sufficiently influxive into necessary practice And therefore having this opinion of faith he conceived no such need of an infallible ground hereof but took therefore a common principle for his motive hereof namely universal tradition Secondly if he takes not his grounds from my Adversaries what do they get by him For in his sixty sixth page he says that it is altogether as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that the Gospell of St. Mathew is the word of God as that all that the Roman Church says is true Yea moreover the same p. 135. doth fairly shew that the Spirit of God may give assurance hereof which he says indeed is not rationall and discursive but supernaturall and infused An assurance it may be to himself but not to any other and again p. 211. that the Doctrine it self is very fit and worthy to be thought to come from God Nec vox hominem sonat And is not then in his opinion the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If then he had raised faith to that height of a Divine assent as my Adversaries do it is very like he would have thought better of this assurance by the Spirit to be more ordinary since universal tradition if it hath any weight must rest in Scripture as it is the tradition of the universal Church which also he contradistinguisheth not onely to the Roman Church for place but to the present universall Church for time because we cannot prove the Church but by Scripture And as for the other two whose judgements he opposeth to my opinion I think they may receive convenient satisfaction by what is said to the former that they did not deny this assurance by the Spirit of God but
so they must at length rest in our Principles In this num beside somewhat in the beginning N. 48. answered before he would very fain repair the credit of the vulgar Latin which I had broken by an instance of Gen. 3.15 where it reads ipsa for ipsum referring to the Mother what belongs to the Son To this he saies It is clear some Hebrew copies may most exactly be translated ipsum How know you the Church followed the false Hebrew copie Satis caute Some copies Not all May be Not are Most exactly be translated not some most exact copies Well Are not these copies the greater number And indeed are they not the most exact yea can they truly be translated otherwise and how know they that their Church followed the true Hebrew copie If it did not follow it infallibly or if they cannot know infallibly that it did follow it infallibly infallibly they are undone because they are upon terms of an infallible faith in an infallible Church Therefore though we can shake their foundation by our question they cannot settle their foundation by their question And yet we have another question He asks again How many most grave and most antient Fathers have also read ipsa Surely he does well to ask how many because he does not know how few Their names may they not be written in a nut shel and Bellarmin upon the place hath not many for it And some of them surely not most grave and also most ancient Fathers But as for St. Austin Bellarmin might as well or better have left him out of the Catalogue For though he renders it ipsa in his 11. de Gen. ad literam c. 36. and in another place yet he doth not expound it as they of the Virgin for he makes it to be mystically understood Significatur semine diaboli perversa semine autem mulieris fructus boni operis illa observat caput ejus ut eum in ipso initio malae suasionis excludat He might also have omitted St. Ambrose in his 2. b. de fuga saeculi cap. 7. for there he interprets it morally not referring it to the Virgin And both of them also differ from the Hebrew and their vulgar in the other words and follow the Septuagint For they translate it ipsa servabit caput tuum which doth not agree with the Hebrew with which the vulgar in this doth agree But Bellarmine also nameth St. Chrysostom in his 17. homily upon Gen. But then they must have some other edition of him if they will make use of his testimony for them For in three places of this homily he renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which he would think it may be to be for this use is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And not her alone the woman but I will make her seed to be a perpetual enemy to thy seed Yet upon this he doth immediately subjoyne the text as before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus Bellarmin doth not yet bring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed all they can do is much too little to cure this breach For S. Ierom is more considerable in this criticism than all the Fathers named And he saies melius in Hebraeo ipse conteret caput tuum Nay Bellarmin in the place quoted by him saith he had seen one copy he speaks of no more as he would surely if he had could and yet doth not tell us where So that to speak at least de communi and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this reading ipsa is not agreeable to the Hebrew copies Nay Bellarmin doth sweat at it and therefore saies some copies of the vulgar Latin do interpret it ipse in the former Chap. And this makes a new difficulty on their part to reconcile the contrariety to the infallibility of the Church in both The Church was deceived in one and where then is their infallibility they speak of This is their modesty then against the gender in the Hebrew against the Samaritan Syriack Arabick translations which referre it to the seed against all Hebrew copies which Bellarmin had seen but one against some of their own copies of the vulgar Latin to make that Scripture for the Creature which belongs to the Son of God And also whether the Fathers most grave and most antient are for their interpretation we have examined and therefore he needed not be so plain as to say it was a loud lie of Chemnitius to say the contrary And will they say so to Lucas Brugensis who saies as much as Chemnitius in this point almost all the Fathers do read ipse as is noted Let me then say it would become them here to give glory to Christ immediately and to confess this fault And yet neither doth he competently answer to the question made to him why the Greek was not made infallibly the Church as well as the Latin That we have his declaration that the Latin vulgar is authentique and not deficient in any point concerning faith or manners this he saies but this will not serve as may appear thus A translation of that which is not authentique cannot be authentique now let them determine whether it was made authentique or not If not made authentique being a translation as they say then how can the Latin be so declared an authentique translation for then the Church must have vim operativam too not onely declaratory and the effect shall exceed the material cause Or if it was declared authentique what of an infallible translation 2. Whereas he saies therefore it is not deficient in any point necessarie to faith and manners To wit the Latin translation we take notice of it that these words have a sense in them intended for their use namely not to be understood absolutely as if there were no error at all therein but restrictively specificatively no such errour but that it may be sufficient to direct us in faith and manners So then when he hath made use of his own words for his own turne we will make use of them for our purpose and we will not squeese them neither The first corollarie then from these words of his is this that he dares not stand to an absolute infallibilitie of the Church in every point whatsoever and therefore by Mr. Knott's argument he must abate of his former postulate of it's being the ground and cause of faith 2. Thus much we may as well or better say for our translation that it is not deficient in any point necessary to faith and manners 3. It semes then salvation is not in danger by some errours otherwise their translation should be deficent in points necessarie to faith and manners and therefore we need not upon danger of salvation have an infallible Judge to decide all points emergent 4. Things necessarie to faith and manners are sufficiently set down in scripture for otherwise the Latin translation must be deficient or else it must have more then the
vertue and so is their Religion a politique Religion And if a man may proceed prudently in the choice of his Religion then he doth not beleive first and then understand as yet the vulgar Latin reads that text but we must understand first and then beleive Prudence is a Moderatress of actions not a mistress of Faith And how doth Prudence consist with implicite Faith which believes what it doth not know Prudence is a vertue of reason which is contradistinguished to Faith And if we may proceed prudently in the chusing of our Religion then we may well exercise the judgment of discretion in matters of Faith and therefore are not simply bound to take upon trust whatsoever their Church obtrudes He goes on Then you conclude all the force my former Argument hath it hath from Scripture Is not my Argument the better for this Yes If the Argument were grounded in Scripture it were better upon that ground than upon any other but this Argument is not good because it is not taken from Scripture Scripture is the best Argument in Thesi but in Hypothesi it is not well applied We like it well that he goes about to prove the Church by Scripture which is the highest principle But let them not give us such a sense of Scripture which belongs not to their cause unless against it In the next number which he nameth the fourth but then it seems the third is lost by the way he saith I stumble again at the senses of damnable errours Ans No N. 4. For I discourse of it by a Dilemma or disjunctive which will take in either sense but he is not willing to move this stone again therefore he stumbles at it Another Text he builds upon St. Matthew 18.17 N. 5. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as a publican or a Heathen Upon this he â—â—mes an argument God Commandeth us to hear the Church and obey her but no kinde of errour little or great can be incurred by following Gods command Ans I am glad he hath any such forme of discourse which would more clearly and handsomely shorten the debate we therefore answer to it passing by all discepiation about the sense of the Church there or the quality of the cause We say then if he understands the major so as that God absolutely universally commandeth us to heare and obey the Church then the conclusion were good and we could not erre in following the Church But so the minor is denied God hath not absolutely and universaly commanded us so to heare and obey the Church If he understands the major specificatively and in things lawfull then we can grant the minor but then the conclusion will not be universall will be peccant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so not conclude contradictorily to us who do not dispute here against all obedience to the Church negatively as if we would have none but against all obedience affirmatively as being not bound in faith to all commands And therefore need he not come in with a reliefe to succour his discourse by saying from me it is impossible to be obliged to assent to an errour though it be not damnable This true but not well applied to me unles he can prove Gods command for absolute obedience in whatsoever the Church proposeth But as this is true so it is pertinent for me against him that though the universal Church cannot erre in points necessary where errour would be damnative yet could we not be bound universally to follow upon that account because no man can be bound to assent to an errour though not damnative Neither doth it follow from the Text therfore meerely and purely for not hearing the Church a man is to be held a publican or a Heathen Unles he understands by not hearing not submitting if he doth not understand it so it doth not follow if he does understand it so this is not to his purpose because though we may be bound to submit to the Church yet we may not be bound to believe the Church these are two things which he should have distinguished Therefore cannot he prove from hence that the Church cannot erre He is to be accounted an Heathen or publican upon not submiting to the Church in regard of authority not upon not assenting because of infallibility And therefore though we be all bound simply to avoid excommunication yet if the case were put that we must assent to an errour or else be excommunicated we take the censure and leave the errour and if they will not have proviso with a clave non errante for the censures of the Church then what condition was Pope Honorius in who was excommunicated as before If God binds against errour and the Church as we suppose bind to it we can say presently that the Church cannot absolve without God but God can absolve without the Church And this answereth the next verse in the Gospell as he produceth it But the former Answer he would take off in the next words by an argument To swerve from Gods word is to erre But this Text proveth that the the Church cannot erre Ans The major is indeed true but the Text doth not prove the minor therefore it is false because he saith the text proveth it And indeed if she could the meerely not hearing her could not deserve that a man should deserve to be accounted according to Gods judgment a publican and heathen Ans This is denied Refractorines exposeth thereunto without acknowledgment of infallibility And yet am I still of this opinion that that Text concernes not matters of faith but of trespass betwen Brother and Brother and therefore that Text is not to his purpose This and more he saith nothing to here But yet I followed him and said that a man is not bound to believe the censure is just unles it apeare to be so To this he saies this last assertion of yours is very extravagant doctrine For the unanimous opinion of Learned men is that a man is bound to hold his superiours censure or command to be just unles the contrary appeares evident Ans first then this determination of the case by Learned men supposeth that a thing may appear evident against the superiours censure or command So that by consequence they have the unanimous opinion of Leanred men against them in two points first that a thing may be evident without the proposal of the Church for it may be evident against it 2. Then that the Church may make an injust censure or command But for his opinion he nameth three Learned men Chillingworth Hooker Laud. So he as to the first Mr. Chillingworth he hath nothing for him in his 108 nu For he maketh use of this rule In cases of uncertainty we are not to leave our superiour nor cast off his obedience nor publiquely oppose his decrees But how is this applied to our case Indeed it was his best course not to apply it Let
faith but only Opinion or humane belief ANSVVER THe Paper may be resolved into a Supposition and a Reason and a Conclusion To these in order First The Supposition It is not sufficient to make one a Catholick that he believe the same things that a Catholick doth believe unless the Catholick Church be the Ground also of his belief c. as in the Amplification of it This Supposition is indeed the main Position of the Pontificians and that which is formally Constitutive of them in that Denomination so that the Answer to it is not made as to a private Opinion or the Opinion of a private Man but as to the General Tenet of their Church in the matter of it In the Terms the word Catholick is to be distinguished for if they mean thereby such an one as they account a Catholick viz. one subject to the Church of Rome upon its own Authority It is very true that None is such a Catholick but he that shall render his belief to them in all things upon this their Proposal and so whatsoever is the Material Object of their faith yet the Formal Object is the Definition of the Church of Rome But if there be a true Sense upon ancient Account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church then there may be in a true sense a Catholick now who doth not make the Church the last Resolutive of faith For where the Scripture was acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners also there the Authority of the Church was not the Determinative thereof And that it was will be made good if it be desired by several Testimonies But secondly give it suppose it that None is a Catholick in a right sense but he that believeth what the Church believeth because the Church believeth it yet the Romane will not gain his purpose thereby unless we would grant this Supposition also That the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church which indeed is meant in the Paper though wisely not expressed But this supposition that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church is not to be yielded neither in regard of Comprehension for that makes a contradiction nor in regard of Dominion neither for other Churches have not submitted themselves to their Authority this needs no disproof from us till it hath a proof from them And thirdly If we should stand up to all that their Church in particular doth propose and if we should assent to it upon their Account we might be damned not for our want of faith but for Excess of faith in the Object Material and for the Error of faith in the Formal Object For we should believe more then is true if we should believe whatsoever they believe and somewhat also destructive of Articles in the Apostles Creed And we should also believe upon the wrong Inductive which is not the Authority of their Church as we may see now in the Answer to the Reason The Reason hath in it somewhat true somewhat false True that faith is to believe a thing because God revealeth it False that there is no Infallible way without a Miracle of his Revelation coming to us but by their Church which they suppose to be the Church its Proposition For if the question be This how shall we come to know whether the Church of Rome be the right Church upon the Authority whereof we must ground our faith Wherein shall we terminate our belief hereof In the Authority of the Church of Rome or not We are to believe that they say which God hath revealed but the Cause of our belief must be because the Church proposeth it So then we must believe the Church of Rome upon her own testimony and we must resolve all into this that the Church of Rome is the right Church although it be neither a Revelation nor a natural Principle such as this that The Whole is greater then the Part which indeed gave the Occasion of that Check which was given to Rome Greater is the Authority of the world then of a City Orbis quam Urbis S. Jerom. in Ep. ad Evagrium Wherefore if the faith of a Catholick must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it as is said in the Conclusion yet it is not necessary that this Church should be the Church of Rome For this in proportion would be to resolve our Perswasions into the Judgment of particular Men because a Particular Church which according to the Paper makes no Catholick faith but an Opinion or humane belief REPLY IN the Paper received the Position which I gave It is not sufficient c. is disliked because it makes the Catholick Church the Ground of our belief but in truth I find no reason given for such dislike or any thing said against it but what to me seems very strange and is this If there be a true sense upon ancient account also of a Catholick who doth not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church c. To which I answer that I would fain know what Catholick upon ancient Account did not believe Articles of faith upon the Proposal of the Church or indeed how can I account him a Catholick without a palpable Contradiction that doth not believe the Catholick Church S. Iren. l. 3. c. 4. saith We ought not to seek among others the truth which we may easily take and receive from the Church seeing that the Apostles have most fully laid up in her as into a rich Treasure-house or place where the Depositum of the Church is kept all things which are of truth that every man that will may take out of her the drink of life For this is the Entrance of life but all the rest are Thieves and Robbers for which cause they are verily to be avoyded But those things which are of the Church are with great diligence to be loved and the tradition of truth is to be received And the said Iren. l. 1. c. 3. telleth us that the Church keepeth with most sincere diligence the Apostles faith and that which they preached S. Cypr. Ep. ad Cornel. avoucheth that the Church alwayes holdeth that which she first knew See also his Ep. 69. ad Florentium And S. Aug. had so great an Estimation of the Church that he sticked not to say cont Ep. Manich. quam vocant Fundamentum c. 5. I would not believe the Gospel except the Authority of the Church did move me thereunto Moreover disputing against Cresconius concerning the baptism of Hereticks l. 1. cont Cresc he useth this discourse Although of this that the baptisme of Hereticks is true baptism there be no certain Example brought forth out of the Canonical Scriptures yet also in this we keep the truth of the said Scriptures when as we do that which now hath pleased the whole Church which the Authority of the Scriptures themselves doth commend That
and not private Spirit which I can esteem no better then a fantastical if not a fanatical Opinion and is Diametrically opposite to the words of the second of St. Peter 1.20 No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation And all this spoken here and in the Position c. of the Church is meant of such a Church as does truely deserve the name of Catholick and so it will appear that all the discourse in this paper I received of the Roman Church considered as a Particular Church or any other Particular Church is but Impertinent and Extravagant Now also I must assure the Answerer that the Pontificians do not make the Church of Rome the formal Object of their Faith as he doth impose upon them for they acknowledge that to be the Revelation of God or the authority of God revealing which causes their Belief to the Supernatural and Divine and not onely Natural and Humane as is the Belief that there is such a City as Rome or that there is a William the Conquerour c. which kind of faith is All that Hereticks have and All such as do not ground their Belief upon the Authority of the Church I cannot also but observe in the received paper that it is improperly enough called Excess of faith as it is there opposed to want of faith to believe more then Necessary for the Number of things believed does not alter the Nature of faith it self And lastly I must tax him of false alledging the words in the Reason thus there is no infallible way without a Miracle of his Gods Revelation coming to us but by their Church whereas in the Paper delivered it is the Church abstracting from all Particular Churches and meaning the true Church which soever it is And this is done but to make way for that needless Excursion which there follows THE REJOYNDER SIR THere is no great reason for me to rejoyn First because you wave the Application of your Discourse as to the Roman Church which is not ordinary for those of your Profession when they speak highly of the Catholique Church Secondly Because I may let you alone to answer the first paper with your second as to the main of it Thirdly Because the greatest part of it hath one fault not to conclude contradictorily Yet in Christian respects to Truth and You I shall endeavour meekly some return to your Reply and to differ as little as may be from you I shall mostly follow your own Order In the beginning you dislike my dislike of the ground of Faith without giving you any Reason Answer I intended my answer as near as I could guesse to the design of your paper for the Roman Church by Obedience to the Bishop whereof Bellarmine in his Catechism Englished p. 65. 6 7. doth describe the Catholique Church You will excuse me then if I took the course to make my answer compendiously sufficient to that drift if you will hold with Papists herein And if you would confesse you meant the Roman Church by the Catholique then I have given you such a Reason against your Position as you will say nothing to And you may consider that you directed your paper as to a Protestant who is not contradistinguished to a Catholique but to a Papist if you be a Papist why doe you dissemble it to me If you be not why do we dispute And this Apology may be enough also to refute all your Objections against me of impertinencies and excursions and untrue Allegations if you will take notice also of my Parenthesis And now my Reason intimated in a promise shall be made good in performance And since you will in the question about the Catholique Church abstract from the Roman and all other particulars I shall give some account of Catholiques who did not make the authority of the Catholique Church the ground and cause of their Beleef whereby onely God his Revelation cometh to us infallibly as you expresse your self in your first paper but this Prerogative they ascribed to the Holy Scripture to be it wherein and whereby we are infallibly assured of Gods Will as to what we should beleeve and do in order to salvation That the authority of the Catholique Church is of use towards Faith we deny not but the cause and ground of Faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertaind of the mind of God is not the Proposition of the Church but the Word of God And such being the state of the question betwixt us I shall for your shower of authorities you say you could power out against me give you or shew you a cloud of witnesses as the Apostle speaks Hebr. 12.1 against you Your shower could not wet me through but this cloud may direct you home This Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Church and Scriptures as you may see by the 8.19 20 21. Articles and therefore it is not my Opinion will appear not to be new but agreeable to ancient Catholiques in your own esteem The first shall be Saint Irenaeus Have you appealed to Saint Irenaeus unto Saint Irenaeus shall you goe He in his third book first chapter first words thus We have not known the disposing of our salvation by any other then those by whom the Gospel came to us which then indeed they preached afterwards delivered it to us in the Scriptures by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith So he Now that which is delivered in Scripture by the Will of God to be the foundation and pillar of Faith is the ground and cause of our Faith And such is the Gospel according to this Testimony The next for us is Clemens Alexandrinus in the seventh of his Stromata towards the end in the 757. p. of the Greek and Latine Edition He which is to be believed by himself reasonably is worthy to be believed by the Lords Scripture and Voice working by the Lord inwardly to the benefit of men So he Then according to him the Holy Scripture is not worthy to be beleeved by men but men are worthy of beleef by it And therefore that must ground our Faith because it is it whereby we beleeve others And therefore he saith in the following words Surely we use it as the Criterium for finding out of things And therefore points are to be decided and determined by authority of it which is his chief discourse against Heretiques even to the end of that book And if you please to peruse and consider it you shall find there that in his judgement the Catholique Church which he also there commends doth not conserve it self in that denomination by its own authority but by the Rule of Scripture Now that which rules the whole rules the parts the Scripture rules the whole then us So Origen upon Saint Matthew Hom. 25. We ought not therefore for confirmation of Doctrine to swear our own apprehensions and to bring into witnesse those which every one of us doth
Faith in the Gospel And this is illustrated by the Samaritanes beleeving Christ through the testimony of the woman but when they came to Christ and saw him They said unto the woman we believe no more for thy saying for we have heard and seen that he indeed is the Saviour of the world the Christ John 4.42 So Saint Austin might be moved by the voyce of the Church to give an ear to the Truth of the Gospel and yet was settled in the Beleef of it from its self by the Spirit of God When he did beleeve the immediate cause of his Divine Faith was from the Gospel by the Spirit of God although before he did beleeve he was moved to think well of the Gospel by the authority of the Church So he did not belive the Gospel by the authority of the Church as a Theological principle but as an outward mean and help thereunto For the authority of the Church could not by its testimony of the Gospel make it properly credible because the testimony of the Church is to be made true by it And if it be not true in it self then the testimony is false So that before we know whether the Gospel be true we know not whether the testimony of the Church be true As also we cannot tell how to beleeve that the Church should alwayes give a true testimony as you suppose in every point but by the Scripture And therefore there is no ground or rest for Faith but in the Scripture Since if we beleeve the Church because the Scripture gives testimony of it and then the Scripture because the Church gives testimony thereof we must first beleeve the Scripture before we beleeve the Church Therefore we must terminate our Faith in the Scripture and if we do beleeve it beleeve it for it self it being the first credible Fifthly Look to the end of that chapter and there after he had disputed subtilly he doth conclude soberly But God forbid that I should not beleeve the Gospel and then concludes against his Adversary from thence as the rule of the difference betwixt them for Beleeving that saith he I do not find how to beleeve you c. And that the Scripture is the Rule he went by you may see in his 32. chapter against Cresconius whether let me if you please refer you for brevitie None can overcome S. Austin but S. Austin And therefore I need not say any thing to the second testimony which is taken out of him against Cresconius Yet observe Although of this there is no example certainly brought forth out of the canonical Scriptures yet also we keep the Truth of the Holy Scriptures in this when we do that which hath pleased the whole Church saith he Namely in that which is not a ruled case in Scripture as the question was about the Truth of the Baptisme of Hereticks It seems then if it had been determined in Scripture there had been an end of it that because the Holy Scripture cannot deceive saith he And this property absolute belongs to it not to humanitie Whosoever doth fear to be deceived by the obscurity of the Question may ask counsel touching it of the Church whom without doubt the Scripture it self doth shew saith he First here is an obscure question about practice so are not all points Some are clear in Scripture and yet the Propsition is universall that we must believe every thing by the proposal of the Church as if we must beleeve nothing but what the Church defineth and whatsoever it doth define that we must beleeve Secondly VVe should ask counsel onely which doth not suppose an absolute determination Thirdly which Church the Scripture doth without doubt shew then the Church is to be proved by Scripture again And without doubt doth shew but doth not shew to be alwayes without doubt and infallible Fourthly he afterwards goeth about to prove it against him by testimonies out of Scripture But behold yet again in a third Testimony of Saint Austin No peaceable man will be against the Church Answer Saint Austin is again welcome I say so too and shall anon end with the whole Sentence And yet once more in a fourth Testimony Saint Austin It is of most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth VVe answer VVe say so too in things of indifferency which every particular Church hath power in for it self and the Catholicke Church for all And yet all Catholick practices are not now observed by the Church of Rome as for one Infant Communion But according to the Father if the Authority of the Scripture doth prescribe which of these is to be done it is not to be doubted that we should do so as we read In such things then which are defined by Scripture we know what we should do intuitively to Scripture without asking counsel of the Church As certainly I may believe that Jesus is the Christ that he that believeth shall be saved immediately out of Scripture and not upon the Churches proposal And now I have delivered you from your fear of my rejecting the Fathers Surely we should love the Fathers though they were our Enemies and we have no reason to fear them when they are our Friends Therefore if you please to give me leave so far let me say as Nilus the Archbishop of Thessalonica as the Book bears title said in his first Book about the Primacy of the Pope or the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches It is very unreasonable that you who have not the Fathers for your examples should of your selves understand that which is better and we who have the Fathers should not Afterwards in your Reply you come to upbraid me with Devotion to modern men But this Belief of yours concerning me is not well grounded we delight not our selves in being Servants to Men in matters of Faith What is true we like in any what is not true we do not like in any In Divine writings we take all for there we consider not so much what is said as who saith in Humane Writings we pick for we consider not who speaketh but what is said agreeable to the Scriptures Therefore with them we deal as Saint Austin with Saint Cyprians authority in the forenamed chapter against Cresc What we find in them which is agreeable to the Canonical Scripture we receive with commendation what doth not with their leaves we leave But to make as short work with them as I can I answer first as many testimonies and more clear might be found in them against you I hope if those testimonies be for you let one be set against the other And if you say I should be moved by them because they are ours I answer Secondly If they agree with the sense of the Fathers you cannot condemn them if they do not agree we do Thirdly It is possible to be Even with you in the same kind by a retaliation of Pontificians against you But Fourthly I could
finde in my heart not to say a word to them that you might see I do not give them that respect as to the Fathers And yet take the strength of all their authorities together and make of them an accumulative argument as we may speak yet they do not conclude your cause Calvin and his Schollar in their sayings affirm no more then that which we acknowledge not from them that the Church shall by the assistance of the Spirit be sufficiently furnished with necessary Doctrine unto Salvation but those of the Church invisible may be saved though the Church visible be not Infallible and by consequence not the ground of Faith As for Doctor Saravia's passage I answer it doth not come up close to your purpose The H. G. which beareth rule in the Church objectively is the true Interpreter of Scripture and thus it is not for you And if you understand the Church objectively yet first the matter he seems to speak to is of Discipline about Government of the Church depending upon Primitive Example but we are upon points of Faith Secondly He cannot be contrary to himselfe when he acts as he did formerly in the time of the Apostles but whether he doth so act now is a question yea no question Thirdly If you will with him and from him draw the Government of the Church to be proportionably Episcopal with all my heart I reject them that reject it And your Adversaries of Wittenberg confesse nothing for you The rule they speak of namely Prophetical and Apostolical preaching c. it is the Word of God written according to which she is bound to interpret those places which are obscure and to judge of Doctrines according to the rule which she hath received so as her Interpretations are to be agreeable to the analogy of Faith and her judgements of Doctrines to be made according to the Law of the Word namely harder places are to be expounded by those which are more plain and Controversies to be decided by that rule And all this makes nothing for you For thus the Scripture is the Rule ruling and the Church is but the Rule ruled And thus we follow the Church as the Church followes the rule as Saint Paul saith Be ye followers of me as I am of Christ in the first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11. v. 1. Or if those Lutherans mean by a certain rule any rule distinguished from Scripture it is to be understood of some general heads of Christian Doctrine in proportion whereunto doubtfull places and Doctrines were to be judged But those heads were to be gathered out of Scripture And so all is resolved towards belief in Scripture but I think no man can see how they should say such a rule which was not Scripture was confirmed by miracles So for them And for Doctor Field if you will go through the twentieth chapter of the fourth Book you shall finde nothing in him contrary to this Doctrine For he saith plainly that though the Canonical Books are received by way of Tradition yet the Scriptures have not their authority from the approbation of the Church but they win credit of themselves and yeild satisfaction to all men of their Divine Truth whence we judge that the Church which receiveth them is led by the Spirit of God Observe not because the Church is led by the Spirit of God therefore doth he say she receiveth them but because she receiveth them therefore we judge she is led by the Spirit of God And as for his Rule of Faith descending by Tradition from the Apostles what is he like to mean but the Apostles Creed which he saith there was delivered in the Church as a Rule of her Faith But even this binds not by authority of the Church or upon Vertue of Tradition but by proportion to Scripture where it is found in particulars of matter though not in form of a Creed We confesse also that we should search out the true Church as the same Doctour saith We confesse that the Catholick Church is the Houshold of Faith the Spouse of Christ the Church of the Living God and that we should embrace her Communion and rest in her judgement Yes but how Not ultimately not absolutely not in what so ever she saith because shee saith it but in what so ever shee saith from the Lord. For although she doth goe by an infallible Rule yet are we not sure she goeth by it infallibly Therefore though wee rest in her judgements as to Peace yet can wee not rest in her judgements as to Truth because our understandings are not free to assent to what man will as being bound to assent to that onely which is grounded in the Word of God in matters of Faith And now might I Vie with you in number of Pontificians against you See Durand in his Prologue upon the Sentences where he hath more to our purpose then is necessary to be Transcribed Read him your self Gerson also in his Sermon concerning Errours against Faith and Manners about the Precept Thou shalt not kill saith thus More freely more purely more truely more speedily is Truth found out and Errour reproved if the Divine Law alone be constituted as Judge according to the consideration of Aristotle He which makes the Law the Judge makes God but he that addes Man addes a Beast Panormitanus also upon the 5. of the Decret concerning almes in chap. qualiter quando The saying of any Saint established with the Authorities of the New or Old Testament is preferred before a Papal Constitution even in decision of Causes Also Ferus upon the 1 Epistle of Saint John 2. chapter in the 52.3 page of the Antuerpe Edition thus The Holy Ghost doth teach t is by the means of the Holy Scripture and Word Again The Holy Scripture is given to us as a certain sure Rule of Christian Doctrine And again in the same page For if having the Holy Scripture as a most certain Rule of Christian Doctrine set before our Eyes we notwithstanding teach things so unlike what would be done if the Scriptures were taken away And if you say now that there is added to those places Tradition in the Roman Edition after the Trent Council as is noted You will get nothing by that but shame to the Pontificians And now I think I am not much behind hand with you in Testimonies about the Question But then afterwards you presse harder upon me So you say but I do not yet feel the weight of any thing you say I beleeve the Creed and that the Church is Holy And I do not beleeve but know that from hence nothing is coming to your cause The Catholick Church makes not it self the ground of Faith but is grounded in it as before And how were the first Members of the Catholick Church made Christians but by the Word of God And from the Holynesse of it doth not follow infallibility by the Roman distinction which saith that the Pope may erre
as to his own person but not in matters of Faith as to the Church I beleeve that the Church is the Spouse of Christ and that she is without spot or wrinkle or any such thing as to that part which is in Heaven and that the other part of the Church as invisible which is not yet in Heaven shall be without spot or wrinkle or any such thing when it cometh up to Heaven But I do not beleeve that that Text is meant of the Church visible For all here glorious or none not all glorious here therefore none For you find it in the Text that it is to be presented as a glorious Church namely as in the whole But you will not say that every Member of the visible Church is here glorious without spot without wrinkle or any such thing If you do say so you contradict Bellarmin in his third Book of the Militant Church the second chapter who there includes in his Definition of the Church visible even Reprobates wicked and ungodly men and requires there no internal virtue for the constitution of a Member of the Church but onely an external profession of Faith and communion of Sacraments And besides you know glory which is a perfection of Grace doth not belong to the way but the Country in Heaven And besides if you will not beleeve me in such an Exposition beleeve your Estius who with * In his Retractations p. 9. Ed. Frob. but this Quotation not added in my copy to him Saint Austin understands it upon good Reason of the Church invisible as you may see in Estius Comment upon the place And here by the way we have another Testimony of your own against you if you account your Argument from this Text sufficient to your cause And we have St. Austins authority to boot as Estius quotes him And moreover Holynesse is no formal principle of our direction especially in points of Faith It is Holy because it follows and as it follows the Rule and so should we in faith and manners And therefore if it were to be understood of the Visible Church as it is not yet you conclude nothing for your turn upon this consideration To hasten the next Text is formerly urged the Church the Pillar and Ground of Truth Yet squeeze it and presse it and make the best use of it you can it will not afford your inference you would make from it For first some and also very reasonably will refer this Expression not to the Church but to the Mystery of Godlinesse which follows and so they make it as an Hebrew form of setting out some high point and grand Doctrine and then it goes thus A Pillar and Ground of Truth and without Controversie a great Mystery of Godliness is this namely God manifested in the flesh c. If so your interesse in it is sunk and indeed the copulative And and without Controversie doth not seem so well and so close to knit else But it being given not granted that that Criticisme is not sufficient what of all that For Saint Irenaeus as before gives this Eulogy to the Scripture The Scripture gives it to the Church Now to which doth this propertie belong first and absolutely To the Scripture or to the Church Not to the Church for the Church hath it from the Scripture Now that which hath it first hath its absolutely and independently upon that which follows therefore the Scripture is the absolute Pillar and ground of Truth Then there Faith hath sure footing there it sits down there it rests on that Ground upon that Pillar The Church then hath this Title but subordinately and what it saith cannot bind but conditionately to that which is the absolute Ground and Pillar of Truth For the Truth is the Pillar and Ground of the Church as Saint Chysostome saith upon the place Take it then of the Catholick Church not Roman The Text doth more set out the Office of the Church then the authority It doth hold it doth propose it doth uphold the Truth but this doth not convince or evince that whatsoever the Church doth hold we should also hold and upon that account also as if God had appointed the Church infallibly to conveigh to us whatsoever Truth and nothing but Truth And therefore may we and ought we to search the Scriptures as our Savâ—our speaks John 5.39 and by them examine whatsoever the Church saith as those of Beraea did that which was said by Saint Paul and they commended for it And therefore we cannot believe the Definitions of the Church upon its own word Nay can we also say that God doth now give unto the Church such assistance as then which was noted before and therefore we distinguish times not thinking there should be as much said of the Church now as when it included the Apostles and therefore supposing that the Church then did hold all that was true and nothing contrary yet we cannot say it of the Church now and therefore is not the cause of Faith under whose authority it must also passe beside the Divine Revelation to make it Catholique For the Church is conserved by the Truth as Estius also upon the place then thus where the ground of the Catholique Church is there is the ground of Catholique Faith The Scripture is the ground of the Catholique Church unlesse it be conserved by some other principle then by which it is constituted And it is conserved by the Truth saith he and thy word is Truth saith our Saviour John 17.17 And whereas he sayes that the Truth sustaineth the Church and the Church sustaineth the Truth and so one is the cause of the other we answer this is not availeable for you For in the same kinde of cause it cannot be for then we are in a circle but the Truth sustains the Church so as to continue it in its principles the Church sustains the Truth but by way of ministery which doth not make it to be a principle of Faith no not to us Neither do the other Texts speak for you as you would have them If the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church it doth not follow that then Catholique Faith must be built upon the proposalls of the Church Nothing shall prevail to the Condemnation of those who belong to the Church of God as invisible and nothing shall prevail not the Gates of Hell against the Church visible so as somewhere or other there shall not be some who shall professe the Christian Doctrine and Worship sufficiently to salvation The next Text speaks towards Excommunication which comes little into the question for the authority of the Church may proceed to Censure although we be not bound upon peril of want of Faith to submit our understandings to the definitions of the Church As to the authority we may submit so as to endure the censure though we do not submit our judgements as to believe the definitions As to the next place of Scripture
your self See how you now differ from your selfe Before the ground of Believing was the authority of the Church now the authority of God revealing the cause of their belief Before you concluded Faith consisted in submitting the understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it now it is the authority of God revealing which causes their faith to be Divine As for the term thus the formal object is such under which and in respect whereunto any thing proceedeth if then Gods Revelation cometh not to us under the Proposal of the Church or as proposed by the Church then the cause is lost if it doth then grant me my term and affirm with me that the Pontificians hold so If not they are better then you And what means else their implicite faith unlesse we are to believe every thing as the Church believeth it and because the Church proposeth it as you said and if we be to beleive every thing as the Church believe it then is the Church the formal object of their faith since they are also bound not to doubt but simply to obey as Bellarmine tells us in his fourth Book of the Roman Bishop 5. chap. The other term you find fault with is excesse of faith You taxe it as improperly spoken But surely it will passe without any Grain of Salt or of allowance if we consider that Faith may be compared as to a particular object and so there is not an Excesse of Faith as to that but then it may be compared as to many objects and so though we do not more believe one thing then we should if we should indeed believe it yet may we believe more then we should If we believe those things which are not at all to be believed And thus if we should believe whatsoever the Church of Rome proposeth we might be destroyed for excesse of Faith The Church of Rome is peccant in excesse of Faith by believing more points then it should believe and this is the reason why our Divinity is in negatives as to differences with them because their Divinity in differences to us is in additions SIR If you will excuse me for being so long I shall now conclude with the whole conclusion of Saint Austin whereof you gave me but part Against Reason no Sober Man will go against Scriptures no Christian then Christians should go by Scriptures against the Church no Peace-maker The Roman Catholick's first Treatise How in these times in which there be so many Religious the true Religion may certainly be found out The Preface THE Romane Catholicks have often foretold that by permitting freely to all sorts of people whatsoever the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother Tongue multitudes of New Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberless Number and as for the Peoples Manners they would daily grow worse and worse How true this is let the world judge That then which now mainly imports is to distinguish the true Religion from so many false ones This is my Aim To effect this I did write a short Paper shewing the Catholick Church so to teach the infallible way to Salvation which is to be obtained onely in the true faith that we cannot have as things stand any other Assurance to ground our faith upon securely I did never deny that when by the Infallible Authority of the Church we are secured that the Scriptures be the word of God we cannot believe such things as are clearly contained in the Scripture for so I should deny that I could not believe that to be infallibly true which upon an Infallible ground I believed to be Gods own word But I did and still do maintain that no man can have Infallible ground to believe the Scriptures now but he who first believeth that which the Church teacheth to be infallibly true Whence it will follow that his faith must needs now at the first be grounded upon the Revelation of Gods truth made by God to us by his Church and not by his written word The Papers I did write to this Effect have been answered by some truly Learned Scholar so that I hope so worthy a Man will not reject such a Reply as may seem to be as clear a Demonstration as any wise Man can hope for in this Matter And such a Demonstration I hope by Gods grace to make whilst I endevour to make good the Title prefixed to this Paper which Title I now add to shew that my chief drift is to guide a Soul redeemed by Christs blood to that happy eternity to which we cannot attain unless in all doubtful Controversies of faith we follow the Catholick Church as an Infallible Judge in all those Controversies we being obliged under pain of damnation not to dis-believe this Judge And whilst I demonstrate this I do demonstrate my former Position That the Infallible Authority of the Catholick Church is the Ground of our faith And also going on with this Demonstration I will leave nothing of Concernment unanswered in the Reply made and thus I will conclude contradictorily to the said Reply which a little after the beginning denyeth The Authority of the Catholick Church to be the Ground of faith and that whereby we are infallibly ascertained of the minde of God I answer not the Reply just in the Order that my Answer was returned for so I should be over-long I use this way of a little Treatise to prove my Title for thus all will be more clear and less tedious In the Conclusion I shew all the parts of the Reply to have been fully answered in this Discourse The Proof of the Title St. Anselme hath a very fit Similitude to express how much a Contentious Spirit in disputing doth blind the understanding from seeing the Manifest Truth He sayeth that a little before Sun-rising two men in the fields did fall into a hot debate concerning that place of the Heavens in which the Sun was that day to rise the one pointing out one part of the Heavens the other another They passed so far in their Contention that falling together by the Ears they both pulled out one anothers Eyes and so when the Sun by and by after did rise neither of them both could see a thing so clear as was the place of the Sun rising To our purpose Because Zeal in Religion is accounted laudable and also because prejudice caused by Education in such or such a Religion is a thing exceedingly swaying us to our own side we are commonly apt to grow into so hot a debate in disputations about Religion that I may freely say This Passion hindreth many thousands from seeing that clear Sun-shine of Truth which men of mean Capacity would clearly behold if setting all passion and prejudice aside they did with a Calm and humble Mind beg of God to give them this grace of seeking Truth with all sincerity for then he who should seek should find This is proved manifestly
the Judges of Controversies or to be infallible Wherefore they cannot be either judges or infallible for if they be true Judges then they judge truly against themselves when they judge it to be as certain as Scripture that there is no Judge but Scripture And if they be truly infallible in defining them they truly and by infallible authority define themselves to be fallible whilest they define it to be Scripture that the true Church is fallable Wherefore infallibly they are fallible and consequently infallibly they are not the true Church which we have demonstrated to be infallible and all those Texts authorities and Reasons must needs prove all Churches false that be fallible whilest they prove the true Church necessarily to be infallible But all Churches besides the Roman by their own faith are according to infallible Scripture fallible None of them therefore is the true Church If then the Roman Church be not the true Church then Christ hath no true Church left on Earth nor hath not had these many Ages Hence you may gather why I never was sollicitous to prove all that was said of the Church by the Scriptures and Fathers to be said of the Roman Church for whilest I did shew them to be said of such a Church as might be of an Authority infallibile and sufficient to ground Faith It followed manifestly that all was said of the Roman no other being Infallible and so Christ should have no true Church if this be not a true one For I have demonstrated that no other can be Infallible This being a Demonstration until this Argument be answered I hold my self bound to say no more yet I must needs tell you in brief a small part of that which I can and will say if this point be again pressed I will shew how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this St. Cyprian Ep. 3. l. 1. saith that false Faith cannot have Access to the Roman Church St. Hierome in 1. ad Tim. calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome The Rector of the House of God which St. Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of truth And in his Epistle to the same Pope he saith To your Holiness that is to the Chair of Peter I am joyned in communion Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built He that gathers not with thee scatters So the Fathers in the Councel of Chalcedon at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. And many such other places I will alledge for which now I remit you to Stapleton and Bellarmine who both shew most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief Causes See this done in all Ages in Bell. 3. De Verbo Dei e. 6. I will shew also how all Churches of all Ages which were not confessed Heretical or Schismatical Churches have been ever joyned in communion to the Roman until St. Gregory the greats time and then ever since and how in his time England received the same Roman Faith which now all Roman Catholiques professe and all Protestants deny And I will shew that this faith then brought into England from Rome did not in any point of Faith controverted between the Roman Catholiques and the Protestants differ from that undoubted true Apostolical Faith which our old Brittains received from Rome in the second age of the Church in the dayes of Eleutherius and from hence the present Roman Churches communion in Doctrine with the Ancient Apostolical Church will appear I will shew that perpetual visibility agreeth onely to the Roman Church and consequently that in her onely that Prophesie concerning Christ was fulfilled That he should reigne in the House of Jacob for ever and of his reign there shall be no end We can shew how he hath reigned here by known and manifest Pastors of the Church who have in all ages appeared in Councils to govern his Church I pray set us but know the name of one of your Pastors Doctors or Preachers in those last thousand ages which preceded Luther All are bound to be of the true Church but to be of an invisible Church having onely Invisible Pastors administring Sacraments in an invisible manner no man can be bound to be of I will shew that all conversions of Nations from Idolatry so often promised to be made by the true Church were all and every one of them made by such as did communicate with the Roman Church and no one Nation ever converted from Paganisme by those who professed Protestant Religion or held these points in which Protestants differ from us I will add also that all who have been eminent for sanctity of Life or glory of Miracles have all been joyned in communion to the Roman Church and you cannot name any one famous in either of these respects whom you can prove to have been a Protestant a most evident sign of the Truth of the Roman Church Compare any other Church to it in all these points here mentioned and you shall see all incomparably more verified in the Roman Church then in any other differing from her or agreeing with you yea verified in none but her I have then I hope performed my Promise to shew a clear way how in the midst of so many Religions to find the true One by the Infallible Authority of the Catholick Church which I have shewed to be the Judge in all Controversies of Faith and of Authority sufficient to ground true Faith upon and that when all this is done This is that holy and direct way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it and wise men must erre if they walk not by it The Conclusion Shewing the Reply to my Papers to have been fully answered in the former Discourse This Reply consisteth of Eight Answers with a word or two at the end and at the beginning of these Answers To all these in Order FIrst at the beginning you say there is little reason for you to rejoyn because I wave the Application of my discourse as to the Roman Church I answer That my Position was that the Church is the Ground of Faith Of the Roman Church it was to no end to speak until I had been first granted that some Church or other was the Ground of Faith A man must first prove to a Jew that the Messias is come and then he must prove that Christ was this Messias Again all my Proofs proved an infallible Church to be the ground of Faith of which no fallible Church could be a sure Ground as is manifest But all Churches but the Roman Church do profess according to Scripture themselves to be fallible whence it followeth that all Churches but the Roman must needs be fallible For if they or any of them be infallible then they teach the infallible Truth when they teach themselves to be fallible No Church therefore can be Infallible but she who teacheth her self to be Infallible Consequently when I proved the
you charge me in differing from my selfe because before I taught the ground of Believing to be the Authority of the Church and now I say it is the Authority of God Revealing My Reply is exceeding easie The Ground of our Faith is God Revealing and God Revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first Belief when he tells us by his Church such and such Books are Infallibly his Word God Revealing is alwaies the formal object of Faith but sometimes God Revealeth his minde by Scriptures and sometimes by the Church as he did for two Thousand yeares and more before the Scriptures were written The Prophets before they did write did say This saith the Lord to wit this he said by their Mouths So say I This and this saith our Lord by the Mouth of his Church as I have shewed Numb 22. Saint Athanasius to speak and I have shewed Numb 28. The General Councel of Chalcedon to have said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo Pope of Rome And thus Gods Revelation cometh to us by the Church She and onely She teacheth us these and these Scriptures to be Gods Word We must first believe her before we can come to have Infallible Ground to believe Scriptures as I have fully shewed After we have believed Scripture we cannot by Scripture onely know the undoubted sense of many necessary places in Scripture as hath been shewed Again all things necessary to be believed be not set down in Scripture as hath also been shewed fully The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her Authority to be our ordinary cause of Faith At the end of these your Answers you would fain seem to have spoken properly in accusing us of Excesse of Faith But your distinction doth no way salve the Impropriety of the Speech for there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects but granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that Sense it is not truly said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing what God saith for believing upon an Infallible Authority all that we believe we cannot believe more then we should if we believe no more things then be grounded upon that Infallible Authority as we do not And consequently we do no more then believe such things as have for their Warrant This faith the Lord. Having now answered your Paper from the beginning to the end I am most willing to take your own close out of Saint Austin Against Reason no sober Man will go against Scriptures no Christian against the Church no Peace-maker adding his other words Tr. 32. in Joan. Let us believe my Brethren so much as a Man loveth the Church just so much he hath of the Holy Ghost SIR I Cannot answer it to God nor to his Church with us if I let you seem to your self or to others of your perswasion that you have the Victory untill you have overcome your Error therefore you will excuse me if I still follow you To your Preface then If the Roman Catholiques have often foretold that by permitting freely to all sorts of people the reading of the Scriptures in their Mother-tongue multitudes of new Sects and Heresies would not fail to grow up in numberlesse number and as for the peoples Manners they would grow worse and worse as you say in the beginning then are your Roman Catholiques in this false Prophets because they seem by you to make that the cause of Heresies and bad Manners This is plainly fallacia non causa or the fallacy of accident And secondly it is contrary to that of our Saviour Christ Saint Mark the 12.24 Do you not therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures and the power of God By our Saviour the knowledge of the Scriptures is not the cause of erring but the not knowing of the Scriptures is the cause of erring You do therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures which are able to make us wise unto Salvation as Saint Paul to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.15 And thirdly You confesse in this Paper that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may Ground our Faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered And fourthly How cometh it to passe then that some of those in whom Infallibility as you think is vested have been Hereticks and lewd the former of which indeed you do much deny but is exemplified in Liberius's subscribing against Athanasius as you may see fully proved by our Reinolds against your Hart. And surely was that also an action of bad Manners Therefore if your Church were the true Church yet doth it not you see teach the way of Salvation infallibly and therefore can we not by it infallibly discerne the true Religion from the false Indeed the Catholick Church hath taught the infallible way of Salvation but that was the Scripture as I proved by many Testimonies and this was a teaching the infallible way by consequence because it did teach the Scripture which is the infallible way yet hath it not in particular points taught the infallible way infallibly Neither are we by the Church infallibly resolved that the Scripture is the Word of God although the authority of the true Church be a motive herein yet is it not that wherein ultimately we ground our Faith of the Scriptures as I have shewed Whereas then you say that we cannot have as things stand any other assurance to ground our Faith upon securely namely then the Church you do still but fortiter supponere for we cannot ground our assurance securely upon the Church And secondly Whereas you say that as things stand we have no other assurance c. you do not well consider what you say or I do not understand what you mean for hereby you do intimate that the Church is not the ground of our Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that which is indeed the ground of our Faith must be so absolutely and universally as farre as is necessary the Church security is but the best of the kinde amongst those which are humane but we must have a Divine indefectible ground for our Divine Faith in which there cannot be falsity Neither thirdly Is the Church the first ground because by it we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God because if we did by it believe the Scripture then we are not first to believe it by the Scripture And if whatsoever credence we do give to it we do give by authority of the Scripture then are we first to believe the Scripture and then that is the first ground Fourthly In that you say you did never deny that when we are by the Infallible authority of the Church assured of the Scripture to be the Word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture c. you say that which concludes against the practice of
the Church not to permit the use of Scripture unto the People and also you do abate of the Universal Proposition in the first Paper that Divine Faith in all things is caused by the proposal of the Church and therefore if you would hold you to this the Controversie would be lessened betwixt us for dato non concesso that we are bound to believe the Scripture to be the Word of God by the authority of the Church yet when we do thus believe it then the immediate ground of our Faith in those things clearly set down is the written Word of God and not the authority of the Church So then your first Number is indeed in no Number for you cannot mean thus that we cannot believe any thing proposed plainly in Scripture unlesse we believe the authority of the Church in that particular And therefore when you have proved the authority of the Church to be that which causeth and determineth our Faith of Scripture to be the Word of God you will say lesse then formerly and untill you do prove it you say nothing As touching the expressions you make in the second Number of him who answered the Papers give him leave if not to be the adversary herein yet to differ from you and to think himself to be one of the most slender Sons of the Church of England Neither did you intend by courteous and respective words to draw him to your opinion Soft words alone will not do it but soft words with hard arguments may do more When we see a clear demonstration of truth it is no courtesie to yeild assent for the Understanding cannot refuse Truth when it doth shew it selfe But whether the Reply as you speak be as clear a demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter let me have the liberty and the civility if in these businesses it hath any place not to determine Only it is very hard to say who doth optimum quod sic as they speak the best of the kinde Yet also wise men may think that if there can be nothing more expected towards ths defence of your first position the cause is wanting to it And certainly such a wise man and ingenuous as you be will not content himselfe with any ascertainment but that which is absolute and uncapable of Error Therefore not to deceive you by your own commendations put it to issue bring it to the test try the debate betwixt us by this rule of Wisdome and Conscience also Tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum It is certain that the Scripture is Infallible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is Infallible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the Rule and Ground and Cause of Faith As for the good designe you mention here and in your Title to guide Souls redeemed by Christ to the happy Eternity I congratulate to you that desire but I am sorry that such a zeal is better then the way you lead them in Assuredly those Souls redeemed by the Blood of Christ may and shall come to happinesse without any Infallible Judge of Controversies on Earth For first those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture matters of question we are in no such danger by the ignorance of reserving a purpose not to contradict what we shall be convinced in on either part Secondly We may be directed in these points by Judges though not Infallible as unto the quiet of the Church Thirdly Untill your Infallible Judge appears to be truly such it is the best way not to be bound intuitively to his dictates for then we might be in possibility of being bound to believe an errour which is repugnant to the understanding Ex natura rei So that until you make good the Title of an infallible Judge whom as you say we are obliged under pain of damnation not to disbelieve I shall hold up my hand onely in admiration of your confidence And whilest you do demonstrate this that we are bound under pain of damnation not to disbelieve this Judge of yours You say you do demonstrate your former Position that the infallible Authority of the Catholique Church is the ground of our Faith So you yes because you say that the Catholique Church is the infallible Judge To this thus Is it the infallible Judge whereunto we are bound to submit our understandings in all things or not if in all things then we cannot believe what the Scripture saith in plain points without the proposal of the Church which now seems contrary to your mind if not in all things but onely whether the Scripture be the Word of God or in cases of Controversie then do you now go lesse then in your former paper against the nature of implicite Faith Secondly that the authority of the Church is not it upon which we resolvedly rest our Faith of the Scripture or the determination of Controversies we shall see when you come to it Thirdly what do you mean by the Church do you understand it formally of the people or representatively in an Assembly of the Pastors if you mean it of the people also how is infallibility vested in them Are we bound to stand to their judgement and they are to be in obedience to their Pastors Well then it must be understood of their Pastors What of all or most or one If of all when did they all Vote if of most when did most Vote If of one ordinary Pastor with or in a General Council then remember whensoever in your sense you name a Church it be so taken of the Pope and his Council General which yet you will not evince to be infallible by their authority If they were infallible they must be infallible by the Word of God as to us and then that again is the first ground of Faith and also secondly you will find that many priviledges which you have spoken of as to the Church do not belong to the Church Representative strictly but to all the people of the Church as invisible which as such comes not into this Controversie If then you come again in any discourse keep you within and to the bounds of the question and speak of the authority of the Church in the same sense as to be the ground of Faith Divine in all points or in the same particulars For if you proceed from the Churches being the ground of faith as towards the Scripture to be the Word of God To conclude that therefore it is the ground of faith indefinitely or universally you commit the fallacy à dicto secundum quid as also if you proceed from its being the ground of Faith in points of Controversie to the being the ground of Faith in all things the discourse hath the same fault And yet you say that in your progresse you leave nothing of concernment in my reply unanswered and also that you conclude contradictorily to me Sir Let me here
credibility to arise The Scripture doth with competent clearnesse furnish us against damnative error and the Church doth no more as you give us to understand at the end of this your Treatise and why then should we leave the Scripture which is acknowledged Infallible to go to the Church and what need then of an Infallible Judge what for Peace and Unity Then fourthly we say that the Decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto Peace Though their judgement cannot ingage undisputed assent yet their power they have from Christ doth require reverence and undisturbance in the difference It requires subscription if we see no cause of dissenting and if we do subjection to the censure All the authoritie of the world can go no further with us unlesse we might be hypocrites in differing by an outward act from our inward act of belief And yet wherein have we divided out accords from the former General Councils And therefore why are we charged with this Indictment as if we were opposite to the authoritie of the truly Catholique Church yet if we did differ without Opposition we keep the peace of the Church without question And that we must differ until we see God speaking believe his reason that said Omnis creata veritas c. All created veritie is defectible unlesse as it is rectified by the increased veritie Wherefore the assent neither to the Testimonie of Men or Angels doth infallibly lead into Truth save onely so far as they see the Testimonie of God speaking in them So then the assent of Faith is onely under obedience to him speaking And if you say that God doth speak in General Councils as he doth speak in his Word written prove it Yea how then will you avoyd blasphemie For doth God speak Contradictions For so one Council hath contradicted another And to use your own argument we are bound to submit our judgement onely to those who can judge of the inward act for so you distinguish betwixt temporal Judges and others but God only can judge of our internal acts therefore we must submit our assents onely to him and therefore to others no further then they speak according to him So that we cannot absolutely adhere to whatsoever is said in Councils which have erred Jewish and Christian too Now then you may think I spoke reason in my respects to General Councils without your unlimited subjection of Faith And therefore your admiration in the beginning of the 5 th page of this Paper which is grounded upon your interpretation of thaâ— of Esay is as unnecessarie And that absurditie which you would infer upon my Opinion that the wisest men in the world are most likely to erre this way by which he may in his interiour judgement go quite contrarie to all Christendome hath little in it out noise For first you suppose hereupon an infallible Judge upon earth which is the Question Secondly the wisest man is not most likely to erre if it be lawful to dissent from Universal councils because as such he is most apt to discern what is defined according to Truth what not Thirdly what think you of Saint Athanasius who differed in his judgement and profession too from most of Christendome then about the Divinitie of the Sonne Fourthly the Rule of Scripture is equally infallible and those who are wise if they prepare themselves for the search of Truth they are likely not to erre for if they go by the Rule they cannot erre because it is infallible But those who goe by the Church may erre because for ought is yet proved it is not infallible and those who are fools may by Scripture be made wise unto salvation And to this purpose the Scripture which is very sublime and heavenly in the matter yet is simple and plain and low in the manner of deliverie that those who are of meaner capacitie might hereby he sufficiently directed to life and salvation Therefore doe not tell me but prove to me that the Church is infallible and that you are the onely Church or else you do nothing but with fooles whom you find or make to goe your way In your next lines you do discharge me of singularitie in my Opinion For it appears by you that all but Roman Catholiques are of the same perswasion All but Roman Catholiques you say As if none were Catholiques but either of your Nation or of your Religion The first is a contradiction and the second is a falsitie for there were many Catholiques which were not of your Religion in those Points wherein we differ By the Fathers of the Church those were accounted Catholiques which withstood the plea of Faustinus the Popes Legate in the Carthaginian Council when he falsified the Nicene Canon of subjection to the Roman Bishop whereof no such copie could be found They were Catholiques who determined against Appeals to Rome who determined equal priviledges of other Churches to the Bishop of Rome They were Catholiques who held not Transubstantiation nor Purgatory nor your use of Images nor your Sacrament under one kind nor your other Sacraments as of proper Name nor Indulgencies And they were Catholiques who held that which you doe not hold as the Millenarie Opinion and Infant Communion And therefore to follow you the desperate consequence which you charge us with if we do not come over to your way flowes not from your premises unlesse you can make out an infallible assistance of your See and that this is by God appointed for our necessarie passage to salvation and the way promised in the Prophet Esay Nay if the people should be left for their guidance to the unanimous consent of the whole Church in points of Faith here would be a desperate consequence for I hope they were more like to finde the Articles of Faith in the leaves of Scripture which as to these is plain then in the perusal and collection of all the judgements of all the Fathers of all ages every where according to the rule of Lyrinensis or if we take the depositions of the Fathers in those properties which he describeth such whereby we are to be ruled that they must be holy Men wise Men they must hold the Catholick Faith and Communion they must persist in their Doctrine they must persist in it unto Death in the same sense as in the 39. Chapter against Heresies If you do not take the consent of the Church according to these circumstances you differ from him If you do how shall the poor people through all those labyrinths see the right way of wholsome Doctrine when who knows how many of them did not write at all How many of those who wrote were not such How many works of those who were such are to us perished How many bastard pieces are fathered on them How many of their writings corrupted How many or how few have touched upon our differences having not occasion by adversaries How many have differed from one another How
many have differed from themselves Is then this the way that fools cannot erre If wise men go this way surely this is their first errour that they go this way wherein nothing is found but perplexities and unsatisfiednesse Neither can they soberly raise the credit of their Doctrine by prime descent without interruption from the Apostolique age if all be well considered Such a confidence let me give a check to by application of a storie A Christian Prince was much seduced by a kind of men who professed a vast Art of giving a certain account of many Ages before and a trifling Courtier perceiving his humour made him believe that his Pedegree in antient race of Royal Blood might be fetched from Noah's Ark wherewith he being greatly delighted forthwith laid aside all businesse and gave himself to the search of the thing so earnestly that he suffered none to interrupt him whosoever no not Embassadours which were sent to him about most weighty affairs Many marvelled hereat but none durst speak their mind till at length his Cook whom he used sometimes as his Fool told him that the thing he went about was nothing for his honour for now saith he I worship your Majestie as a God but if we go once to Noahs Arke we must there your self and I both be akinne This the Storie which is so long that it reacheth you from top to toe for you would by a verie long series derive your authoritie as it were from Noahs Arke which you think represents your Church out of which there is no salvation You would run it up from verie many successions to the times of the Apostles and nothing will content you but this ancient Original You lay aside all other proofs in comparison of this succession not so much of Doctrine indeed as of Church Embassadours that are sent to you with Scripture you will not hear unlesse your Church may have the power of Interpretation infallibly in your own cause But let some of the Popes servants whom he makes his Fools inform him that that which he goes about is little for his Honour for now they worship him as a God but if they come to the times of the Apostles there will be found no such distance betwixt him and others and consanguinitie of Doctrine as it is expressed will be able to disinherit your points of difference formerly named with invocation of Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where doe we finde them Where may we read them Therefore urge not Antiquitie unlesse Truth goes along with it on your side and do not any more strain the consent of ages for Doctrines which as we may speak will be out of breath long before they come to that mightie height of the Apostolique time As for your instance of Saint Cyprian erring by perswasion of that which he held to be Scripture and St. Austins Crisis of his errour I Answer First You see here Saint Cyprian a Prime Doctor of the Church did then ground his Opinion upon Scripture without recourse to Tradition And this makes for us that he thought it no injurie to the Church to varie from what was held or practised upon respect to Scripture He undertook to think and doe otherwise then Christendome then in the point of Rebaptization and yet was not accused as an Heretique Secondly He erred groslie and yet not dangerouslie because he held his Opinion without malignance to the Church and so may we without peril of salvation And if you say the case is different betwixt him and us because that point wherein he went not with the Church was not then defined by a Council We answer what shall we say then of the times in the Church before there was any Council and therefore in those times the Rule of Faith and Action was without a Council and therefore this answer doth not satisfie or they were ruled only by Scripture which may satisfie you Thirdly He erred not in the substance of the Act when he pleaded Scripture but in the misapplication of Scripture to that case and therefore this Argument comes to the fallacie of accident and this makes no prejudice against Scripture which in it self is contrary to errour without defectibilitie and therefore he that indeed follows Scripture cannot erre because it is Infallible So cannot we say of the Church for ought yet we see by your Discourse Fourthly This makes no more disadvantage to the prerogative of Scripture then that the Pelagians for their Opinions urged the Testimonies of the Fathers which caused Saint Austin to make an Apologie for them Vobis Pelagianis when you Pelagians were not yet born the Fathers spake more securely namely of the power of nature Nay surely it makes a great deal lesse for the Father if in this he had followed the Fathers whom the Bitagians quoted had erred not by his Interpretation of them but it seems by their inconfideratenesse But we cannot charge Scripture with any such fault and therefore Saint Cyprian erred by misinterpretation And here also by the way we see how fallible a rule is the consent of the Fathers since if Saint Austin had ordered his belief thereby he had been overtaken with Pelagianisme Now as for Saint Austins crisis concerning this of Saint Cyprian that if he had lived to see the Determination of a plenary Council he would for his great humilitie and charitie straightway have yielded and preferred the General Council before his judgement to this besides what we now said about the undefinednesse of it by a Council we say It is like he would have yielded and this yet accrews not unto your cause much For first Saint Austin sayes for his great humilitie and charitie he would have yielded And this manner of Expression you may perceive doth abstract from a necessitie of duty Under bond of Duty these vertues have no freedome He was so humble of mind that he would have thought better of them he was so charitable that for this he would have offended none in this case but doth this infer that he was bound in conscience to sink his Opinion in the authoritie of their Definition No no. Humilitie and Charitie have in them no formalitie influxive unto Faith for this is seated in the understanding but to peace Therefore this yielding of his supposed upon the Case would have onely concerned his person as not to have opposed here not his judgement as if this should necessarily have been overcome by their Authority For the person may be bound when the Conscience cannot be bound so may the person yield as to the omission of opposite acts when the understanding yet keeps its former due apprehension Secondly this businesse of Saint Cyprian is such as is a matter of practice not clearly decided by Scripture but this avails not to an universal conclusion of ruling our faith by the Church which although you at the beginning did seem to wave yet here would in your discourse insinuate and wind in The summe of
this is We do not dispute a reverence to Councils but we cannot grant an undisputed reception of whatsoever is delivered by them In such determination we break not the peace but keep Faith for Gods Word So then your fourth Number in your sixt page might have been spared until you had upheld your supposition of construing that of Esay to be meant of the Church All you build thereupon must be ruinous Debile fundamentum fallit opus And besides what is there but repetitions Onely you observe therein another inconvenience in our Cause in that we doe not hold one Infallible Judge on earth which yet in effect you have had before But to view the moment thereof the better let me put what you would have into some form with all ingenuitie thus where there is not one Judge there will not be one Faith but there is one Faith therefore there is but one Judge Now if you will accept this Syllogism for yeare I shall answer to it by distinguishing if you mean in the proposition an Infallible Judge on Earth and such a Faith as is to be understood in the assumption according to the Text Ephes 4.5 then we deny the proposition for Faith there is not to be understood of Faith subjectively but Faith objectively and Faith in regard of the objects thereof may be entire and one though every one doth not hold them for the unity of Faith there depends not upon mens profession but upon coherence with it selfe and the exclusion of any other as towards appointment unto Salvation If you mean Faith otherwise we deny your assumption to be true to the sense of the Text. Whereas you say then that otherwise God had not well provided for the Salvation of men generally if but one of ten thousands without an Infallible Judge might hit the right sense of Scripture We Answer First you see here how your opinion doth miserably betray you to hard thoughts of Scripture and consequently of God in it Is not Scripture able to make us wise unto Salvation Is it not given by inspiration Is it not profitable for Doctrine for Conviction for Correction for Instruction in Righteousnesse that the man of God might be absolute being made perfect unto every good work as Saint Paul to Timothy 2 Tim. 3.15 16. what can we desire more of Scripture in regard of sufficiency to its end then that it should be able to make us wise unto Salvation what can we want in it as in regard of the matter of it towards that end when as it is profitable as to those purposes and if there be not all so clear as that every one of the people may discerne the minde of God as towards a particular sense yet the Man of God the Minister of the Gospel by the Study and Learning he hath may be able to be thereby furnished to every good work that he may instruct others Now I think you will not think that Saint Paul by the Man of God here intended the Pope or any one Infallible Judge and therefore your postuâ—gre or an Infallible Judge is unreasonable Any Minister of the Gospel by his abilities is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people unto their happinesse and the Scripture was inspired to this purpose as it appears And what need then of an Infallible Judge It is true every Minister is not able to explicate all difficulties of Scripture no nor all your Popes and Councels neither but in things necessary their knowledge may be sufficient in points of debate there is no necessity of certain knowledge as unto Salvation And this you afterward come to when you take care to save the credit of the Church by a distinction that it cannot teach any damnative error so then it may erre but not teach damnative error The Scripture teacheth all things necessary cannot erre at all why then do we not rest here Therefore take you no more this way of reckoning we have an Infallible Judge therefore we must absolutely hear him But first prove the necessity of a Judge indefinitly and then who it is demonstratively and then we have done In the mean time you are in the perill of Treason not against Gods Judge but against God the Judge in setting up another Judge in the Consciences of men And if the subordinate Judge who is not Infallible goes without a Commission and makes Lawes himselfe is not this Treason So then the subordinate Judge determines by Scripture or not if not then he makes a new Law if he doth determine by Scripture then doth his determination bind by Authority of Scripture where of he is but a Minister And is not the Word by the Spirit of God Judicative What else is said Heb. 4.12 Consider well that Text and see if it may not answer all your objections against Scripture If you say the Word of God is a Dead Letter it cannot speak it is here denyed it is Living if you say that it cannot act it is denyed it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if you say that cannot decide Controversies what is said here It is sharper then any two edged Sword It decides all Controversies of Faith and those points of Faith pretended which are not here it doth cut off If you say that cannot reach the Conscience what then can it is piercing even to the dividing of Soul and Spirit Joynts and Marrow If you say it cannot judge it is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Critical exactly Judicative of the thoughts and notions of the heart and this is more then any Judge on Earth can do All that Judges on Earth can do in our question is but to declare and apply the decisions of Scripture against Error or Evil practice if they go higher they go above their Sphere And since they may for ought appears by you to the contrary misse of the right determination we use them but as Consuls not as dictators We consult them and then look to the Rule What then it is to submit your interiour Judgement as you speak to any one on Earth I leave it to you to judge since he whosoever he is can oblige assent no otherwise now then by light of Scripture which is the standing and onely rule we have to go by unto happiness And if we go any other way to settle our assent of truth which is to be preferred before unity we shall come no way to faith So you see what is the cause of the chasm betwixt us you cannot come to us because you are bound and captivated by your Infallibility which while you hold it holds you in incapacity of being better advised and we cannot come to you because you hold it It is hard to say which hath destroyed more Souls uncertainty of that Religion which we have in Scripture or Infallibility besides it and yet not so hard for Uncertainty may be helped but Infallibility hath no remedy And now forasmuch as you have not upon firm
ground established the necessarinesse of an Infallible Judge I need go no further till this be made sure I need not have any thing to do with your assumption indeed if I may be so free a presumption Yet lest you should take it amisse or ill if I should say nothing to it by it selfe I shall not let it passe without some notice of it But what you say at first here that if we finde out this Judge we can never remain in any doubt for without all doubt we must stand to the judgement of this Judge what reasons soever our private judgement or discretion may suggest So you this spoyles all and this is an argument against you that which you say is little else then Contradictio in adjecto as they speak If we must submit our judgements to an Infallible Judge pretended whatsoever reasons of Scripture I mean we have to the contrary then there is no such Judge for it is impossible for us in our judgements to assent to that for which we see reasons of Scripture to the contrary Take Reason simply and so in matters of Faith it must quiescere as the School phrase is as a principle because the doctrine of Faith is supernatural in the judgement of Aquinat at the beginning of his Summs but take Reason as an Instrument for the finding out of the sense of Scripture and so what moments we finde in Scripture for any opinion we cannot sink in any determinations on Earth As far as the understanding sees appearance of Truth it doth necessarily leap and run to it and will not leave it for any Authority under Heaven and therefore while the reason of Authority is not so clearly drawn from the Word of God as the reason of his Opinion in his own judgement it cannot give up its assent And if we are by duty to go your way of absolute credence to the dictates of your Judge we must then if he saies Vices are Vertues say so too as your Cardinal Bellarmin determins in his 4. Book de Rom. Pontif. cap. 5. And thus you again see whither your blind obedience will lead you even from darknesse to darknesse In the seventh Number you lay to our charge an agreement with all Hereticks that have risen up against the Church because we as all Protestants do hold that the Scripture is the onely Judge by which all doubts and differences and Controversies of Religion are to be determined with Infallible Authority To this Saint Austin answers l. de Trinit cap. 38. We also answer to this charge first as before that Hereticks have urged Authority too and therefore by your argument you must quit your way of the Authority of the Church or else grant us our way of Scripture notwithstanding Secondly doth it follow rationally that because the Hereticks have misapplyed Scripture therefore we should not rightly apply it If the Standard be made use of to ill purpose of measuring stoln commodities therefore shall not other measures be ruled hereby It is accidental to Scripture to be thus abused shall it therefore loose its proper priviledge because as Saint Peter saith some who are unlearned and unsetled wrest Scriptures to their destruction therefore those who are learned and setled may not improve it to their Salvation because Robbers make use of the light of the Sun for actions unrighteous and wicked therefore honest men may not use the Light for their lawful imployments Is this good reasoning You had surely raised your discourse to the height if you had told us that we must not urge Scripture because the Devil did urge it unto our Saviour Christ So one indeed concludes as if the Devil did not apprehend what kinde of argument our Saviour would own and what reject therefore did he not set upon him with Tradition of the Church as is noted Neither did Christ reply upon him with Tradition but with Scripture which is a better Argument that this is to be our Rule which we should be be ordered by Thirdly The Hereticks did not presse that which was true Scripture but either corrupted it as Tertullian observes in his praescriptions or took onely so much as was for their use or perverted the sense of it so that if Scripture doth consist in the sense they did not bring Scripture for their proof but that which is not Scripture Fourthly Why doth Bellarmine and others of your Writers so frequently endevour to uphold their Doctrines by Scripture if because the Hereticks use it we must not Neither do they plead Scripture by the Traditional sense of the Church but by their own Interpretations When Scripture seems to them to speak for them then they produce Scripture but when they are oppressed with clear testimonies against them then little respect is given thereunto Fifthly If Controversies are not to be ended by Scripture which the Hereticks plead then how are they to be ended by the judgement of the Church Yes you will say but how shall Hereticks know if they doubt what or which is the true Church it must be by the Scripture so that our last recourse must be to Scripture Again if Hereticks must be perswaded by the Church then are they led if not by their private judgements yet by private judgements of others For besides that the Church consists of private Men the consent of the whole if they could be certain of it being compared to Scripture in way of contradistinction hath it self by manner of private judgement All the publick power it hath it hath by God and Scripture then here again we must end Again how shall Hereticks know that all Controversies are to be ended by the Church they must know it either by their own judgements of discretion which you deny to us or by the Church What in its own cause or by Scripture so we must resolve our selves in Scripture analytically we must bottome there synthetically we must begin there Sixthly This practice of Hereticks if it hath reason to make us forsake Scripture hath it not reason also to make you retract your expressions of your self as towards Scripture that you do professe all reverence and all credit to be due to Scripture as the Infallible word of God insomuch that you are ready to give your lives in defence of any thing conteined herein Will you stand to your words If you will then must you believe that whatsoever is necessary is declared therein sufficiently For what saith the Scripture by Saint Paul Gal. 1.8 If I or an Angel from Heaven preach to you any other Doctrine besides what you have received let him be Anathema And what then becomes of your unwritten word on behalf whereof you wisely cry up the infallibility of the Church in points of Religion For as for the distinction of your men hereupon that the Text is to be understood of that which is against it not of that which is beside it is invalid for it is in the Text beside 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
it to be noted that herein he followed the authoritie of the Churches Notwithstanding which Saint Jerome as before did not receive them which makes a sufficient reason to hold that the authority of the Churches is not a sufficient ground of faith in the belief of Canonical Books or else St. Jerome who in this may be compared with St. Austin for his judgement is in the same condemnation with us Afterwards you plead that since the Gospel of S. Matthew was written in Hebrew whereof there is not extant any one Copy in the world and it is not certain who or how faithfully he did translate it we cannot be certain by the Scripture that this is the word of God therefore by the Church This I think is the sum of your plea. We answer First Again we do not disclaim the use of the Catholique Churches in the credence of the Word of God but this doth not certifie us Secondly You Catholiques as you would be called speak largely that not one of the Ancients conceived it to be written in Greek surely all the Ancients did not write surely all that did write are not now had But take it of all that did write and are now extant and put it to be so that all were of Saint Jeromes Opinion in his Preface upon Saint Matthew yet all that you say is not certainly true that there is not a Copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all the world For not to speak of the Hebrew Gospels set out by Munster and Mercer which Ludovicus de Dieu takes notice of in the Preface to his Notes upon the Gospels if you will give any heed to your Isidor Clarius he will tell you I suppose otherwise when he saith in a little Preface which is a Testimonie out of Saint Jerome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastick writers that St. Jerome there affirms ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodiè in Casariensi Bibliotheca which Pamphilus the Martyr studiosissimè confecit and that he had the liberty by the Nazaraeans who in Beroea City of Syria do use this volume to describe it So he Now it may be that remains there and therefore you cannot be certain of what you say And this is more then an ordinary Authority of the Church in an interpretation Again how come your Latin interpretation of this Gospel to be authentique if it was not taken out of an authentick copie for the Church can doe no more then declare that which is authentique then must it be authentique otherwise they make Scripture Again let me give you one intimation that possibly so might yet at first be written in Greek my reason is this in the first of Saint Matthew 23. verse it is said of Christ they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is God with us If it were written in Ebrew what need of any interpretation in the same Language since the Letters of the Word put together without any variation do make that signification Again if the Church hath made the Greek Translation authentique why is your Latin made authentique Is there two authentiques If it be not authentique by the Church what would you infer Again the harmony of it with other Gospels hath more in it to perswade Faith then the credit of the Church Again if it be an Interpretation yet unlesse you do evince it that we do build our Faith upon the Interpretation you do nothing Now then as your people do fix their Faith upon that which is interpreted not up-upon the interpretation so may we build our belief upon this Gospel to be the Word of God by the illumination of the Spirit of God and yet not upon the Translation The Translation doth but conveigh unto our knowledge the words but it is the Spirit of God that doth work in us belief thereof that it is the VVord of God The Translation attends the Notification of the object what that is which is to be believed but it is the Divine perswasion which attends the act and is the cause why it is believed the Interpretation is but the Instrument of Faith the ground of it is the perswasion of God that it is the Truth and VVord of God and therefore your argumentation goes upon a wrong supposition as if we resolved our Faith in the Translation as such And what you except afterwards against the certainty of our Faith upon the account of the Greek Translation doth also return easily upon you for the same possibility of error is urged against your Latin either by ignorance or negligence or on purpose for the upholding of your new opinions And let me ask you why you account your Latin to be Authentique you will say because the Church of Rome was infallibly assisted in it VVas it then Infallibly assisted when it renders the Ebrew in Genesis ipsa for ipsum that it might be for the honour of the Virgin VVell but give it that the Latin was infallibly made by the Church why not the Greek also infallibly made by the Church and more confirmed by the Church then your Latin one you get nothing then by this exception And this may satisfie you how a Manichaan might believe the Gospel of Saint Matthew which you put to the question An opinion thereof he may have by the judgement of the Church some knowledge of it to be the Word of God he may gather by the agreement with the other Gospels but the Faith of it to be such is to be wrought by the Spirit of God whereby those who heard the Apostles were caused to believe that which they preached to be the Word of God without perswasion of the Church which was not then in a body when some first believed As for the Fathers holding Books to be Canonical by the Church we have spoken to already in this paper and we shall meet with it again You speak indeed of them as in general upon designe ad faciendum populum but you do not name the places onely Saint Athanasius you are pleased to quote VVe answer if you mean that he received the Gospels and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas upon the Authority of the Church as the cause of his Faith of them you do not prove it by what he saies If you mean that he was induced to think well of them by the reception of the Church and to refuse the other by their refusal this doth not come home to the question And suppose the Church its refusal of the Gospel of Saint Thomas was sufficient for him to refuse it too yet doth it not follow that because the Church did receive the other Gospels he received them no otherwise then because they did for this makes the reception of the ChurCh to be but as a necessary condition not the formal cause of his Faith As for Tertullians and Saint Jeroms and St. Austins authorities in this case we shall finde an answer when you quote the places The Testimony of Eusebius which you produce
here is one place where the Father useth the words not in the Roman sence which may be made use of to another pupose about your opinion of merit and also if you will not mean it here of deserving this makes some diminution of respect to the book and some advantage more I shall make of this chapter in its place Many lines in your fourteenth page you have afterwards wherein we have nothing but vaunts or repetitions I will not trouble you with the latter nor my self with the former But towards the end of that page you would order the matter so as to hold your own and yet to give Scripture its due respects And you seem to bring it to this determination that when there is an acknowledgement made that the Scriptures are in themselves the Word of God it doth not derogate from Scripture to hold that yet they are not known to us by an infallible ground that they are the Word of God but by the testimony of the Church which in shorter terms is expressed by others of your Church that the authoritie of the Scripture doth depend upon the Church But this will not serve the covering is too short For first this distinction is too narrow to extend to the difference betwixt us in particular points of faith Therefore if you will yield that points of Religion are to be examined and ended infallibly by Scripture when we know it to be the Word of God then we will onely stick to this Question But if you will still maintain the infallibilitie of the Church in all her definitions then your composition will not be sufficient although it could satisfie as to that particular But secondly It will not satisfie because you do not sufficiently provide for the honour of the Scriptures authoritie and therefore you derogate from Scripture in this although you did take away no honour from Scripture as in regard of its truth Do you lay it to heart that the many questions betwixt us is about the authoritie of the Scripture the formal Reason of credibilitie is the authoritie That which makes me to believe it to be the Truth of God as being his Word is the Authoritie For if the credibilitie doth rise from the truth of it in it self you destroy your own cause for that you confesse the Scripture to be the infallible Word of God then betwixt us simply about the Truth of the Scripture there is no contest And doe not you affirm that the authoritie of the Church is the Ground of Faith because you think that the Church by its authoritie is worthy to be believed since it is infallible But why then do you not grant this authority to the Scripture since you confess it to be infallible If the reason of believing the Church be the infallibility of it according to you why is not the infallibility of the Scripture the reason of believing it since it is confessed infallible And if you say you do believe it to be so by the authority of the Church then the formal reason of believing it is not the infallibility of the Scripture but of the Church and yet the infallibility of the Church shall be the formal reason of believing it But you say you must know the Scripture to be infallible that I cannot do but by the Church Well but do not you then see that you preferre the authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture for the Church with you is to be believed for it self for so it must be or else the Scripture must be believed for it self or else we shall have in Divinity no principium primo primum wherein to rest Now if the Scripture be to be believed for it self then we have ended the businesse If the Church be to be believed for it self then we prefer the Authority of the Church before the authority of Scripture then you derogate from the authority of Scripture Thirdly the Church hath authority or not It hath you say then of it self or not what will you say If of it self what hath a company of Christians more to say for themselves then others If you say the authority comes from succession others also have had a constant succession And it must come to one first society Well where had that society its authority of it self or not If of it self what by revelation beside Scripture or not If beside then the charge of Anabaptisticalness is fallen upon you What then From Scripture Well then the Scripture in regard of those Texts which concern the Church is to be believed for it self and then why not in others Fourthly The Word of God in the substance and matter of it was before the Church therefore because the Church was begotten by it and therefore it must be known before the Church Yea reconcile your Opinion with that of Bellarmine in his first Book De Verbo Dei cap. 20. The Rule of Catholique Faith must be certain and known for if it be not known then it will not be a Rule to us If it be not certain it cannot be a Rule If it be a known Rule against Anabaptists why not also a known Rule against Papists and therefore that it must be made manifest by the Church is not necessary for how was it made manifest to the first Church to be the rule As for the instance of yours that Christ was made manifest to many by the Testimony of the Baptist and of the Apostles before the Scriptures were written and yet this derogate not from Scripture We answer soon First It is yet to be proved whether the Church hath that inspiration as John Baptist and the Apostles had for the first planting of the Church until that be made good your Argumentation is not Secondly Although the New Testament was not written the Old was and Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles preached no other Doctrine then was contained in the Old So our Saviour If ye had believed Moses ye would have believed me for he wrote of me in the 5. of Saint Iohn the 46. verse Thirdly If Iohn the Baptist and the Apostles were believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church as the first Disciples did why may not the Scriptures be believed by a Divine Faith without the authority of the Church If the Apostles were believed immediately without the Church in what they said why may they not be believed also in what they wrote And surely to goe a little more close and deep if we speak properly there is not so much a ground of Faith as a cause if with the Schoolmen we grant as we may that Faith is a supernatural habit infused by God which disposeth the understanding to assert that which is said by God is true because he saith it not because the Church saith it And if you say that the Scripture and the Church are not opposite true when the Church ruleth it self by Scripture But if the Question be which proposal is
need then of an infallible Judge since in points of question simple errour is not damnative and where indeed shall we have an infallible Judge if there be fallibility in any particular If the Spirit of God speaks in the Church by infallible assistance cannot the Spirit of God infallibly determine all points or if it assists infallibly only to material Articles which are necessary then do you give us a list of your Fundamentals And also for Fundamentals we need not such a Judge having them with sufficient plainnesse in Scripture which is Infallible Upon the whole matter then there is a possibility of their erring without Infallibility and of our erring without damnation So that your first error is an Infallibility of a Judge the second the necessity of such a Judge and a third is this that no Church can prudently be held to be the Catholick Church but the Roman But ought we not to disturb your delight you take in holding a Religion prudently prudently as if we were to choose a Religion by interesse which prudence doth rather direct to not by sapience of the highest speculative principles which direct the understanding but to let that passe We onely note hereby your pronouncing this main Text for the Authority of the Church that what Authority it hath must be resolved into Scripture then is that the first and highest principle That the center of Truth wherein we must rest and the further we go from that the further from Truth And the greater circumference we draw the lines are the remoter from that wherein we must acquiesce as being the Word of God Yet you say here we see the Judge which Christ hath warranted from bringing in any damnable error therefore may we securely obey So you But where is your connexion in this argumentation Either you distinguish damnative error against that which is not damnative or not If not then in your opinion all error is damnative then take you heed of this for this is one Or if you do distinguish it against error damnative yet may we not securely obey this Judge because then we may be bound to obey him in an 〈◊〉 and so should the understanding be obliged to assent to error which is impossible and he must act against his Conscience even in his assent which is a contradiction And that none may disobey this judge securely the Text you bring Matth. 18.17 will not evince to your pâ—â—pose For first it concerns matters of Trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother not matters of Faith and thus it is Eccentrical to your â—esigne Secondly It concerns refractorinesse of the person not unbelief of the Understanding and so the Authority of the Church may binde against the former though not against the latter Thirdly It respects Excommunication by censure not determination of a point by Infallibility and so also is not proper to your cause And fourthly It may erre in the Censure and therefore Excommunication eo ipso doth not damne as Unbelief may Neither am I bound to believe the Censure is just unlesse it appears to be so Fifthly This power belongs to every particular Church and to the several Prelates thereof as you speak also in the number of multitude and therefore is not appropriated to your Church Sixthly It doth not follow a fortieri as you would have it nor yet at all that because the Church is to judge of private complaints therefore it can judge infallibly in causes of greater importance by its authority it doth the former without Infallibility it does not the latter The former of them doth not conclude against me and the latter cannot be from hence collected As for that which followes Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven as far as it regards Excommunication must be also taken specificatively clave non errante as they speak And this toucheth the person unto the submission not the Conscience as to renounce that which it apprehendeth as true for then should Athanasius have been bound in Conscience by the Censure of the Church to have been an Arrian Then from the peril of disobedience to this judge you gather that this must supposse the judge not to be fallâ—ble in such prime causes as must concern the Church and all such causes are those which may bring 〈◊〉 damnable errors So you in the â—nd of that Number But your premises being destroyed your Conclusion is ruinous and yet also you do not conclude punctually according to an Eleâ—ch for you conclude it not fallible in prime causes of main importance but you should in your proof conclude it not fallible in any thing for if it be fallible in any thing wherein the error is not damnative then you doe not conclude it infallible Yea though it should not erre actually in any decision yee followeth not from hence that it is infallible For Infallibility excludes all error in whatsoever iâ— doth propose or decree and also the possibility of error Therefore prove it thus and then an infallibility of our knowledge of it and infallibly what is the subject of this Infallibility and then I shall stand up to your Creed And if you would go the right way in this dispute you should use another method for whereas you would argue the Church to be the judge which we cannot safely disobey if you could make this sure which yet is not done yet you should rather goe this way synthetically the Church is infallible in whatsoever it doth define therefore it is the Judge which we ought to obey in all things whatsoever it 〈◊〉 out but your discourse from uncertain decisions and inconveniences doth not bespeak any credence of your infallibility much lesse of our knowledge thereof Now we follow you into your eighteenth paragraph And here we meet with St Austins suffrage in his 20. de â—in cap. 9. where he comments upon these words of Rev. â—â— 4 I fanâ— throâ—â— and they sate upon them and judgment was given them So the testimony And what from hence Because the Praeposits judge on earth therefore infallibly then every Church which hath Praeposits should be Infallible Doth this follow we deny not their Iudicature but their Infallibility Conclude thus or you agree with us Then you â—â—y to the Old Testament Mal. 2.7 For the Priests lips shall keep knowledge and they shall require the law from his mouth So you And you note besides a great corruption in our English which rendreth the words the Priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law We need not answer that this Text hath nothing for you Is it meant of the Priests at Rome If not how belongeth it to you but to the Priests of the Church â— what an general what then do you get by this Secondly They keep Knowledge sufficiently for the people Do they keep it Infallibly If not we are agreed If infallibly how are the Priests taxed in the following words for not doing so And if the
arising from time to time and who can hear Me and You and be heard by Me and You that neither I nor you can doubt of the true meaning of this Church or if we doubt we can propose our doubt and she will tell us clearly her meaning whereas the Bible c. cannot do so This hath in it somewhat new your discourse in brief may be under this forme That which can hear you and me and be heard by you and me and resolve doubts of its meaning is the Judge the Church can do thus the Scripture not therefore the Church is the Judge and not the Scripture We easily answer If you understand the proposition of a formall Judge so we grant it and do not say the Scripture is the Judge but if you mean it so that nothing can be in any Kind a Judge but that which doth so we deny it and your assumption too for the Law is in its kind the Judge and so may the Scripture be as I have shewed before in this paper And unless the Ecclesiastick Judges whereof we do not reject a lawfull and good use doe rightly declare Scripture in the application of it to particular Causes wherein the authority of the Church as some of your men will sometimes say doth consist I cannot possibly hold my self bound in Conscience to yield my judgement therunto So then secondly unlesse you put into the premisses that that which heareth you and me and is heard by you and me is the infallible Judge and then that the Church doth so your discourse is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for so we grant all as to the Church for this may stand with our cause but if you do put in infallibility we deny both the one and the other Preposition Thirdly by this Argument you exclude Tradition from being the Judge for doth that hear you and me Is that heard by you and me but you say the Church doth determine hereby then may it determine by Scripture more securely and more universally Fourthly is not the Heretique Saint Paul speaks of in his third chapter to Titus the 10.11 verses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himself or of himself how that not by principles of natural Knowledge for Theologie is supernatural and therefore needed a Revelation of it from God you know not by a Revelation immediate Extra Scripturam for then how should he be condemned of himself Not by any definition of the Church which was not then sufficiently formed thereunto no nor yet by Titus because then as before he had not been condemned by himself then he was condemned by himself because he had in him the Principles of the Word of God which he gainsaid by his contrary Error So that it remains he was condemned by the Law of God And therefore that can judge you and me not externally and by voice but internally by vertue of Conscience which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemning of Errors in us so that this Scripture it is or the Word of God which passeth Sentence in the interiour judgement as you speak and this absolves some who in the outward Courts are condemned and condemneth some who in the outward Court are not condemned And therefore it is not only lawful but necessary for us sometimes to dissent in our judgement because they may erre in their dijudication And as much your own reason suggests in your 21. Number wherein you acknowledge it to be necessary that there should be infallibilitie in the Judge of faith And then you would state or estate this infallibility of the Church of Christ thus that a Pope defining with a Lawful Generall Councill cannot erre For it is no necessary article of faith to believe that the Pope or Head of the Church cannot Erre when he defineth without a Generall Councill So you Alas Sir what Cautions do you stand in need of in this grand and capital and Comprehensive Controversie which affords me Liberty to think that that is not the ground of Catholique Faith which is intricated with so many windings and guarded with such accurateness of Cautions that render it very suspicious and therefore not to be plain and a direct way so that fools cannot erre for who can be certain by a Divine Faith of the Lawfullness and regularitie of your Pope in his Creation and when there was Pope against Pope who of the people could distinguish the right And this is now possible because then in facto And who then could decide the question for the infallible judge you say is your Pope with a Council Which of them could then determine it and in his own cause Or could your Council determine it without a Pope but I hope your infallible determination could not be without the Head of the Church And who according to your Doctrine should call the Council for you say that power is vested in the Pope Well suppose no doubt of the legalitie of the Pope how shall we by a Divine faith come to be assured of the lawfulness and Generality of a Councill for you know Ecclesiastical History is full of instances of Councils which were called by the Emperours and not by Popes to whom you say it doth of due belong to call Councils else they are not lawful And how shall we know whether every one of the Council hath a free Election to it and a free decisive vote in it How much of faction may be looked for in a Councill when there is so much in the Election of a Pope such exclusions such bandyings What Council was ever called by a Pope wherein Religion was not made to serve his interest Is not he who hath power of preferring like to domineer in such Consultations And how shall ignorant souls be divinely perswaded that the Council i◠General If it be easie to discern it then had your Tren◠Council great infelicity to be so contradicted by the French Catholiques And how many Bishops in the Trent Council furnished with a Title to overpower them with Votes on the Popes behalf So that he answered well who said about the question which is superiour a Pope or a Council a Pope was like to have the more voyces because he could confer Bishopricks a Council not What clue can a collier have infallibly to guide him through all those Labyrinths Secondly If the infallible Judge of Faith be the Pope with a lawful General Council how was the Church provided for when for so many years there was neither Pope in your sense nor any Council Thirdly If the Pope and the Council do differ about a Question what shall be done in that case yet if the Question be which is superiour to the other the Pope or the Council what shall be joyntly agreed and is not this a main question between the Sorbonists and others Fourthly If the Pope with a lawful General Council be the infallible Judge then how will this be reconciled
Ut sic quatenus errer it is false All simple errour is not damnative to the person And therefore Christ may be with some who live in some errour indeed otherwise with whom is he For who is there that lives not in some errour though he knows it not If you mean then damnable errour distinctively I grant you all and yet you have nothing thereby for your cause For this doth not prove infallibility to your Church Security from damnable errour distinctively taken doth not infer absolute infallibility The former is promised as also in that of Saint John 14.16 which you would reinforce here but absolute infallibility is not intended And this you must have or else you are utterly lost For if the Church be not infallible in all that is proposed by it how shall I be assured of any particular thing which it proposeth If I be not assured of this particular how am I bound to believe it If I be not bound to beleeve it upon its proposal how is it the ground of Faith Divine If it be not the ground of Faith Divine then you are gone And besides those promises in Saint Matthew and Saint John you may know were made as to the Apostles equally and therefore to their successours equally and to the Church universal equally by consequent and therefore cannot you appropriate it to your Bishop and to your Church Saint Austins authority in a passage of his wherein you say he speaks admirably in this De utilitate credendi cap 6. you had better have omitted It strengthens your cause nothing if you quote it as you should First it is misquoted for the chapter for it is not in the 6. chapter but in the 16. Secondly you may see in the beginning of the chapter that the scope of it is to shew how authority may first move to Faith And Thirdly this scope may discover your corrupting of his Text for it is not as you give it a certain step but contrary an uncertain step velut gradu incerto innitentes as in the Froben Edition â—N M. D. lxix Whereby you may perceive how little reason we have to credit your infallibility And then Fourthly part of his authority in that chapter is by miracles of Christ which he did himself on earth The summe of your fourth Number is this to perswade not onely that the Churches authority is infallible if it judge conformably to Scripture for so even the Devil himself is infallible so long as he teacheth conformably to Scriptures but that the Church shall at no time teach any thing that in any damnable errour shall be against Scripture So that when we know this is her Doctrine we are sure that this is conformable to the Scriptures rightly understood And this you would prove by two Testimonies of Scripture We answer distinctly and First to that you say about the Devil First we are not commanded but forbidden to consult with the Devil but we are injoyned to consult with the Church of God Secondly we have cause alwayes to suspect the Devil because either he doth not give us all the Scripture unto a particular or doth pervert it or doth speak the truth with an intention of deceiving the more but we have more charity towards the Church we have none towards the Devill Thirdly Yet though we do not believe the Devil in point of truth upon his authority neverthelesse can we not believe the Church in whatsoever it sayes to be true upon its authority neither doth it follow that the Devil should hereupon be the pillar and ground of Truth when he said that which is conformable to Scripture as well as the Church because the Church doth hold and uphold Truth so doth not the Devil but when he useth it he doth it to destroy it and again we are moved to think that which is proposed by the Church to be true so are we not moved by the Devil to conceive it to be true upon his saying so And therefore if I do believe that which the Devil saith conformable to Scripture to be true and do not beleeve that every thing which is said by the Church to be conformable to Scripture I do not make the same account of what is said by one and by the other For that which is true I doe beleeve because it is seâ— though the Devil saith it I do beleeve it in respect to the matter without any respect to the Author and that which is not true according to Scripture I cannot beleeve though the Church saith it yet am I moved by the authority of the Church to consider the point more because it is proposed by them and what is by them proposed according to Scripture I am moved to beleeve of with respect of the Authour of the proposal but cannot be resolved in my Faith of but by the authority of Scripture And therefore I cannot beleeve that whatsoever is said by the Church is agreable to Scripture because the Church faith it for this proposition for ought as yet proved is not agreable to Scripture rightly understood And if you say that your Church must judge the sense let it first judge whether it doth not beg the principle Neither have your Texts alledged any thing for you Not that of Daniel the 2. chapter the 44. verse It respects indeed the Kingdome of Christ in general and therefore is not proper to any Church of his signaâ—ter for any thing can be shewed by the Text. Secondly The Kingdome of Christ principally respects the Church invisible which as such is not our guide Thirdly it may certainly come to its everlasting reign in Heaven notwithstanding some errour on earth by the Church visible Fourthly whereas you say it shall destroy all Idolatrous kingdomes you doe very well add in your Parenthesis Idolatrous Kingdomes to save your selves from suspition But it all Idolatrous Kingdomes then have you reason to make your infallibilitie more strongly infallible otherwise you will be included in this distraction So also that of Esay 59.21 profits you nothing some of the former answers may serve it principally is intended for the Church invisible which by the Church visible may sufficiently be directed through the means of grace to salvation infallibly without infallibility of the Church As the Word of God was certain before it was written and the Church then was by it directed because it was then in substance of it though not written as we have said before but you compell us to repeat so by the Word written infallibly though not infallibly expounded and applied by the Pastours of the Church shall the Church be brought to Life For if every evil action doth not destroy the state of salvation as you will confesse then surely every simple errour cannot because it is not voluntary And this is fully able to answer your Appendix to this Number at the end of your paper Those Testimonies if they be rightly cited yet in those terms affirm no more then
that the invisible Church shall not perish which is true although the visible Church be under a possibilitie to erre since every errour is not destructive of salvation In the 25. Number you tell me what you have said before but that you have given me some additional Testimonies in the supplement of the last which have their answer without repetition Onely you no where I think find that Saint Jerome did receive all those books which you receive for Canonical and for those Authours which held the Consubstantiality of the Son and those several properties of the Holy Trinity you will give me leave with judicious men to suspect Eusebius Beleeve your Cardinal herein Bellarmin in his De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis p. 94.5 6. where he brings the attestation of Saint Athanasius and Saint Jerome to the same purpose and Saint Jerome calls him not onely an Arrian but the Prince of the Arrians sometimes sometimes the Ensign-bearer Yea the 7. Synod he sayes and the Apostolical Legats rejected his authority as being an Arrian Heretique as he saies And as for Austins expression that the relying on the Church's authority is the most true and inviolable Rule of Faith you refer it to your 16. Number and there referre me to the 13. chapter of the first book Contra Cresconium which I cannot see there If it should be so disertly yet this must be understood respectively to those cases wherein the Scripture doth not clearly passe the Verdict in which the authority of the Church is the best rule we can then have as towards practice But this in his Opinion doth not absolutely leave us to follow Tradition of the Church in points of Faith unlesse he contradicts himself as you shall see at the end But you are afraid of want of Number to make noise because you say I said you had no other Testimony but Saint Austins I did not say that you had none but his absolutely but you had none but his that I could see of those you produced Neither him indeed if you please to tell us what you see Therefore we shall look over your reinforcing his and the main testimony for your cause in my answer whereunto I see yet no place for amendments or abatement I said if you consider the whole tenâ—â—r of the chapter you may be inclined to think that it came from him in some heat of dispute and methinks I may think so still Your men are wont to answer evidences of the Fathers which are against them when they please that such passages came from them not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and surely we may have that liberty when there is such occasion given for us to interpret them as here if we consider how he was displeased with himself for a former respect to that Epistle and also if we take notice of his short returns of discourse in this Epistle and also if we mark his check and correcting and taking up himself towards the end of the chapter with an absit Sed absit ut ego Evangelio non credam And if this answer doth not weigh with you then I gave you another that this might be spoken of himself not in sensu composito as then but in sensu diviso as in order to that time when he was a Manichee himself To which purpose I told you it was familiar to him and other writers of that part of the world to expresse a tense more then past by the imperfect and the sense is that when he was a Manichee he would not have believed the Gospel but that the authority of the Church had moved him to it One place of this usage I found to be in a chapter you quoted in his De Predestinatione Sanct. lib. 2. cap. 1. s 14. Qui igitur opus est ut eorum ferutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haresis â—riretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hâc difficili ad solvendum quastione versari quod procul dubio facerem si respondere talibus cogerentur where you have the Imperfect Tense for the Tense more past facerent for fecissent and so the other So in his first Book of Retract cap. 51. Profecto non dixissem si jam â—uns essem literis Sucris ita eruditus ut recolerem where you have essem for fuissem and so the other And also by the way let me observe somewhat from those two places towards the main question besides the use of them in the way of Criticisme For by the former you have the reason why the Tradition of the Church in Doctrines received will not make an end of our differences since the questions were not then started and also by the second you may observe that we cannot swallow all that was said by Saint Austin without chewing since he sayes himself that had he been so well instructed he would not have said this and that And indeed his books of Retractations are books against you and do conclude wholly that we are not to take whatsoever the Fathers wrote to be as true as Gospel Yea some such books of Retractations all of them might have made as some think Origen did although they are perished as to us But the answers which I gave you to that passage of Saint Austin will not content you Therefore you endevour to shew at large that they will not serve You say unlesse he will stand to that ground he must needs seem to say nothing against his Adversary What ground do you mean VVhat that he was moved by the Churches Infallible Authority as you would conclude at every turn No supposing him not to speak in aestu Sermonis yet what he said against his Adversary was reasonable without urging the Infallible authority For the consent of the Church might be considered by him as a condition towards the reception of any doctrine and yet not to be that which he built his Faith upon as upon an Infallible ground You may know the Causa sine qua non is not a cause although such a thing be not without it yet is not this the cause thereof And therefore make what you can of the place it will not afford you a firm foundation if his authority could do it You say that this is his first argument to shew that his Adversary by citing Texts out of the Gospel to prove Manichaeus a true Apostle could prove nothing against those who as yet have not believed the Gospel So you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and what then Because the Adversary can prove nothing by Scripture to those that deny it therefore Saint Austin must infer that the authority of the Church is infallible and he must believe the Gospel upon no other ground VVhat consequence is this as if because Saint Austins adversary cared not for the judgement of the Church therefore we must be guilty of that which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which hath so much wronged the Church as nothing more This
is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You go on in your Paraphrastical discourse But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel and so this answer cannot serve me notwithstanding I must tell you that I am such an one that I would not believe the Gospel without the authority of the Catholick Church did move me So you Out of which words of your own you may learn how to understand the sense and tense of the Father in the place But because I am not one who have not yet believed the Gospel then he had believed the Gospel before and was not to believe it now and therefore his words must be referred in the African idiotism unto the time more then imperfect otherwise what he had believed he was to believe now which cannot stand with your Infallibility And yet you say afterwards mark if his ground be not so as I told you because saith he I have believed the Gospel it self upon the preaching of the Catholiques therefore if his Adversary should say do not believe the Catholicks he doth not go consequently to force him by the Gospel to any Faith to Manichaeus And hereupon you break out in these words Can he more clearly ground upon the Infallible Authority of their Teaching then upon this to believe the Gospel it self Answ Again these words do not include a Divine Faith of the Infallibility of the Church which you must have or else your cause is starved Because those words I would not believe the Gospel unlesse the authority of the Catholick Church did move me which must be the principal ground do not include his Faith of the Infallibility of the Church He might be moved by the authority of the Church though not resolved in his Faith by the Infallibility pretended according to this proportion must all his discourse be understood which proceeds from his belief of the Gospel by them to his being perswaded by them to Manichaeism if any thing should be found in the Gospel towards it or else proceeds to his not believing of Manichaeus upon his belief of the Catholicks who bad him believe the Gospel and not Manichaus These must be the hinges upon which the whole disputation must turn and therefore if those words be not understood of an ultimate determination of his Faith by the authority of the Church but of an instrumental moving nothing will be concluded sufficient and sufficiently for you But this answer you give not me any return to Ponder it very well for its importance in this debate For if the whole chapter was soberly spoken and if that he did not speak of himself as when he was a Manichaeu yet if he here intends to signifie no more then onely the authority of the Church was an impulsive to the belief of the Gospel you will evince no more then what you need not contend for because we do not contend against it as being not the state of the question Therefore it remains for you to prove your supposition or your proofs of an Infallible authority of the Church which indeed you would put in in your conclusions but is wanting in the premises And if it did belong to me to dispute it were not difficult to shew the contrary And since they may come in upon account of the reason of my denial they shall be there two moments from the chapter First Because he saith he did believe the Gospel per illos not propter Now what we do properly believe any one in we must believe for him not by him for him as a cause not by him as an instrument and therefore we believe what God sayes to be true not by him but for him And if the Apostles as he sayes were not 〈◊〉 of their Faith 2 Cor. 1â— 14 then were not those Catholicks he speaks of such as he ought for themselves to believe Secondly Because in several places of the chapter he doth signifie that if any reason could be given or any thing whereby it might be manifestly known that his Adversary were in the right he would leave his Catholicks Now this is not spoken consistently to the nature of Faith upon Infallible authority for what we do believe in way of Faith we do so believe as there cannot be a falsity in it as Aquinas doth confesse and I suppose you too for you would conclude no falsity or error can be in any thing which the Church doth define because it is infallible and therefore all the Reason and all the Science in the world are not able to shake Faith whereunto the contrary is intimated in the Father Nay if there be no arguing to the principles of Faith from other principles but from the principles of Scripture there is arguing to Divine conclusions then assuredly Faith in principles of Theology as this is one the verity of the Gospel is not obnoxious to any decay by any reasons And it seems his Faith then in the Gospel was not Divine upon the consideration of their authority since Reason may be valid against Humane authority but not Divine so that had he meant he built his Faith of the Gospel upon the authority infallible of the Church there had been no place for Reason to have any power of assent on the behalf of the Manichees Again if you hold to the Gospel my hold shall still be to the authority of the Church upon whose authority I believed the Gospel I saith he will hold my self to those by whose teaching I have believed the Gospel and there commanding me I will not believe thee So you think that this is also available for you surely nothing lesse for besides that you omit much of his connexion that makes for my former argument and also that â—â—â—kes against your rash and blind believing besides that you may understand that here he doth not compare the authority of the Church with the autopisty of Scripture which is the 〈◊〉 of the controversie but he doth compare the authority of the Catholicks as towards the belief of the Gospel with the authority of the Manichees as to believe their false Gospel of Manichaeus Indeed the authority of the Church is more urged and is more usefull to prevail aboâ—â—e or against the authority of private opposites but wâ—â— that it hath the moment of credibility above or equally to the authority of Scripture it self is that which is an question and is not here determined for you But you go on And Saint Austin goeth on so far upon this ground as a ground Infallible What of Faith it is again denyed not onely simply but it is denyed to be held so by him in this discourse If you may have your suppositions we must needs soon have done Well go on That he saith if perhaps you Manichaâ—us can find me any clear place in the Gospel to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus that then indeed they shall weaken the authority of the Catholicks So he â—aith And what can you make of this
for your use Take it by it selfe and it will come to this that a clear place in the Gospel would perswade him to lessen his opinion of the authority of the Catholicks then he would hold clear Scripture above or against the authority of the Church then their authority is not in his judgement Infallible or else Infallible authority of the Church may be opposite to Infallible authority of the Scripture and one in his opinion of them the Scripture is more Infallible then the other the Church which is incongruous for in Infallibility there is no degree no more then in Truth And if you say that the Scripture yet may be more Infallible to him this spoyls all your cause for you say you go to Faith by the Church because that way is more plain c manifestâ— Therefore you hasten me from this passage to shew me what will follow But what do you think will follow I pray note it well their authority being weakned and shewed once fallible now neither can I so much as believe the Gospel And why so because upon the authority of these Catholicks I had believed the Gospel So you But do you see how you interpose your glosse in your Parenthesis thus their authority being once weakned and shewed once fallible Do you imagine that we can neglect or overlook this your glossall inference or opposition and shewed once fallible as if there were no authority but that which is Infallible and there were no weakning of authority but to make it fallible Authority may stand with Fallibility for we grant Authority to the Church distinguishing it from Infallibility And if you had done so you had saved many a wound which your Church hath got by that unfortunate word Infallibility as one of your own men happily confessed Neither therefore doth it follow that the authority of the Catholicks being weakned and shewed once fallible he could not at all believe the Gospel because by the authority of the Catholicks he had believed the Gospel but he could not then believe the Gospel by that inductive and motive of the authority of the Church for the first Christians believed the Apostles severally without the authority of the Church Yea if upon that consideration he could not have believed the Gospel their authority by whom he did believe it being weakned yet doth it not from hence flow necessarily that when he did believe the Gospel he did believe it upon an Infallible authority because although he could not believe the Gospel without it yet might he account it as towards belief but a condition not a cause of his Faith And this you must have or else you do not contradict Whatsoever is necessary to an effect is not the cause of it although whatsoever is a cause thereof is necessary to it Therefore that is not so which again you say that the ground of his beleef in the Gospel was their infallible authoritie as not only these but also the next words shew manifestly When will you by your proof put the infallible proposal of the Church out of question when shall we have any more then supposals of it Let us see your next words Wherefore if in the Gospel there be nothing found that is evident to prove the Apostleship of Manichaeus then I will beleeve the Catholicks rather then you but if you shall read me out of the Gospel something that is evident to prove Manichaeus an Apostle then neither will I beleeve the Catholicks nor thee Why so I will not beleeve the Catholicks because they whose Doctrine I thought infallible have lyed to me concerning the Manichaeaus But I will not beleeve thee even when thou citest clear Scripture for of this case he speaketh and why so because thou dost cite me that Scripture to which Scripture I had now beleeved upon their authority who have lyed to me So you And what now from hence can you gather more then from the former passage of the same nature unlesse you did make good another Parenthetical supposition whose Doctrine I thought infallible This is not in Saint Austin but comes from your own private Spirit And therefore if you will not be ruled by our Spirit because of the former exception to the contrary surely we have no cause to be overperswaded by your judgement without any reason for it Secondly May you not from hence take notice that what I said of Saint â—ustin that in the Testimony here he might speak as in some heat of Dispute For can we think that Saint Austin had such a soul as to say soberly and categorically that he would not beleeve clear Scripture which was cited by any one because Catholicks had told him otherwise Did Saint Austin in your conceit differ in judgement from your Aquinas or did your Aquinas differ from Saint Austin Consider then what your Aquinas saith in his Summes the first Part the first question and the eight Art Innititur enim fides nostra revelationi Apostolis Prophetis facta qui Canonicos libros scripserunt for our Faith doth rely upon the revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books but not upon the revelation if any other was made to other Doctours Nay he confirms it by Saint Austin out of his 19. Epist a little after the beginning Solis enim Scripturarum libris c. For I have learned to give this honour onely to the Books of Scripture which are called Canonical as to believe most firmly that none of the Authours thereof did erre in writing any thing but others I so read that whatsoever holynesse or learning they are excellent in I do not think true therefore because they thought so or wrot so Compare then this passage with the other or the other with this and then judge whether either he did not differ from himself in his Principles or did not speak the former as a disputant Thirdly Let me note whereas you do rightly translate Saint Austin as speaking of his beleef by the Catholicks in the tense more then past you give your self occasion to think that he meant the main passage non crederem not of himself then but as before a Manichee And your argument which you produce a little after against this last answer because he speaks here of beleeuing the Acts of the Apostles and beleeving it by a necessary consequence because he hath already beleeved the other Canonical books upon the same authority of the Church doth not overthrow my answer because you say your self that this book of the Acts he did beleeve by consequence by the authority of the Church he was at first moved to beleeve the other books and therefore by consequence he did beleeve the book of the Acts because the Catholick authority did in like manner commend both Scriptures The speaking here in the present doth not derogate from my answer because the beleeving by consequence supposeth an act of beleeving antecedent Also Fourthly note that here he said the
Catholick authority doth commend both which may be done without infallibility For the commendation doth not ingage the judgement in assent necessary but the authority may ingage the mind to have a good opinion thereof and so may move dispositively to Faith Fifthly Perpende it well that it is said by St. Austin that he was moved by the Catholick Church its authority and that the Catholick authority doth commend both not the Roman authority which now is included or to be included And therefore if you could prove that Saint Austin intended as much as you would have and also that his authority were sufficient to carry the cause for the Catholick Church Yet you can have from hence no more then your part comes to of a particular Catholick Church if indeed you were such And therefore have you upon your shoulders such a labour as all discerning Catholicks would detract or retract namely to make good that whatsoever is said of the Catholick Church in the respects of it should be singularly appropriated to the Roman But of this in your 27 number Whereas you seem to vaunt upon your paraphrase could he more clearly say that if once in one single lye he should find the Churches authority to be fallible he should then have left unto him no infallible ground at all upon which he were to beleeve Scripture So you First I deny your consequence this doth not follow from what you have urged that Saint Austin drives this discourse that if he should find them in a lye he could have no infallible ground to beleeve Scripture It follows well that he could not beleeve Scripture by their authority because they had led unto him But though they did not lie to him they might be fallible for they might purpose that which they thought to be true for errour and therefore for their not lying can we not infer their infallibility And for ought I see he doth not here any way give us to understand that he did think they could not lye to him and therefore he could not conceive them upon this impossibility to be infallible As for that which you think an Argument against me that he could not speak any thing in heat or by slip which he so much inculcates This is nothing effectual for how often do we with fervour endevor to maintain that which once hath by incogitance or passion gone from us Yea it may seem more likely because he doth so much inculcate it because we are so eager to cover our imperfections and especially when we are like to make good use of it against an adversary Secondly what doth he inculcate that which you would have But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they say this is under question and therefore his inculcation is nothing to you if he speak it assertively until you fortifie your supposition But one Marginal note of yours more at the sign of the crosse I find and that is this Had he said that he beleeved this or any other Scripture for the Light he received by the reading of it by which he discovered it to be Canonical then the Manichaeans might as easily have said that by the like Light we clearly discover the Gospel of Manichaeus to be Canonical So you This is no way moving much lesse cogent For first it proceeds from a Negative which in the kind of it unless from Scripture which is the adaequate rule is of no validity Because he did not say so therefore he did not hold so No connexion Secondly by the same reason I may say he did not hold the authority of the Church to be infallible for then he would have told them so plainly he would have made an end of the dispute without any need of using Scripture Thirdly they were not prepared for this Theological Argument because they did not own the Church And now all things being duely considered I think you have no cause to say that I have not sincerely and fully answered what you have had to say for your self out of that supreme Testimonie of Saint Austin And if you compare that chapter with the chapter you mention in the same Number below namely the fifth against the Epistle of the Manichee with the 14. De util Cred. against the Manichees too you will not or cannot heartily dislike my Answers and therefore need I not distinctly to answer this last since here also he doth not compare the authoritie of the Church with the authoritie of the Scripture which is our main question but he compares with the authoritie of those few those turbulent those new men as he speaks who were not like to bring forth any thing which any without doubt might not think not worthy of authoritie the authoritie of the Church as to the beleeving of Christ where also he said that he was moved by the authoritie of the Catholicks Quorum autoritate commotus Christum aliquid utile praecepisse jam credidi Whereby you shall if you will see the reasonablenesse of the former criticism because here he said jam credidi so that it must refer to to him as a Manichee And therefore can you not with Saint Austin beleeve the whole Scripture to be the Word of God from the beginning to the ending as upon infallible authority of the Church because if he did yet cannot you do it which is not to be done and if it be to be done because he did it then it is not to be done because he did it not And I hope those strange stories and those several points which you speak to be in Scripture may be more like to be beleeved upon the authority of the Scripture then upon the authority of the Church since the Church hath no authority but from Scripture not as a Church And therefore if you have no other infallible ground for prayers to Saints and prayer for the dead in your sense and other like points then you have proved he went upon as towards the believing of Scripture you have none Nay you have not so good authority for those and such like points as he had for the belief of the Scripture for besides the difference of the matter he had Catholick authority for his belief though the authority was not Infallible but you have not Catholick authority for your points though fallible But I observe your wisdome You would justifie your points here by Infallibility which you think may be more likely then to justifie your Infallibility by your points of difference Therefore your conditional postulate might have been spared untill the condition be proved If Saint Austin had done so as you suppose then you or your Church would have been more excused from singularity because you had followed him As for you you need not fear singularity You provide against that in your opinion or your Masters for you for you must follow the Church without examination of what they say Their word must be taken but yet your Church may be accused
of singularity because it doth not follow the Catholique If then you will do prudently as you speak go with Saint Austin no further then he would have you follow him namely in the way of Scripture which he understood well and at the latter time of his life but whether he understood it as much as any the Church had which you say may be yet under debate with all respect to Saint Austin since it appears not that he had any skill in Hebrew and if I remember well confesseth that he learned Greek but late So then if in some cases your own Men confesse that we must have recourse to the Original Languages how could he understand them so well And now come we to your grand assumption that what hath been said of the Catholick Church that it is by Christ appointed to be the Judge of all Controversies and that the definition of this Judge is Infallible and consequently a sufficient ground of Faith all the Doctrine must be applyed to the Roman Church and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church And now then you are pleased at the latter end to discover your selfe that you did intend at first the Roman Church but dealt more cunningly then the rest of the Pontificians who do include in the nature of the one and true Church subjection to the Bishop of Rome Methinks this plot of yours might be somewhat resembled by him who had that Phantasie that whatsoever Ship came to Port was his so now every Church must be yours or none as if the Roman Sea were the Ocean or you would have all the Honours that might be conferred by God upon that Church he would please to own signally and to make his conceiving that this Church can be none but your own And thus would you have led me on with some ingenuity to be liberal in my respects and devoirs to the Catholick Church that so you might without contradiction sweep all for the Roman Catholick But prove that those priviledges you speak of belong to the Roman Church and cannot be applyed to the Protestant Church You prove it thus First This Protestant Church doth not so much as lay claim to those priviledges and so by her own Doctrine she cannot be Judge or Infallible nor any other Church but the Roman upon the same reason because they professe themselves by evident and Infallible Scriptures their own Fallibility as you prove the consequence to be to the end of your Page of the 27. Number and therefore the Roman Church is the true Church unlesse Christ hath no true Chrch nor hath had these many ages This is your argument which proceeds by way of a negative induction not the Protestant Church nor this other Church nor that nor any other Church doth claim the priviledge of being Infallible Judge onely the Roman therefore otherwise Christ hath had no true Church these many Ages Sir Which will you give us leave to do to smile or weep that men not to be contemned for their Learning and Reading should be abused and should endevour to abuse others by such ratiosinations which are made useful onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We and all other Churches do of their own accord yeild unto you that they are Fallible We save you the labour of the eviction True Churches they say they are and say they are not Infallible and they say also that you only do lay claim to this Infallibility but what then therefore you have Infallibility what because you only claim it Suppose that the Roman Church doth lay claim to Utopia or to the Terra incognita no other Church doth not the Protestant not any other therefore it is due to them Yes but where is this Utopia where is this Terra incognita what be the Priviledges and Dominions thereof they are yet to seek for them who lay claim to them First then make it out that there is such an Infallibility to be had before you challenge it and do not prove the beeing of it by your challenging it lest your Roman Eagle be said to catch at flies but prove solidly the beeing of it by the grounds thereof and then secondly prove a just claim for suppose that others did not lay claim to it what right can yet you have by a claim Is this also given primo occupanti If you have no other tenure for your Infallibility you have none and it doth bespeak fallibility to say the title is good If I might be so bold and surely I may in the cause of the truth of God it is more likely to fall out thus no Church but the Roman doth pretend to Infalliblity therefore is it highly presumptuous and is onely in this not an Usurper because there is no such thing as belonging to any Church We have no such tradition nor the Churches of God and yet also is it an insolent Usurpation of that Prerogative which belongs onely to God and Scripture This is enough to undo your argumentation and you but whereas you say that all other Churches of other Religions do say indeed that they themselves are the onely true Churches it is not true they doe not speak of themselves exclusively as you do Particular true Churches they may be under the truly Catholick Church and therefore they can contesserate one with another with respective acknowledgements but you are they who exclude all from the condition of being true Churches which will not reconcile themselves to you by absolute subjection And since you say that all other Churches but yours disclaim Infallibility you see that we alone do not stand aloof from obedience to your Roman Tyranny So you are not Catholicks in dominion neither Yet you would seem to have some reason for your discourse that one Church must be Infallible otherwise Christ hath not nor hath had any true Church these many ages This is inconsequential unlesse there be some Church Infallible Christ hath no true Church It is a false proposition as we have answered you from the first to the last that a true Church is Infallible and it is now all the question Though it be not true in every point yet may it be a true Church Every error doth not destroy the beeing of the Church and you have very great cause not to presse this lest it be retorted against your Church as it might be to be Even with you that Church which holds it selfe Infallible and yet hath erred is Fallible and therefore by your Doctrine no true Church the Church of Rome holdeth it self Infallible and yet hath erred then this is no true Church And might not the assumption here be proved by your own Doctrine for if the Tradition of the Church be the Rule of Faith then you have erred in rejecting the Millenary opinion which was a tradition of the Church So then your designe you speak of in the 28. Number of not expressing the Roman Church in your dispute you see is destroyed for what you say of
the Catholick Church is not sufficiently pleaded for the Roman and also Infallibility is not yet asserted to the Catholick And therefore your demonstration you talk of is but a flourish and your Argument you think unanswerable is not to be answered any more because that strength which it had is taken away And I have no more to say untill you have any more to say upon this point or any you mean in difference betwixt us But yet you have not done but like a Parthian who fights flying so you dispute still ending You say you will shew how unanimously the Fathers acknowledge this Saint Cyprian Ep. 3. l. 1. saith That false Faith cannot have access to the Roman Church And when you please to press this I shall shew you what little ground you are like to get in that Epistle since though he names the Roman Church as the principal Church as the chair of Peter yet he there defends his own jurisdiction against those who would ramble to Rome to have their cause heard and judged there Neither will you get any credit by those whom he speaks of and in those words you quote there is an intimation that the Romans then when he did write were not such as those were in the Apostles times Apostolo praedicante and I shall tell you why it was called the principal Church for a principle of Unitie so he from whence the Sacerdotal Unitie began and also by reflexion from the Imperial Seat And if you will object Saint Jerome's authoritie in his Comment upon the first to Timothy that he calleth Damasus the Pope of Rome the Rectour of the House of God which you say Saint Paul calleth the Pillar and Foundation of Truth I shall return you answer that this is not very much for other Bishops were called in ancient times Papae too and that he calleth him the Rectour of the House of God that is not much neither since every Bishop is so The Rectour of the Church in that place where he lives And this will appear to be less considerable if you will take notice that in his Comment upon the first Ep. to Tim. the third chapter upon these words A Bishop must be irreprehensible where he speaks of a Bishop in communi he sayes Aut Ecclesiae Princeps non erit so a Bishop in general with him is a Prince of the Church and also you know what opinion he had betwixt Bishops and Presbyters Read to this purpose his Epistle to Evagrius If you come upon me again with Saint Jerome to Damasus in an Epistle you may tell me what Epistle for he wrote more then one and his Title in some is as is set down plainly Hieronimus Damaso Surely Popes then had not that state or else Saint Jerom had little reverence towards him And you may see also how the Pope writes to him to resolve questions And is this any sign of the Popes Infallibilitie Well but you say in that Epistle you will tell me of to Damasus he saith To your Holyness that is To the Chair of Peter I am joyned in Communion Upon this Rock I know the Church to be built he that gathereth not with thee scattereth So you And shall I give you answer to this now then I may tell you that this doth but magnifie the honour of his own Commuion and yet not much neither if you will observe what he saith in his Comment upon Amos the 6. chapter Petra Christus est qui donavit Apostolis suis ut ipsi quoque Petrae vocentur Tu es Petrus c. Then Peter is not in his Opinion the onely Rock you see Moreover so the Fathers you say in the Council of Chalcedon at the voice of St. Leo Pope of Rome said Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. And what can you ever make of this that they did say so No more then thus much that the Successour of St. Peter spoke Doth this signifie that all the Personal pripriviledges which Saint Peter had Pope Leo had then there needed but him to determin all the Controversies Yea according to Saint Jerom before if he had had all those priviledges which Saint Peter had yet the Church should not be built upon him onely for the other Apostles were Rocks too Yea and is he Christs Successour also If he be not then that which you would fain arrogate to him belongs onely to Christ to be Head of the Universal Church To cut short you remit me to Statleton and Bellarmin who both shew most diligently how all other Churches have gone to Rome to receive judgement in their chief causes The places you say you will alledge though for the present you refer me to them What do you mean Sir to put me off to those adversaries or in the interim to satisfie me until you have ranged them into another discourse I need not send you to our men who have withstood those Champions foot to foot Junctusque Viro Vir. Saint Cyprian in the place before makes an exception against this supreme Tribunal for Appeals and the African Churches After this you seem to threaten me with further Demonstrations of particulars material to your cause Untill which time it becomes me in civilitie to wait and not to take the word out of your mouth or your work out of your hand I shall let you rise that you may have more strength for the next assault I could leave here but that our late Feast may hint you to think of the contest betwixt the Roman and other Churches about the observavation of Easter And were those Hereticks or Schismaticks that would not stand to the Roman determination herein And as for your earnest demand to know but the name of one of the Pastours Doctors or Preachers in those last thousand Ages Years which preceeded Luther I may conceive my self obliged then to give you some account hereof when you shall tell me whoever of all the Bishops of Rome in a vast insolency took upon him the Empire of the whole Church under the Title of Universal Bishop before Boniface the Third took it from Phocas his Donation Untill Gregorie's time inclusively there was no such Usurpation and you know what Gregorie said of John of Constantinople for his pretending to it that whosoever did made himself the forerunner of Antichrist But if I would answer the answer would be easie and it is ready you have it alreadie in a Testimonie out of Tertullian in his Prescriptions it may be you took no notice of it then nor did I urge it to this purpose by way of Application to our Church thus That which we are the Scriptures were from the beginning we are of them before it was otherwise before they were corrupted by you Then we are as ancient as may be for our Doctrine and Sacraments they are found in the Records of Scripture And if Campian says All the Fathers were his and yours we may say the Apostles are ours Nay the Fathers
the not being a rule upon this account the traditions and the testimonies of the Fathers cannot be a rule because they have been abused Thirdly We do not intend the use of the judgement of discretion to rest in that upon an interpretation nor do we oppose it to the authoritie of the Church but we say this must be satisfied in Articles and matters of Faith notwithstanding the decisions of the Church by consonance thereof to Scripture otherwise it cannot give the assent of Divine Faith Every one must be perswaded in his own mind although he doth not make his own sense This private judgement should neither be blind nor heady it respects authoritie but joyneth only with appearance of the Word of God That which you say to the seventh answer was examined before That which you say to the eighth answer will not serve to save you from differing from your self which indeed if it were in way of retractation would not be reprehensible as Saint Austin speaks in the Preface of his Retractations Neque enim nisi imprudens c. for neither will any but an unwise man reprehend me because I reprehend my errours But if you have a mind to see the difference betwixt you and you you may thus Before you said that the ground of believing is the authoritie of the Church since you have said in your second paper that it is the authoritie of God revealing If there be no difference why do you not keep your terms as a Disputant should do But you say your reply is exceeding easie the ground of our faith is God revealing and God revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word So you Now then if you make the authoritie of God revealing to be the ground and cause of faith then it is not the authoritie of the Church because although God doth reveal by his Church yet is not the authoritie of the Church the ground of faith but Gods authoritie for the Church is but as a Messenger or Ambassadour which we do not believe for himself but for his Letters of Credence from his Master and so is it the authoritie of Gods revealing which is the ground of faith And this is made out by that you say to compound your variance You say the ground of our faith is God revealing and Gods revealing by his Church as he first causeth our first belief when he tells us by his Church such and such books are infallibly his word then the authoritie is his whereby we believe and not the authoritie of the Church which is but Miniâ—terial And by your own argument are you undone for if the Church be the ground of faith and not the Scripture because by the Church we believe such and such books to be Canonical as you have said before and also here below in this Reply to my eight Answer then also the Authoritie of the Church is not the ground of faith because we must first believe Gods authoritie revealing it to his Church before we believe the Church But also to take notice of that Argument of yours here it is false For we must first believe the authoritie of Scripture before we can believe any authoritie of the Church For the Church as such hath all from Scripture as I have shewed And therefore by your own argument are you undone again for if that be the ground of faith which is first then the Scripture not the Church and therefore the Church may be disputed not the Scripture which we do understand by way of Intelligence through a supernatural light and cannot demonstrate as we may the Church by principles of Scripture Again you seem to differ from your self because now you hold that the Church is the ground of our faith in all particulars causally because by it we believe the Scripture but before the faith of a Catholick which you mean generally must consist in submitting his understanding and adhering to the Church and in believing every thing because she proposeth it so your first paper in terminis terminantibus But now when we believe the Scripture by the Church we may believe that which is plain in it by it self because it saith it not because the Church saith it Do not you now somewhat yield not to me but to truth Truth will be too hard for any one that hath not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost and yet also will it be too hard for him though he denies it Consider then what you have said and what you think and judge how the Masters of your Church will answer it at Gods Tribunal for that everlasting cheating of simple souls with the mysterie of implicite faith And that also which you so much repeat that we must receive Canonical books by the Infallible authoritie of the Church is not yet grown beyond the height of a postulate It hath been often denied you upon necessitie and it did not obtain it seems universally in the practice of the Church or else some of your Apocriphal books were not accounted Canonical for Cyrill of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechese where he speaks in part of the Scriptures he accounts not in the number the Maccabees you spoke of nor some others Yea for the reception of books Canonical Saint Jerome gives another reason of embracing but four Gospels in his Preface upon the Comment upon Saint Matthew not because the Church owned no more as you would have Saint Austin to be understood but he doth prove that there are but four by compare of that of Ezekiel with that of the Apocalypse about the foure beasts which doe represent as he interprets their meaning the four Evangelists You go on and say God revealing is alwayes the formall Object of faith Before every thing was to be believed as proposed by the Church because she proposeth it so that the formal Object of things to be believed was as proposed by the Church under that consideration But sometimes God revealeth his mind by Scripture sometimes by the Church as he did two thousand years and more before the Scriptures were written So you Well then now he reveales himself by Scripture contradistinctly to the Church as well as by the Church contradistinctly to Scripture which you put in one behalf of your unwritten word So then we may believe him immediately by Scripture but whether we can believe him immediately by tradition without Scripture wants conviction Neither doe you exhibit a reason of this Opinion by that which follows that for two thousand years and upwards before the Scriptures were written he revealed himself by the Church This as before is not enough to sustain traditional Doctrine because the Scripture in the substance of it was before it was written but you cannot evince that the word not written is as certain to us as the word before it was written was unto them And the Reason may be taken from
Gods wise Dispensations to his Church then when there was no Word written he would provide that that whereby the Church should be ruled should be extraordinarily conveyed and preserved but now when there is a Word written which is a most sufficient ground of Faith as you confesse there is no such cause of any word beside it If the Scripture be a Rule of faith as you do liberally grant then this is now a rule not onely inclusively but exclusively for otherwise it is not as large as that which is to be ruled and then they will not agree in the nature of Relatives and so it will not be a Rule of faith and manners For indeed the propertie of a Rule doth not only exclude lesse but also more It speaks against adding to it as a Rule of faith and manners necessarie in themselves as well as against the negative of not ordering them by it But then again your former reasoning is inconcludent because God revealed himself to his Church severally before he revealed himself by his Church And therefore this was not the way universally holding namely by the Church even before the Scripture was written And therefore much lesse doth it now bind when the Word of God is written Shew the like inspirations to the Church as the Prophets had by some infallible way and then we shall say that thus saith the Lord absolutely undisputedly without possibilitie of contradiction by the mouth of the Church in whatsoever it pleaseth to assert for the truth of God to be believed equally to Scripture and then a Council is to be believed without Scripture as the Nicene you mean was not believed or to be believed without for it did determine by it and by that Text I named I and my Father are one which Saint Athanasius doth apply to that question foure times in that Epistle you named And if you can prove that Saint Peters successours as you imagine had that transient gift of immediate Revelation as Saint Peter had then ye might say Peter spake by the mouth of Leo as infallibly as God spake by his Then the Arrians had as good a plea for their opinion as Athanasius had for they urged the Council of Ariminum and more Councils as Athanasius mentions in the same Epistle if what is said by the Church must be true then Athanasius must have changed his Opinion Or if you will have alwayes the Pope to be put into the authoritie of the Church for an infallible definition binding the consciences of all Christians to believe it as Gospel then must we believe that what he defines is Infallibly true What because he cannot erre No more then those fourtie Popes which Bellarmin speaks of in his fourth Book De Rom. Pontif. from the 8. chapter to the 15. who have been as he said accused of errour and some whereof none can say that all the distinctions and provisions which have been devised for this purpose can possibly justifie Pope Zephyrine a Montanist then he erred if not a Montanist then Tertullian is not to be believed Liberius as before an Arrian so Athanasius so Jerome so Damasus of him and Damasus could not erre as you hold yet an Arrian is surely in errour is he not Honorius was erroneous too and he spoken of in a former paper he a Monothelite as Melchior Canus saith some Catholicks hold and he proves it by Synods the sixth the seventh the eighth and he proves it by Epistles of Popes if all there be deceived how shall we believe authoritie of man As for Gregory the Third Bellarmin in the 12. chapter of that book doth openly say Vel certe Pontificem ex ignorantia lapsum esse quod posse Pontificibus accidere non negamus So he Then do you reconcile errour by ignorance with Infallibility How is he like to be Infallible in all his definitions when he was ignorant in the Gospel and therefore gave a Dispensation to a man to take another wife if the former had a disease that made her not able for the conjugal debt And Alphonsus de Castro in his 1. book 4. chapter hath this passage Omnis enim Homo errare potest in fide etiam si Papa sit Nam de Liberio à Papa constat fuisse Arrianum Et Anasterium Papam fuvisse Nestorianis qui Historias legerit non dubitat and a little after Nam cum constet plures eorum adeo illiteratos esse ut Grammaticam penitus ignorent qui fit ut sacras Literas interpretari possent And how then shall we by your Head of the Church or any other severally or together know the undoubted sense of Scripture infallibly But many necessary places of Scripture do not as you imagin need a Judge or not infallible All things also necessary to be believed are set down in Scripture and the contrary you have not shewed and therefore is there no need of an infallible Judge for the former or tradition for the latter as I have shewed Neverthelesse you proceed thus The Revelation of God coming to us in all these cases by the Church you by your own words in this place must grant her authoritie to be our ordinary cause of Faith So you Answer As you suppose much for your advantage without colour of reason so you confound much without distinction First the term Revelation hath two respects one to the Agent and so it refers to the act and manner thereof another to the matter of that which is revealed that is the object The Revelation of God taking it passively for the object the matter which is revealed comes to us by the Church because the Word written ordinarily comes to us by the Church But taking Revelation of God actively with respect to the manner to bear your sense that God doth reveal himself infallibly by the Church either in the case of Canonical books or of doubts about the sense of Scripture so it doth not come by the Church and therefore is it not the ordinary cause of Faith which must rely upon infallible veritie as Aquinas speaks in his first part first question eight answer and therefore as before doth rely upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets which wrote the Canonical books and not then upon the Church who was bound to receive these Books and to communicate them So that the Church is concluded to be as an instrument only or a motive of this faith an instrument by its office and a motive by its authority And as for declaring undoubtedly the sense of Scripture So is there not any necessity of a Judge infallible which you would have the Church to be Secondly you suppose that which is not to be supposed that by my words since in those cases the revelation of God comes to us by the Church I must grant her authority to be the ordinary cause of faith and you say also that by my words in this place I must grant so Surely you here do commit
Crimen falsi for I do not see upon the place any half Syllables out of which you may draw any such interpretative Confession I have often upon your occasion said the contrary that the authority of the Church cannot be the cause of faith And therefore whether you have any faith of the Articles of Religion or of Scripture in all your Church is more easie to be found then said And assuredly though we talk of faith in the world the greatest part of it is but opinion which takes religion upon the credit of man and not of Scripture And as for us we have also the authority of the Church Catholick to move our judgement and Scripture to settle our faith And we are more related to the foure General Councils in consanguinitie of Doctrine as he said then your Church now And now at the end of all you doe fairly rebate the edge of your censure of my Expression namely Excesse of Faith But you say my distinction doth no way salve the improprietie of my Speech For there is still a difference in more believing Objects and believing more Objects But granting that it may be improperly spoken yet even in that sense it is not truely said because there can be no Excesse of Faith in believing that which God hath said So then by my Distinctions which is your School of Fides Subjectiva fides Objectiva fides Qua fides Quae there may be an Excesse of Faith in the Object if we beleive more then God hath said supposing we can believe what God hath not said although there be not an excess of faith in the Subject for we cannot have too much faith in that which is to be believed But the quarrel against the speech was not becacause it was not proper enough and congruous in this Discourse but because of the Application of it to you as it now appears and therefore here would you vindicate the Church in this upon the same ground of infallibilitie and therefore for your Faith in whatsoever you believe you have this Warrant Thus saith the Lord. But since this infallibilitie of yours you cannot have without begging of the question even to the last nor shall have it surely by begging you are yet to finde out some Expedience of Means or Arguments how to preserve your selves from that just charge of Excesse of Faith and the chief of that kind is that you speak of your infallibilitie for which you have not Thus saith the Lord. How then do you prove it by Tradition And how do you prove Tradition by the infallibility of the Church Therefore go not to Faith about by a circumference If you have a desire to rest your judgement and your soul in certain infallibilitie by your own word then center in Scripture from which all Lines of Truth are drawn and dismisse Tradition as your men state it for which this infallibilitie was devised and yet cannot be maintained for it cannot maintain it self You close with a passage of Saint Austin If so the words you intend it to set out your Charity to the Church of Christ not to perswade my Faith in its infallibilitie I may love the Church without infallibility because though I doe not love Errour yet must I love the Church when it is in Errour And this gives you occasion to think well of this respective and full answer to your last Paper Excuse me that it was so long ere it came and yet not much above the space of yours and also so long now it is come Onely let me leave you with a Father or two in whose company you are delighted Tertullian in his Prescript cap. 8. We have no need of Curiositie after Christ nor further Inquisition after the Gospell When we believe we desire to believe nothing beyond For this we first believe that there is not any thing beyond which we ought to believe Again against Hermog cap. 22. I adore the plenitude of Scripture And a little after Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis Officina If it be not written let him fear that woe appointed for those who adde or take away And Saint Austin in his 2. book De Doc. Christiana cap. 9. In iis enim quae aperte in Scriptura posita sunt Amongst those things which are plainly laid down in Scripture are found all those things which contain Faith and Manners of Living to wit Hope and Charitie For the excellent modification of Scripture in the 6. chapter Magnifice igitur salubriter Sp. Sanctus ita Scripturas Sanitas modificavit ut locis apertioribus fami occurreret obscurioribus autem fastidia detergeret Nihil enim fere de illis obscuritatibus eruitur quod non planissime dictum alibi reperiatur And the same in the 7. chapter for the second Degree or step to Wisedome He saith Deinde opus est mitescere Pietate neque Contradicere Divinae Scripturae sive intellectae si aliqua vitia nostra percutit sive non intellectae quasi nos melius sapere meliusque percipere possimus sed cogitare potius credere id esse melius verius quod ibi scriptum est etiamsi lateat quam id quod nos per nos met-ipsos sapere possumus And again Saint Austin contra Literas Petit. Lib. 3. cap. 6. Proinde sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive 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 adjecit Si Angelus de Coelo vobis annuntiaverit praeterquam quod in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit Consider what is said and the Lord give you understanding in all things To the Reader How in these times in which there be so many Religions the true Religion may certainly be found out 1. A Satisfactory Answer to this Title will alone put an end to the endless controversies of these dayes This made me think my labour well bestowed in treating this point somewhat largely And because that Treatise hath received a very large answer the examining of this answer will make the Truth yet more apparent That this may be done more clearly I will briefly tell you the Order I intend to observe in the examination of the said answer And because this answer directly followeth the same Order which I observed in treating the question prefixed in my Title Therefore when I have shewed you the Order of that Treatise you will clearly see that I shall most orderly answer the Reply against it 2. That Treatise had a short Preface to tell the intent of it My first Chapter must then be the Examination of what is said against this Preface Again that Treatise did shew five things First it did shew the necessity of a Judge to whom all are bound to submit Secondly That Scripture alone did not suffice to decide all necessary Controversies without a living Judge to
might gaine more credit to their error by holinesse of life as Socinus and others You come then to refute my arguments First it is so far from being contrary from that text you err not knowing the Scriptures that it is most agreeable to it For a most fit way to erre against the knowledge of the Scripture is to permit such and a great number of such men to interpret Scriptures as are most fit to erre in the interpretation of them And is this a good refutation And therefore the meaning of our Saviour must be according to your use they erred because they have the knowledge of the Scriptures which they mis-interpreted Shift you how you will you cannot evade was the knowledge of the Scriptures the cause of their error no that is contrary to our Saviour who said you err not knowing the Scriptures was it necessary that those who did know the Scriptures should mis-interpret them no for then that will by a recideration come into the same inconvenience for then the knowledge will be a certain mean at least in a large sense of this mis-interpretation And so it would be our best way to know nothing of Scripture that so we may not err 3. Can we imagine that our Saviour Christ discoursed as you do that because by our fault the Scriptures are an occasion of mis-interpretation therefore the people should not commonly use them is this symbolicall to the sense of our Saviour's words you err not knowing the Scriptures 4. Our Saviour then by you rebukes their mis-interpretation then he would have them know the Scriptures better not have the people deprived of them 5. There is a double knowledge as to this purpose 1. An habituall Knowledge which is chiefly of the Principles in Scripture this they had in their mind Then there is an actuall Knowledge which consists in an application of those Principles to particular Conclusions of belief and practise They were wanting it seems in the later in that they did not so as they should consider that text in Moses which our Saviour makes use of for the Resurrection They might have inferred the Resurrection from that text and so not have erred Therefore had they more need to look over the Scriptures again and consider them better The saying of the Jew is good He that reads a book an hundred times is not like him that readeth it an hundred times and one The oftner we read it especially the Bible the more we see in it But you bring a corroboration of your answer specially being licensed to cross all Antiquity and all the Authority of the Church if they stand in their way Sir this will not do 1. We licence them not to crosse all Antiquity we need not give them such a direction and surely if they should you would have no cause to blame them We have liberty to use that of the Philosopher in his Rhet. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Do you look to that who contradict God and Fathers and Doctors 2. They cannot intend surely the crossing of all Antiquity for certainly they do not know all Antiquity yea if you speak all Antiquity with a full universality there are few of your own learned men that know it And therefore if any of their interpretations doth crosse antiquity it doth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is but by accident And in things necessary they are not so like to do so 3. Who is there of all your men that have proved this proposition that the Consent of the Fathers supposed makes an argument of Divine Faith therefore though we love their company yet we desire to see our way But object to us nothing but that which is proper How shall your men know that what they hold doth not crosse all Antiquity The Authority of the Church gives them neither faith of it nor Knowledge Yea some of yours say omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic You go on And I wonder why you call this your manner of proceeding the knowledge of the Scripture c. unto secondly Ans You make your self sport with the Ambiguity of the word Knowledge You mean it by way of a Science as Physick we do not say that Trades-men make any knowledge of Divinity so as to give an account of the principles of Divinity in the body of it no but they may have a knowledge of Scripture sufficient for their use although they do not teach others As if there were plain principles of Physick in our language we might make use them for our selves as Tiberius said after thirty years of age he would laugh at those who did need a Physitian you are deceived then or would deceive in the fallacie of consequent though all Science be knowledge all knowledge is not Science for knowledge is more generall and therefore surely of it self doth not inferre the most perfect species You say secondly you in vaine object that of St. Paul that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation c. unto thirdly wherein you allow the truth of the text with your gloss namely not as they are interpreted by every giddy fansie but by Tim. who did continue in the things which he learned and had been assured of by orall tradition Ans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what will you get by this answer If you understand by orall tradition such doctrines of the Gospell which were first preached afterwards written we grant you the use of such orall traditions but this boots you not for you must have traditions in point of faith besides what is written and such we deny unto you that Timothy had And I prove my deniall by your own words For how could Timothy understand Scripture by what was beside Scripture you speake of his understanding the Scripture by tradition tradition of proper name is that which is beside Scripture in the matter of it and how can he by that which is different in matter understand the Scripture If you mean by orall Traditions some traditive interpretations as learned men call them of the more difficult passages of Scripture this indeed were more reasonable in the hypothesis as to Timothy but this is nothing to us unlesse you can tell us certainly how many and what they are If there were such and lost then your Church is lost 2. Againe we allow no giddy fansie to define the sense of Scripture but in things necessary and plain their own knowledge may be sufficient and their private judgement may be as safely exercised in the sence thereof as in the choice of your Religion But thirdly by your own words I will conclude against you a fortiori for if the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise who was a Teacher much more others since as Mr. Cressy and you afterwards affirm there is more requisite to a Minister to be believed than others If then they be able to make a Minister wise unto salvation then one of the People much more who according
to you is not bound to so much Fourthly whereas you say They so will make him wise unto salvation and to continue still assured of the doctrine of the Church and never to contradict that Do not you see that you add to Paul in the Predicate for S. Paul saies they are able to make him wise unto salvation and you say so they are able to make him wise to salvation and to continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and not to contradict the Church who is it that wrests Scripture now Do not you draw it to your own use no you will say it is all one to make us wise unto salvation and to make us continue still assured of the Doctrine of the Church and not to contradict the Church Is it then all who have not contradicted the Church are saved none that have contradicted the Church are saved The former you will not say the later you cannot prove Pope Vigilius contradicted the Church in the 5. Gen. Council about the three Chapters was he damned Fifthly you say the Scriptures so understood would make him wise unto salvation and to continue in the doctrine of the Church How do you understand it copulatively or disjunctively Copulatively that the Scriptures and the orall traditions would make him wise unto salvation and to continue in the doctrine of the Church or disjunctively that the Scriptures would make him wise unto salvation and the traditions to continue in the doctrine of the Church If disjunctively then we may be wise unto salvation and yet not continue in the doctrine of the Church to wit by the Scriptures If we cannot have salvation without continuing in the Church then prove your Church to be as infalible to us as the Doctors of the Church were to Timothy until that time you will be thought to beg the question So to end this answer we note here that you take special care of the Church It seems by your stickling about the Church that what S. Austin said in his de Civitate Dei concerning Rome-Heathen is also true by you of Rome-Christian Et major cura unius Romae quam totius Coeli And there is more care had of one Rome than all Heaven You go on Thirdly you say You confess that when we are by the Church assured that the Scripture is the Word of God we may ground our faith in it for those things which are plainly delivered You say yes but I also say that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in Scripture So then it seems you come downe from your former universality that whatsoever we do believe we must believe upon the proposals of the Church as the formal cause and motive thereof and why then do you not allow the people the use of the Bible as in order to those things which are plainly delivered So that by this concession you open the way to contradict your own practice But you would shut it again by saying that all things necessary to salvation are not plainly delivered in it Be sure you take heed of this that you do not grant this for why then should all fly to the Church for infalible directions in way of supply well Are they not delivered or not plainly which speak your mind If not delivered then surely not plainly for of that which is not there are no affections as the Rule is but they may be delivered and yet not plainly Come out of the clouds and do not make a noise but lighten us If not delivered think upon the Argument you know well If many things not necessary are plainly delivered in Scripture then much rather all things necessary If delivered and not plainly then plainly not delivered for if they be delivered they are delivered for our use as a Rule of faith and action and how are they a Rule if they be not sufficiently plain for then we must have another Rule for the understanding of this Rule And also think upon the former Argument which proceeds upon your own distinction that the Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto salvation but not every one If Timothy then much more others because more is required as you say to a Minister in point of belief than to others But you would prove what you say S. Peter saith that many to their perdition did misunderstand some hard places of S. Paul so that mis-interpretation of hard places may be the cause of perdition Ans First you will excuse us if we note that the danger they were in was not by misunderstanding but by wresting of those places You know the Greek is as before was said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Syriack renders it perverting depraving and so also your Translation of Rhemes depraving This is not so much an intellectual error as a moral fault and the danger is by the later Secondly Here 's but some things hard to be understood in S. Paul's Epistles not all not many and from hence you cannot argue that all things therefore in S. Paul's Epistles and much lesse in the whole Scripture are hard to be understood If you syllogize so you proceed a particulari a dicto secundum quid Thirdly the perverting and depraving doth more immediately depend upon their being unstable than ignorant Therefore cannot you impute that to simple ignorance which at least partly belongs to another cause Fourthly how prove you that those things which were hard to be understood were of those things which are necessary to salvation If you say so it lies upon you to prove it if they were not such then this text is not pertinent Fifthly it is to their own destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then it seems hereby they had the liberty to read those Epistles and why should you therefore hinder the people from the use of Scripture since they run the danger of their own destruction by wresting them And peruse your own Estius upon the place who doth ingenuously note that it is not said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as referring to the Epistle as some copies he said would have it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referring to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which respects the time of Christs coming although afterwards Estius would extend them to the point of justification by faith Fourthly you object heresie and lewd life to some in whom you say we invested infallibility If I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life besides giving all scope to interpret the Scriptures as we judge fit c. unto but to prevent Ans But do you remember what occasion I had to object this to you by way of recrimination you charged us by the judgement of your learned Divines that the free use of the Scripture would be it upon which the peoples manners would grow worse and worse And to this I said how comes it then to passe that some in whom you vested
infallibilitie were guiltie of heresie and bad manners and I instanced in Liberius subscribing against Athanasius So that the way your Church hath doth not free you from these crimes and therefore you do unreasonably urge against your Adversarie inconveniences of his principles which are common to yours And yet you will now complain of me because I am even with you The debate betwixt us upon this point lies thus you faulted our permission of the use of Scripture to the people as the cause or the cause without which heresie and bad manners do not arise I answered in defence of Scripture this not the cause nor the causa sine quae non of them since heresie and bad manners have been in those of your Church in whom your infalibility is placed and therefore have you no cause to take it so ill that I answered you so home All the causality you can pretend of heresie and bad manners by a free use of the Scriptures is through mis-interpretation of them is it not yea is it so then how come those who are infalible to be hereticks and bad You had best take away Scripture from all that so there may be no heresie Well it seems you now begin to bethink your self that heresie and bad life are not the properties of a free use of Scripture as we understand them quarto modo but as consequents or inseparable accidents which are in a larger sense as properties namely as omni sed non soli so I construe your last words if I should grant all what prove you from hence but that there be other ways to heresie and bad life c. you must then allow us to tell you that you are somewhat disposed to go hence and to deduct and refute the overboiling expressions of the danger of Scripture as to the people at least as if all the heresies and bad life were to be grounded or charged upon the common liberty of reading Scripture And let me come up a little more closely to you I demand of you Whether you will or dare to say that all those who have had the free use of Scripture have interpreted it in difficult places as they judged fit and therefore were of bad life if not then is it not proprium omni And so for heresie you cannot say that every one who hath freely used Scripture hath interpreted or mis-interpreted it unto heresie for how then could he of your Church say si fides in doctos solos caderet nihil esset occuperius Deo Or did they believe without the use of Scripture by an implicit faith in the Church Did they But this implicit faith implies a contradiction in adjecto for faith supposeth knowledge of what we believe in the object though not in the reason but implicit is divided against knowledge and if you say that it knows the Church which it doth believe it will come to this that all the faith of the people shall be shrunk into one Article of the Church and no matter whether they explicitly believe God or Christ or any thing else will this prove good Divinity Or will good Divinity prove this And besides it is not implicit faith which believes the Church but explicit for they must actually believe the Roman Church to be it unto which salvation is obliged Then reading of the Scriptures is not a cause to all though not all the cause of heresie for some have got salvation by it and therefore were no hereticks unless you will say they might have salvation and be hereticks too If you will say it then why would you perswade our people that there is no salvation for us hereticks Then subjection to the Roman Church is not necessary to salvation for although all Christians but you according to your Principles are hereticks yet they may be saved because hereticks may be saved However we may have faith by reading of Scripture and if faith then we are not hereticks by Knots argumentation because he would have heresie destroy all faith But you have reason to say that other ways of heresie there may be besides being conversant in Scripture for you know that hereticks have pleaded Antiquity therefore by your Logick you should not plead it for use and settlement of faith Whereas you say Again had not David who was a Murtherer and an Adulterer had not Solomon who was an Idolater the infalible assistance of the Holy Ghost in writing severall parts of the holy Scripture Sir I thank you for helping your weak Adversary for this makes for me and proves for me what I said on behalf of Scripture that heresie and badnesse were accidentall at most to the use of Scripture because those whom you account infallible were guilty thereof You prove now by other examples the possibility thereof The sense of the discourse as to badnesse of life is this If bad manners be competible to those who are accounted infallible then the mis-interpretation of Scripture by the ignorance of the people is not the cause of bad maners but verum prius and now you not denying it to be true of your Pope would confirm it by certain examples in Scripture But I hope you meane to reflect this towards the proof of infalibility to be consistent with a lewd life And therefore I answer to you that I deny not the distinction of infalibility in rebus fidei and not in point of action I deny not the distinction in the notion of it but I deny it in the application of it to the Pope I do acknowledge him in one part of it falible in the latter but you must prove him infalible in the former as David and Solomon was and we have done We are agreed in the Thesis that there may be infalibility of faith where there is lewdness of life but we differ in the Hypothesis as you intend it not that the Pope may not be nought in life but that he is not infalible in defining points of faith or manners But you would avoid the danger of my former answer therefore you say But to prevent this and all that elsewhere you can say against the Pope I in my twenty first number desired you and all to take notice of that which you here quite forget I said I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige us no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre How then doth the belief or faith of a Church I speake not of private mens private opinions invest infalibility in a person hereticall or bad So then let my answer be put into this forme Liberius the Pope was guilty of heresie and bad manners Liberius was according to you infalible therefore the Subject of infalibility may be an heretick and guiltie of bad manners and consequently heresie and bad life are not to be imputed to the mis-interpretation of Scripture Before you graunted me the Conclusion that heresie and bad life may come in otherwise
of you in this dispute you have first said you knew not what and now you know not what to say Tell us where the originall of infalibilitie lies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 surely it doth not become infalibilitie to be so reserved To passe this you tell me in your fourth Par. that I lay to your charge the supposing of the question And I am still of that minde For if you say that as things stand we have no other assurance to ground our faith upon but the Church you do plainly suppose that which is mainly in question and so must do until you prove it And I still say unto you as I did that you do not well consider what you say in saying as things stand as if the rule of faith were a Lisbian rule and might alter upon occasions and as if the Scripture must be accommodated to the use of the Church Yes intellectus currit cum praxi And the Scripture is to follow the Church and not the Church the Scripture would you have it so So it seems by what follows for so you answer that though God might have ordained otherwise yet as things stand the Church is the ground of our faith in all points speaking of the last ground on which we must stand to wit not an humane but Divine ground the pillar and ground of truth And what do you say here more than you said before or more than we can say mutatis mutandis Though God could have ordained otherwise that there should have been a standing Councel or a singular person successively infalible to have proposed and determined all things infalibly yet as things stand the Scripture is the ground of our faith in all points necessary speaking of the last ground on which we must stand not a humane but a Divine ground Wherein are we inferiour to you but that we do not put in all points But we put in all points necessarie And what need more And the Church is not yet proved to determine any thing infalibly the Scripture proposeth all things necessary infalibly And me thinks you should if you please think the Scripture a divine ground rather than the Church To take then your own principle The ground of faith must be Divine The Church is not a ground Divine Therefore no ground The Major is your own The assumption is proved thus The Testimonie of men is Humane The Testimonie of the Church is the Testimonie of men Therefore The first proposition in the ordinary capacity of men is plaine For no effect can exceed the cause And the second proposition is as plaine if the men that are of the Church are considered as private men by your own grounds But these men you say being in the capacitie of a Church are inspired by the Holy Ghost so as they cannot erre in any point True if they be assisted with the Holy Ghost Well but how shall I know what a Church is and whether such men be of the Church and whether such men be assisted with the Holy Ghost Yea whether there be an Holy Ghost All these particulars I must be satisfied in before that I can believe by a Divine faith that what the Church proposeth definitively is true A Church cannot be in the nature of it expressed without a profession of that Religion which directs man to his supernaturall end Now this Religion requires a supernaturall revelation as Aquinas disputes it in the begining of his Sums Then this Religion must be revealed being not naturally intelligible either by principles or works of nature Where and how is this Religion revealed you cannot say by the Church for the question is of the Church And so consequently how is it revealed that such are of the Church and assisted by the Holy Ghost or that there is an Holy Ghost Expedite these questions And again consider that S. Austin and other Fathers have spoken freely of discerning the Church by Scripture whe◠in I am informed what Religion is what a Church which the true Church and that there is a Holy Ghost Again I must believe by a divine faith that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth as you say Well but how shal I come by this divine faith God infuseth it you will say well but doth he infuse it immediately as in respect of Scripture So you must say well then cannot you think that he can infuse faith of the Scripture immediately in respect of the Church Answer me is this faith wrought in me by the credibility of the Church or not if not how If so then the Church is naturally 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the testimonie of the Church must be resolved into the testimonie of men extra rationem Ecclesiae then is it of itself but humane Therefore must you come to this that the Testimonie of the Church is infallible by Athoritie of Scripture Well then if so then the Church is not the last ground on which we must stand Nor yet is it the first ground as we take it for a Divine ground which you mean for it is not Divine but by the word of God yea if the Church be the last ground on which we must stand then why do you prove the Authority of the Church by the Authority of Scripture And if you say that you also prove the Scripture to be the word of God by the Church yet not as the last ground but the Church is resolved into the Authoritie of Scripture as the last ground for if the Church hath no being as such but by Scripture in the substance of it then the Church must be ultimately grounded in Scripture for that which is primum in generatione is ultimum in resolutione So a primo ad ultimum the Scripture is the ground of faith And so this will be contrary to what follows in your last that we do not first believe the Church for the Scripture If you speak of a generall motive to believe the Scripture so we may begin with the Church upon the account of credible men as towards humane faith but if you speak of belief as Divine so we cannot first begin with the Church because we must first be assured of the Church by the word of God under the formalitie of Divine faith the word of God must be first in genere credibilium unlesse there were a resultance of a Church out of naturall principles which is not to be said And in your following words you intimate as much as if we might first admit the Scripture to be the word of God and then prove by the Scriptures the authority of the Church If we may admit the Scriptures for Gods word first then first the Scriptures may be believed to be the word of God without the authority of the Church which is contrary to what you have said formerly Then secondly the Scripture must be the last ground of faith because as before that which is first in generation is last in resolution And
then thirdly Why do you dispute with us concerning the Authority of Scriptures by the Church since we have admitted the Scriptures for the word of God And therefore should you not urge us to the acknowledgement of Scriptures by the Authoritie of the Church but wholly to the acknowledgement of the Church by the Authority of the Scriptures Paragr 5. In the fifth Par. you say you charge me with abating from my first proposition in which I said Divine faith in all things was caused by the proposall of the Church because now I say that when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture Ans And I cannot yet bate you an ace of my charge For your termes are of a believing indefinitely upon proposall of the Church as if 't were the immediate formall cause of all faith and so severall of your Arguments would prove that the Scripture is not at all our rule but the Church And this your first paper made to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore if you had clearly intended the dispute of this point whether we are to believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the Authoritie of the Church and so consequently or causally all to be believed for the Church you should have made this the state of the main question But now you say when by the infalible Authoritie of the Church we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are clearly contained in Scripture And do you not go lesse now Do but compare the quantities of your assertions before all things to be believed upon and for the proposall of the Church now some things may be believed for the Scripture which are plainly contained in it And the Church and the Scripture are in our case opposed so then if first all is to be believed by the Authoritie of the Church and now some things clearly contained may be believed upon Scripture then do you not onely abate but contradict your self in effect for it will come to this all is to be believed upon the proposal of the Church somwhat may be believed not upon the proposal of the Church but of Scripture For when we are assured you say that the Scripture is the word of God we may believe such things as are plainly contained in Scripture then we are to believe it upon the account of the word of God And your Church can have no higher Authoritie surely than God's word for it Therefore if you say we are to believe what is plainly contained in Scripture when we are assured by the Church that it is the word of God for the authoritie of the Church then I pray tell me why we should believe the Church if not for the word of God Again to consider these words of yours if we must be assured by infalible Authority of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before we can believe what is plainly contained therein then either one of us must yeild upon the case of the infalibilitie of the Church or else nothing plainly contained in Scripture can be by your opinion believed But you think that some things are plainly set down in Scripture though elsewhere you would conclude as if all things in Scripture were obscure and so you now also abate in this and herein we both agree and we think the Church's Authority is not infalible wherein we differ from you Now which think you in reason should yeild you or we One would think you should yeild rather since we can prove that whatsoever is contained in Scripture is to be believed without the Authoritie of the Church and you cannot prove the Authority of the Church to be plainly contained in Scripture yea must yet believe upon your principles the infalible Authority of the Church before you can believe it though plainly contained in Scripture because you must first be assured by the infalible Authoritie of the Church that the Scripture is the word of God before you do believe what is contained in Scripture And again thirdly we are assured that the Scripture is the word of God why may not we then have leave to believe things plainly contained in Scripture Certa sunt in paucis as Tertullian saith We say certain necessary truths are not so many Why are not we then well grounded in Religion surely in your account because we do not go to divine faith by your infalible Church Even as the death of Remus it was ordained by Romulus that whosoever went over the trench at the building of Rome any other than the ordinary way should be put to death so Zâ—n 2. An. because we do not go the ordinarie Roman way to the building of us in our most holy faith we must die for ever As if our faith were not true Divine faith because it is not implicit by the Church Which is as much as to say the obedience of faith is not good because it is not blind And this is as much as to say we do not see because we do not see And therefore fourthly since as hath been shewed the authority of the Church is resolved into Scripture and since you have confessed that we may admit the Scriptures to be the word of God and yet may need to be assured of the Authoritie of the Church your apologie for your self in this paragraph must needs be insufficient In the sixth Par. You begin with taking notice of my character of my self to be one of the slender sons of the Church of England whether so or whether he hath shewed that Treatise of mine to be no demonstration Let the indefferent reader after the due pondering the force of all Arguments determine Sir I dare not alter my small opinion of my self And therefore the consideration of such matters should have dropped from a judicious head into a learned pen. And if your demonstration as you call it be indeed such as doth merit the terme you have proved me to be no better than my word And if I prove it to be no demonstration I do not yet falsifie what I said of my self For I shall impute the cause of it to our cause the weakest hand may defend our cause the strongest cannot defend yours To passe this you go on Sure I am that this is no Demonstration which you adde the Scripture is infalible but the Church is not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture Ans But you leave out the scope of this Argumentation and the formalitie of the conclusion You spake of as clear a Demonstration as any wise man can hope for in this matter I told you it was hard to say who does optimum quod sic Well but then I wished you to put it to the test and to try the debate of it by this rule of wisdome and
conscience tene quod certum est relinque quod incertum hold that which is certain leave that which is uncertain it is certain that the Scripture is infalible and you confesse it it is not certain that the Church is infalible and I deny it Which then should you take to be the rule and ground and cause of faith So I in my last But you leave out all notice of my disputing this with you in point of wisdome and cut off your own confession and would have me to make this a Demonstration absolutely in point of truth You do wisely to shuffle it off since you cannot well bear the dint of it in the way of discourse ad hominem And yet also is it necessarily certain that if our grounds be more certain then your's are not because they are contradictorie But you making it to be in my account an absolute Demonstration answer first the Scripture connot be proved to be the word of God without the Church be infalible as I shall shew ch 8. But this was not now the particular question I disputed upon your own concession And therefore this is nothing to my Argument Apply your answers to my proceeding with you upon your account of prudence And then secondly Though it be not a Demonstration that the Scripture is infalible the Church not therefore I must take for my ground the Scripture yet it concludes upon advantage for though the Church were infalible in the testimony of the Scripture to be the word of God yet the Scripture were to be the immediate ground of all necessary points Thirdly Neither doth it contradict my assertions that the Church is not the rule and cause of faith though it were infalible in this Testimony for if it were infalible in this yet would it not follow it should be infalible in all as I have told you and you have not answered me yet And then Fourthly The Scripture may appeare to be the word of God though the Church be not infalible as will be shewed in answer to you And therefore all you say upon this hence followeth secondly that the Church must have infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weightie Article of our faith that all the Scripture is the word of God and therefore upon her Authority I believe the Scripture to be most infalible yet because I ground this belief upon her Authoritie her Authoritie is yet the last ground of faith I say all this hath no sound discourse and will come 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even into nothing upon the two last answers first because if from hence I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God yet am I not therefore ex vi consequentiae bound to hold the Church the last ground of faith in all things for it plainly concludes a dicto secundum quid We can hold that the Generall Councell may be infalible in points necessary though not in all points whatsoever although you must hold infalibilitie in all or none because you say all is delivered by the Church upon her Authority equally without respect to the matter And then secondly upon the last answer which was the fourth we shall cashiere all that is said here for that it will appear that the Scripture is the word of God without the Churches Authoritie for the corroboration of the Title And so there needs not the infalibilitie sufficient to support this most weighty Article of faith that all the Scripture is the word of God â—um 7. And whereas in your next number you promise such souls as have forsaken an infalible Church an happy eternity upon this ground that those things which are necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture I pray God their Soules come not to be required at your hands Ans I am beholding to my Adversary for his good wishes that I may not answer for other mens souls But if he takes here forsaken formally and an infalible Church really so not accounted only to be so by him I deny it that we have so forsaken such a Church for neither is it infalible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and besides they have rather forsaken us and the whole Church in pretending infalibilitie to themselves and Domination over all that will be true Christians No particular Church can be bound to another more than as it doth comply with the Catholick Church now then if any do leave the Catholick as the Roman hath done we cannot join with them wherein they leave the Catholick either in point of faith or discipline If we are to give respect to a particular Church as an actuall part of the whole then where it separates we must follow the whole A turpis est omnis pars universo suo non congruens And yet they first made the actuall Schism when the Popes Bull prohibited communion with us So then take forsaken rightly and an infalible Church really we deny the charge Take them otherwise we denie the consequence of danger But my Adversarie would prove our ground to be groundless first because no Soul can have infalible assurance of the Scriptures being the true word of God if the Church be not infalible c. Whereof you promise more Num. 20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Ans This we have had so often without proof that it is to no purpose to say any thing to words for Arguments Scaurus negat as Alphonsus de Castro opposeth his adversary Yea also you refer me here for proof in the third ch Your conclusion is here your proof there so far is your conclusion from proof Premisses were wont to be before the Conclusion but your opinion is already shewed vaine as touching the ground of your certainty and your vanity of my opinion I shall refute when you shew it And so you serve me for the second respect wherein you say my ground is groundlesse for you say it is manifestly false that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture as you shew ch 3. Your conclusion here that it is manifestly salse c. I believe will be too large for your Arguments as it is now too soon We follow your order as having nothing to do untill you begin In your eighth Par. You say I find nothing in the next Par. which I have not here answered Onely you still force me to say again I would have every one to know that the Roman Church doth oblige to no more than to believe that the Pope defining with a lawfull Councell cannot erre what proceedeth from this Authority we professe to proceed from the Authority of the Church When the Church diffused admitteth these definitions her consent is yet more apparent You say you find nothing in it which here you have not answered And what can I finde here but that you say Only you force me to say again Here is some ingenuitie that you seem not to love to swell your papers with repetitions Therefore prove it once say it no more Quid
is not this way Suppose God had promised the Kingdome of France a Monarchy Ergo the Kingdome of France say you is no Monarchy The true consequence is the Kingdome of France is this Monarchy Ans I am not displeased with mine own Argument if there can be no more said against it than is here I know no difference betwixt a King and a Monarch sufficient to ground a distinction and in the new Testament the greek word which signifies a King is usually applied to the expressing of Emperors And therefore if God had promised the Kingdom of France a Monarchy he should have promised it it self And so if God had promised the Church to be this way he should have promised it it self I had thought that as the object of the thing in humane speculation is before the act speculative so the object of person had been considered before acts practick otherwise the object of the person and the object of the thing do not differ Thus if the promise of this way to the Church be the promise of the Church its being this way then the terminus rei and the terminus personae is all one Therefore must this way be distinguished from the Church otherwise the Church hath nothing promised And how can this way be predicated of the Church in such a proposition the Church is this way when according to your principles the Church must have its existence by this way before it can be this way And so must have its being before its cause which amounts to a contradiction that it should be and not be for it must be before it is Yea if the Church is to be supposed before it be the way and yet is to have its consistence by this way this is to make that which is to be which also makes that which is not to be because it must not be before it be Yet he goes on The Church is this way which God promised it should be But to whom did he promise it To singulars before they are aggregated in the unity of a Church Then the singulars yet must be a Church before they be a Church because this way was promised you say to the Church If the diffused Church be the object of the promise to whom it is made then again how were the Christians without faith Or how had they faith without a Representative which is the way promised as he supposeth Yet again and it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way and is with his Church ruling it until the consummation of the world And so Christ is regula regulans and the Church regula regulata So thâ—n at length my Adversary is come to my distinction onely he will not apply it as I did I said the Scripture is regula regulans the Church is regula regulata he saies now that Christ is regula regulans the Church is regula regulata So that in part he is come over to us in that he says the Church is the rule ruled and he or any other could hardly overcome us in the other that Christ should be the rule ruling and not by the Scripture Christ doth not now rule us immediately but by the Spirit and therefore is he said to be the Spirit of Christ neither doth the Spirit rule us immediately but by the word which the Spirit of Christ did inspire the Pen-men of Scripture in to this purpose So it remains that the Scripture is the word of Christ by his Spirit And by this word which was first delivered by his Spirit is Christ the way He is the way of merit by his death He is the way of example by his life He is the way of precept and direction by his word If he divides the word from the Spirit he makes it not the word of God if he divides the Spirit from the word so that the Spirit should direct beside the word he runs into Enthusiasmes The Spirit hath it selfe to the word as the Dictator the Apostles have themselves and the Prophets to the word as the Pen-men The word hath it self to us as the rule which from God through Christ by his Spirit in the Pen-men of Scripture is to direct us unto our Supernaturall end Therefore saith St. Paul let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisedome Colos 3.16 To conclude then this Answer since Christ is now confessed to be the rule ruling he is the rule ruling either by his Church or by his word If by his Church as my Adversary how is this Church to be ruled since this is the rule ruled By his Spirit they will say well but how In a Councell they will say confirmed by the Pope But for the first three hundred yeares their was no Councill nor Pope in their sence for more How then Then by his Spirit causally in the word according to which the Arch-Bishop of Collen resolved to reform his Church for which he was cited before the Emperour and excomunicated afterwards by the Pope in the yeare 1546. But being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the word of God and you may well follow such a Guide with blinde obedience So my Antagonist goes on upon the Church Ans To this passage much may be said First that the former words are wisely put together si non caste tamen caute For there is a reserve of sense in which they are true namely in sensu composito whilst it is ruled by Christ there is not the least danger of swerving from the word of God but it is yet to be proved that it will always be ruled by Christ Make this sure and we have done But if it had always been ruled by Christ it would not have violated his institution of Communion under both kinds Put this then into a forme of discourse that which is ruled by Christ doth not swerve from his word the Church of Rome is ruled by Christ therefore and we limit the major so far as it is ruled by Christ it doth not swerve from the word it is not true that it never swerves unlesse it be true that it is always ruled by Christ but then we deny the Assumption for it is not always ruled by Christ 2. We note here that the rule Christ rules us by is his word for so it is said here being ruled by Christ it will not swerve from his word So then by his own words Christ's adequate rule is his word otherwise we might be ruled by him and yet swerve from his word And also consequently if we follow his word we follow him And those that do not follow his word do not follow him Thirdly we must differ with him upon the point of blinde obedience therefore whereas he saies you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedience we say absolutely blind obedience is not rationall it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any sense and then we say
blessing may be like to pitch upon that true sense of Scripture which may determine the judgement unto certain assent As by the conflict of hard things sparkes of fire do break out so by the industrious discussion of opinions truth may appear eminently But we cannot conclude the definitions intuitively and ipso facto infallible And why should we be obliged to stand to their declaration of truth as if they did also make it to be truth And why should we stand to their Conclusions when their discourse is fallible unlesse they go by Scripture And if they by Scripture examine opinions why should not we by Scripture examine their definitions as to our selves Which should be last in the determination Council or Scripture when Councils begin by it and determine with it Therefore I do not make them in no sense finall or none That which follows Now surely it is cleare c. unto the end of the number how little strength of reason hath it This in effect was answered immediately before My Adversary does us right in confessing our acknowledgement of the first four Generall Councils And also may we confesse that we think they thought they had all plenitude of power and authority from God to define and finally to determine those Controversies but what then 1. What if they thought so We have liberty by our principles to think that inconcludent because we hold them not infallible in their judgement Not because they thought they had such power therefore they had it unlesse we should hold them infallible as we do not Neither is this thought of ours that they might think amiss of such power to be in them any prejudice to our acknowledgement of those first four General Councils because this opinion of theirs is no part of their determinations Secondly we distinguish All plenitude of power is taken either reduplicatively or specificatively for all that power which belongs to the whole Church the former if their opinion of themselves were infallible would serve his turne but we deny that they thought they had all power so and if they did think so we think they did not think right the latter power they might think they had and not think amisse but this serves not the turn for all authority of the Church doth not bind us to receive the definitions thereof so as to sink all examination of the truth thereof by Scripture Have not other courts a plenitude of power to hear and determine causes and yet are sometimes defective in point of law Their fallibility doth not proceed from want of power or authoritie but from want of judgement or will to give a right sentence And yet their censures also proceed And therefore the excommunications which my Adversary objects to me may neither import their faith of their infallibilitie nor yet wrong to all such as should gainsay what they had defined and determined if error and falsitie and contradiction to Scripture could be found in their definitions and determinations for first it is not fallibilitie of sentence that doth the wrong but falsity either by ignorance and so ignorantia in Judice reputatur pro dolo or else by wilfulnesse which formally makes the injurie because intended Secondly the excommunications proceed against the person for an outward act of obstinacie and not for a dissent of judgment for cogitationis poenam in nostro foro nemo luit so then there is no wrong to him that gainsays by excommunication for that simply he might keep his judgment And also thirdly the Judge though he judgeth not well yet may do well if he judgeth with competent knowledge and due integrity and therefore is it no injury if he does his best since God hath not thought fit on the behalfe of publick peace to disannull humane Judicatures for humane infirmities His Answer to my instance of the Bereans who searched the Scripture daily to see whether that which St. Paul said was true my Adversary doth referre to another Chapter We stay his leisure Whereas you adde fourthly Num. 6. that the decisions of the Church though unprovided of infallibilitie do yet oblige unto peace though their judgement cannot claime an undisputed assent yet the power they have from Christ doth require an undisturbance in the difference you teach by words what the deed of your glorious Reformers have notoriously gainsaid To this it is readily answered that Reformers may be glorious as to the generall effect though it 's possible for them to be extravagant in modo Sober businesses may be managed with too much heate Secondly whereas he supposeth that our glorious Reformers did notoriously gainsay the whole Church I deny it and if they did not gainesay the whole Church it doth not come home to his purpose for he is upon the authority of the whole Church They did gainsay the Roman Church but not the whole Church That which St. Jerom said in his Epistle to Evagrius is yet for our use si authoritas queritur orbis major est urbe if authority be lookt after the world is greater than a City which was also spoken in application to Rome And put case there were no sort of Christians that did not professe obedience to the Roman Church when those glorious Reformers did first appeare yet it cannot be rationally said by the Romanist that they did gainsay the whole Church because the Romanist doth take the root of his Church from the primitive times which those Reformers did not gainsay So then as we deny to them that they were all the whole Church when the Reformers did begin so if they had it would be nothing as to the gainsaying of the whole Church because the whole Church in their sence doth include all times and specially the primitive which they did not contradict And surely if the Romanist proves his Church by conformitie to the Primitive otherwise he hath the lesse reason for himself then must he interpretatively grant that there is more authority of the Primitive Church than of that present Roman And so then if the Reformers gainsaid not the primitive they gainsaid not the Catholick in the best part of it for time and that also which the present Roman doth most as they say depend upon Thirdly therefore we do not take our Religion from those Reformers as being worne into their words and therefore we do not impropriate Christianity by any singular persons we might take hints from them to consider those Doctrines which they preached and conferring them with Antiquity and Scripture we believe them to be Apostolicall and so is our Church by Tertullian's rule in his book of Prescriptions ch 32. In eadem fide conspirantes non minus Apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate Doctrinae those Churches that conspire in the faith are not lesse accounted Apostolical for the consanguinity of Doctrine Fourthly those Reformers even according to my Adversaries Principles did not oppose themselves to the authoritie of the whole Church because according to
him the authority of the Church is onely binding in a Council with the Popes consent and no Generall Council can be found which did establish the points of Doctrine and Discipline wherein we differ before those Reformers did shew themselves for the Trent Councill which also is not a generall Council was after their beginning as is known and it was called upon their occasion Fifthly as for our Reformation in England from the incroachments of the Court of Rome it was first made by men of the Roman faith So then my Adversary gets nought by this exception And if the Romanists object to us reformation in Doctrine against the Church as in the time of King Edward the sixth we reply as before that we did not oppose the Church Catholick we left the Roman as they left the Catholick Church The whole is greater than the part and therefore had we reason to leave them Omne reducitur ad principium which is a rule of Aquinas We are in Doctrine as the Church was in the times of the Apostles Our defence is in Tertullian in his book of Praesor 35. ch Posterior nostra res non est imo omnibus prior est c. Our cause is not more moderne but more antient than all This shall be the Testimony of truth every where obtaining the superiority Ab Apostolis utique non damnatur imo defenditur it is not condemned by the Apostles nay it is defended This shall be the indication of propriety for those who do not condemne it who have condemned whatsoever is extraneous do shew it to be theirs and therefore do defend it The second inconvenience which he urgeth of my Principles to draw me to his is none Secondly seeing that a Generall Council as you in your first paper confesse is the highest Court on earth to hear and determine controversies c. What then unlesse all were bound to confirme and subscribe to erroneous definitions and all Preachers were silenced and obliged not to open their mouths against their errors This he attributes to me as if I said it or my opinion did inferre it whereas neither is true Nay nor did he find in my papers that erroneous definitions of a Generall Council though the highest Court are to be accepted peaceably reverently and without disturbance namely so as to accept them in assent as true for that would be impossible they may be accepted and reverently and without disturbance as to peace in not opposing though not as to faith in submission of Judgement and because they may thus be accepted will it therefore follow that we are therefore bound to confirme and subscribe to erroneous definitions By no meanes I do not remember that I used the terme of accepting and yet if I did it might be construed in sensu commodo so as not to disturb the peace of the Church and quietly to endure the censure But there is a vast difference betwixt not opposing and conforming or subscribing For not to oppose is negative to conforme or subscribe is a positive act Not to oppose respects the definition as a publick act to conforme or subscribe respects it as true which I cannot do supposing it erroneous Not to oppose regards the Judgement of the Church as authoritative to conforme or subscribe regards the judgement of the Church as at least not erring in the definition And as for that he saies that by my confession all Preachers are silenced and obliged not to open their mouths against these errors I answer first by distinguishing of the matter of the error If the matter of the error be not great as not destroying an article of faith it might be better quietly to tollerate it than publickly to speak against it if the matter of the error be repugnant to an article of faith then we distinguish of the manner of speaking against it and we say we may soberly refer it to another general Council if any be in view If not we may speak the truth positively without opposition to the authoritie of the Church so as to vilify or contemn it Yea further if the Council be free and general it being so qualified it is not like to erre in any decree repugnant to a main article of faith and therefore the question about speaking against it is in this case well taken away And yet further admitting and not granting that such a Council should erre in defining that which is contrary to an article of faith yet must my Adversary have supposed by his principles that the truth contrary to this error hath been established by some other general Council or else according to him the Church hath not sufficiently provided how to settle us infallibly in matters of faith since according to him we must resolve our faith ultimately in the Decrees of Generall Councils and then Council will contradict Council and therefore will not a Council be a ground of faith because one may contradict another and also we may speak by vertue of the former Council against the error of the latter And therefore the whole Church of God is not in a pitifull case by any thing of what I said in reverence to Councils without absolute obedience But to be sure the Church would be in a pitifull case if indeed we were bound to receive intuitively all definitions of Councils in whatsoever matters for then should we be bound to submit our conscience to a Council against our conscience since it is not yet proved infallible and this makes for the inward act a contradiction for the outward hypocrisie And surely if that which is most hard is most easily broken as was said by one in the Trent Council then that he urgeth is easily answered for there is to be sure lesse danger in not speaking against that which is false as he would have me say than in yielding to all as infallibly true as he would have me believe And therefore that which follows returnes with more force upon my Adversary mutatis mutandis A pitifull thing it would be if the Church were bound to believe all definitions of a Council which are not yet proved nor ever will be not to be fallible and consequently some that may be false which being by command from the highest authoritie upon earth preached by so many and not so much as to be consiwered by one would needs increase to a wonderfull height Would any wise Law-maker proceed thus if they could helpe it as well as Christ could by continuing in his word written that infallibilitie which my Adversary hath confessed or must that it always had and shall have As for the infallibility of the Church for two thousand yeares before Scripture was written and that which this Church of Christ had before all the whole canon of the new Testament was finished which was for the first forty yeares of the Church This we have spoken to sufficiently before And this doth at most inferre upon a supposition that the Church was for
thirdly I can charge the Council of Trent with contradictions to it self and the Trent Council was a generall Council in the opinion of my Adversary therefore that grace is voluntarily received is their opinion and that yet we cannot know whether we are in state of grace includes a contradiction as if we did not know our own will what it does This absurdity was urged by Catharinus in the Trent Council Again not to speak of some of them who had voted the Edition vulgar to be authentick and yet did except against the interpretation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for sin pardoned in the History of the Council p. 207 there is a contradiction noted by the German Divines in the sixth session the seventh ch Where it is said of justice which every one receives according to his measure quam Spiritus Sanctus partitur singulis prout vult et secundum propriam cujusque dispositionem et cooperationem Which the Holy Ghost doth impart as he will and according to every ones disposition and cooperation If according to his will then not according to our disposition for then it is not as he will And so in the thirteenth session in the first ch it is said of the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus which although we can scarce expresse in words and yet in the fourth ch it is called of the Holy Catholick Church Transubstantiation convenienter et proprie appositly and properly And in the second Canon of the same session it saith of Transubstantiation quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime Transubstantiationem apellat which the Catholick Church cals most fitly Transubstantiation Was the Council of Trent infallibly assisted or assisted with infallibility in these contradictions and yet it may be these not all Num. 9. But number the ninth will make an end of our cause if a Rodomontado of my Adversary could do the deed Thus And when you ask again why you are charged as if you were opposed to the true Catholick Church I answer Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church and consequently he had such a Church when your Reformation as you call it began But at this your Reformation you did oppose in very many and important points of Doctrine not onely the Roman but all other Churches upon earth Therefore without doubt you opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points And in plain English I tell you this Argument which is in lawfull form is unanswerable Ans So then But is this Achilles Is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Alas if we come near him it is but bombast First we deny it in the lawfulnesse of the forme which he asserts for it is concluding in the second figure affirmatively and in this regard onely it is unanswerable for it is not to be answered for want of forme But yet secondly lest they should think it is unanswerable in the matter we answer to the major first by distinguishing if he takes the true Catholick Church as in the Apostles Creed he commits an equivocation for so it cannot be taken in the minor because we have in the minor the Roman Church and other Churches now the Roman is a visible Church he means and so he means the other Churches to be visible for we cannot properly oppose he will think any but visible Churches but in the Creed is meant the Church invisible which is the object of faith If he takes it for the true Catholick Church visible as always perspicuous and flourishing in visibility in all the parts of it it is denied that the Church Catholick is so visible and therefore we deny the major and need not say any thing to the minor and yet also we deny the minor because if it were not so visible we could not be said to oppose it And he cannot prove that we opposed all other Churches because they were not in his sense visible and therefore how can he say that we opposed all other Churches since if they were visible in the parts to some that were Neighbors yet not visible to the world generally Was the Church lesse the Church in the Primitive times when it wanted candles to be seen in the night or the seven thousand which Elijah did not know of lesse belonging to the Church of the Jews because they did not openly professe the true Religion How then can it be said rationally that we opposed all Churches for how could he or any one man under Heaven know all the Churches of the world then Yea thirdly in how many and important points did the Reformers oppose the Greek Church and the Waldenses who as the Author of the History of the Trent Council sayes had forsaken the Church of Rome then four hundred years before in his fifth book Yea fourthly the major proposition supposeth for all times and places doth it not for so the Catholick Church is properly taken as including all times and places and so we deny the minor we did not oppose all Churches of all times Dato non concesso that we did at the Reformation oppose not onely the Roman but all other Churches yet did we not oppose all Churches or the Roman of the Primitive times and therefore did we not oppose the Catholick Church Yea yet fifthly we distinguish dissent from opposition Although opposition includes a difference yet every difference doth not include an opposition for then St. Cyprian had opposed the Church in differing from it upon the point of Rebaptization And if it be said that the point of Rebaptization was not then defined by the Church we say that yet this consideration doth not make every difference to have in it the nature of opposition for then though St. Cyprian had not opposed the authority of a Church in a Council yet had he opposed the authoritie of the Church which then did bind him more than the Trent Council doth us And that St. Cyprian did so oppose the Church was not then held by the Church Catholick Sixthly to return the Argument upon them Christ had in all ages a true Catholick Church and consequently he had such a Church when their deformation went on in the Trent Council but they then in very many and important points of Doctrine did oppose all true Catholicks therefore without doubt they opposed the truly Catholick Church in very many and important points as in communion under one kind in Transubstantiation in Purgatorie in the merit of works in seven Sacraments of proper name in invocation and religious worship of the Saints in Images Yea the Roman Church hath more formally opposed the whole Church because in the Trent Council it would have the Roman Church to be the Catholick which supposeth that all Christians must strike sail to them or else they are sunke Seventhly we tell him wherein the Romanist hath divided from the whole Church but he doth not tell us
the right state of the question All these things he says are necessary to a Church as a Community To follow him again we say first that we deny that all these things are absolutely necessary to a Church as a community for severall Churches have differed from one another in some of them as in Fasts and in the keeping of Easter and in forms of Prayer for as for the Liturgies they talk of they are filii populi Secondly though necessary to a Church yet not simply necessary to salvation Thirdly some of them may be necessary to a Church visible not necessary to the Church as invisible but he tampers about the change of the state of the question to make what is necessary to salvation to be necessary to a Church as visible and whatsoever is necessary to a Church as visible to be necessary to salvation which cannot be true For as for that that there is no salvation to be had out of the Church according to that of St. Cyprian in his Tract de simplicitate Prelatorum Habere non potest Deum Patrem qui Ecclesiam non habet Matrem yet this is to be understood of those that are desertors of the Church as is to be seen there by the comparation of antecedents and consequents and the whole scope of the Tract And therefore simply what is necessary to a Church visible is not necessary to salvation because without contradiction to the Father it may be possible to have salvation without the Church And therefore may I conclude that my Adversary did not well comply with his promise of stating this question a little more fully and distinctly And yet there is not one of all these things plainly set down in Scripture whence very many and very important differences be amongst Christians Ans All he says is not true For the Sacraments are plainly enough set down in Scripture for all that is therein essentiall and necessary Then secondly the Argument is not concluding these things are not plainly set down in Scripture therefore very many and very important differences amongst Christians For first the unplainesse of them in Scripture is no efficient cause thereof for they might in those things give every one their liberty in their particular Churches as St. Cyprian doth plainly shew us in his second B. first Ep. where having spoken of some who did hold those things which they did once take up he speaks notwithstanding sed salvo inter Collegas pacis et Concordiae vinculo quaedam propria quae apud se semel sunt usurpata retinere quae in re nec nos cuiquam facimus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae administrationis voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum unusquisquae praepositus rationem actus sui Domino redituras So he Therefore may they not all practise the same thing and yet there be no morall difference if negative differences not positive contentions if some yet not many if many yet not important in point of salvation because each Bishop in his Church hath free power to establish what he thinks fit And what Generall Council hath bound the universall Church in all these particularities Yea again the unplainess of these things in Scripture is not the causa sine quae non of these differences for there are differences with the Roman Church against others even in some things which are plainly set down in Scripture as in point of justification against Images to be worshipped against half Communion and generally the differences betwixt us And indeed what is there so plain about which some have not differed And then again how is this mended by a Council Not by their Council of Trent because in their Decrees the sense is not plain Therefore let them find better provision than God hath made directly in Scripture before they find fault with Gods direction as to those things which are important unto salvation for otherwise the term is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is beside the state of the question Nextly he objects the differences amongst us about Bishops with such and such a power and authority and that without them you can have no true Priests or Deacons and without these no true Sacraments things so necessary to the salvation of all men Ans This is a question belonging rather to the Church than to salvation and therefore we need not say any more to it Yet secondly the differences amongst us are for the most part stirred upon the occasion of the Bishop of Rome and therefore the Pontificians have no cause to impute to us as a fault the disagreement of Protestants in this point because it ariseth in great part from the domination of the Bishop of Rome They thought by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they could never sufficiently gainsay the Roman Bishop but by cashiering the whole genus and therefore to make all sure they denied all Bishops since the Argument is good a negatione generis ad negationem speciei if no Bishop then not universal Indeed here they erred if they thought that the position of Bishops did inferr the universall for it doth not follow a positione generis ad positionem speciei determinatae and therefore they might have Bishops and not him Yea the holding of Bishops by Divine right is as like a mean to destroy the Pope's authority as any other And to this purpose was it so holty disputed in the Trent Council and some lost their favor with the Pope for being eager in the affirmative And in the promotion of Cardinals at the end of the Synod the Pope professed he would passe by those who had stood for Residence and Bishops to be jure Divino For this institution of them by Divine right made them not to depend upon the Pope which would weaken his authority And therefore as to the Controversie about Bishops whether we derive them and their authority from Scripture my Adversary might have done well to have said nothing since if it be necessary to be determined clearly then the Trent Council is to be blamed for not determining it If it be not necessary then why doth he put it in amongst necessary questions To this therefore we say no more than thus Had there not been Bishops there would not have been a Pope and therefore is this an argument that there were Bishops in the Antient Church for how otherwise could there have been a Bishop universall so also had there not been a Pope there would have been lesse contention about Bishops as appears by this that if Petrus Balma who was the last Bishop of Geneva would have turned Protestant he might have continued Bishop As for no true Sacraments without Priests and Deacons we say if he takes Priests in a proper sense we deny that there is now any such to be because there is now no reall externall sacrifice If he takes it in the Analogicall sense we have no reason to doubt of true Priests being rightly ordained And for
down in Scripture For though we have not the formall and materiall number of things distinctly to be believed yet all that is distinctly to be believed may be plainly set down there And therefore if we believe them we believe sufficiently Therefore if he takes the terme distinctly in this sense that we must necessarily know that this is one of the points necessary to be believed we deny it of every point that is necessary although we may say so of some as that Jesus is the Christ because in Scripture salvation is denied any other way as Acts. 4.12 If he takes the term as signifying that some things are actually and explicitly to be believed we grant it but the consequence so is not valid Secondly this returnes upon them and therefore should they not have moved this stone For where have they set down a list of all those things which by every of them are necessary to be believed distinctly in contradistinction to their implicit faith And if they say that they are ready distinctly to believe whatsoever is proposed by the Church so we say that we are also ready to believe whatsoever shall be sufficiently proposed out of Scripture And sure we have as good cause for an implicit faith as to Scripture as they have as to the Church And if Mr. Knot 's judgement be the sense of the Roman Church there is but one fundamentall point of them actually and distinctly to be believed in which are comprised all points by us taught to be necessary to salvation in these words we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever the Catholick visible Church of Christ proposeth as revealed by Almighty God If any be of another mind all Catholicks denounce him to be no Catholick So he And therefore why do they urge a particular and Inventory of all points distinctly to be believed when they content themselves with one Generall If the Church must be proved by Scripture as formerly we have shewed and according to St. Austin then one generall comprehensive point might more reasonably be sufficient for us and that is this we are obliged under pain of damnation to believe whatsoever plainly appeares to be revealed by Almighty God in Scripture But yet we do not content our selves thus for we say all points necessary are distinctly to be believed and they may distinctly be believed because they are plainly delivered more plainly than the Decrees of Councils at least the Trent Council And he that says he is bound to believe all that is contained in Scripture when clearly proposed to him as such by consequent is ready to embrace all points necessary because they are plainly delivered Therefore indeed is our opinion more agreeable to a distinct account of what is to be expressely believed than theirs because we make a distinction in point of credibility by the matter saying that some things are plainly proposed because necessary to be believed though all things are necessary to be believed when plainly proposed The former sort whereof requires absolute belief the latter conditionate to the competent appearance of them to be such as God hath shewed to come from him by revelation He proceeds Every one is bound not to work upon the Sunday Every one is bound not to have two Wives at one time Not also to marry within such or such a degree of Consanguinitie Where are all these things plainly set down in Scripture Ans Some things are neither de fide nor de verbo fidei as that the Bishop of Rome is the universall Bishop of the Church Some things are de verbo fidei yet not de fide in propriety of phrase as necessary in the matter as namely historicall truths as that Jesus rode to Jerusalem Some things are de verbo fidei and de fide also as that Jesus is the Christ that whosoever believeth shall be saved The question now betwixt us is of the last kind whether Scripture with sufficient clearnesse sets down all those things which are de fide in this sense So that my Adversary was to prove that these particulars are so necessary to be believed that no man who doth not believe them distinctly can be saved And while he saith so that they are such and doth not prove them we need say no more than that he doth not prove them Asserentis est probare And I am not to answer unto words but Arguments Yet secondly these are sufficiently knowable by Scripture the first by the equity of the fourth Commandement and the intimations thereof in the new Testament The second by God's own institution in state of innocency and by the first Ep. to the Cor. 7.2 But for fornication let every man have his own wife 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet if they will hold that this is one of the practick credibles in the foresaid necessity they doe endanger the condition of those Jews who had more wives And also they will incurre the danger of being engaged to answer for that Pope who as before gave liberty to take another wife And for the third it is sufficiently declared as to the necessity of knowledge and practice in Levit. 18. And if to the knowledge what is to be done in these we are so strictly obliged by the law of God as that if we misse a degree we are damned it must also be made as clear as whatsoever is necessary that the law of God hath given unto the Pope a faculty and power of dispensing as to Mariages within those degrees If the law of God hath not made these cases of Mariage as plain as is necessary for those who are not so studious to know the utmost of their liberty as to resolve a negative of practice upon any appearance to the contrary then the law of God must as clearly as to exclude doubt shew unto us that infallible directory whereby we may come exactly to the knowledge of what is to be done herein And if this can be made to appear why is it not Num. 5. Other endlesse difficulties be superadded by those other words plainly set down and first to prove a point plainly set down in Scripture so that I infallibly know the undoubted true sense of it I must first know such a book to be the true and undoubted word of God which as I shall shew num 20. cannot be known by Scripture This we have taken away before so far as it concerns the present dispute and we are like to meet with it again it seems and no sober Christian before he had proved an infallible Propounder of every truth to be believed would have raised this scruple But intellectus currit cum praxi as the Romanist said religion must be accommodated for their use To this more upon the place It cannot be known at least by those who can truely swear that they are no more able by the reading of the book of Numbers for example to discover in it any Divine light
shewing it to be true Scripture more than they discover in the books of Judith and Tobit shewing them to be true Scripture Ans My Adversary here was very bold to bring into equall compare the books of Judith and Tobit with the book of Numbers one book of the Pentateuch as to the Autopisty thereof But the Jews who say that every letter of Scripture makes a mountain of sense could see more in the book of Numbers than in those Apocryphal books Therefore if we would resolve the acceptance of one and the refusall of the other into a reason of both and ask why the Jew acknowledged the book of Numbers not the other we must find that the acceptance of the one and the disacceptance of the other cannot fall into the account of the Jewish Church its authority because the question will rebound why the Jewish Church did authorize one and not the other And therefore my Adversary gets nothing by this objection for the Church cannot be the reason of the approbation of the one and the preterition of the other because this difference made by the Church must be determined by a judicious act upon good cause For do they dream that the Church hath an arbitrary power to receive one book and to expunge another out of the Canon Did they not excercise in it a judgement of discretion Now he that discernes sees betwixt two and sees cause why one should be taken the other left Every elective act casts the ballance upon more weight And therefore must we not take the recension of books canonicall from the power of the Church And then again secondly this availes not the Roman Church because if the discerning of books canonicall did autocratorically depend upon the Church its declaration yet as it is noted not upon a particular Church 〈◊〉 the universall Church for time and place 〈…〉 the books of Tobit and Judith are 〈◊〉 numbred as Canonicall amongst the rest by the Canon of the Apostles as Caranza sets them out And therefore they saw nothing in them for their reception and yet did in others And if it belongs to the Church authoritatively to declare what books are Canonicall yet cannot the Church have authority to declare more than the Apostles constituted if they take those Canons to be Canons of the Apostles for otherwise they must challenge a power to the Church not only of declaring what is Canonicall but also of making it such which is more than their great Doctors dare affirm And if they will still plead those books Canonicall let them answer it to St. Jerom and St. Cyrill of Jerusalem and to the rest whom they think not to have differed from the Church and yet have differed from them in this But those who will swear no difference we may say are not willing to see it Secondly they must infallibly shew that this very verse in which I find this point is not thrust in amongst other true parts of Scripture or some word changing the sense either thrust in or left out in this verse and this they must know infallibly Ans Again I must say that we are upon the supposall of Scripture and therefore this should not be called into question which is the subject but this for more tediousnesse must be brought in upon all occasions or none But for the uncorruptednes of the text if they will not believe me let them believe Bellarmin as before who denies any substantiall corruption but then again we are as sure as they for we have for it all the authority the Church hath if it be infallible we have it Again the Scripture is corrupted or not If so then by the Roman Church or by some other Not by the Roman Church they will say then by some other is it corrupted If by any other then first how well have they been keepers of Canonicall truth and how then shall we trust them Secondly if corrupted then how do they know that those texts which are produced for them are not corrupted If by the Church they know them not to be corrupted this is the question which is to be proved and therefore cannot yet prove it For as they say we cannot know the Scripture to be infallible by the Scripture so neither can we know infallibly the Church to be infallible by the Church Though it were infallible yet this must be also known infallibly according to my Adversaries argument Indeed if the word of God did leave witnesse to its infallibility then we are satisfied but if the texts of Scripture be corrupted how shall I be sure whether those they make use of be not corrupted Therefore had they best for ever close their mouths against any corruption of Scripture untill they can sufficiently prove that the authority of the Church is principium primo primum in Divinity For the testimony of the Church cannot exceed of it self its genus It can make no more than an high opinion which comes short of and is too low for infallible assurance But then moreover this objection is retorted upon them How can we be infallibly assured that in the Decrees and Canons of Council there should be no corruption that one thing is not thrust in or somewhat left out since we know that there was a falsification of the Nicene Council as before Since they have corrupted passages of the Fathers as before Since some words of the Decrees of the Council of Trent were changed after the vote as appear in the History So then in this respect as in others we may conclude they have no reason to accuse our way of uncertaintie for we may be sure of this that no way is so full of uncertainties as theirs If the Scripture be true they may be a Church if false they may be Heathens What he says Thirdly after all this c. hath in it no such difficultie as they imagin for the words themselves incorrupted do shew their own sense as being for the things necessary spoken in a plain and common acception And also their Decrees and Canons as before are to be sure more obnoxious to diversitie of sense because they were framed at least some of them for such a capacitie Neither if some things be expressed figuratively doth any such perplexity arise because the figurative expression doth not oppose the literall sense so much as it doth sometimes illustrate it And this kind of speech as to Sacraments in regard of the relation betwixt the sign and the thing signified is indeed naturall and proper Though the manner of speech be not proper simply yet quoad hoc as to Sacraments it is proper And my Adversary might have taken notice that St. Austin hath noted as before that things darkly set down in one place are to be compared with other places where they are delivered more clearly And therefore that which follows about the ambiguity in what sense we must take the words if we go by Scripture only might very well have been
God needed not to have indited by his Spirit any more of Scripture than only to lead us infallibly to the Church Go to the City of Rome and there it will be told us what must be done in order to life everlasting Christ might have laid aside the care of his Church might have devolved that to his Vicar If we would say any thing to such a reasoning we might say first he should have shewed us as fair a warrant for going to the City of Rome as St. Paul had to go to the City Secondly he was sent into the City to know what was to be done not known for St. Paul denies to have had his Doctrine from man Gal. 1.11 12. Thirdly this direction he was to have from Ananias was rather in order to his Function than to his salvation Fourthly Ananias was extroardinarily inspired and indued with a power of Miracles for the restitution of his sight But is the Pope thus Can he give the Holy Ghost as Ananias did Indeed he may ordain but can he give the Holy Ghost as Ananias did At least can he give sight he can sooner take it away If we being blind should take the guidance of such a Prophet he would lead us into Samaria and not set bread before us Indeed Pope Anacletus according to Carranza tels us in the end of his first Epistle that the Apostles did establish this by the Command of our Lord and Savior that greater and more difficult questions should be referred to the Apostolick sea upon which Christ did build his universall Church universam Ecclesiam when he said tu es Petrus c. But when these Epistles are proved genuine and then binding in his own cause and when the Pope who hath the same power shall have determined the difficult question which Carranza puts off betwixt St. Jerom and others whether Anacletus was predecessor to Clement and when it shall be made good that Christ gave to St. Peter universall power over the universall Church and not onely power over every Church as to the rest of the Apostles as it was distinguished in the Trent Council and when they shall have answered St. Cyprian who says the Church was founded not super Petrum but super Petram voce Domini in the 8. Ep. of the 1. b. then we may be in greater necessity to say more to this instance That all might see this City of the Church he placed it on a mountain whence all necessary points are delivered from a living Oracle speaking so distinctly that no doubt can remain of the true sense or if there be made any doubt of any thing of importance this doubt will presently be cleared by some new declaration authentically notified unto us by our Pastors ond Doctors which God gave us as the Scripture saith that we should not be children wawavering and carried about with the wind of false Doctrine with circumvention of error We have put all in for weight we shall answer now distinctly First as to the mountain we must know what mountain this is upon which the City of the Church was built Whether the mount Gerezzin or whether is mount Eball how shall we know And which are the Samaritans and which the Hierosolymitans how shall we discern We must yet wander upon the Mountains to know which mountain is the right Each will claim the Priviledge of a living Oracle Therefore if we were to take our resolves of all necessary points from the Church we were yet to seek which is the true Church And so the prime necessary would be uncertain namely which should be our infallible Propounder and Resolver of all necessary points How shall we resolve this capitall and cardinall Controversie which is the right Church the Mother and Mistrisse of all Churches Yea the question is yet to be agitated and determined infallibly whether there is to be any such it is not yet proved but my Adversary here seems to suppose it Well give it not grant it in the thesis that there is such a Church How shall it be made beyond all question that this or this is the Church for the Hypothesis Whether Jerusalem or Antioch or Allexandria or Constantinople or Rome is the City of that Church how shall we be ascertained infallibly Must the City be built upon a hill in the letter Then indeed there might be some discovery and yet more Cities are so built and therefore no certainty And Rome hath too many hills to be a topicall argument that it is the seat of Christ seven hills are rather topicall for Antichrist as in the revelation Secondly if the Church be as fast to a place as the Heathen gods to their Temples must the Church by vertue of the place always have the same priviledges in the zenith So then if the Roman Church was so faithfull as that for a time they did flow to it for direction in doubtfull cases must it always be as the Oracular Virgin Will Cassander believe it that Cassandra was always so clear in her Oracles What says Lycophron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And thirdly may we not as well take Gods direction to go to the Scripture Is not the word of God an Oracle Let him speak as the Oracles of God 1 Pet. 4.11 Were not the Scriptures of the old Testament the Oracles of God Rom. 3.2 To them were committed the Oracles of God Have we not a generall command to the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Es 8.20 There is light in the Law and the Testimony always but there is not always light in them that would direct without or beside them But the word they will say is not a living Oracle But the word is an Oracle and it is a living word as before in the Hebrews And the living God speaks to us in this written Oracle And therefore untill we see in this written Oracle that we have and are bound to a living Oracle my Adversary says nothing Thirdly we deny that his living Oracle supposed speaks so distinctly that no doubt can remain of the true sense This is sufficiently declared before in the Ambiguous decrees of the Council of Trent So that indeed their living Oracle speaks after the old sort of the Heathen Oracles as Loxias did so as to preserve truth in one sense or other Each party thought that the Oracle spake for him As he to Vlysses Aut erit aut non they are within one of a true prophecy yea these Roman Oracles have a true sense in them but we know not which Well then also as for necessary points we say fourthly as before that we have no need of a living Oracle because the Scripture speaks so plainly and so distinctly that no doubt can justly remain of the true sense And what needs more as to salvation Yea
not this also that a Minister of the Gospell may competently inform the people in the necessaries to salvation And if a Minister can do it surely the Church But the stresse of the discourse lies in this whether what the Church can doe may not sufficiently be done without the Church And then secondly if not without the Church whether it may not be done without the Church its infallibility Now to this last my Adversary speaks thus that he stands not upon this whether this competent direction should be called an infallible direction or not No doth he not Then he seemeth to yield that which he hath so much contended for the infallibilitie of the Church that that is not necessary He hath formerly urged the infallibility of the Church to ground faith now he either grants that we may be saved without faith or that faith may be grounded without infallibility which indeed in my opinion doth yield the cause But then also they will give us leave to note that the cause betwixt the Romanist and us as to verbum non Scriptum is also yielded hereby for if he will sit down with this postulate that the Church may competently direct us to happinesse through the Scriptures then the word not written is secluded from a competent direction to salvation For the word not written is absolutely contradistinguished to Scriptures And therefore I see no reason we should goe further in this work which is not so hard as tedious But that he calls us back with an Epanorthosis Though we think it most certain that no fallible direction can competently direct the people to happinesse Well will they stand to this Where shall we have them If it can then as before If it cannot upon their second thoughts then we say absolute loquendo we grant it thus that the Church not proposing any infallible direction cannot competently direct us and therefore untill they prove the Church infallible in their traditions infallible too or as to the interpreting of Scripture they have no cause by their own argument to obtrude so often the authority of the Church because it is no competent direction to happiness unlesse it be infallible as they now think But take the Church as proposing Scripture which we have hitherto made plain sufficiently as to things necessary so though the Church be not infallible in its own direction yet being considered as bringing Scripture which is infallible it may competently direct unto happinesse And so these great magnifiers of the Church upon due account have left us in the field to defend the Church when they have left it We can make use of its competent direction with the Scripture which is certain and infallible They cannot make use of the Church without infallibility So then as the Catholick Moderator says of the reformed religion that it cannot be blamed in the point of justification since it lays hold upon that which can certainly save us namely the righteousnesse of Christ so also to be sure here we are on the surer hand because we make use of that which is certainly infallible the Scripture and also of that which gives us some competent direction the Church specially taking the Church universally for place and time It is no question that the present Church cannot end the present controversies Now because by the way I did say our Church could not err in damnative errors you conceive me to grant that it may err in points not damnative Ans This is well put in by the way I did say he spake it more than once and it appeared also to be spoken provisionally that there might be some refuge for the Church if it should be convicted of some error yet not damnative And surely it were better for them to lie close under the buckler of this distinction unlesse they had better arguments to prove universall infallibility But since it may be Mr. Knot 's inconveniences of that distinction have been found prevalent and so it is quitted He expounds himself thus When I said these words I did onely take and subsume that which you your selves most commonly grant unto the Church that it cannot err in damnative matters Ans This but one degree from a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says he meant it as we If he meant it as we how doth he conclude against us We hold it distinctively upon the case of the whole Catholick Church though a particular Church may err in points damnative So then he meaning it as we leaves the way plain to inferr that he held that the Church might err in points not damnative If he did take it as we we are agreed and then by Mr. Knot 's argument infallibility is extinguished He used it formerly in way of distinction and specificatively or not If not then the use of it formerly is none if so then he is lost And they may very easily perswade themselves that we can allow unto them this priviledge of the Church that it hath a main advantage over any Minister or private Interpreter This we can afford unto them without absolute infallibility of the Church If they will be contented with such a priviledge to the Church as no Minister or private Interpreter can have they need not exceed the distinction of the Church's not erring in damnatives specifically taken For a private Minister or Interpreter may erre in damnatives Yea also this exemption from errors damnative in this sense gives a demonstrative reason why we should not follow our own interpretations without apparent cause because the Church universall cannot err in damnatives therefore we should prefer that when we see not plain cause to the contrary and because it may err in other things therefore cannot we absolutely yield the Church obedience of faith for its own sake And our differences from the Church in interpretations are not therefore damnative simply because we differ from the Church but if we contemn the Church which hath authority and more faculty and if we wrest hard texts as some men did in St. Paul's Epistles to their own perdition as St. Peter saith Interpretations may be flatly contrary and not damnative till the Church be proved without possibility of error to be without possibility of error let them then hold the former distinction untill they can make good these two points first that the Church cannot err at all the second that all error is damnative These are two hard propositions and therefore if that which is most hard is most easily broken as the rule is in the Trent History they should do well to break them When the Church shall shew her Commission for her infallibility she may 〈…〉 Commission for our obedience intuitiâ—â— Num. 9. Here he begins I will presse again your text and give a second answer Namely the second Ep. to Tim. 3.16 So then now we shall contend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He says we render the word for correction so your Bible reads it And why doth
those texts defended doth sufficiently confirm the Scriptures sufficiency in matter and manner to this end of salvation We do not say that all things necessary to decide all Controversies are plainly set down in it that is not our assertion nor the state of the question betwixt us Our position may be true and yet this false for all things necessary to salvation may be plainly set down in Scripture and yet not all things necessary to decide all Controversies Neither can they maintain this of their Church which they think more fit to decide Controversies than Scripture for then why did not the Trent Council clearly determine on which part many questions should be held But the plainnesse of things necessary is in Scripture sufficient against the necessity of any Controversie as the fulnesse is sufficient against the necessity of Tradition which is their word unwritten And therefore are not we bound by any necessity of our cause to find any Text wherein we are obliged to take the Scripture for our onely Judge of Controversies for the texts before maintained are good to prove us obliged to Scripture for salvation whereunto things necessary are plainely set down If he might have made the state of the question for his own turn my discourse should have been impertinent A ruffling Adversary would have said that he had shifted and shuffled in the change of the question as if we had held that the Scripture did contain all things necessary to decide all Controversies All prime Controversies necessary to salvation if there need be any it doth and that is sufficient for us against them But he thought he had devised a way how this opinion might be made good that the Scripture doth suffice for the deciding of all Controversies thus Yet the Scripture wanteth not that glory of being sufficient to decide all imaginable Controversies because she teacheth us that Christ hath erected a Church built upon a rock the pillar and ground of truth having the Spirit of truth abiding with her to teach her all truth O excellent provision for the honor of Scripture One in the Trent Council as I remember did not like references but would have all done uniformely by the same hand but we must from Scripture referr to the Church And as it is said of Cardinall Bellarmin that being asked a question too difficult said he could not tell how to answer it but he would shew the party one that could and then shewed him the picture of an excellent Divine so the Scripture cannot answer all Controversies but it hath reputation in this that it can shew and doth an infallible Judge of all imaginable Controversies the Church To this first methinks then if it were but for this use the Scripture should be more common to the Laitie because it sheweth so clearly this Judge Secondly let them shew unto us where the Scriptture doth plainly shew unto us this Judge that they may no longer beg the question And Thirdly let them tell us why the Church doth not determin all Controversies as we have said before not imaginable onely but reall Controversies as concerning the Popes power in compare with a Council and concerning his temporall power and concerning the right of Bishops concerning original sin concerning the conception of the Virgin were these determined with satisfaction to all the Members of the Council Fourthly doth the Scripture give the denomination of this Church which is the pillar and ground of all truth that should be the infallible Judge Fifthly if they think the Spirit of truth doth abide with the Church to decide all Controversies by way of an habituall gift then must this Church have more priviledge than the Apostles had for they had the Spirit by way of a transient gift and therefore some particular questions they did not decide by the gift of the Spirit but the Church must have a standing faculty to decide all imaginable Controversies Sixthly may not we as well say this is for the glory of the Church for necessaries to salvation that it sends us to the Scripture which is infallible and clear enough in things of necessary faith This honour the Fathers before the universal Bishop gave to the Scriptures the Romanists now would arrogate it to the Church If they must be brought to a Competition which in ingenuity should carry the honour the Scripture according to the Fathers or the Church according to the Romanists But he thinks according to his principles he is not engaged to finde a plaine Text where this is set down that the Church should decide with infallible authoritie all our Controversies because according to them all points necessary to salvation be not plainly set down Answ Then first according to our principles we are not bound to believe it and we must account it no necessary to salvation because it is not plainly set down And how then shall we know it what by its own light or may we know the Church by Scripture and not the infallibility which is the priviledge Secondly How then could he say by Scripture that God hath provided a way so direct that fooles cannot err Thirdly if he confesse that there is not a clear text which sheweth this priviledge of and our duty to the Church then the disputation is at an end for he will not dispute with me from the testimony of the Fathers for causes best known to himself And if he sayes we must be judged by the Church it is the question Fourthly therefore are we in this agreed which is the main point of the question namely that the Scripture doth not plainly set it down that the Church is to decide with infallible authority all our Controversies For if it were plainly set down we also should be bound to believe it as being plainly set downe though it would not therefore be necessary to salvation simply because it is plainly delivered All necessaries are plainly set down according to our opinion but all that is plainly set down is not necessary to salvation ex natura principii And then fifthly if he doubts of this point as to be plainly set down in Scripture then his principles are less capable of certainty than ours for he hath no ground certain of his faith upon the account of the Church because if the Church did ground her infallibility upon her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture she could not by her owne authority contradistinctly to Scripture prove that she is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet neither hath the Church or their Church for ought I have read in any of their Councils determined it selfe by Scripture or otherwise infallible to the decision of all imaginable Controversies Nay neither do Bellarmin or Stapleton if I be not mistaken assert the infallibility of the Church in this extent therefore my Adversary in this walks alone Yet he says the texts he will produce hereafter are an hundred times more clear that the Church is to decide all our Controversies than
and consequently hope too Yet we may hope to make his charge nought and our faith good but we need not say any more than what hath been said whereunto he hath said as much as comes to little yet now he diverts hither We must say therefore again that this should not be a question betwixt us how we believe the Scriptures to be the word of God for this is supposed betwixt us as the subject of the question And we say that the sense of this argumentation is to as much purpose as if when we are at London we must go back again because we did not go the new way As to the Assumption then we deny it We do ground our assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation Yea moreover we return him his argument in terms and therefore they have no Divine faith so naturall it is for those to speak most who have a mind to cover their own defects They cannot ground their assent to this truth upon Divine Revelation because they ground it upon the authority of the Church for they must either have an immediate revelation that the Church is infallible or else they must ground it upon the general sum of revealed truth and that is the Scripture for as for Tradition that which is of a particular Church is of no weight as to this businesse and universall Tradition must go upon account of the Church now then if they say that they have a Revelation immediate that the Church is infallible in proposing those books to be Canonical they make that to be of use to them which they deny to us who have as good reason to say that we may as well have an immediate revelation that the Scripture is the word of God but if they ground their faith upon some texts of Scripture which concern the Church then they must believe the Scripture for it self So then either they must come to us or else indeed they have no Divine faith And therefore had he no cause to be offended with that I said that the Canonical books are worthy to be believed for themselves as we assent to prime principles in the habit of Intelligence To this he says in a parenthesis And so is the book of Toby and Judith as well as these But doth he say this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and doth he not then find fault with the antient Church who did not as hath been shewn give equall reverence to these as to the books Canonical If they be as worthy to be believed as the books Canonical then they erred in not receiving them with equall belief And if they erred then our Adversaries are lost And now as for our assent to the Canonicall books in the manner of assent to prime principles by the help of the Spirit of God they are not like to prosper in the abuse of it First it is to be noted that we are not now to deal with one that denies the Scripture to be the word of God for to an unbeliever hereof we should use other arguments rationally to induce him to a good opinion hereof but when we are demanded by a Christian what is it that grounds our faith of Scripture one would think we might say that we are resolved to a Divine faith hereof by the Spirit of God disposing our assent to them as of themselves worthy to be believed which is the reason of assent to prime principles And therefore secondly we do not say that our assent to the Canonical books is by a naturall light as our assent to prime principles but that our assent is made to them by way of Intelligence through the Spirit the light of the Spirit as to shew us the Scripture to be worthie of belief for it selfe is supernaturall but when that comes we believe it as we do prime principles not by discourse but because it is credible of it self Faith herein bears more proportion to intelligence than to science because we do not in faith use a reason to the act as we do in science And this is intimated in the common reading of that text of the Prophet Si non crediderint non intelligent if they will not believe they shall not understand so then since faith is a supernaturall habit as the School-men the Spirit of God doth infuse it into us as being an habit infused as they speak and this doth dispose us to believe the Scripture to be the word of God as by him indited And one would think that it is a better ground to believe it to be the word of God because he saith so than to believe it because the Church saith so and it is more about because I cannot believe it upon the account of the Church but because God gives testimony of the Church and why cannot we then believe God teste seipso So all the assent we give to them is made upon the veracity of God which is the center in which all lines of Scripture do meet and terminate Therefore might he have spared that which follows Have you brought all the infallibility of Christian Religion unto this last ground to be trampled by the Socinians Ans First I do not see what reason we have to lay the foundation of Religion so as to please the Socinian One who maintained the Protestant cause was prejudiced by suspition of being inclined to Socinianism and I am now found fault with for not providing for their satisfaction in our principles Well but secondly I do not finde that Socinians do abhor this tenure of Scripture And thirdly they to be sure do trample upon the authority of their Church as infallible And therefore this is to be returned home to the Romanist And also upon the former grounds might he have omitted what follows from doe you expect unto all that you believe for although the object is to be believed for it self as a prime principle yet is there not a naturall light for it that comes supernaturally and therefore faith is a supernatural habit But if they would be accounted such rationall men in the faith of Scripture they do deserve from the Socinian a negative reverence by a positive favour to them But again how far is that which I have said different from the determination of Ratisbon in their fourth session Scripturae dicuntur perfectae quoad perfectionem eredibilitatis et exactissimae veritatis The Scriptures are said perfect as in respect of the perfection of credibility and most exact truth And the perfection of credibility belongs to the first principles which are indemonstrable And as those principles have themselves immobiliter unto Sciences as Aquinas so the Scriptures have themselves unto Divinity Here we must rest And if every one doth not believe them to be the word of God upon this account this doth not derogate from the credibility of the object thus we say that the Scriptures are the infallible word of God is evident of its own self needing no further proof for the requiring
be the word of God we cannot ut sic suppose such an omission Thirdly if there were a not left out how should the Church have power to put it in For then the Church would have power to contradict the old reading and so to make Scripture if the Church had not power then it would be as uncertain as we Fourthly if there were a not left out in things substantiall and necessary it would likely make a contradiction to other texts where the same matter is delivered for it would be very hard to find ony point necessary to be one of those which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now since we both conclude no Contradiction in Scripture for then it would not be true and infallible we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conclude that there is no such omission Fifthly if we may he perswaded by the Spirit of God that the Scripture is the word of God then consequently we are assured that there is not such an omission but verum prius ergo posterius Here we have a seventh argument Num. 27. Luther who had the Spirit as well as I if not in a larger measure contradicts me in the Canonicallnesse of the Epistle of St. James and in ths book of the Revelation therefore this ground of believing Canonicall books is fallible since in a Contradiction one part must be false And thus he thought to pay me in kind for my disputing the error of Councils by a Contradiction which he says If you could prove you should prove that Councils are fallible Ans As for the Metaphysicall Law in Contradictions that one part must be false if we hold any thing certainly true we differ not And concerning the proof of Councils to be fallible by ones contradicting another it comes in here but collaterally this is not sedes materiae and therefore as he brings it in we may passe it with a light foot In point of fact they will confesse they may as well contradict one another as err and therefore we will not now insist upon the contradiction of the Council of Chalcedon and the second of Nice about the Epistle of Ibas But did not the Council of Francford contradict the second Council of Nice in point of worship of Images But also to give them exemplum utile the Council of Laodicea rejected the Apocryphal books as not Canonical the Council of Trent receives them for such Ses 4. So one contradicts another And if it be said that the Council of Laodicea was not Generall we answer that it was as Generall as the Council of Carthage which he urgeth below for he book of Maccabees for this was but provinciall by Carranza's confession But then secondly we say though it was but provinciall yet was it established by the sixth Generall Council as Carranza also confesseth and then consequently the sixth Generall Council and the Council of Trent do contradict And now as to the contradiction betwixt Luther and me upon the case I say first that the argument is not yet valid to his purpose the objects have themselves equally to all but all have themselves not equally to objects and yet though Luther had a greater measure of the Spirit than I it doth not follow neverthelesse that this book could not be seen to be Divine by the Divine illumination no more than it doth follow that because St. Peter had a greater measure of the grace of God's Spirit he could not deny his Master As a larger measure of grace doth not exclude all possibility of sin so neither doth a larger measure of the Spirit exclude all possibility of error Secondly was not the Church of Christ as quick-sighted by the help of the Spirit before the Council of Carthage as then And yet it seems by my Adversary that the Church did not clearly propose the book of Maccabees to be Canonicall before that time and therefore non-acknowledgement in some doth not prove against possibility of certain knowledge And thus if Luther's exceptions against those books were always continued in the height of termes which yet is denied he gaines nothing against us since also Thirdly we return the Adversary his own argument if the determinations of the Church be so clear how doe they contradict one another Next follows the instance he puts of those two prime Doctors of the Church St. Jerom and St. Austin about the book of Maccabees St. Austin as he would have us think held it for Canonicall St. Jerom not So then here is Father against Father and therefore consent of Fathers in all points is scarce a possible argument But the cause he says of this difference was not our ground this we have spoken to but because it was not clearly proposed in St. Jerom's time by the Church But the third Council of Carthage in which St Austin was present declared these books to be God's word and so St. Austin held these books infallibly to be God's word c. Ans Not to passe it that St. Austin might be more likely to swallow the account of these books because he had not skill in the Hebrew Canon as the Greek he learned late And not to passe it that my Adversary names not the place where St. Austin held these books to be God's word and infallibly too it may be he held them so as the book of Wisedom of which before but my Adversary speaks one word here ingenuously that the third Council of Carthage did but declare well and the Council of Laodicea did before declare the contrary This was before St. Jerom's time being celebrated in the year 364. as Carranza reckons and the reason then why St. Jerom refused that book was not because he had not seen this Council of Carthage as my Adversary says but because he had read the Canons of the Council of Laodicea for this was of equall authority to that of Carthage being both provinciall and both confirmed by the sixth Generall Council as the former Author observes and if so then by the way the same Generall Council was guilty of a Contradiction as establishing the Canons of those Councils which in this point about the books of the Maccabees are repugnant one to other Again if the authority of the Council of Carthage did bind St. Austin who subscribed it as to the acknowledgement of these books for Canonicall then the twenty sixth Canon of the same Council doth equally bind That the Bishop of the first sea should not be called the Prince of the Priests or the supreme Priest or any such thing but onely the Bishop of the first sea Therefore let the Roman either not urge this Council against us or receive it against himself Nay lastly we can better answer the Canon against us than Carranza answers the Canon against Rome's Supremacy For the reason which my Adversary gives out of the Canon for reception of those books doth not oblige to receive them equally to Canonical books namely because we have received from our Fathers that
and is therefore assured us by the Spirit not because it is the hardest point but because it is the ground of all faith Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scriptures an undoubted principle the first principle you think they hold this principle like the first principles in Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident Ans No I had better reason for it than the expressions of their own Divines although we need no more if they in effect confesse as much as will serve us in the dispute But it is impossible for them or any other to fix a foot in Divinity but upon this ground or else we shall have no other assurance for the last resolution of faith than what we have in kind for Virgil's or Cicero's works Yea moreover their own Divines give this character of the Scripture because it is true of it it is not true because they say it and yet if it were true because they say it we make use of the Conclusion Or if it be an unquestioned principle because it is already granted to be God's word by all parties then why doth my Adversary call this into question which is the subject of the question and by all parties granted And also this makes it to be a common principle that it is granted by all parties And therefore are we to be tryed by it as by a common principle and not by the Church which is not granted by all parties to be that we should be tryed by specially if it be assumed that the Roman Church is the onely Church for then there will be a double Controversie one in thesi whether all faith is ultimately to be resolved by the Church and then another in hypothesi whether the Roman be the Church But we now put together that which he distinguisheth the Scripture is an undoubted principle and the first principle but not as the principle of Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable c. We discourse thus That which is indemonstrable is as the principle of Sciences but that which is as evident as any reason can be brought for it to make it more evident is indemonstrable therefore is it as a principle of Sciences The proposition is with my Adversary the propertie of the first principles in Sciences The Assumption is with my Adversary the very ratio formalis indemonstrabilitatis so then if the Scripture to be the word of God be as evident as any reason that can be brought for it to make it more evident then we have what we now contend for Now then if the Scripture cannot be demonstrated to be the word of God by the Church a priori then is it as evident as any reason can be brought for it but verum prius for the Church must be demonstrated by the Scriptures as we have often proved And if the Scripture were demonstrated by the Church a priori then were the Church the cause of Scripture which they themselves do not say and therefore may we give a reason of the Church by the Scripture and not infallibly of the Scripture by the Church and therefore is it as a prime principle in Sciences indemonstrable And yet my Adversary would circumvent me in the next number and bring me into a circle thinking that I am bound to give another proof by the Spirit why by the Spirit I do believe that the Scripture is the word of God but we stop him at first before he goes his rounds for he supposeth that which is not to be supposed that the testimony of the Spirit is not sufficient to make it self good to us of it self and that therefore we need another revelation secure from all illusion to ascertain me the former Ans This is little lesse than trifling for first we say not this internall testimony is proveable to others faith objective is proveable by Scripture but faith subjective is not proved but somewhat shewed by a good life for faith works by love as St. Paul And optimus Syllogismus bona vita as he said the best argument to others we have of faith is a good life But secondly we are as secure of the not being deceived in the testimony of the Spirit as the Apostles were in the kind Yea if we cannot be ascertained by the same testimony then how can the Council be assured that they are infallibly assisted by the Spirit Yea thirdly we are upon the higher ground for the assecuration of our faith because we resolve it into that which is antecedent to the Church and therefore have they lesse cause to put us upon intergatories why we believe the Scriptures for if we do not believe it for it self we have no reason to believe the Church To his Dilemma then Either I try the Spirit whether it be of God or no if I do not how am I then secure If I doe by what infallible means If I say by the Scripture you must needs laugh because you speak of the first act of belief c. Ans We say first that he misapplieth the text of the Apostle Trie the Spirits 1 Joh. 4.1 it is not meant of the Spirit of God I hope he thinks but of the Spirits of men which is our argument against them and therefore can we not sit down with absolute belief to what is proposed by man till we see it center'd upon the word of God which we believe infallibly came from God Secondly the tryall of the Spirits there injoined is by examining the matter whether proportionable to the word of faith but here he draws it to the triall of Scripture it self which is the rule of triall Thirdly though we do not try the testimony of the Spirit attesting to us the truth of Scripture yet the matter of Scripture may we compare with universall tradition which serves us for our use in the ministry of the Church not for our faith in the causality thereof Fourthly to be even with my Adversaries we return them their Dilemma they say we must believe the Scripture to be the word of God by the testimony of the Church which they say is infallible but we must infallibly know that this testimony of the Church is infallible by the Spirit of truth which leads us into all truth And this cannot be infallibly known but by a Revelation secure from all illusion And how come they by this revelation Either they try the Spirit or not if not how can they be secure If they doe by what infallible means If they say by the Church we must needs laugh because we speak of the first act of belief by which we first begin to believe the Church to be infallible Therefore all his agains are sent back again and the issue of all will come to this either this faith of the Scripture to be the word of God must be resolved into the testimony of the Spirit or of the
Church not of the Church because the testimony thereof is resolved into Scripture of which the question is yea if the testimony of the Church were infallible it must be infallibly proved by the Scripture and also that it is our rule of faith But thus we see the importunity of the Pontifician for their cause if we should say we resolve our faith of the Scriptures into the testimony of the Church they would never ask us a reason of our faith but when we say we resolve it into the internall testimony of the Spirit for our own private assurance they will not let us sit down with that but will demand a proof thereof although the testimony of the Church if it were the formall reason of our faith must be infallibly made good to us by the internall testimony of the Spirit but that which they would have us rest in for the Church we may not rest in for the Scripture And yet also have we other arguments from Scripture it self which have more moment in them unto the belief of Scripture than the meer testimony of the Church as Dr. White notes in the twenty sixth p. of the way to the true Church which is worthy to be perused also upon this account that there are severall testimonies collected even of Papists for the belief of Scripture without dependence upon the Church as of Canisius Bellarmin Biet Gregorie of Valence Stapleton some whereof we have quoted allready So then by my Adversaries own argument if we need not depend upon the Church for belief of Scripture then not for other points of faith The thirtieth Article hath nothing in it considerable but for us first that he saith it to be that most fundamentall Article that such and such books be infallibly God's word So then if it be the most fundamentall article then it is also fundamentall to the Church otherwise it is not that most fundamentall article but the Church must be the most fundamentall article And if it be fundamental to the Church then we resolve our faith in the highest principle and that which is primo primum and the Papists resolve themselves into that which is at best but secundo primum Our faith then being rooted in Scripture we can give a check to their vaunting of the priviledge of the Church as St. Paul did to the Jew but if thou boastest thou dost not bear the root but the root thee so the Church doth not bear the Scripture but the Scripture it And secondly we note in his thirtieth number what he saith Take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane We assume this infallible assistance is not yet proved and till it be proved the authority is but humane and yet doe we not scoff at the authority of the Church as he chargeth us but do make good use of it without infallibility And thirdly we might note that if some other had the answering of these papers he might tell them that they are mendicants of the question for first here they say that they ground this point upon the authority of the Church as being infallible And then again she hath an infallible authority which we account a fansie and yet again this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth not this perswasion but this infallible assent And yet again take the Church without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane These things so nearly belonging and essentially to the question are to be proved not supposed yet all must be supposed by them that so they might not seem to run at the ring and hit it as we may speak only the last hath a truth in it but also it supposeth in the drift a supposition for their use But at the last we have an appearance of an argument We have no other infallible ground left us but the authority of the Church assisted by the Holy Ghost since the Scripture hath no where revealed which books be Scripture which not Ans To this we say three things first that the argument is no way cogent because there is no necessity of either if we can be assured by the Holy Ghost that these books be Canonicall And if we cannot how did the Church at first assure it self that they were Canonicall So then Omne reducitur ad principium as Aquinas's rule is Secondly unlesse they prove the authority of the Church better they had better have left this out for otherwise there is no ground of faith unlesse our ground be admitted if this be a true Dis-junctive proposition that either the Scripture must set down which books be Canonicall which not or else the Church in the proposall must be infallible And yet if the Scripture should have set down which books were Canonicall it must be resolved whether that book wherein they were set down was Canonicall by the Holy Ghost also Then thirdly if the disjunctive be not true then his discourse is false if it be true in the proposition then we assume against them that the Scripture hath no where revealed whether the Church is infallible and therefore there is no other way to know it to be infallible but by it selfe So then it must prove the testimony of the H. G. by it self and if it can then may we prove the testimony of the Holy Ghost concerning Scripture by it selfe if not where will they set up In the 31. Num. he would squat Num. 31. and deceive the chase by a distinction which will not stay him from running round in the proving of Scripture by the Church and the Church by Scripture He sayes No Sir you never heard me give this reason unlesse it were when I spake to one who independently of the Church do professe himself to believe the Scripture to be God's word as you do And this is the effect of this Number for his defence and of those Divines who do not deale thus in proving the Church by the Scripture with all those who have not admitted the Scripture as infallible for they first prove the authority of the Church and that independently of the Scripture to be infallible Answ This covering is too short and indeed not sound for I am not bound to take notice how they prove it to others but how they prove it to me If they prove it thus to me then by their owne confession they are included in a circle And they prove it thus to me because I hold the Scripture to be God's word independently of the Church and so he saith of me as you do Secondly whereas he sayes If I be a Scholar I may know that their Divines do not answer so when they are put upon the question Why do you believe the Church I do answer that for my part I never pretended to be a Scholar as they do signanter I have neither head nor heart nor body nor books for the Controversies but yet this I
uni tantum aut alteri populo proponuntur in particular judgements and in precepts of manners which are not proposed to the whole Church but to one or another people he saies they may erre in the same Chap. but so may not Scripture therefore can they not receive the vulgar edition absolutely as the first Church did receive the Original Copies so that either my Adversary hath overshot or the Cardinal under and if they will have nothing to do with him that in any title importing Faith or Manners differ from them then they have many to excommunicate on Munday Thursday though they absolve them again on Good Friday as they do the King of Spain for detaining part of St. Peters Patrimony And as for the other exception I made against the vulgar by the varieties of the Edition of Sixtus 5tus and clement the 8th he refers me to a Famous Book called Charity maintained written against Dr. Potter See it Part 2. c. b. n. 3. as I take it in his Copy but he saves me the labour in telling me the effect of it thus That by Authentical testimonies of persons beyond all exception is shewed there that the decree of Sixtus 5tus about his Edition was never promulgated and that he had declared divers things to have crept in which needed a second revew and that the whole work should be re-examined though he could not do it being prevented by death Ans according to their principles no Authentique testimony but of a Council confirm'd by the Pope let them shew such And then we say Secondly what if the decree of Sixtus 5tus was not promulg'd was not this Sixtus 5tus's Edition And it seems there was a decree for it but not promulg'd and the promulgation makes it but legible the decree I hope makes it credible the promulgation attends the binding of it in actu exercito but the decree attends the constitution of it in actu signato And was there no error in it because it was not promulgated Or rather was not it therefore not promulgated because there was error in it Thirdly the Authority of the Trent Council was ingaged rather for this than for that of Clement the 8th for the Trent Council as they know speaks of it as in verbis de presenti haec ipsa vetus vulgata editio quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesiâ probata est this very same old and vulgar edition which by long use of so many ages is approved in the very Church as if it had been so long before born and now when it was of age should be onely Christen'd Fourthly How did divers things creep in which needed a second review what while the Church slept then how can we believe the Church in tradition and purity of Copies for she may sleep while they are stolen or corrupted Therefore have they no cause to triumph that Mr. Chillingworth hath said nothing to this point in defence of Docter Potter as they say in the following words For if the Citation be right Part 2. Mr. Chillingworth did not publish for ought I knew what he had against the second part And he gives an account thereof why he did not in the latter end of his Answer to the 1 part p. 390. And therfore they did not ingenuously charge him with this omission since it was forborne in the whole upon ingenious reasons And if they thinke to save themselves because Sixtus his decree was not published surely Mr. Chillingworth may be excused because the second Part of his Answer was not published However he had said enough against the perfection of the Vulgar translation in his answer to the first part 77. Even upon the opinion of their own men Lyranus Cajetan Pagini◠Arias Erasmus Valla Steuchus who in many places have rejected it and differed from it And to these he adds the judgement of Vega who was present at the Council and was instructed therein by the President of the Council the Cardinal S. Cruce as he saies and of Dredo and Mariana who had the opinion of Laines in it the General then of the society and in a sort of Bellarmine also But also if they might boast of not being answered in one point then some body might boast that they have given Treaties for Answers Lastly will they be confident that the decree was not published for the authority of the vulgar edition why then doth it go under the name of Sixtus 5us's Bible yea also Dr. Iames who hath written Bellum Papale to such a purpose in his third part 36. p. hath asserted that all the shifts they have made herein will not serve For both Bull and Bibles are in many mens hands whatsoever Gretser saith to the Contrary This Paragraph might have been spared N. 37. and I might be excused surely for sparing it it gives me a former reason why my two places out of St. Austin are not answered he tells me that I have given him leave to have no more to do with the Fathers This is his reason and my reason is because he will have more to do than he can do to answer them We deny not a tryal by the Fathers though their Judgement be not infallible and since we produce the Fathers for us we are bound to answer them against us as contrarily if they produce them against us they are bound to answer them against themselves and this is a rule of Reason Testem quem quis adducit pro se tenetur recipere contra se the witness which one brings for himself he is bound to receive against himself And therefore whatsoever Coccius saies ad faciendum populum we may I think say well as Nilus did in his first book of Ecclesiastical dissentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is altogether absurd that those who have not the Fathers for their examples should of themselves discern that which is better and that we who have the Fathers should not so neither understand So he of the Romans also so that my Adversary should not have stopt this gap with an exception against my opposing of the Council of Ariminum to the Nicene Council towards proving the contradiction and consequently the fallibility of Councils but this he hath nothing new to say against and therefore I have nothing to answer more then formerly onely he chides me because I proposed the Council of Ariminum as if it had been a lawful Council and so would deceive the people which knoweth not which councils be lawful which not No This spoyles all infallibility is in Councils the people do not know which are right councils and those that are not right are not and where then shall the people find their infallibility where the way so plain that Fooles cannot err as they have told us It is better to be without a guide than to have one we cannot trust So we bid the Roman people good night and take our leaves of this number N. 38. But this
N. 50. Here he tels us of an argument in the 14 num of the former treatise with infallible faith this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he beggs the question And if they cannot prove the cause to be theirs with out our free graunt they are not like to have it And therefore this being denied him as before all that he would build thereupon must fall to wit therefore we must be assisted in this infallible knowledge by some other infallible means and no other infallible meanes can with any shadow of probability be said given to us but the infallible authority of the Church therefore her athority must be infallible as shall at large be shewed in the next chap. and then in the next after that that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman This is all wast and lost unles they could maintain it to be necessary charity in us to preserve their cause from starving by graunting that which it ought not to have And 2. Dato non concesto suppose there must be some other meanes of infallible deciding doubtful sense of Scripture I can make it a question whether they can plead the next right as if they came vacuam possessionem for the place may be ful by universal tradition which surely is not the same with the Roman Church for the whole surely is greater then the part and then also when you prove the Roman faith by universal tradition you would prove the Roman faith by the Roman and this is idem per idem And as for the 3. thing that this infallible Church is the Roman and none but the Roman which he saies he will prove in the last chapter surely if I may speak it without offence he does very well to refer it to the last for he may doe any thing before it But also since his supposition that we cannot be certain by the Scriptures infallibly of their own true sense in points necessary to salvation with infallible faith must fall without a better support we may be at our last already for if this be not good the other chapters make number And this number makes no weight He doth nothing in it but tell us that he hath done so and so which we interpret nothing Infallibility should not need many words In this N. 52. he would wipe off the suspicion of disrespect to Scipture in those termes he used and would lay a blame upon me for my censure of his words to this purpose His words were these if he would have given us a book for Iudge he would never have given us for our Iudge such a book as Scripture is which very often speaketh obscurely sometimes so prophetically that most would think it spake of the present time when it speaketh of the time to come that it speaketh of one person for example of David when it speaketh of another for example of Christ And much more I added to this effect that I might be rightly understood when I said that God would never have given us such a book for our judge To what of this he said in his former treatise I said Sir Let me have leave to speak affectionately to you Do not you see what disrespects of Scripture if not blasphemies your opinion doth miserably betray you to if you follow it Would any sober man let fall such words as if God had intended the Scripture for our judge such a book as Scripture is So you This I said And now he examins these words strictly and saies My adversary to avoide this argument so mangleth the sense that he may-make my words sound of a blasphemous disrespect reporting them as if I should have said if God had intended Scripture for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture Ans Surely this is a false charge that I have mangled his words for I have given the full sense of them And this may be demonstrated by denying of the end which he makes to be to avoide the argument For I do not see any such difficulty in the argument that I should decline it and fall upon the person This is not my mind or manner But I could find fault with his dealing with me even here for he puts together that which I did not put together For he saies I accused him of a blasphemous disrespect whereas I said disrespect if not blasphemies and also the termes if not blasphemies without a grain of charity might have been construed without an affirmation Nether doth he right me or clear himself in the prosecution of his defence For my words in all reason doe represent as much as if I had added what he said I should have added These words if God had intended a book for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture must connotate this sense that he would not have given us such a book as Scripture for our Iudge And therefore he needed not to quarrel upon the omission as if I had not dealt fairely with him consider it in the form of an hypothetical proposition if God had intended a book for our Iudge he would not have given us such a book as Scripture is what need be added for our Iudge when it is understood of course They know the rule Quod necessario subintelligitur nunquam deest That which is necessarily understood is never wanting And therefore have I not done his words any injury by mangling them nor yet by interpretation of them still they seem to sound such an imperfect book as Scripture and must do so if they have full sense in them But also if we might say what S. Austin said of the Heretiques words Bene haec acciperentur nisi ab eo dicerentur cujus sensus notus est so here these words might be better construed if they were not spoken by such whose sense was known For unless the Scripture be a book imperfect in regard of matter what need of tradition unless the Scripture were imperfect in regard of cleareness what needed an infallible judge to decide controversies about the sense Therefore he cannot get clearely off Aqua haeret And surely he doth not helpe himself or his cause by a like case he puts if God had intended the Scripture for sole Iudge in Law controversies he would never have given us such a book as Scripture is for our Iudge Doth this passe any handsome and respective reflexion upon Scripture As if it were no fitter to decide controversies in Divinity then in the Law And do they not think that we may have more reason to be bold with them than they with Scripture if God had intended that we should have been absolutely determined in matters of faith by General Council would he have given us such a pack'd Council as the Council of Trent was And yet moreover all he saies is besides the mark For this we doe not contend for that the scripture is the sole Judge
be answered when it is not At the end of this Section he saith You highly wrong St. Athanasius to say he did not hear the Church Ans I should be very loath to be truely guilty of this and surely if he grants that the Church may be mistaken in the fact he may be mistaken in this Censure which he should have proceeded in secundum allegata et probata I said this St. Athanasius did differ from the rest of the Church when the whole world did groan under Arrianisme So he did not hear the Church as differing in opinion though it is not said that he did not hear the Church as disobeying the Censure Here he supposeth that upon the virtue of former Principles he may conclude of the Church No She cannot erre in an errour not damnable No Let that which was formerly granted be compared with this and we shall conclude the contrary To excommunicate a person who is not to be excommunicated is to erre The Church may excommunicate a person not to be excommunicated Therefore the minor is as good as confessed by him because the Church may be mistaken in the fact Nay he saith it in terms and so there may be an errour in the mistake of the fact He proceeds Hence that common Doctrine of Antiquity that it is not possible to have a just cause of separating from the Church Ans Besides the nullity of this upon the want of a true ground as before he doth misreport the axiom or else he must distinguish of Separating There is no just cause of Schism for the proposition hath in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because if there be a just cause it is not Schism but though every Schism is a Separation every Separation is not Schism Take then separation in specie for Schism so it may be true but a Separation from a Church imposing errours in Faith and things unlawful in practice is not without a just cause and therefore is it not Schism It is not without a just cause by his former confession just now in those words So men should be bound to assent unto an errour which is impossible And again this is to be understood of Separating from the Catholique Church or from a particular Church for that order wherein it agrees with the Catholique But this is not our case for the Roman is but a particular Church and we separated upon Catholique Principles that so we might hold union with the Catholique Church And then again there is a difference betwixt a national reformation and a private Separation And therefore yet the distinction is not disabled namely of separating from the errours and not from the Church unless it were better proved that the Church is secured from all errour which that text doth not prove Then goes he on to take away somewhat I said to the text in my first and fifth answer to it He claps them together and would make me to conclude thus this maketh nothing for the Authority of the universal Church Ans Let them remember again for Aquinas tells us that we cannot forget natural Principles that the whole is greater than the part I allow much to a particular Church in correspondence with the Universal therefore little to their Church And if I do reply that this text belongs also to particular Churches then this doth redound to the honour of the Universal Church And that this doth belong to particular Prelats to excommunicate he himself doth confess in this Section Therefore must he conclude that I conclude for the Universal Church And yet moreover in all this long gloss upon the text how little have we had of that upon which all in this discourse turns namely whether Authority of excommunication be it in the Universal or a particular Church respects not formally the contempt not the non-assent Let them speak less or more to the purpose And yet again he would drive it on in a loose way that we have a command from God to hear the Church absolutely and universally To this purpose he saies Those who disobey the judges disobey the Common-wealth so generally speaking those who disobey the Prelats of the particular Church disobey the universal Church commanding her to proceed according to her Decrees Canons and definitions Ans Here is not much and for them less A Common-wealth is a term ambiguous and may be taken strictly or largely strictly in the form largely as including head and members And in this large sense may be considered with more respect to the Body or to the Head in confuso or in capite If he takes it in the strict sence it is not to any purpose because there is a different reason of laws in the Common-wealth and in the Church For in a Common-wealth so Laws proceed from them as the efficient thereof but in the Church truths and duties do come from God and therefore in such cases the disobedience reflects upon God Now the case we dispute upon is in necessary truths and duties If he understand a Common-wealth largely and then with more particular repute to the people the disobedience to the judges doth not reflect upon them unless objectively and consequently because though they are not their Judges by way of Authority yet they are their Judges in way of End for their good If it be taken with more relation to the head whose judges they are by authoritative commission it is true that the disobedience to the Judge doth redound upon him but here is difference betwixt them for particular Prelats do not depend upon the universal Church as Judges do upon the Head of a Common-wealth because Bishops have their Authority by divine right which was contended for hotly in the Trent Council and had proceeded affirmatively had not the Roman Court bandied against it And then also the matter of disobedience we speak of is from God not the universal Church but the matter of Civil disobedience to the Judge is from the Head And then again we do not speak of disobedience positive which my Adversary doth instance in but in obedience which is negative And then again particular Prelats are not so bound in things of particular order as the people are bound to the Laws of a particular Nation And also then this will redound to the Adversaries prejudice for the particular Prelats of their Church have not proceeded according to the Canons Decrees and definitions of the universal Church as hath been shewed And also this is against them because then my Adversary confesseth that this text under debate is competible fairly to particular Churches and therefore they have no reason to appropriate it to themselves And so upon the whole matter we can say as much in a due respect to the Catholique Church as they do here and yet hold our own So then he doth not contradict here And yet again he is importunate to prove that disobedience to the Church at last redounds to Christ and God out of the 16.
locall Praelats will not allow the use of Translations but to them whom they are secure of not to change their Religion which is as much much as to blinde them and then to give them leave to see Further use of Scripture is not an abuse unles the Antient Fathers exhorted the people in the reading of Scriptures to an abuse and he was much mistaken in the saying that we see the sad effects of it it is a fallacy of accident Our Ministers are as rightly ordained and canonically licenced to Preach as their Priests to say Masse and more too unless they could prove that office better And yet a simple contradiction is also better than a simple negative Upon our word the people may rely as well as their people upon the Priests and somewhat more upon the former considerations of an impossibility of Faith in the truth of their being Priests And yet our Ministers are not masters of their Faith but helpers of their joy as the Apostle saies of himself also the people do not simply rely upon them but believe by them And then he comes to the occasion of this debate betwixt us namely because that Noble Person carped at our blind obeying our Priests and believing them whereas all of our Religion could go to the fountain Ans Whether the words of that Noble Person were such as he expresseth them I cannot say but taking the Translation to be so far Scripture as that it agrees with the Original so far are they the Fountain not in language but insense And so they go to the Fountain oppositely to the Doctrine of the Church though not as oppositly to Translations And as for that which was said by that Noble Person of blind obeying is not here denied and we know that this blind obedience is commended by the Jesuite for the right and Christian obedience And their implicit Faith must be blind obedience upon two accounts First because they ought not to examin whether what the Priests say to them doth agree with the Doctrine of the Church and secondly they cannot examine it But he excepts against that Fountain but alas when that fountain which they conceive themselves to drink to their eternal health is so poisoned as I shewed in my last Ch. that millions of millions as your own Broughton saith run to hell flames by occasion of this corruption Good words He could not certainly say so unless he hath it from a Pope and Council And doth he take a passionate Hugh to be as credible with him as Cardinal Hugh And I think also the main thing for which Hugh Broughton was offended with our Translations was about the descent into Hell which by the Trent Council should seem not to be so necessary for they make no mention of it in their Creed And also if the sentence proceeds sufficiently upon Hughs words then their Latin is poysoned more as it should seem more by Isidor Clarius one of theirs And my Adversary might have remembred that we might as well slight Hugh Broughton in a singularity as he did Isidor Clarius And it seems the danger by Translations is not so great because he saies I may most truly say that far more perish by misunderstanding whilst they follow their Ministers and their own private judgement of discretion that which is truly Translated then perish by the corruption of that which is falsely Translated Ans This comes loosely from him also If it were obscure the Translation might miss if not how could they be in danger of perishing If they follow their Ministers or their own judgement without weighing the Scriptures they may erre as the Romanist does by blind obedience But if they compare the Doctrine of the Ministers with that of Scripture by their judgment of discretion as the Bereans did that which was spoken by St Paul and as he would have them compare the Doctrine of our Ministers with the Authority of their Church by their judgment of discretion they are in no such peril of damnation That which is not known without great difficulty may be unknown without great danger Otherwise we make God they may think an hard Master Thus they perish for not hearing that Church which their own Scripture bids them hear whereas in doing that which God bids there can be no danger of errour great or small Ans My Adversary is very importunate without new Arguments If he means that the Scripture bids us hear the Church universally as to Faith he begs the question If to hear as in point of trespass or so as not to contemn he fights with his own shadow as being ignorant of the Elench And so of the other clause if he means it so that God bids us absolutely do as the Church bids us there is the same fault in the discourse Better may we return it to them They perish because they will not hear the Scripture which the Scripture and the ancient Church bids them hear whereas in following Scripture there can be no danger of errour great or small and since also the Church can have no credible Authority but from the Scripture neither hath he proved the contrary whatsoever he saies and therefore he does well now to tell us that the Scripture bids us hear the Church He saies the doctrine of the Church is Gods Law Ans This is a kind of cryptical proposition I am sure Gods Law should be the doctrine of the Church but he means it for his use whatsoever the Church reacheth is Gods Law What is Gods Law in recto He speaks as boldly as if being but yet a private man he could not speak under infallibility So then we need not look any further for Gods Law and the Scripture then will not onely be insufficient for our direction to heaven as they say but not necessary which sometimes they will grant It will not be necessary neither as a rule as Bellarmin sometimes nor as a commonitory And we may wonder why amongst their Counsails they did not reckon this for one namely to use Scripture since upon this account we are not bound to it under peril of damnation but onely they will not allow it such perfection as to Counsails But then if the Church bids us not to read Scripture or bids us not to read Scripture it is not Gods Law and it is Gods Law but it is Gods Law that we should look into Scripture To the Law and to the Testimony Search the Scriptures saith Christ If the Church teacheth that we must worship Images or buy Images it must be Gods Law against Gods Law of the second Commandement If the Church bids us communicate under one kind it must be Christs Law against Christs Law And so God must contradict himself and Scripture must follow the sense of the Church as one of them is said to have said what a cause have they which hath need of so desperate propositions And private Priests are farr more likely to teach them Gods Law by
Texts confirm the certainty of Traditions we grant it namely of those Traditions which were afterwards written but how do these Texts confirm the certain necessity of those that are not written And therefore thirdly He is mightily disappointed if he conceives those Texts should bind us to stand upon Traditions now more than ever for the formality of Tradition was there sunk in the writing and the matter of Tradition was the same with that which was writtten in his own confession unless he drives the Texts Heterogeneously to his own words And he impingeth upon the same stone again What wise man would put â—ut one light costing him nothing because it will be shining of its own nature unless you will needs have iâ— hidden because he hath now another light but so that even with both those lights many of his houshold will still remain iâ— darkness Ans He supposeth a light added to a light It is well then that Scripture is assured to be one light but his Tradition should be compared to a light when there is no other light namely when the Scripture is defective Secondly If he thinks Tradition is a light costing us nothing he may be deceived for it will cost a great deal of Scrutiny since we cannot see it shining of its own nature infallibly And thirdly If some be still in darknese with both those lights then surely they may be more in darkness with but one and that is Tradition therefore they should allow the people the light of the Scripture since both too little as he saies to some But fourthly What if one light put out the other in the true state of the question namely Scripture Tradition superadded in matter And what wise man will light a straw candle in the Fathers expression when the Sun shines the Sun-light of Scripture puts out the straw-light of Traditions condemning those who teach for Doctrines Traditions of men which the Romanist does in some proportion And fifthly what wise man would have such a light which serves his turn best when it shines least for Traditions if we believe our Adversaries are a covered dish dainties to be kept private for those who are fit to receive them the more wise and perfect men which may teach them to others The mystery of Salvation that is made common by writing but the mystery of Tradition is put under a bushel The mystery of the Trinity is delivered in Scripture but the mystery of the Trent Traditions must not be familiarly known So then say they what they will or can we shall sooner find an extinguisher for the light of the rush candle than they for the light of the Sun But if you say that if Scripture had not been given us we should have had a more certain Tradition given us So he delivers my words which were not so but thus If Scripture had not been left to us we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us as the Gospel was before it was written Now some difference there is betwixt given us and left us for that which is left to us is intended for our constant use which that which is given doth not connotate So some Pontificians will say the Scripture was given upon particular occasion but was not left to the Church as a fixed universal rule But there is yet more betwixt us about my words we should have had Tradition more certainly conveighed to us so I said he reports me thus we should have had a more certain Tradition given unto us A more certain Tradition given and a Tradition more certainly conveighed are not altogether the same the former supposeth the matter of Tradition as not certain and this we can deny as to those times when there was no Scripture as written the other speaks de modo tradendi which comes closer to our question For we can perswade our selves that God who is graciously provident for his Church wherein he hath placed his Name would have taken care that if there had not been a certain direction in writing the matter of necessary Doctrine and practice should have been more certainly communicated to us So then he thrives very little by compare of the Christian Church with the Jewish although the Christian Church be more noble For first the compare must be of the Jewish with the whole Christian Church because the Jewish Church Proselyts being included therein namely Proselyts of the Covenant as they were distinguished was all the Church there was And secondly Because no part of the whole Church can compare with the Jewish Church as to priviledges and then by this reckoning how little of Nobility will fall to their share Thirdly As the Tradition which was it whereby the matter of Scripture was proposed was for the time necessary before the matter of Scripture was written so also must the Tradition of the Christian Church be considered as in relation to the time before which the matter of the New Testament was written therefore he should have pleaded if he would have it done patly that there was any Tradition of Faith after the Old Law was written beside what was written which was to be believed unto Salvation equally to what was written and then have drawn down a parallel Line of proportion of the same though he would have more nobility for the Christian Church Thirdly If the nobleness of a Church be antecedent to more certain Tradition as he thinks then how happened it that there was so little a time betwixt the preaching of the Gospel and the writing of it It seems then if God provides for Churches according to the nobleness of them that the better provision for the Church is by Scripture The Christian then hath a more certain way of Faith than by Tradition And as for means of securing Tradition in the Christian Church which he compares with the Jewish in he hath no cause to bragg For first they cannot say or prove that they have all Traditions in number formal and material Secondly They do not practice all How many are there which St. Basil speaks of in his Tract de Sp. Sanct. which they observe not Thirdly The safety of them is in the whole Church and yet forsooth every one must not know them Fourthly If so then have they reason to blush that they have been more careful to keep Tradition than Scripture and particularly of the Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew and is this for their credit Fifthly Are the Scriptures preserved uncorrupt or not If not how have they been faithful as before If so then why do their learned men obtrude the Authentiqueness of their Latin upon this account that when this Edition was made the Scriptures were pure and uncorrupted but corrupted since Again the Tradition of Christ's Primitive Church before the Scripture was written and sufficiently promulged was to be believed upon her sole Authority Ans If he takes that Tradition inclusively to the Apostles who preached that which they did write
Scripture than for any thing else But then I deny the minor the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility is not worthy of an infallible assent It may be worthy of the highest degree of moral assurance yet not of an iâ—fal ible assent No Authority can write as to Conscience what a king writes as to civil credit teste me ipso but that which is immediatly divine And why then do the Pontificians prove the Authority of the Church by Scripture The Church without Scripture is not yet Christned if we take Scripture for the substance of the matter it will be but the highest form of Heathens And therefore the Scripture is to be believed antecedently to the Church And how little his examples have proved the minor we have seen even as much as he had cause to conclude against me out of my own words thus Tradition in matters of Faith unwritten is of equal Authority to Scripture The Traditions we stand upon be matters of Faith truly once delivered by our Saviour or his Apostles though the Revelation were not written by them therefore this is of equal Authority to Scripture even according to your own words Surely it is easier to answer this than to forbear the Person The proposition was not my words I hope categorically spoken but as being the state of the question if those Traditions be in the matter beside Scripture And now he takes this to be my affirmation simply And then we deny his minor too because that which they stand upon is not matter of Faith as being not revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles or truly delivered by either for they are uncertain by which And if they will urge that Text St. Iohn the 16.22 as Bellarmin does they may think that many things might be written afterwards or were not points of Faith And this Text hereticks have urged and therefore by my Adversaries Logique he should not And did St. Austin think that any could soberly say that the points of difference were of that number Or did any of the Saints in Heaven see what they were in speculo Trinitatis and did send down word thereof As for his defence of the exception which he took against the Scriptures being a sufficient rule to us N. 15. because neither the Apostles nor their Successours took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such Languages as all or the greater part of them could understand my answer is yet good the care was taken in that the new Testament was written in Greek which was a common language then And this I gave an Argument of in that the Grecian is contradistinguished to the Jew in the New Testament And therefore the Greek must be the greatest and most famous part and therefore the language common this proof he is not pleased to meddle with at all Another proof that that was the common Language was that of Tully for Archias the Poet Graeca per totum orbem leguntur This he takes notice of And he saies and so is Virgil in Latin But this doth not contradict me yea he gives me a corroboration of my Argument for whom did Virgil imitate Theocritus in his Eglogues Hesiod in his Georgicks Homer in his Aeneids Yea Horace had read the Greeks it seems by his Grecisms Yea Terence was so conversant in Menander that he was called Menander dimidiatus But he saies This is to be understood thus that the most learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. Ans This supposed is not exclusive to the Greeks being the common Language as to others since he will think the Latin was common to the people then and yet the most learned read Virgil. And did not all those Nations whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles to understand Greek Did he write onely to the most learned In what Language was the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Hebrews for the Roman Church confesseth that this Epistle also was written by St. Paul written were they not both written in Greek yea the Jews that used the Septuagint Translation were many So Philo the Jew and Marcus Antonius the Roman wrote in Greek And therefore that which was spoken by the Oratour was spoken without any such Hyperbole He saies yet further either this must be spoken in way of a notable amplification or Scripture must be denied because even between the two Cities of Antioch and Constantinople the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus Cappadocia Asia minor Phrygia Pamphilia all which Nations the Scripture Act. 2. testifieth to have had different Languages Ans Though the Scripture speaks of them as distinguished in speech yet not in Language but dialect and so it is expressed ver 6.8 And so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be restrained as to those who had several dialects therefore whereas he saies the Greek tongue was not the vulgar Language of Pontus c. If he means that the common Dialect of the Greek was not used by them all this is not much to be stood upon because it is not reasonable to say that those who spake several Dialects did not understand the common Greek for take them all Attique Jonique Dorique Aeolique and Baeotique they differ ordinarily but in terminations or pronunciation from the common Within that compass is also Galatia which St. Jerom testifieth to have had a language somwhat like those of Trevers An. It is as farre from Thebes to Athens as from Athens to Thebes is it not Then that of Trevers must be as neer that of greek as that of the Galatians which was greek in St. Pauls time If afterwards the language altered or was corrupted this doth not contradict us because we must distinguish times And therefore yet it remains good that the greek was understood of the greater part of the world and therefore the Apostles took care to have the knowledge of the Gospel to be commonly understood And if they had not God did miraculously by the gift of the Holy Ghost sub forma visibili in the second of the Acts in the gift of tongues And this concludes against their Latin service as also St. Paul discourseth and concludeth against it in the first Ep. Cor. 14. And though we cannot tell the time when the Scripture can first be shewed to have been thus communicated to the people of severall languages what is this to the purpose If it had not been done afterwards it is enough to us that the Apostles did write in the most common language for those times And if it had not been done it should have been done But that it was done appears seasonably in the great Bible Neither can they tell us or will when the vulgar Latin began first to be Authentique whether under Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth In the beginning he tells me that I moved a question how the people should clearly know the true Tradition from the false Ans I did
move this question but somwhat else was annexed which he saies nothing to Well to this he now answers first they could know this better then know true Scripture from false for they could not do that but by knowing first the true Tradition recommending the true Scripture from the false tradition recommending the false Ans First this hath been often denied him that the ultimate resolution of faith in the true Scripture is not Tradition this may lead us to the gate of the Temple but this does not open the doore of faith 2. That Tradition which makes an inducement is of the universall not Roman Church 3. How shall we know true tradition but by the true Church How shall we know the true Church but by Scripture therefore we must know the true tradition from the false by the Scripture which contradicts his method And he saies they could do this as well or better than their fore-Fathers for many hundred of years yea for two thousand yea for twice two thousand years together Answ First they see then their error in defining Faith so strictly to be an infallible assent since they here stand upon a comparative certainty if so which amounts not to the consistence of faith Secondly He supposeth that which is not to be supposed that their fore-fathers were determined in their faith of the word of God by Tradition Even now or a litle before he said Tradition was estalished to the Jew by Scripture Now Tradition is that which must discerne and consequently stablish Scripture 3. It appears that as Scripture is more perfect then Tradition because otherwise God had gone the worst way namely from that which is more perfect to that which is less perfect namely from Tradition to the writing of his word but that which is less pefect cannot establish that which is more perfect Therfore neither then nor now could Scripture receive the blessing of establishment from that which is inferiour 4. In the times of the law there was no other Church to vie with the Jewes about Traditions And therefore they might be more certain of true Traditions But now there are several national Churches which may pretend superiority of tradition or tradition of superiority as the Roman doth and therefore it is not so sure a way to fixe our last foot upon Tradition 5. Universal Tradition of all times and places which only weighs in this cause is not in other things for them nor in that canon supernumerary of theirs and therefore let them either retract the argument or take it Yet he will be confident of two Traditions whereof the efficacie is commended with perpetuall profession and answerable practice dayly occurring Baptism of Infants and praier for the faithfull eparted The first of these we have abundantly examined before and he does here most insist upon the latter assigning also his reason of more practice of this last Because they baptize Infants but once but they pray â—ften for the same man who is dead And then being more practised it is more confirmed which Cressie also urgeth Ans As for Paedobaptism here he doth not prove it to be a Tradition unless this be a true proposition that whatsoever is commended with perpetual profession and answerable practice daly accurring is only delivered by Tradition Tradition is such but all that is such is not Tradition Therefore that proposition denied And for what he saies towards both before that the Apostles did only by unwritten Tradition clearly and undeniably teach the baptizing of Children and praier for the faithfull departed it is not clear that it is undeniable and therefore clearely and undeniably it is denied Baptism of Infants hath not yet lost sufficient ground in Scripture to keep it from a necessity of being named Tradition as he should have shewed And as to the other praier for the dead we answer first it seemes then it is but a Tradition and they will pradon us if we speak thus diminutively of it And whether this will please all the Roman Doctors that it should have no footing in Scripture let it be none of our care 2. For the object of persons whom they praied for question would be made what morally they were who were to be praied for but this he tells us he saies they were the faithfull Well but all the faithfull I suppose It may be they will say yes If not let them give us a reason of their distinction according to Tradition If so then praier for the dead doth not inferr purgatory which they intend in the praier for the dead And the reason of the consequence is proved because praier was made for all the faithfull and some of them went up to Heaven per saltum as they will also confess namely Apostles and Martyrs and yet these were also prayed for in order to a joyful resurection And indeed the antient praiers for the dead did respect their bodies in the grave to be raised up at the resurrection not their soules to be raised out of Purgatory after a plenary satisfaction And what meanes St. Austin in Tract In Iohannem 49. unus quisque cum causa sua dormiet cum causâ suâ resurget And some of their own have lately in this differed from them Neither had the Roman Church with their infallibility perswaded the Greek Church hereof in Nilus's time who hath a learned discourse against it And thirdly as for Inscriptions upon the Graves whereby he would make a prescription for the tradition we say two things First that we must have them to be shewed to be so antient as to have been universally used in the Primitive times and then secondly that they were used upon the Roman account And as for Aerius who onely as he saies denied praying for the dead to be accounted for this his opinion an Heretick by St. Austin and St. Epiphanius they must somewhat excuse us for this absolutely is not right for their turn if true First not right for their use because he might deny prayers and oblations for the dead in the former respect namely for a joyful resurrection and this comes not up to the state of the point wherein we differ namely whether prayer for the dead was a tradition in their sense as inferring Purgatory But 2. Neither is it absolutely true that Aerius was accounted an Heretique for this opinion exclusively to other opinions of his as my Adversaries words import However he meant them I will pinch it Either he means for this opinion only or for this opinion with other opinions If for this opinion concurrently with others this derogates from the common sense of his words and from his use too because if he was accounted an heretique for severall opinions it may be some of them were not heretical opinions and then it cannot be said that he was for every of them accounted an heretick unless we could make some to be heresies which are not heresies and this would be a contradiction Well then I
take him to mean that Aerius was accounted an heretick for this his opinion exclusively to other opinions in a negative precision and then I say it is not true And to bring it to the test one of his Authors shall be mine St. Austin in his Catalogue of heresies N. 53. He tells us of Philaster that he had made an enumeration of heresies and after him more perfectly Epiphanius and he came after them and he gives us an account of the Arrians from Aerius and several things he does say of him that he was sorry that he was not a Bishop and that having fallen in Arrianorum heresin into the heresie of the Arrians he added also some proper opinions saying that we ought not to pray or offer oblations for the dead and that set fasts were not solemnly to be observed and also that a Presbyter ought not to be by any difference distinguished from a Bishop And some said of him that they were also Eneratites and Apotactites So then the result hereof is this if he could not say Aerius was accounted an heretick onely for this Nay St. Austin doth contradistinguish here heresie to proper opinions So he might be an heretick and not for proper opinions because he had fallen into the heresie of the Arrians yea and some account him an heretick for not distinguishing betwixt a Bishop and a Presbyter therefore though his proper opinions were in the judgement of St. Austin heretical yet can it not be said that he was accounted an heretick onely for denying prayers for the dead which was to be shewed by me And if for this opinion disjunctively yet not for denying prayer for the dead in his sense which was to be shewed by him And therefore upon the whole matter we cannot submit to Tradition as infallible because this Tradition in the Roman sense bears false witness of its self nor to the Church if it fallibly pretends infallible Tradition Neither can prudent reason make infallible assent unless the conclusions could be better than their premises Prudent reason were more apt to make Science which they have no cause to be inclinable to neither because it is more opposit to their implicit Faith And he hath no cause therefore to say How many true Beleevers commended in Scripture cannot give so prudent a reason for what they believed Ans All the reason of Faith which can be given if we take Faith in the acception of an infallible assent must be grounded upon infallible principles if any believed upon other account it was not properly Faith and therefore it cannot be said in propriety of the notion which the Romanist also stands upon that they believed Secondly If he takes Faith in a looser sence for an assent upon humane Authority this is not to the question and we can allow Tradition its influence hereunto Thirdly If he means that they could not give a more prudent reason for what they beleived as to others that should ask them a reason of their Faith this we can yield as to universal Tradition that by the inartificial Argument of Authority we can give no more prudent reason than by Tradition But this doth not hit the question whether the testimony private of the Spirit of God makes not a better assurance of Faith to our selves though this is not demonstrable to others that we have this assurance by the Spirit of God Therefore fourthly This will not do the business unless what he saies he proves from Scripture We have urged the contrary in the example of the Beraeans and the term believing in Scripture is not seldom taken not of an internal act of Faith subjective but an external profession of faith objective And so Simon Magus is said to have believed Here he gives us occasion to wish he had done so before as he does here in putting his sense into some form thus Faith being an infallible assent controversies concerning Faith cannot be determined so as to end them effectually but by an infallible living judg who can hear you me be heard by you me but no other than the Church can with any ground be held to be this living Judge therefore she must be held to be the Judge Ans First to the major and we say that it begs the question in two Suppositions First That there is a necessity of controversies in points of Salvation And secondly that it is necessary to Salvation that all controversies though not in points of Salvation should infallibly be determined When these two suppositions are sufficiently made good we shall grant him the major and yet then also that infallible Judge is yet bound to judge by law of Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then as to the minor we say secondly This speaks for the Church universal which then according to my Adversaries Principles should alwaies have a true Pope and a true standing General Council or else we should think God had not provided for his Church ad semper Now if it be said some controversies may arise which are not so necessary to be decided in order to Salvation then he destroys his major which goes in part upon that Supposition and so in this he is one of us Therefore thirdly We can retort his Argument mutatis mutandis Faith being an infallible assent requires an infallible Authority But the Church is not yet proved to have an infallible Authority therefore it must be the Scripture Fifthly If he means his infallible Living Judge of the Roman Church we deny that this Judge will explicate all doubts for how hath it ended all controversies in the Trent Council Indeed that Council hath made more about the sense of ambiguous definitions and therefore though his major proposition were true de posse which yet we deny upon the former considerations yet we were to seek de velle and then should we be never a whit the nearer And as touching that Text whereby he would prove that the Bible cannot end all controversies because it cannot end the controversie about it with the Arrians these three are one We say first in ingenuity he needed not to have taken notice of it Secondly We should not by right have disputed the subject of the question whether this or that be Scripture or not Our dispute is about the predicates of scripture Thirdly the Arrians were sufficiently condemned by another Text as before and therefore there is no such necessity of the question Fourthly We rather believe the Church than the Arrian herein But let it be put to the pinch and there were more Faith required in it than the matter afforded can the Church determin it by her own Authority infallibly It not why doth he raise the dust If it can why is it not formally done Therefore either this Text hath not given necessary occasion to an infallible Judge or the infallible Judge hath deceived us in not taking the occasion And therefore to put his other discourse into a shorter and better forme
the Church visible as the onely subject if it be not then the Text doth not prove absolute infallibility but onely security against damning errours or practice Not that the Church visible is not a mean of that security but therefore not a mean universally infallible but with specification Sixthly you ask how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Council is General To this he answers by giving us the means or signs of this knowledge First publique Summons Secondly publique appearance of Prelats made upon these summons from all parts of the world Thirdly publick setting publick subscribing publick divulging their Decrees and Definitions acknowledged truly to be theirs by all present denied by no man to be theirs with the least show of probability no more than such an Act is denied to be the Act of such a Parliament Ans Is here all The question was how shall ignorant people be divinely perswaded that the Council is general And now we must be answered with a probability If that which may be known probably be known divinely eo ipso upon that account then a probable Argument may make an infallible conclusion And why then do they urge infallibility of the Church for point of Faith which they can never prove It less would have made Faith they should not in prudence have combated for infallibility But as long as the conclusion follows the worse part and the effect doth not exceed the cause and the assent cannot be higher than the ground of it this answer of his is too short for the question Secondly were not all these necessary conditions of a General Council belonging to the Trent Council And why then was not the French Church perswaded to take it for a General Council Why doth the French Church say transeat concilium Tridentinum Therefore that which he saies is not so that all these motives make it evidently credible to the ignorant and to the learned that this is the true definition of the church It is evidently credible to neither So that though the Definition of the Church were infallible in it self as they say Scriprure is yet is it not infallible to us as they say Scripture is not without the Church Therefore though the Definition were infallible yet cannot they thereby prove the Council infallible but they are first to prove the Council infallible then that which is a true definition of the church will be infallibly true because truly infallible So that he needs not tell us that if we beleive all her Definitions to be true we will also believe this Definition to be true since a particular is included in an universal But before we believe all her Definitions to be true we must demand some infallible assurance that such a Council is truly universal and that an universal Council is truly infallible Otherwise we may believe one Definition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be true and yet because not proposed infallibly we cannot believe all her Definitions to be true And therefore hath he not extricated himself out of insuperable difficulties As for the Hypothesis of the Trent Council which I said was contradicted by the French Catholiques he saies their Definitions concerning Faith were never opposed by France Ans Opposition is formally indeed in contradiction But if they were denied onely it were sufficient to us Do my Adversaries think they may be saved notwithstanding this denial This surely they deny not Well then if they may be saved notwithstanding their denial then we may be saved also though we do not subscribe some definitions of a Church Then we are not bound absolutly under danger of damnation to believe all definitions of the Church Then the Church hath not infallible authority But 2. their withdrawing of their assent must draw in one of these two things either that it was not a General Council and this interpretativi makes a contradiction or that General Councils are not infallible and this in effect makes a contradiction too Yea 3. Did not the King of France write to the Trent Council under the name of a Conventus which they construed in derogation to a General Council As appears in the Trent History And 4. As for the distinction of the definitions concerning faith as if they were not so disliked but some things ordained for practice seemed less suitable to the particular state of that Kingdom This runnes out as it comes in For those things towards practice were ordained by the same Divine authority were they not Or did not the Holy Ghost assist them as to things of practice If not then proper obedience is not due to Councils because proper obedience respects things of practice but indeed the whole Council was rejected in gross and therefore when Cardinal Ossat mediated for the King of France with the Pope and the Cardinal urged the peace for him without the condition of accepting the Trent Council he wrote to the King what the Pope said one morning to him because he would not receive the Council that he had no more rest that night then a damned soule in Ossat's Letters And as to the seventh answer concerning some in the Trent Council who had Titles of Bishops Bishop Iewell affirmes it in his Apol. Par. 6. P. 62.5 and he names St. Robert of Scotland and Mr. Pates of England And the former is named in the Trent History to have been a Bishop of the post if we may say so of him for his ability in riding post so well And if forty Bishops do all agree in the same point of faith as for a good while there were not many more what can be be concluded against a possibility that they might be all sworne servants of the Pope And he that will read the Trent History will finde sufficient cause not to suspect but to believe that Council not to have had due moralities much less infallibility His best way then to secure a Council against irregularities is by the assistance of the Holy Ghost that nothing shall happen destructive of secure direction Ans this is not sufficient that nothing be destructive of secure direction against damnation if he means it now so but against all errour for this he is ingaged to make good by former denying of that distinction of errour damnative and errour not damnative Yet here he seems to warpe in this point 2. The morality of the Synod is antecedent to its infallible assistance Then we must have all defects of legality and proceeding removed before we can be perswaded of its infallibility 3. why did he except against Cajaphas for not being the true High Priest if now Cajaphas may Prophesie not knowing what he doth before the spirit of truth sent to teach the Church all truth shall faile in his duty So then notwithstanding there be not a legall High Priest the spirit of God shall infallibly act the Council as he did the Apostles But here is a double duty for them first that the spirit of God
doth now infallibly teach the Church in all definitions And then a second that it is his duty to do so Let them learn their duty not to tell God his duty Did the Holy Ghost do his duty when Cajaphas and the Assembly condemned Christ And why did not the Holy Ghost make eight hundred Bishops in Ariminum as infallible without a Pope as the forty Bishops in the Trent Council whereof some might be made Bishops not because they did not differ from the rest but that they might not differ in the Roman Faith though against the Catholique faith And if they put the difference in this compare upon a Pope in Trent Council none in Ariminum though that answer will not serve as before since Praelats have a also a power of calling Councils as my Adversary before in some cases why should not the Holy Ghost rather assist eight hundred Praelats without a Pope then forty with As to the eighth answer he confesseth the substance of it that for the first three hundred yeares there was no General Council and tells us the cause for persecution no Council could be gathered But this satisfieth not God is not wanting in necessaries nor abundant in superfluities as one of theirs saies If councils had been allwaies necessary he could have provided against persecutions or for a Council notwithstanding And why not in time of persecutions as well as in the times of the Apostles Were not those times of persecution Neither is that a sufficient reason because all this time the former doctrine of the Apostles remained so fresh and so notoriously the Tradition of the Church diffused and there remained also so universal a respect and obedience to the Chief Bishop of the Church Ans these three causes will not make one sound one For by the first he means the known doctrine of the Apostles as delivered in writing or not if so then why may not we by the same cause sufficiently be directed by the word written And as to the second if he joyns Tradition of the Church as notoriously diffused as a social mean of the direction it may be denied upon this account only here for that other Traditions of Heretiques were then mingled in the Church with pretense of coming from the Apostles And therefore the Traditions of the Church was notoriously not distinguished And as to the third it is notoriously false that then there was a chief Bishop in their sense in those times For how then could equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be appointed in the Nicene Council if the Bishop of Rome had been Chief before how could St. Cyprian have said that all the Apostles were equall pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis How could the African Council have then cut off appeals to Rome Then had there been no need of the feigning of a Canon to this purpose in the Nicene Council How could St. Ierom have said that the Bishops succeeded the Apostles in communi in his Epistle to Evagrious Neither was there such obedience then performed by them to the Praelats in all places as may appear by the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians where he speaks of great Schisms And also by Ignatius his earnest exhortations of submission to them Whence the Quartodecim ani although they opposed nothing clearely set down in Scripture were judged Heretikes for opposing the doctrin of the first Church made evidently known by fresh Tradition Ans First if they will believe their Alphonsus de castro they were not sententially declared Heretikes because they were excommunicated Indeed Victor would have excommunicated then fecisset nisi Irenaeus illum ob hoc redarguisset he would have done it if Irenaeus had not chid him for this By the way then was this also obedience to the chief Bishop to chide him So Alphons in his 12. b. de haer In verbo pascha Yea 2. They may know that Eusebius doth give an account of the Asian observation to come from as good Tradition as the the other And surely the Asian Church was therfore the western and therefore was it not the doctrin of the first Church Yea also by the way how was Tradition of the Church notoriously diffused when there was Tradition against Tradition And herein also did the Brittish Churches which Tertullian speakes of differ from the western following the Eastern Church 3. Heresie is some times largely taken and doth then respect Schism of proper name and so in a large sense it might by some be called Heresie although the matter of difference was no doctrin of faith Ex verbis male prolatis oritur Haeresis So Hereticks in a propriety of speech they could not be 14. Alphonsus doth distinguish here upon in the same place and saies they were accounted Hereticks not because they did simply observe it then sed quia ita esse necessario faciendum credebant And this then alters the case And he explains himself further because this did include a necessity of observeing Judaical ceremonies even after Christ's his coming And so then this was contrary to the word written And then this was not a Tradition 5. They here shew the pride of Rome to offer to cut off from her comunion all those who were of the other perswasion who were not few as may be seen in Eusebius's 5. B. 24.5 Ch. for a thing simply of free observation wherein difference makes no variance a◠Irenaeus sent word to their Victor ch 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference of a fast and so of a feast doth commend the agreement of faith He goes on now as the Church could want Councils for so many years so it could want Councils for the short space of schism Right But then so can it want Councils still and therefore God hath not bound us over to the Church for our absolute direction upon necessity of Salvation Councils are necessary to infallible direction so my Adversaries hold The Church for three hundred years and in time of a Schism can want Councils as my Adversary here so then there is no absolute necessity of their infallibility And indeed there was much need of Councils in that space of the first three hundred years in regard of Divisions as since and then if God provided sufficiently for his Church without them he can and will do so still And this is confirmed by my Adversary by these words of his for the neccessity of new declarations is not so frequent at least in any high degree of necessity calling for instant remedy and remedy of this nature only And he may goe on and say it not upon my opinion but for himself and ex animo that Scripture alone will remedy this necessity He needed not to put in you say And as to that which he saies that there remained many definitions oft former councils and Traditions of the Church which alone served Gods church these we have spoken to sufficiently before Either the Definitions were concluded out of principles
Authors And if some of theirs have professed to take testimonies upon his credit because they had not Books by them I may be easily excused for asking the question whether the Bishop of Bitonto did not say so and so in the Council of Trent He that asks a question seems to be wary of asserting And if the opinion of one able Doctor be sufficient to make a point probable as some of them have lately said this point of fact is not altogether unprovided of some hope of probability My Author is Bishop Iewel who speaks it more than once in his Apology Neither have they cause to bragge that their Church have been the men who were still imployed in the upholding the Authority of Councils Surely my Adversaries did pass by Cajetan and Bellarmin and Valentia and did not take notice of what they have said towards fallibility of Councils even lawful that so infallibility and Monarchy might be necessarily devolved from heaven as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the Pope's lap All that make perstriction of the Authority of Councils are not hereticks it seems because some that are good Roman Catholicks do speak of their fallibility so that this infallibility should be intailed upon the Bishop universal And so they differ from my Adversaries platforme of infallible direction In this he shewes himself highly displeased for offering to compare the Determinations of Trent with the word of God He thinkes it fine doctrine that determinations of Councils should be examined by such as I and he is Ans it is halfe an argument for us that they are angry at this But first we do not speak of an Authoritative examination which is forensical but a rational inquiry which is for private satisfaction 2. If the Decrees of that Council be indeed infallible they will abide the test if not how can we believe them Do they think 3. That we are more bound to believe the council of Trent then the Beraeans were bound to believe what was said by St. Paul without discussing since specially they are pleased in the Trent Council somtimes to joyn St. Paul as partner with St. Peter in the honour of their Church 3. We may surely finde more cause to examine the Trent Council then some others since it hath not yet obteined in the Christian world the reputation of a lawful General Council therefore though we doe not examin others yet this we may 4. would they not have us preferre the doctrin of Trent before any differing from it yes surely then we must inquire into it and privately judge it otherwise we make a blind choice Fifthly If the consent of the major part which is most immediatly considerable in a Council should morally bind why should we not as well believe the Council of Ariminum since what else he hath pretended against it is not cogent Sixthly If they think that one cannot think well of a lawful General Council unless he believes their infallibility that proposition is easily denied They may be fallible and yet not faulted by me in piety or prudence Infallible conclusions do not follow upon moral principles The one makes them careful the other faithful but though they do not deceive me they may be deceived themselves And if their infallibility did depend upon their piety and prudence how are we infallibly certain of that upon which their infallibility should be grounded Nor does my consideration of a Council betray in me a want of charity or humility as he supposeth they have themselves as Disparates to Theological Faith and are not of the same Conjugation Humility disposeth me to think of my self meanly Charity disposeth me to think better of others because I know my own imperfections and do not know anothers perfections as Aquinas notes But if these were dispositive unto Faith yet not causal If causal of Faith yet of Faith humane not divine unless I did see Gods Word for believing men This is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they can prove this we have no more to say Until then I can love my Adversaries and think humbly of my self And yet cannot be perswaded that my Adversaries are infallible And if they were infallible in the dispute how should infallibility be the prerogative of the Council confirmed by the Pope So then as long as I can give reverence to a Council without present Faith I am not posed but they who must beg the question In this he chargeth me with shifting because I said now let us not see the opinions by infallibility but the infallibility by your determinations whereas else where I say you should go a priori and shew that your Church is infallible and therefore her definitions to be admitted This in effect he supposeth to be my shift to evade his pressure of me Ans No such matter Good cause for both distinguish reasons and respects First I hope they think it lawful to urge both waies in a different kind of discourse we demonstrate the effect by the cause we know the cause by the effect Secondly The way a Priori is more distinct and therefore this would presently make an end of the controversie if it could be effected because it satisfies us in the cause Prove the infallibility and then we fall down or rise up to the definitions They are then to be taken ipso facto and they produce Faith ex opere operato as we may speak This the way of nature But when they cannot make this good then the other way and quoad nos is to shew us their infallibility by their determinations and an easie way it is to us to shew them the unlikeliness of infallibility by their determinations For it is sufficient to the negative of infallibility to find one errour in any of their definitions but it is not sufficient to them for the affirmative of infallibility to prove that the Church hath not erred in some particular definitions The latitude of the power is not discharged by some acts Quem saepe transit casus aliquando invent If it hath erred but once we are sure it can erre then infallibility is destroyed if it hath not erred in some yet it doth not follow that it hath not erred in others Yea if it hath erred in none we cannot ex vi formae conclude infallibility unless it be proved that the power of erring is bound in the Church Representative as the Schoolmen say the power of sinning is bound in the Church Triumphant Thirdly We are now upon the Hypothesis incidently and so it is very reasonable for us to go this way with them because a particular Church hath not the priviledges of the universal Church It is generally supposed that the universal Church cannot erre in things necessary but this is not granted to any Church of one denomination Now the Trent Council belongs to a particular Church and therefore as to that our way of proceeding is not irrational And therefore all that he saies upon this argument comes to
Church all he saies is nothing against so much use of it as I made For I do not argue so because there are such Ebraisms therefore this is to be so expounded we say it follows not as to an actual necessity of such an interpretation No but thus it will follow there are such Hebrew formes of prefacing therefore this may be so interpreted Now the possibility of such an exposition is sufficient to my purpose For possibility of the Contrary stops the mouth of infallibility If this or that be infallible it is not possible to be any other way but the sense may be otherwise therefore this is not the infallible sense so we agree with Dr. Taylor whom he quotes because the Doctor may deny the argumentation as quoad esse we intend it sufficiently quoad posse It may be otherwise expounded than they say therefore cannot we hereby infallibly know this infallibility of the Church Suppose the Church were infallible yet if we did not infallibly know so much we cannot make the Church our ground of Faith Nor could there be any consistence of their implicit Faith if they did not know infallibly that whatsoever the Church propounds is infallible And an exception against this interpretation is that it is new unheard of to all Antiquity and unto all men unto this age Ans This exception would have come better from some other since my adversary had no minde to answer me to some Authority of the Antient. It were worth the while to quit the Criticism upon condition they would hold to antiquity But whose saying was that Omnes Patres sic ego autem non sic And yet neither is this a sufficient answer unless the consent of the Fathers could make a conclusion to be of faith So then as the Florentine said of vertue that the shew of it is profitable but the practice not so also may it be said of the Italians that the shew of antiquity is of use to them but the thing not but also it will be too hard for every one of them to prove a negative neither were many of the Fathers Learned in the Hebrew tongue He goes on whether this infallibility be equall to that of the Apostles or not maketh not to our purpose Ans Surely infallibility never took any degrees with their Doctours It is not receptive of magis minus therefore if he asserts not an equall infallibility he asserts none less in infallibility is less then infallibility So then their Church now is not such as to rely upon equally to the Authority of the Apostles therefore it must be subordinate to Apostolical authority which indeed was in effect confessed before in that he granted that the Church was regula regulata And this is as much as the cause is worth He saies I note him in a Parenthesis for a French Catholicke for allowing infallibility to the Pope defining with a Council Ans No. He or his scribe is much mistaken I asked him whether he had a minde to the opinion of the French Catholick because he in one place spake of the infallible assistance of the Church without any mention of the Pope Now if he did on purpose leave out the Pope in his account of infallibility then he is like to be a French Catholick And although all Romane Catholicks allow infallibility to a Pope defining with a Council cumulative yet all Roman Catholicks do not allow infallibility to the Pope only then when he defines with a Council As some Catholicks do allow full Authority to a Council without a Pope so some Catholicks allow infallible Authority to a Pope without a Council And this is more then I needed to have said to him that sales in this paragraph so little to me Yet he will charge me with charging him with an opinion which brings him within perill of blasphemy His opinion was this God gives as much infallible assistance to the Church in a Council as he gave to him who did deliver his word in Scripture My reason was this for herein it appears that now there is no need of Scripture since God speaks as infallibly by his Church as in his word He denies the inference I maintain the charge more pressely thus He that inferres no need of Scripture comes within perill of blasphemie He that saies such words as before infers no need of Scripture Therefore To the major in effect he hath said nothing his discourse is bent against the matter of the minor and he would deny it by severall instances which come not up to the case in hand First because he speaks infallibly by the Church of the Law of nature for two thousand yeares And why more blasphemy now To this in the matter of it we have spoken before As applied here we shall answer to it now First he did not then speak infallibly by his Church if the termes by his Church be meant reduplicatively to whatsoever was said by his Church if it be understood thus that whatsoever truth was proposed by God was proposed by the Church it may be more easily granted In the former sense the reason were good if it were true in the latter it may be supposed true yet it is not sufficient to his use who urgeth that nothing is proposed by the Church but that which is true and from God Yea 2. it cannot be absolutly granted in the second sense if we take the Church to have spoken from God in any way of a Council for much truth of what was proposed came to some of them by way of prophecy 3. The termes God speak infallibly by his Church may relate more strictly to the Agent or to the Instrument God spake infallibly whatsoever he spake by them but God did not speak infallibly by them whatsoever they said Or thus the words are true hypothetically if God spake he spake infallibly by them for he cannot speak otherwise but that whatsoever they said was spoken to them infallibly by God is a question Yea 4. Will they think that there is as much reason for infallible speaking by the Church when the Scripture Canon is compleated as when there was none As to Gods speaking by Moses we have spoken to it lastly As to Gods speaking to some Gentiles by the Church that was not ordinary and therefore it fits not our case neither can they prove that the faith of the Gentiles was not wrought in them by the efficiencie of the spirit of God notwithstanding they had the object of their faith from the Church Neither is it now the same case of teaching us infallibly by the Church as at the time when the Apostles did write because the Christian Church was then to be settled upon the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul speaks and now the building can stand upon that foundation therefore were they extraordinary officers and lasted but for a time And yet if they can prove that their Church-doctrine is no other then that which was
against the Arrians But it may be the Arrians did not care for the Authority of a Council and therefore St. Austin waved the Nicene Council Yea Then how is the Authority of a Council a Catholick remedy and then it seemes the Nicene Fathers determined against them not by their Authority which they cared not for but by the Scripture So then the disteem of that Council of Ariminum was upon respect to the matter of the definitions And so a Council was not in their opinion ipso facto infallible Therefore he procceds in a fallacy if he argues thus it was never by the Fathers no nor by the Church of England numbred amongst the foure first Councils therefore it was rejected because it was not accounted a lawful Council Because it was rejected therefore for this cause doth not follow because the genus doth contein potentially more species It was refused upon dislike of the matter it seemes as before And as for the reason why it was not lawful he toucheth not here and it was cashiered before He goes on and you might as well thinke that I might prevaile against you by only citing the Council of Trent c. Ans surely the Council of Ariminum in all respects considerable was as hopeful towards infallibility as the Council of Trent it may be more by a a greater number of Bishops and this with my adversary should have borne some weight who should think that multitude of Counsellours is halfe an argument of truth because he would not place infallibility in a singular person as the Jesuit but in a Council with the Pope And if he saies that there was wanting in the Council of Ariminum the presence or consent of the Bishop of Rome we can easily answer that he then had but a single suffrage and there were some hundreds of Bishops more in the Council of Ariminum then were at the Council of Trent Yea also some Decrees of the Council of Trent proceeded without the Pope's confirmation as before But I think they are both alike the Council of Ariminum and the Council of Trent in being deceived Only I think that St. Austin had less to say against the illegality of the Council of Ariminum then we have to say against the Council of Trent And therefore we may follow St. Austin and if he appealed from the Council of Ariminum to Scripture we may as well appeal from that of Trent if they would urge it He saies St. Austin in vaine had insisted upon the Nicene Council against one who scoffed at it Ans Me thinkes if I may say so this is not very judiciously spoken because if Maximinus urged the Council of Ariminum he was bound by equall law to be dealt with by the Nicene Council If Maximinus had not urged the Council of Ariminum it had seemed that the Arrian had not a perswasion that this Controversie should be otherwise handled then by Scripture And if he were well furnished with other arguments out of Scripture admitted by him as he it seemes supposeth that he might be what need then of the infallibility of the Church in Councils And it seemes it is the shorter way and more expedite against Hereticks by Scripture as he confesseth in the words following that St. Austin intended by them only at that time to overthrow him and not to medle with a long contention fit to fill a book alone aboue the validity of the Council of Nice and invalidity of that of Ariminum Put then these things together St. Austin it seemes might be sufficiently furnished with arguments out of Scripture against the Arrian he might by them only overthrow him it is a voluminous work to prove the legality of one Council and the illegality of another the Arrian scoffed at the Council of Nice therefore the convenient and easie way of proceeding with and against Hereticks is by Scripture not by the Authority of the Church And this interpretative is the yeilding of the cause And yet if they will yet think Councils as such to be infallible let them think upon that Canon of Nice declaring equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishop of Alexandria to Rome and let them think of the Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Constantinople that the Bishop of Constantinople should be equal in his limits to the Bishop of Rome The Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Nestorius that Peter and Iohn were of equal dignity Let them therefore consider well what they have to do for if Councils be not infallible they are in an errour if Councils be infallible they are not because they have declared against them Let them therefore stand on fall by Scripture Let them try it so as St. Austin did N. 29. His discourse herein is fully put into this form all errours in or against things necessary are plainely determined by Scripture This infallibility of the Church is not plainly determined against by Scripture therefore But therefore what That this is no errour Nay that is not rightly concluded but that it is not an errour in things necessary All errours are not in things necessary Therefore if it concludes as it should it is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for it is enough to us that it be an errour suppose it were not an errour in things necessary If it concludes that therefore it is no errour it concludes falsly 2. Though the proposition be our doctrine the assumption supposeth that which is not necessary to be granted by us that this infallibility of the Church is an errour in things necessary we do not deny it to be so but we are not by any arguments constrained to say so For though we should not hold it an errour in necessaries yet is it necessary to reject it as an errour knowing it to be so And 3. We say to the assumption that it is sufficiently enough determined against by Scripture namely as necessary to be in the Church because in the Scripture sufficiency to salvation is asserted without it as before And 4. The affirmative should have been proved by them who assert it not the negative to be proved by us And as towards his proof of the assumption that the Scripture is not so clear against this as for this we have nothing to say because he hath nothing to prove it Scaurus nega◠it beggs And we can say better we have proved the contrary N. 29. Here he resumes a Text for them St. Matthew 28. vlt. I made answer to it before that it doth not extend equall assistance to all ages of the Church He now urgeth me to shew a Text wherein the assistance which was infallible in the first age should not be for the Second or Third age he saies to me against your reasons we have our reasons Ans He is here wanting in two offices first in proving that that Text doth extend equal assistance to all ages of the Church for which the respondent is to waite with his
buckler it is enough to us that he cannot or does not prove it But then 2. He is wanting in another thing because he doth not produce his reasons against our reasons let them draw the Sword and cut the knots if they cannot unty them Let them bring forth their strong reasons as the Prophet speakes When as then he saies bring against my illimited Text another Text limiting we say that the cause and our office is upon the negative until he brings another Text for his sense or gives reason for it or gives us the consent of all ages of the Church we have nothing more to thinke besides what hath been said then that he had reason to say more then what follows the necessity of the people which was the prime reason why Christ gave this infalliblity was greater in ages remoter from Christ But this was answered to by retortion that then Traditions it seemes now are not to be accounted equally certain And he answers now that which he had better have kept in He saies now it is harder to prove now that Christ did such miracles was crucified did rise again then it was presently after these thinges happened yet all these things be as infallibly true now as they were then and as infallible so I say of traditions which for all this doe not lose a sufficient measure of infallible certainty Ans Traditions then were but equall to Scripture Traditions now are not equall to Traditions then Therefore they are not now equall to Scripture And this spoyles their Traditions and contradicts the Trent Council which determins that they are to be received Pari pietatis affectu And so hath he lost his hold of Traditions by his own words Neither will it save him to say that they are now as infallible as then in themselves but not to us for so is the Scripture infallible in it self without the Church as they confess but it doth not so appear to us they say 2. They are to make good if they can degrees of infallible assistance by the least degree of infallibility But to goe on what if there be no such necessity c. Ans He seemes to be towards a punctum reflexionis here well if there be no such necessity of equall assistance then my answer to such Texts is the better And then let them take the rule which their own do use Deus non deficit in necessaris nec abundat in superfluis God doth not abound in things superfluous nor is wanting in things necessary But then also if it be not necessary why have my adversaries so much pleaded the necessity of an infallible judge Indeed it might be if God had pleased and yet not necessary by necessity of consequent but they are wont to prove it to be because it is necessary He goes on Did not the Church alone serve to decide all controversies before the Scripture was written c. We answer as often before The Church is not thence concluded infallible put it into forme that which decides all controversies is infallible the Church before Scripture was written did decide all controversies Therefore it is infallible No. We first deny the proposition That which decides all controversies decides them infallibly does not follow This cannot be proved less will not serve them Then 2. To the assumption we can deny it it did not decide all controversies put case it did decide all necessary controversies yet not all controversies And we must have a judge they say to decide all controversies whatsoever And 3. If the Church then before Scripture was written did decide all controversies whatsoever then surely there is not that assistance infallible now given to the Roman Church because notwithstanding they have the Scripture and Traditions yet they cannot decide all controversies If they can they are not faithfull and then that of St. Cyprian is not due to them now that perfidia non potest habere accessum If they cannot where is the equall assistance and then also what was decided by the Church was decided by the Scripture in the substance of it though not then written so that he had no cause to contradistinguish this decision of the controversies to the use of Scripture Again he saies did not the old Scripture testifie as much as was necessary that Iesus Christ was the true Messias Yes to what end then was Iohn Baptist sent to testifie this Ans First if the old Scripture did sufficiently testifie of the Messias then that which I have said concerning the sufficiency of the whole Canon is surely sufficient if it did not sufficiently testifie then his argument is none 2. There is not par ratio for the adding infallibility to the Church after the Canon is consigned as for St. Iohns testimony notwithstanding the old Scripture More might be requisit for the settling of the Primitive Church then after because the Church after was to be grounded in the Primitive But he saies there is as good reason In ages after the first when the Church should grow from a grain of mustard seed c. This proves nothing unless there might arise such a controversie which could not upon Salvation be decided without an infallible Judge Let them prove this and they will say somthing If not this will not be to the purpose that several controversies in such a space might arise And would not the same number of necessary points material and formal serve as many more thousands of Christians And those controversies which he names we have spoken to nay when they have as they suppose an infallible Judge are all controversies ended Let them bethink themselves what differences amongst them are yet dependent as before We waite therefore for the proof of such a promise of assistance extended to infallibility for other ages of the Church It is not enough for him to say why might not Christ for any thing you know thinke this a sufficient reason A posse in the premises will not make an actuality in the conclusion 2. there is a difference betwixt a reason after the thing is apparent and a reason to prove the thing to be if they can soundly prove to us that there is such an assistance given in promise to the Church in all ages then we should sooner be induced to the acknowledgment of his reason But there is nothing in the reason till the reason prove the thing 3. If words in Scripture were to be taken allwaies simply according to the termes what need would there then be of an infallible Judge of the sense of Scripture Therefore let them chuse which they will do whether they will allwaies have Scripture meant according to the uppermost import of the letter if so then the sense of Scripture is plain which they have denied if not then may they admit a limitation of that assistance spoken of Matthew 28.3 This forme of modality why might not should not one would think become the high mode of infallible assistance
Apostasie or Heresie or nothing it cannot fall but into errour it may fall To be sure this is the surest way unles they had beter arguments against every errour whatsoever or better answers for the arguments against them Nevertheless we must attend his Syllogism all this time all the visible guides or Praelats of the Church were lead and did leade into opinions contrary to the texts of your Church but all this time the spirit of truth did abide with them guiding them into all truth therefore the opinions contrary to your Church were true and not errours Well not to trouble them as to strictnes of forme To the proposition we can say that if they intend it of all the times from the Apostles we utterly deny it if they mean it of the times after the first six hundred yeares of the Church then we grant the proposition but utterly deny the assumption they were not guided by the spirit into such a Latin Edition into halfe communion And this denies his proof that those opinions were true because they were led into them by the Holy Spirit This is denied and is the question And it is more easily said that the Holy Spirit was with us by common assistance unto our opinions then with them by infallible assistance unto their opinions If we are to Judge of their assistance by the effects we had need of infallible assistance if it were convenient for the discourse to conclude for them but I am sure we have no need of infallible assistance to conclude against them Neither is it any boot to them that the Spirit leads all into truth for this may be limited to saving truth And this is not sufficient for them who must have absolute infallibility or none And then all may be limited as that proposition God will have all men to be saved is limited by Aquinas out of St. Austin by the like such a School-Master teacheth all in the Town whereof the sense is this not that he teacheth every own simply but all that are taught are taught by him So the Spirit all leads that are led but all simply are not led The limitation then in regard of the object of the Person or in regard of the object of the thing cuts off all their provision from hence And when we have sufficiently refuted their points of difference we have no need to say any thing that the Holy Spirit should teach contradictions if he were with them and us too for first infallible assistance is asserted to neither but denied and common assistance doth not exclude all errour and then 2. The Holy Spirit was not with them infallibly by the effect for since the same Spirit doth not teach contradictions he did not infallibly teach them that which is oposite to Scripture which he did teach That which followes in compare of the visibility of their Teachers with ours or any other Churches is but a meer flourish Shew me a succession in all ages of the Guides and lawfull Pastours of any Church holding your Tenets in points differing from ours Ans Succession de se is like number of no value Therefore they must prove their doctrine to be right otherwise it will be a succession of errour for as he said Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris 2. It is accidentall to a true particular Church to have succession and the Church at first was true antecedently to the succession and so the former times must never have been certain of their being right because a Persecution might afterwards have interrupted their succession 3. The Heretickes bragged of their sucession too therefore this is no proper special distinctive argument 4. Where is their succession of universal Bishops for the first six hundred yeares Then where is their Church Then either let them not give or take that argument 5. Our opinions to them are negative then they are to shew a positive succession in the doctrin of those points which they can never do unless by their infallibility post-nate antiquity should be as good as Primitive For as for the Fathers of the purest times tam sunt omnes nostri quam D. Augustinus I am sure we may better say so then Campian 6. We can shew our doctrine by Scripture let them shew theirs without it And whatsoever is according to Scripture is true this they deny not our doctrine is yet made good to be according to Scripture therefore the Charter of our points we have the Records of in Scripture and this way is good enough for us which is a posteriori And yet also we can tell them that if it had not been for their cruelty and domination we might better have returned them that which St. Austin said to the Donatists vos tam pauci tam novi tam turbulenti And God hath left us in all ages of greeks and others who have given us occasion to say we hold nothing in the points of difference but was held before Therefore this argument doth not succeed so that they must still labour to find a reason why our doctrine should not be as good as theirs N. 31. The sense of this Section we have had before And it falls into such a Syllogism whatsoever was Gods end in giving of Pastours is allwaies compassed That the Church should be without errour and should not be as Chidren wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine was Gods end Ephes 4.12 Ans Whatsoever was Gods end is allwaies compassed so farr as it was his end where the effect depends not also upon morall causes take it so and we grant the major and deny the minor it was not Gods end that the Church should be without all errour whatsoever and the effect doth depend upon moral causes which may hinder the success The end of the Sacraments in the time of the Gospel they will say was to conferr grace ex opere operato yet they say they have not that effect Ponentibus obicem Or thus whatsoever is Gods end in his will of purpose that shall surely be compassed but what is his end in the will of sign is not allwaies compassed take it then in the latter sense so I deny the major take it in the former sense so I deny his minor For this would be more unreasonable by their doctrine for if God should work omnipotently to secure men from errour by meanes how should the obedience of faith be brought under freedome of will 2. This respects also particular Churches and therefore will not serve their turne who though they make but a particular Church yet are wont to challenge the privileges of the universal 3. This Text speakes nothing of the power of Iurisdiction but of the power of order now the duty of our obedience beats respect formally to Authority and Iurisdiction or do they like some of Geneva divide Pastours and Teachers And then do they think that the ordinary Pastour is here principally aimed at in their extraordinary
either abstractly from the speaker or complexely with the speaker in the former it is considered with respect to the matter and so he said well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are not to look at so much the author as the matter in the latter respect it is respective to the motive and so I am more induced by the Church though not determined And therfore as to those termes to whose saying you would give an infallible assent when you see that which he saith to be conformable to Scripture we say that the termâ— saying is distinguishable into the object purely or into the object with the act and authour In the former there is no difference in the latter there is we may believe that which is said when we do not believe him that saies it And so may we believe rather the Church whose office it is to propose truth as he confesseth it is not the Divells Neither did we by these answers smother up any thing which clearly overthroweth our replie who say we must follow the Church onely so far as we see her follow Scripture That which he saith here doth no way weaken our replie It hath been answered before and the strength of it broken For first though they could not see at all how far the Church followed the Scripture for the first two thousand years and the barbarous Nations never having seen the Scripture did truely believe doth this hinder us from holding now that we are to believe the Church in points of faith no further then we see grounds for what they said out of Scripture take it of faith divine and in things of faith it is yet good And their instances do not evacuate it Distingue tempora distinguish the times God might in that time and season of immediate revelation work then a faith immediately which now is not reasonable to expect ordinarily as appears by the first Chap. of the Ep. to the Hebrews the first ver Privilegia paucâ—rum non faciunt regulam communem Secondly the Faith of the barbarous nations was not terminated in the Church as if they had believed the Church and therefore believed that which was said by them But was terminated in the matter which was said by the Church The Church was instrumental to the knowledge of the matter and might be instrumental as to dispose them for faith But the authority of the Church was not the formal cause of the act of faith And Knotts himself is loath to assert it And this is that which Tertullian hath said non ex persona fides sed ex fide persona aestimanda est We are not to esteem the doctrine by the person but the person by the doctrine And the tradition which St. Irenaeus speaks of was the sum of the Christian Faith which is in Scripture So he as before and so St. Cyril of Hierusalem vnderstands it as may appear by that of Cyril in his fourth Catech. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we must not deliver any thing in the divine and holy mysteries of faith without the divine Scriptures This is the Epilogue of the Chap. and is of use onely to tell me what he hath done I think not done before N. 38. and this is all the answer he gives me for taking away what he had said out of two places of Scripture forementioned towards infallibility Before he referred me for satisfaction to the due place here he referrs me back again And as for any reply to my answer out of the Fathers or my use of them he saies to me you know why I resolve to pass them Yes particularly why he saies nothing more to what I said about St. Austins testimony in his Epistle against the Manichee If I may be interpreter it is thus resolved he had good reason to pass them because they pass him And so we have made an end of his long but not hard Chapter CHAP. V. No Church is our Iudge infallible then not the Roman This Chapter which concerns the Hypothesis should injustice have been longer but he reduceth the proof of it to a small pittance and if all the Churches which submit not themselves to the Bishop of Rome as their supreme Pastour be of no better proportion it will be Catholick for all that do submit but not for all But since he is so short in this we will be even with him and bring all he saies in this second Treatise for so some times he calles it into one Syllogism the Church is the Judge infallible appointed in businesses of Religion No other but the Roman is this Church therefore To the proposition we have said enough before He would now make good the assumption or praesumption as we might speak supposing the proposition to be demonstrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore he quarrels with me because we except against his supsition of it It is true had the major been a maxim irrefragable then there had been more reason to blame us for exception against it and for not applying our selves in present address to the minor but since we see no cause nor the Churches of God why the proposition should be swallowed we call upon him to make good the thesis that there is a Church appointed as infallible Judge in businesses of Religion and therefore we told him that he might as well prove he had right to Utopia because he only claimes it whereas he should first prove the An sit whether there be such a place And therefore if he would have had us say nothing to the questioning of the supposition he should have made it stronger first and then should not have concluded bravingly that therefore all he had said of the Church was to be applied to the Roman no other being infallible as in the former treatise num 28 Well but he must prove his minor N. 2. because all other Churches do not lay claime to this infallibility and are demonstrated to be fallible we grant the Antecedent without any proof and his proof was not so good as his proposition But therefore it belongs to them to be infallible we deny the consequence We deny the Title upon the claime And he is angry because we make his plea from the claim to be weak And the weaknes of it appeares in that it is weaker grounded upon a true supposition nor is it very sound in the proceeding of the consequence in the first regard we say debile fundamentum fallit opus And therefore since that is one of his principles his conclusion must be naught as before His consequence he proveth thus the Protestant Chucrh and all other Churches different from the Roman do Iudge themselves acknowledge themselves declare and profess themselves to be fallible and that according to infallible Scripture If then any of these Churches be infallible in what they Iudge and declare for truth grounded in Scripture they are infallible in this their Iudging and declaring themselves to be fallible therefore infallibly they
their Souls upon that their conceived certainty Thus you see when the Scripture in four several places delivereth these four words This is my Body Men will hold it to be clear that so clear words be not clear and will venture their Salvation upon this their Imagination In this and many other points we say the Scripture is clear for us The Lutherans say it is clear for them The Calvinists say it is clear for them We have conferred Place with Place we have looked in the Originals and after all this the Scripture doth not decide this Controversie but when all is done we are as far from Agreeing and being brought to the undoubted knowledge of the most important truth as we were at the beginning Another very strong Argument to declare that the Scripture cannot be the Judge of all Controversies in points of Faith necessary to Salvation is this That there be many points the believing of which is necessary to Salvation which points are no where set down clearly in Scripture For first you make it the chief point of all points to believe the Scripture to be the Judge of all Controversies and by it self sufficient to end them all I ask where is this point of points which you make the ground of your belief where is it I say set down in Scriptures and that so clearly that no prudent doubt can be made but that such words clearly say what you say Doth not Saint Athanasius in his Creed put down as an undoubted Article of Catholick Faith which Faith as he saith without a Man hold it entirely and inviolably without all doubt he shall perish eternally doth he not put down there that we must believe That God the Father is not begotten that God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father only that the holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but doth proceed and that both from the Father and the Son And that he who will be saved must believe thus And yet how far are these most hard points from being clearly deliver'd in the Scripture So also that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father and of the same Substance is a certain Article of Faith and yet no where clearly delivered in Scripture but was believed by All upon the sole Authority of the Church which consequently was believed Infallible I have already shewed that the necessary cōmandment of keeping the Sunday in place of the Saturday is no where in Scripture but rather the contrary How then can I believe this for the Scripture or for any clear place of it there being no such place to be found I have also shewed that it is no where in Scripture set down at all much lesse set down clearly and manifestly which Books of Scripture be Canonical which not How then by the Testimony of Scripture which giveth no Testimony at all of this point can I believe such books undoubtedly to be such not to be Canonical Baptisme of Children to be Necessary to their salvation is a prime point of Belief and yet you cannot believe this prime point upon any clear place of Scripture for there is no such place but you must all say with the great Saint Austin That though nothing for certain can be alledged out of Canonical Scriptures in this point yet in this point the truth of Scriptures and consequently a sufficient ground for Faith is kept by us when we do that which seemed good to the Catholick Church which Church the Authority of the same Scriptures doth commend Contra Crescon l 1.13 And this following the Tradition of the Church he calleth The most true and inviolable Rule of Truth He holdeth therefore Tradition of the Church so Infallible that it may be a ground for Faith He was taught so by Saint Paul 2 Thes 2. Hold the Traditions which you have received either by word of Mouth or by Epistle Upon which place Saint Chrysostome having taught that the Apostles delivered many things by word of Mouth not set down any where in writing he saith that these unwritten Traditions are worthy of the same belief which those deserve which are written It is a Tradition of the Catholick Church Seek no further So he But you say I must seek further to find this in Scripture yet Saint Chrysostome tells me that being a Tradition of the Church it is Gods Word and upon this account as worthy to be believed as if it were his written Word for it is the being his Word and not the being of his written Word which maketh it Infallibly true Well then It having been made clear by all these reasons and authorities that the Scriptures cannot be intended by Christ for the Judge of all our Controversies in Faith and that their reading cannot be that Holy way a way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it Let us see where this way is to be found and who is to be judge to define all Controversies with Infallible authority so that all are bound to submit their Interiour judgement in which all faith consists to this Authority it being high Treason against Christ not to submit to an Authority instituted by him purposely to oblige all to this submission I say this Judge is the Catholique Church This I will prove first and this being proved I will shew briefly that no Church but the Roman can prudently be held to be this Catholique Church In proof of the Catholique Church her being Judge of all Controversies I alledge first those words Matth. 16. v. 18. I say unto thee that is to St. Peter by name Thou art Peter that is Thou art a Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it that is those Gates of Hell out of which so many damnable Errours shall issue shall never prevail by inducing any damnable Error into that Church which I will build upon thee O Peter and thy Successours which I add because this Church was not to be built upon the Person of St. Peter onely for then this fair building had fallen to the ground when St. Peter had died They who do say that the Church may fall into damnable Errors do say that the Church may fall to the ground and that the Gates of Hell may prevail against it for what greater fall can it have then by damnable Errors to make its Members all fall into Hell and in what manner can the Gates of Hell more prevail against it And yet we are sure by Gods Word that shall never happen Wherefore in this Church we imbrace most groundedly all things proposed by it to be believed Here you see our Judge Christs Church hath Gods warrant to warrant Her from bringing in any damnable Error by her Judgement All may therefore securely obey But that none can securely disobey her Judgement Christ also doth warrant us in the next Chapter but one for Matth. 18. v. 17. he saith Tell the Church and if he