Judge Is there no more likely-hood of a figurative sense in the words then there is of the being of an Accident without the Subject or of the Body of Christ to be in Heaven and on Earth and in thousands of places at once But you contend the improbability of this sense because he took the Bread and the Cup in his hand and said this is my Body and this is my Bloud Surely this makes no prejudice against us for this was necessary towards the consecrating of that Bread and that Wine otherwise there would have been a Consecration of Bread and VVine in Communi and therefore he spoke demonstratively and this demonstration makes the Subject no lesse capable of a figure then the Praedicate and what difference Behold the Lamb of God or this is the Lamb of God So in the 9. to the Hebrews and the 20. verse Moses having taken the Bloud of Calves and Goats said This is the Bloud of the Testament VVas that Bloud transubstantiated into the Bloud of Christ or when one takes his Testament may he not say this is my VVill although it be but the signe of his Will You take notice also of the different opinions there are about the sense of the words of Institution We have no cause to take it to our selves who have not such variety of conceits therein Neither can you I am sure justifie your Infallibility by your accord herein since some question whether it be transubstantiated and therefore have they a proviso of a conditionate adoration Adoro te si tu es Christus and so many amongst you differ about the manner of the change whether by production which supposeth as is noted the Body not to praeexiste and this is false or by adduction which supposeth against Transubstantiation or by a kinde of Conservative Conversion which is little else then a Contradiction in adjecto therefore answer your self How is it more clearly defined by the Church which was scarce in debate till the time of Berengarius Did the Church all that while want necessaries to Salvation But lastly you should not have pleaded Scripture for this point on your side if you will believe Scotus and your Cardinal Bellarmine who sayes that Scotus held Transubstantiation could not be clearly proved by any Text of Scripture and he himself thinks it not improbable Therefore herein you cannot in their judgement convince us by Scripture and therefore till the Church be Infallible it is no doctrine of Faith as it was not before the Lateran Council as Scotus affirmed by Bellarmins Confession in the 23. chapter of the third Book De Sacramento Eucharistia but if Transubstantiation be not declared in Scripture then our opinion negative to you is more secure and is not concluded not to be in Scripture though you or others will not professe it In the former part of your 15. Number you go over a former argument again to which the former answer may serve As for the other part of your Paragraph concerning all the points of Saint Athanasius's Creed which are not clearly delivered in Scripture and yet he that will be saved must think thus I answer Although the matter of them be not in terminis found in Scripture yet the sense of them according to aequivalence may as well as Transubstantiation when you will endevour to make it out by Scripture Secondly Although we believe what is said in his Creed yet therefore are we not bound to believe it by the Authority of the Church since he would have held it although the Church had not as he did sometimes differ from the common profession of the Church in the Consubstantiality of the Son of God In the beginning of the 16. Paragraph you say somewhat which you had said before to it we say nothing but you raise a new opposition Baptisme of Children to be necessary to their Salvation is a prime point of Belief and yet you cannot believe this prime point of Belief by any clear place of Scripture therefore you mean all necessary points are not clearly believed by Scripture therefore by the Church this must be your dissertation and your minor proposition you confirme by the Testimony of Saint Austin We Answer first to your Major by distinguishing a necessity of Baptisme in general it is necessary by necessity of precept but it is not necessary by necessity of mean to the child so as that if it be not baptized it is undoubtedly damned the former respects the Parents that they should take care of it for their children but if they do not or the child be taken away as many are before it can be done by a lawful Minister we cannot conclude it or them absolutely perished since it is not so necessary to them that were of age at the Primitive Institution Saint Mark the 16.16 Whosoever beleeveth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned not also and is not Baptized For many there were and cases might be put that there might be more which could not have Baptisme before they died as appears by your Vicarium Baptisma which the Fathers speaks of Then though we may well assure our selves that if Infants rightly Baptized die such they are certainly saved yet can we not as reasonably passe the Verdict of Damnation upon those which are not Baptized As to your assumption we also distinguish if you mean we cannot believe this Poedobaptisme by any clear place of Scripture namely in terminis terminantibus as they speak expresly we grant it but this is not enough for your purpose And if you mean it cannot be clearly believed because by consequence it cannot be proved or because it cannot be clearly beleeved since it is beleeved by consequence then we deny your assumption in both regards For whatsoever is necessarily inferred from Scripture is binding in the vertue of the principle and therefore clearly we may beleeve it Now the institution of Baptisme in general by Christ the substitution of it to circumcision since there is the same Covenant in substance to both Testaments is a sufficient Principle to infer the necessity of Baptisme of Infants besides what may be supposed by baptizing whole Families And therefore this is none of those things which are not grounded in Scripture and therefore no Object of the Church Tradition And therefore Saint Austins Testimony will come to no more then this that though they had nothing for certain alledged out of the Canonical Books in this point yet the truth of Scripture is kept when they do that which seemed good to the Catholique Church namely so far as the Catholique Church keepeth the Truth in clearing that which is not plain in Scripture Which Church the Scripture doth commend as he But is it cōmended for infallibility If not this Testimony and all your Testimonies and all your instances which you have of things not determined in Scripture but determined by the Church will doe you no good for you
to their successours the visible Teachers and Guides of the Church which were to guide people into all Truth for ever must needs have been verified all this last thousand years before your Reformation All this time all the visible Guides or Prelates of the Church were led and did lead into opinions contrary to the Tenets 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 Tenets were true and not errors If he should be with your Prelats beginning this last age to hold contrary to the Prelats of the last thousand years he should be with those who teach contradictions in points of belief opposite to the former belief Behold a clear reason why I appropriate this promise to our Bishops and Church and not to yours the Holy Ghost could not teach those guides of the Church forever who for a vast long time of many ages were not in the World Shew me a succession in all Ages of the guides or lawful Pastors of any Church houlding your Texts in points differing from ours and then I must labour to find a reason why I say the Holy Ghost ever since Christs time guided the lawful Pastors of our Church into all truth rather then the lawful Pastors of your Church which Pastors had no being in the Church or world and consequently no capacity to be guided into all truth 31 A Sixth Text to prove this assistance to be extended to infallibility is 4 Ephes whence appeareth that the end and intention of Christ in giving us who were visible in all ages Doctors and Pastors for all ages was such an end and such an intention as could not be compassed by such Doctors and Pastors as might lead us into circumvention of errour even then when they where assembled together to deliver the truth from their highest tribunal in a General Council How pittifully would the Saints be consummated by such Doctors How pittifully would the work of the Ministry be performed how pittifully would the Body of Christ be edified by such Doctors and Pastors Lastly how impossible would it be for us by the having of such doctors and Pastors that wee now provided of such guides be not children wavering and carried about with the wind of doctrine in the wickedness of men in craftiness in circumvention of error You see St. Paul affirms the Doctors and Pastors which are given unto us to be given for this end and consequently sufficiently assisted to the same that we may securely rest in their doctrine which we may not do in any erroneous doctrine be the errour little or great For it were a ridiculous thing to say we were to rest circumvented in error least we should fall into circumvention of error The assistance therefore is such as preserves from all error and such an assistance was proportionable to Gods intention of Securing us from having reason to waver or to be changing and changing so to cure some curable errors with which we feared to be circumvented whereas by the unanimous doctrine of these Doctors and Pastors God intended to preserve us sufficiently from ever falling into circumvention of errour 32. A seventh Text to prove the assistance of the Holy Ghost given to the Church to be extended to infallibility is taken from Esay chap. 56. verse 20. and 21. where God speaketh of the Church of Christ to which after his coming many of the Jewes were to unite themselves according to the interpretation of Saint Paul 18. Romans verse 26. Thus God by Esay The redeemer shall come to Sion and unto them who by uniting themselves to Christs Church shall turne from transgression in Jacob saith the Lord. Note here that the words which our Lord is going to say are spoken to the visible Church to wit that Church to which rhe Jewes did unite themselves being baptized in it instructed in it governed by it c. Now our Lord to this Church visibly Baptizing instructing governing c. saith As for me this is my Covenant with them saith the Lord My spirit that is upon thee and my words free from errour in all points great and little which I have put in thy mouth that mouth by which thou visibly dost teach all Nations shall not depart out of this thy mouth Nor out of the mouth of thy seed Nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed saith the Lord from henceforth and for ever Behold here the Spirit of Truth entailed upon the Church for all Ages never departing from her mouth Nor the mouth of her seeds seed which not departing from the mouth by which visibly she teacheth instructeth and governeth sheweth this Spirit entayled upon the Church as Visible and not as Invisible as you would have it And this not departing of his Spirit from her Mouth is a no lesse cleare then eloquent expression of her infallibility in her doctrine for Gods Spirit or Word is not in a Mouth teaching error Agaâ—n a promise of not departing from her mouth from thenceforth and for ever maketh it evident that this last thousand yeares there was some visible Church whose Prelates and Pastors did shew their Heads and open their Mouthes in teaching truth And yet what was visibly taught all this while was in all points debated between you and us opposit to you By the way note how unjustly you not long since taxed those of coming neer blasphemy who said that God did speak to us and teach us by his Church What mean these words My Words shall not depart out of thy Mouth Nor out of the Mouth of thy seed nor of thy seeds seed 33 Hence for an Eight Text I may well alledge what this Prophet infers from hence in the Next Chapter where he triumpheth in the Church thus teaching all Nations and there he addeth For the nation and Kingdom that shall not serve thee shall perish verse 12. Because if this Church should ever at any time fall to teach error Nations should do well and should further their salvation by forsaking her erring as the Protestants say they did And note how these words clearly shew that the Scripture speaketh of the Church visible which Nations and Kingdomes may find out and serve and must perish like publicans and Heathens if they doe not serve and obey she is therefore secured from error Hence verse 20. Thy sun shall no more goe down Neither shall the Moon withdraw it selfe For the Lord shall be thine everlasting light and the daies of thy Mourning shall be ended And in the next chapter to the Sons of this Church he promiseth That everlasting Joy shall be unto them verse 7. And in the next chapter last verse Thou shalt be called sought out a City not forsaken Had this Church been forsaken and left in such errors as are imputed to the Roman Church Christ had not been an Everlasting light to here whom he had left in such darknes for a thousand yeares
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
therefore cannot their authority so much sway us yet their expressions for us might weigh with our Adversaries who so much boast of them at least they might say somewhat to what answers have been made to their quotations of them And if we must not make use of them because we cannot account them infallible then my Adversaries discourse might have been also well spared for I am sure his discourse is not infallible He having then dismissed the hearing of the Fathers sine die he comes upon us thus And indeed your Doctors would faine dispute out of Scripture onely Ans If onely be taken in order to the ultimate resolution of faith we would indeed dispute out of Scripture onely because the Principles of Scripture are onely to us infallible but if onely be taken exclusively to all use of the Fathers we deny it To shew that our Doctrine is truely Divine we prove it out of Scripture to shew that it is not new we compare it with the sayings of the Fathers yea the judgement of the Fathers hath it self to faith as a rationall dispositive but not as an inerrable determinative this Priviledge we reserve to Scripture which is to us the formall object and ground of Divine faith And if they can shew us sic dicit Dominus for absolute credence to the Church we have done But he gives us his Crisis why we would faine dispute out of Scripture onely Because they find it to be true that the Scriptures alone cannot decide many Controversies but by some Interpretation or other they think themselves able to elude the force of Arguments drawn from Scripture onely the sayings which are not in Scripture are in no case receivable by them Ans Well guessed Surely we have here a meer Cavill by a non causa doe not our Adversaries think that they are as cunning at interpretations as we They are wont to brag of the brave Education and Learning therefore likely they can tell how to elude an Interpretation as well as others and there were those that told them they did do so in the Trent Council Catilina Cethegum And would not our Adversaries have all the dispute referred to the Church which they can order as they please as a Lesbian rule either corrupting the stile or adultering the sense as Tertullian said of the Hereticks then or prohibiting Authors against them to be read Yea what debates were there about the sense of the Decrees of the Council of Trent Yea some decrees were purposely put into such termes of ambiguitie that so the mind of the Council might be drawn into different senses according to the pleasure of the Litigants as the Author of the History relates Secondly herein then appears our ingenuity in that we dispute with you by that which is capable of other senses whereas they would have us to be referred to the sense of the Church which they think cannot be accommodated for us Thirdly we do not say that no saying is receivable in any case by us but out of Scripture but receivable equally upon necessity to salvation we still deny every saying we receive sufficiently what is said by the Church in point of Discipline and what is said in point of faith we receive with due reverence not with absolute faith And certainly we seem to give more respect to the Church than they do to Scripture if all of them be like my Adversary for so he goes on Whereas indeed there is no good got by disputing of texts of Scripture but either to make men sick or mad as our Adversaries may daily see by their fruitlesse Scripture-Combates with the Anabaptists the Sabbatharians and other upstart Sectaries Ans Omne mendacium quod de Deo dicunt quodammodo genus est Idololatriae as he said in his Prescriptions and this which is falsely said of the word of God is for the Idoll of the Roman Church The Scripture hath it self to the Church as the Emperor to the Pope in the Roman account and as the Moon hath it self to the Sun so hath the Emperor himself to the Pope the Moon depends upon the Sun for light the Emperor upon the Pope for authority and the Scripture upon the Church for light and authority But first he argues from the deniall of the act to the deniall of the power yea from the deniall of the effect to the deniall of the power because there is no good got by disputing of texts of Scripture therefore but our obligation to Scripture doth not follow from the effect but from the institution Secondly as for those points which are necessary there needs be no disputing upon the texts Thirdly the unsuccesse follows from the perversnesse of those who will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and have more mind to victory than verity Fourthly why had they then in the Trent Council the Bible in the midst of them Why did the Divines urge Scripture Yea why did the Nicene Fathers determine the consubstantiality of the Son by Scripture Yea why did Tertullian combate with Marcion out of Scripture in his de carne Christi ch 6. Si non probant quia nec scriptum est and again sed nihil de eo constat quia Scriptura non exhibet and again ch 7. Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers And why did he proceed against Hermogenes by Scripture in his 22. ch against him Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem and again Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina But fifthly if we should send the Sectaries to your Church for satisfaction would this make an end of the differences For the first question would be how your Church was proved to be the infallible Church The Scripture all that do dispute out of it do acknowledge to be the word of God but all do not acknowledge your Church Sixthly if the Church could end so well all differences why are so many questions undetermined as about the Pope in relation to temporals in relation to Councils about predeterminations about Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Why are not these made an end of Nay seventhly Hereticks have combated with the authority of the Church and many were not satisfied with the determinations of Trent Therefore let them not prejudice Scripture by the obstinacy of Sectaries Had not the Sectaries been set on and armed with their principles they might sooner have been over come and if nothing should be made use of for our necessary direction but that which is convictive of all my Adversary might in reason have sate still or brought better Arguments Sectaries are not apt to be ruled by the meanes of Scripture but his mediums are not apt to rule me without it But the Church of God is the Kings High way by which a man is ever to travell to truth Ans I could smile at it that Pontificians should use this expression that the Church is the King 's High way when as some principles of some of the chief of them do dispose
he saies we must resolve our faith in the authority of a Council and if it hath defined that the sense how came they to have authority to define this to be the sense of the place If not clear to this purpose how came they to divine infallibly this sense for the Scripture according to them did not appear to have this sense without a Council then who gave authority to the first Council to give this infallibly to be the sense If clear then have we no such necessity of an infallible Judge for umpiring of litigant senses Thirdly Tell it to the Church ex vi authoritatis as to teach not ex vi infallibilitatis in teaching in regard of authority as to persons not infallibility as to truth Representatively in the office not absolutely in the matter We are to hear them as authorized to teach but not simply to believe them as if they were assisted not to err He that is appointed by Christ and doth say that which is false is not to be believed because if he saies that which is true it is not to be accounted true because he saies so but he is to be accounted as to speak true because it is so yea they may know that that text was applied by Christ as to censure in points of trespasse not to obedience in points of faith Not that Scripture alone by her self endeth all our differences c. Ans Who ever said so Who is his Adversary It were easie to have the victory without an Adversary if possible No Nor the Church alone by her self But we say also the Scripture doth not formally end any as they would have a living Judge and yet is not deficient in necessaries for by proposing plainly what is necessary it concludes necessarily against the necessitie of a living Judge infallible What is necessary more than to believe that which is necessary And therefore no need of traditions and what more plain than that there is no need of an infallible Judge as to salvation since what is necessary is plainly delivered in Scripture It is sufficient in the matter for necessaries and it is clear enough in the manner as to points of faith understood signanter And would we be ruled by Scripture there would be fewer Controversies in the Church and of the Church And were not their Church a party for it self it would give all to Scripture The interess of the Church hath brought in traditions not for salvation but for its authority And the Scripture must not clearly have delivered all points necessary because then what reputation would be given to the authority and magnificence of the Church But we are invited much to the third chap. and expectation is raised wherein he saies when I shall have fully set down the state of the question you shall find all that you add in this place presently answered Ans This he sayes should be done before it be said If he will prove that we must err in point of salvation without obedience to their judge If he will prove that all error is damnative and if he can prove that their Church or the Church hath not erred yea cannot err then we will excuse him for repetitions in the third chap. for he cannot come off handsomely with answering in a third chap. what was said in a former more fully unlesse he saies much more to what is said than what he hath yet said But we do not prejudice his Judge CHAP. III Shewing that since Scripture alone doth sufficiently propose all things necessary to salvation there is no need of a living Judge infallible HEre he saies at first Num. 1. You deliver your opinion in your answer to my third Num. p. 12. thus And then he tels me my opinion of which he says no proof was given by you untill you came to this present place For proof he hath had as much as could reasonably be required and more I suppose than he desired But I was to follow him and therefore he was not to accuse me And he might then have begun with the proof if he would have made short work He then prepares himself to reinforce the combate And therefore he saies And first I will take leave to state this question a little more fully and distinctly Ans He useth his own right if he will state the question more fully and distinctly and it is right to do so All good discourse begins with a definition and all regular disputes with the state of the question And it will be a favor to me if he does it well for we shall have done the sooner And so he ends his first number Your assertion then is Num. 2. that all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture Ans Yes this is my assertion And I am not ashamed of it yet for it is not mine alone but the Scriptur's and St. Austin's and others as he hath heard before In this assertion there be two things which needfull and distinct declaration the first is to declare these words necessary to salvation the second to declare those words plainly set down Ans Content let him be as good as his word onely let him take care he doth not as some he knew confound that which is to be distinguished and distinguish that which is to be confounded So let him turn his answering to what I said against his assertion into an opposition of mine And first concerning those words necessary to salvation they must of necessity be understood so that all things are plainly set down in Scripture which are necessary first to the universall Church as it is a Community Secondly all things necessary to all states and degrees that must needs be in this Community Thirdly all things necessary to every person bound to be of this Community Ans This way he thought to destroy my assertion as Mr. Cressy does to destroy the assertion of Mr. Chillingworth but it will not do For here is he faulty in confounding that which is to be distinguished He should have distinguished betwixt necessaries to salvation and necessaries to the universall Church as it is a Community though all that is necessary to salvation is necessary to the Church taken confusely of the persons yet whatsoever is necessary to the universall Church as a Community is not necessary to salvation for then before there was a competent aggregation in a Community there was no possibility of salvation And that Community is to be saved by the holding of things necessary is it not Yes he would say then this Community doth not come in to integrate things necessary to salvation and if not then those things which are necessary to this Community doth not come in neither Then he should have done well secondly to have distinguished betwixt a Church in its being and in its well being All things are not necessary to the being of a Church which are requisite to the bene esse of it Now salvation may
determin that grave question without calling a Council Ans first if those termes could not attend an absolute negation of power they are denied For they that were infallible in their doctrine could have severally determined that controversie as we take power absolutely as well as St. Peter confirmed St. Pauls doctrine according to them But he seemes to mean it in a qualified sense after the manner of Aquinas distinction of necessity therefore thus he for this is necessary for the better conviction of heretickes fuller satisfaction of the weaker sort and further comfort of the whole Church This end of calling a Council upon such a necessity I suppose he reflects to the Council of the Apostles as if the sense should be they could not conveniently and upon the supposition of such ends determine that grave question without calling a Council but then we are not under an absolute necessity of a Council And untill this be proved my adversaries have done nothing for a necessity of convenience of a Council will not serve their purpose because we can grant it But 2. we say this example is not for his turn because this Council was called upon a question about things in their nature not necessary but we are upon the debate of the absolute necessity of councils in and for things necessary not things of scandall only and yet again 3. As it is commonly noted they in their Councils cannot conclude their determinations as in that Council of the Apostles it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to uâ— because those Apostles were infallible in their discourse as well a in their conclusions but those who are now members of Councils are confessed by stapleton to be fallible in their discourse and how then shall we be sure that they are infallible in the conclusion unles they can prove that though the discourse be not rationall the conclusion will yet be propheticall And yet 4. The Apostles themselves proceeded to the determination of this question by principles of Scripture therefore Scripture is the highest principle to raise faith even in things of controversie And this concludes against them who make the Church in businesses of faith to be the highest principle And therefore also whatsoever binds the Christian faith hath its obligation by vertue of Scripture So then nothing he saies doth sufficiently render that sense or use he makes of that Text Dic ecclesiae And yet he hath not then found though he does Thrasonically say so a Iudge in matters of faith a living Iudge an infallible Iudge excluding all possibility of errour We can helpe them to finde Judges dicendo pluraliter but such a Judge as he speaks of here he hath no more hope to find then need to seek And yet such a Judge he must have for the justification of Christ's law in the former Text otherwise Christ could not possibly have declared it to be so haynous a crime not to hear the Church being that it might have been no crime at all he obliged all to obey and hear her therefore she cannot lead us into an errour Ans I think we should not have had so many words about such assent if they had not more need thereof then the Text or Christ of their defence they have more necessity of Christs justification then he of theirs His words above have two formes one in an hypotheticall way the other in way of an Enthymem I deny the consequence in both and to them both I suppose one proposition and that is this Christs command to obey doth not inferre impossibility of errour in the Church Simply it is therefore false what he would have to be consequentiall To hear the Church therefore hath two things in it one act which is internall and that is to give assent to what the Church shall order the other an externall act of submission the former may be denied and therefore she may erre the latter may be due and therefore not to be denied And consequently his infallibility of knowledge of this point is not so greaâ— as of those points which are delivered by Scripture namely not understanding it de facto because his knowledge of points delivered by Scripture is de industria small but de posse his knowledge of points of faith delivered by Scripture may be greater then his knowledg of this because it is not delivered by Scripture So that for his Creed I say as the Frenchmen proverbially are wont il ne point damne qui ne le coit he is not damned that doth not believe it there is difference betwixt standing up to what is proposed and standing out against the Church in contempt Absolute belief will then be rational when moral assurance which yet is not alwaies to be had makes Faith And when he hath proved the assumption that the church of Rome is only this Church and by manifest consequence then the Pope shall be no usurper and yet not infallible neither We deny the Postulate with a contradiction because we can deny the Church's definition without a contradiction Then in the seventh and eight numbers he useth plain-evasions In the seventh he tells me that he doth not use that method which I tell him he should have used in some favor to me when I come to use this very method I do foresee that it will so galde you and he saies I would have the burthen shifted off to the other shoulder to avoide present trouble Ans these are his Rhodomontadoes Is not the method a priori more rationall If he can prove the Church infallible and absolute authority to belong to it our obedience must follow but since obedience is ambiguous and distinguishable though obedience in some respect be due yet not on that part which inferres infallibility but on that part which respects authority as we take authority for power 2. There was nothing said by him formerly which I have not fully answered and now the reinforcements but it became him to say so who was more pinched And how will he quits himself in this method we are to see in thâ—â—2 numb And in the eight numb here he tells me the reason why he saies nothing to St. Austins authority produced by me namely lest he should lose his labour but I know a better reason because he will find too much labour to answer it And as quick dispatch the ninth Paragr deserves For he doth not offer any answer to any reason in mine but here snaps in order to a vindication of the Text Matt. 20.7 for his cause He took exceptions at our translation should keep knowledge he renders it shall keep I defended the translation by the possibility of that sense in the Hebrew because it hath no formal subjunctive By the scope of the Text because they are blamed for their default He persists against our translation because all originals he means all copies or indeed all translations he should mean because of what follows speak clearly in the future
thus whatsoever requires infallible assent must have an infallible Authority Diverss points not proposed clearly in Scripture the Church requires an infallible assent to therefore she must have infallible Authority we answer granting the major which yet they have no reason to urge unless they had more firm Principles that the assumption may be true de facto but not de jure And then again It is yet denied that ever the Church Universal did ever exact this As to the right hereof she must prove her infallibility and Authority too hereunto as to the fact it must be proved by our Adversaries Therefore since I am respondent I may conclude thus Things necessary to Salvation are plainly set down in Scripture those points are not plainly set down in Scripture saies he therefore I conclude they are not necessary Here he makes a return to my Argument against him N. 18. that if that must be Judge which can hear him and me and be heard by him and me then Tradition is thus excluded from being the Judge here he distinguisheth It is the Church who proposeth these Traditions and not the Traditions which are our judge Ans This is easily taken away for according to their Principles Tradition must be Judge of the Church If their former Argument be good that we must not ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Scripture because we do not know what is Scripture but by the Church so also we cannot ultimately be assured in point of Faith by the Church because we cannot tell which is the Church but by Tradition And if it be Judge of the Scripture in the Canon of it as they must say then surely it may be Judge of the Church because as before by the Fathers opinion the Church must be proved by Scripture Again by Tradition was the Faith of Christian Doctrine bred in the minds of the Barbarian Nations as we have it said before by my Adversary therefore Tradition must be the infallible Judge or else they had not the same Faith which the Roman contends for by an infallible Judge or if they had then there are more infallible Judges or Faith may be had without an infallible Judge or Traditions and the Church are all one and then the distinction is none And yet also this answer of his I did provide for before in these words but you say the Church doth determine hereby by Tradition then may it determin by Scripture more securely and more universally And to this he replies nothing but holds the conclusion From hence he skips to answer me about that which I opposed to his Judge exclusively to any other I urged that of St. Paul that an heretick is condemned by himself namely as I discoursed by the Law of God within him by vertue of Conscience which can and does and should apply the truths of God to the censure and condemnation of errour in us c. To this he saies he is not an heretick but an infidel who is told by his own Conscience that he gain-saith the Scripture Ans First Then the Scriptures are so clearly the Word of God that an Infidel may be told thereof by his own Conscience If not so then his words have no sense If so then may we see the Scripture to be the Word of God by its own light as the Heathens did the Law of nature and then he contradicts his own former discourse Secondly Saint Paul speaks not of an Infidel but in terminis terminantibus of an heretick who supposeth the Scriptures to be the Word of God though by consequence he denies it in Hypothesie as to the point of heresie So that the Text cannot be so put off And though every Christian is readier to die than to disbelieve any one saying of the Scripture yet the heretick who supposeth the Scripture in Thesi and in general may yet deny it in the application against him and for this he is to be rejected because he goeth against his own Principles of Scripture which do condemn his heresie in his own conscience though outwardly he opposeth And he helps his cause no better with another shift When St. Paul wrote those words the whole Canon of the Scripture was not written and until the whole Canon was written your own Doctors grant the Church to have been the infallible judge of controversies Ans If he takes whole so as to be understood in order to the Canon I grant that the whole Canon was not then written but if he takes it in opposition to a sufficient direction by what was then written I deny it there was then as much written as was simply necessary to Salvation for how could St. Paul otherwise say to Tim. That the Scriptures then were able to make him wise unto Salvation thus I distinguish of the former part but then 2. the latter I doe deny that our awn Doctours do say that the Church was the infallible Judge of controversies until the whole Canon of the Scriptures was written for then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Pharises had been infallible No the word of God was infallible when it was not written but not the Church Therefore he mistakes the purport of finishing the Canon which was not ever held by us to cease the infallibility of the Church but to accomplish the matter of Scripture and so it doth exclude verbum non Scriptum Infallibility of the Church was never held but the Canon of Scripture was allwaies sufficient providing allwaies that the Church in this consideration be meant contradistinctly to the writers of Scripture Neither needs he to wonder at my saying that the Church then was not sufficiently formed thereunto namely to a definition of what was to be held therein To this he saies the Church was formed before St Pauls conversion and before his conversion the number of Desciples was multiplied Ans The terme Church is very ambiguous He takes it here of the Church vertual or of the Church representative or of the Church diffusive The Church vertual which the Iesuits say is the Pope was not yet formed The Church Representative as they say in a Council confirmed by the Pope was not yet formed There was no council General till after three hundred yeares nor Pope so soon in their sense A Church diffusive there was but this serves not his turn for we must speake of such a Church formed so that the heretique should be condemned for contradicting the definition of the Church Now the definition of the Church according to my Adversary is by the Church Representative and this was not then formed Then again to take his own words either the Church was not then formed most compleatly with all things necessary to infallible direction to the true faith or it was Let them now say which they will Then no necessity of Pope and Council yea no necessity of Pope or Council If it was not compleatly formed then my former answer obtains And besides if
Apostolical or that those who bring new doctrine are as well inspired as the Apostles the Roman Church shall now be Apostolical And if there were now as great a necessity of the infallible direction of the Church as there was in the times of the Apostles by them then why should not the Apostolical office have continued in the number of twelve and so all the Apostles should have had successours which they must not say who maintain the Monarchy of the Church Neither doth that instance of Iohn the Baptist teaching the Meâ—â—as which also the Scripture teacheth come up to the case First Because Iohn the Baptist was but a singular person but the Church now is considered under a promise of continual succession and as is pretended by them with the perpetual gift of infallibility therefore though there was Scripture then besides Iohns Testimony yet what need of it now if there be a constant infallibility in the Church Secondly There is a difference in the case ex parte Scripturae in regard oâ— Scripture which was not then compleated therefore there might be more necessity of St. Iohns Testimony and of the voice from heaven and of the Testimony of miracles But now the Canon is consigned what need of the infallible direction of the Church and if there be an infallible direction standing in the Church what need of a standing rule it may serve for a commonitorium as the Cardinal So the Scripture shall give us but an application of the Churches doctrine The Scripture that must not be a suâ—ficient rule the Church that is the direct and plain way that fools cannot erre They may erre by the Scripture they cannot erre by the Church Therefore in effect not only will there be no need of Scripture but there would be need of none But more closely That which is not of use without the Church and that which the Church may be without is not necessary The Scripture is of no use without the Church and the Church may be without Scripture Therefore according to their premises the Scripture should not be necessary and how farre is it from blasphemy to say that the Scripture is not necessary If to accuse Scripture be to accuse God as Nilus before Then to say there was no need of Scripture is to accuse God of inspiring so many Pen-men for no necessary purpose For although after all means of Faith still millions do not believe as he saies yet since according to their doctrine no sense of Scripture in point of Faith is to be believed but as taken from the Church since the Word not written takes up so much of necessary matter since the pâ—tfecter and the wiser are to be sublimated by Traditions since the common people are not to be conversant in Scripture in a knowen tongue what necessary purpose doth the Scripture serve to It is true superflua non nocent as the rule is and Utile per inutile non vitiatur true But yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their principles the Scripture will be superfluous For that which is more than is necessary is not necessary that which is not necessary what is it Therefore if any of their men should be found to be traditores Bibliorum as some were of old the Roman Donatists would never make a separation from them He goes on The Church is not more Enthusiastical now than she was for four thousand years before she had all the promises which Christ made her of an assistance which should be at least as speacill and full as she ever had before Ans This is positively no answer but somewhat by compare we press it The Church in that time did not de communi challenge immediate inspiration therefore that Church which doth so now is more Enthusiastical Secondly It is a begging of the question since there is not now that need after the Canon is compleated Thirdly We return them their argument what assistance the Church had formerly it hath now the Church formerly had not de communi in fallible assistance therefore not now For the Prophets and the Apostles and the writers of the Scripture are not rationally to be included in the common account of the Church in our case Let them chuse which they will stand to If they put them into the promiscuous account of the Church let them now shew us such a Church If they account them extraordinary let them shew ordinarily such And he confounds himself in what follows Before she delivered only what she had received by tradition and by Scripture She hath received Scripture by Tradition too hath she not Why doth he then divide Scripture from Tradition in the way of its coming to us For the chief reckoning they make to us of Scripture is upon the credit of Tradition But he means Tradition ex parte materiae it may be because they think Tradition conteins other matter than Scripture equally to be believed But this is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Interpreting which according to the sense truly intended by the Holy Ghost the same Holy Ghost doth assist her so that here is no new Revelation claimed to be made to her but an infallible assistance to propose faithfully what was formerly revealed Ans He cannot well clear himself of Enthusiasm upon the account of Tradition Any thing beside the word written equally to be believed is matter of Enthusiasm But they pretend somewhat beside the word written equally to be believed therefore are they in danger of Enthusiasm And I do not see well how they can answer it But now he endeavours to purge himself of this accusation in point of interpretation of Scripture They say they do not interpret Scripture by revelation but by infallible assistance Well But how shall we blind souls be assured infallibly of this infallible assistance We may not examine it by the judgment of private discretion may we If we may then this is gained Must we believe it Yes Why Because God hath it to be his will that we should absolutely believe the Church Shew me where By the Church that is in question By the Scriptures what Texts Those produced But the question is whether they are rightly interpreted according to the true sense What will they say now Nothing but the Church hath infallible assistance And this they must believe by a revelation without Scripture and this is an Enthusiasm And the Roman church pretending this priviledge above other Church's makes it a private revelation Again though there are several waies of revelation yet I would aske how many waies there are of infallible assistance distinguished from revelation let them tell us or else conclude against themselves that they must have the sense of Scripture interpreted by revelation because by infallible assistance The pen-men of Scripture they had infallible assistance but that was by revelation Let us know what infallible assistance there is without a revelation specially since Stapelton and some others likely will have the
if we should say that all those who have differed from us are Hereticks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we know on which part the Fathers of the Church stood We can carry our Fathers through the flames of divisions safe I mean the antient Fathers of the Church But 3. If they will do us right upon occasion for it we will distinguish and so do them a favour but only then they must be guilty here of a fallacy of consequent for although Heresie be opposite to clear Scripture yet all which is opposite to clear Scripture by their leave is not Heresie This is a condition of Heresie but this is not the essentiative of it There may be and are plain points of Scripture which respect circumstances and yet these are not matters sufficient to make difference in them to be Heresie They account indeed all difference to be Heresie because they respect not points in order to the matter but to the proposal of the Church which hath it self equall to all but the tenure of our principles is yet good And yet this we will grant them that he who denies any thing which he confesseth to be plain he is an Arch-Heretick but not in respect to it presently in the matter which may be a circumstance but in respect to it as confessed plain because thus he should deny Gods veracity And yet 4. the difference is not so much in opposition to clear Texts as in their obtruding matters of faith for which they have no Text. He proceeds But by your own confession Christ had no visible Church c. Ans Will he again snarl himself First it lyes on the challengers part to make good two points one that these points of difference were held in the Primitive times and the second that they were held on their side They say we have runne away from the antient Catholick Apostolick Roman faith this is work for them to prove And until this be settled we have nothing to say to that conclusion that Christ was with the opposers of evident Scripture And yet we can say also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is false in the proposition and false in the conclusion as applied to us And yet somewhat else may be said of it by and by Thus we answer them if they intend the words of the primitive times if they intend them only of the last ages preceding the reformation we say first that we may be somewhat more bold because their Church in those times was more degenerated But 2. We need not deny that Christ was with his ordinances even in those times as to lawfulness of baptism and to the possibility of some's being converted who might privately abhorr the grosser errours or simply might swallow them as the Whale did Ionah undigested Delictum ambulat cum Capite they followed Absalom in the simplicity of their heart Therefore 3. as to the opposers of evident Scripture that either Christ must be with such according to our suppositions or else with none for these last ages we can easily distinguish To be with them so as to give them infallible assistance or to be with them so as not to withdraw all administrations of his ordinances the former sense we can presently deny Christs being with them in for we deny it to all times after the Apostles in the latter sense we can grant it and yet they can get nothing by it Yea we can also deny them this and can answer to the other part of the disjunction that if not with them then with none for those times this we can answer to and say that his disjunctive is not yet immediate because many or at least some might be led to heaven by the Cloud as well as in the time of Elijah and as they will say in the time of Anti-Christ N. 30. This makes number being little else then a syllabus of former Texts He thinks in them to prove two things first that the spirit will be with the sucessours of the Apostles for ever And 2. Secure them from errour because it is said he will guide you into all truth Ans As for the first we need not stand upon that for the question is not simply upon Christs continuance with the successours because we deny it not in termes But the question is upon the universality of the object all truth namely whether it be to be taken reduplicatively to truth or specificatively to necessary truth The latter we can grant to the Church as invisible and to the universal visible The former we still deny For first it respects the Apostles principally as appeares by the twelth ver I have many things to say unto you but you cannot bear them now This must be spoken unto the Apostles personally and not as they were personae supponentes But this he takes no notice of And then again the opposing of for ever by the spirit to a little while of being with them in body must referr as it is noted to the Apostles because he was not any time with the successours in body Yea also this will be true in the time of Anti-Christ will it not if not then the promise is not made good and so Christ should not be as good as his word If so then it is extendible in the promise to the Church invisible when the profession is not so visible Then why do they arogate it to the Church visible Again this equally respects all the successours of the Apostles doth it not If it does not then they should satisfie themselves with a limitation where none is expressed which lately they would not doe If it does then all Bishops are equall because they all succeeded the Apostles as St. Ierom affirmes in his epistle to Evagrius 4. All truth must be restrained in regard of the kind for it must be Theological Yea also in regard of the specialty it must be necessary truth for otherwise how was this promise made good for the first three hundred yeares wherein there was no Generall Council by their own confession Put it then into forme all infallibillity is in a Council In that space there was no Council then in that space there was not all infallibility therefore at most only in points necessary They cannot deny the major because they annex infallibility since the Apostles to a Council The minor they confess So then the promise of Christ which was made equally to the Apostles and successours yes taking it rightly equally to all the Apostles amongst themselves and to all the successours amongst themselves not equally to the Apostles and to their successours comparatively to both is yet made good according to its own tenour in its own sense with their consequences Therefore their Romish Divines do carry it more soberly for so they say upon the place and therefore the Church cannot fall into Apostasie or Heresie or to nothing as the adversaries say they do not say it cannot fall into any errour Into
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
because the Scripture can not deceive whosoever doth fear lest that he be deceived through the Obscurity of this question may ask Counsel touching it of the Church whom without any doubt the Scripture it self doth shew The same S. Aug. l. 4. de Trin. c. 6. saith No lover of peace will be against the Church And Ep. 118. c. 5. he plainly terms it Most insolent madness to dispute against that which the whole Church holdeth I will insist no longer upon the Testimony of the Fathers of which I might pour a whole shower against you lest I receive the ordinary Answer that this their Opinion was one of their Navi Spots or Blemishes and therefore shall be rejected but will â—â—ge your own Authors and Protestants to whom perhaps you will give more Credit Calvin upon Esay expounding the words of the 59 Chap. My Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy Mouth shall not depart from thy Mouth and from the Mouth of thy Seed and of thy Seeds Seed saith our Lord from henceforward and for ever saith He promiseth that the Church shall never be deprived of this inestimable good but that it shall alwayes be governed by the holy Ghost and supported with heavenly doctrine Again soon after The Promise is such that the Lord will so assist the Church and have such care of her that he will never suffer her to be deprived of true doctrine And his Scholar Beza de haeret à Civili Magistratu puniendis p. 69. confesseth that the Promise of our Saviour of the Assistance of the holy Ghost was not made onely to the Apostles but rather to the whole Church D. Saravia in defens tract de div Ministr gradib p. 8. saith The holy Spirit which beareth rule in the Church is the true Interpreter of Scriptures from him therefore is to be fetched the true Interpretation and since he cannot be contrary to himself who ruled the Primitive Church and governed the same by Bishops those now to reject is not certes consonant to Verity Our Lutheran Adversaries of Wittenberg Harm of Confess Sect. 10. p. 332 333. Confess Witten Art 30. not onely confess the Church to have Authority to bear witness of the holy Scripture and to interpret the same but also affirm that She hath received from her husband Christ a certain Rule to wit the Prophetical and Apostolical preaching confirmed by Miracles from heaven according unto the which she is bound to interpret those places of Scripture which seem to be obscure and to judge of doctrines Field also l. 4. c. 19 20. Sect. The Second acknowledgeth in the Church a Rule of faith descending by tradition from the Apostles according unto which he will have the Scriptures expounded And we cannot doubt but that she hath followed this Rule having such Assistance from Gods holy Spirit Furthermore the same Dr. Field in the Epistle to his Treatise of the Church professeth thus Seeing the controversies of Religion are grown in number so many and in Nature so Intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examine them What remaineth for Men desirous of Satisfaction in things of such Consequence but diligently to search out which among all the Societies of Men in the World is that blessed Company of holy Ones that houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the living God which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth that so they may embrace her Communion follow her directions and rest in her Judgment For brevity I will omit many other of our Adversaries who are of the same Minde and will now press harder upon you Surely if we believe the Creed the Church is holy if the Scripture She is the Spouse of our Saviour without spot or wrinkle which Eulogies and indeed glorious titles would nothing well become her if she can teach us that which is false This Scripture also gives us these known doctrines and directions That the Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth 1 Tim. 3. v. 15 c. That the Church is built upon a Rock and the Gates of hell shall not prevail against her Matth. 16. v. 18. He that will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican Matth. 18. v. 17. He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me Luke 10. v. 16. Loe I am with you even to the Consummation of the World Matth. 28. v. 20. I will ask the father and he will give you another Paraclete that he may abide with you the Spirit of truth Jo. 14. v. 16. And again yet many things I have to say unto you but you cannot bear them now but when the Spirit of truth cometh he shall teach you all truth Jo. 16. v. 12 13. to omit many other the like passages is Scripture Now this Church whose Authority is thus warranted did praecede the Scripture which for a great part thereof was written but upon Emergent Occasions as Field Hook Covel and other our Adversaries have confessed which Occasions had they not been perhaps we never had known this Scripture Suppose then we had lived in those times when there had been no such Scripture as many did some part thereof being not written above sixty years after our Saviours Ascension Ought we not then to have believed the Churches tradition and preached word This Church was called the Pillar and Ground of Truth before the words were seen in writing and the like I might say by the other places before cited which are now in the Scripture but were delivered by word of mouth to the Church before ever they were written by all which places the Authority of the Church is commended to us and we referred to the said Church as a Guide in all our doubts And all these words of God were no less to be believed and obeyed before they were written then since Even the Scripture it self is believed upon the Tradition and Authority of the Church being part of the Credenda it proposeth nor could we at this day have known which books were true now Canonical which Spurious but by the Churches decision and Proposal as the said learned Mr. Hooker and other our Adversaries do acknowledge Again who doth not ground his belief upon the Church upon what doth he ground it but upon his own fancy or private Interpretation of Scripture the true Sourse and Nurce of all Heresy And such as these may indeed be found upon ancient Account as Helvidius Vigilantius and the rest of Hereticks as the Catholick Church did then account them Now to that which is insinuated That the Scripture was sometime acknowledged the Rule of Faith and Manners it is answered that it is so now but this doth no way hinder the Churches being the Ground of our Belief for the Church is both the Ground of our believing the Scripture and also the Interpreter of Scripture as is above confessed by our Adversaries
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
and very comfortably for the vulgar sort of less learned people who make the greatest Number of Souls in the world by those clear words of the Prophet Esay c. 35. Say to the faint-hearted Take courage and fear not behold God himself will come and save you then shall the Eyes of the blind be opened and the Ears of the deaf shall be opened and there shall be a Path and a way and it shall be called the Holy way and this shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it By this place it is evidently proved that the way which our Saviour at his coming would teach us should be not onely in it self but as the Prophet saith should be to us a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it Let there arise never so many Controversies in Religion let there spring up never so many Sects yet the Promise of God will stand that our Saviour at his coming should shew us A holy way which should be unto us so direct a way that fools cannot erre by it What Holy way is this I say It is the Holy Catholick Church which even by this place is proved Infallible A way so direct unto us that fools cannot erre by it But even wise men might erre by it and by following it most faithfully if this way could be fallible and lead Men into Errours and those damnable To our Purpose then All Christians of whatsoever Religion they be agree in this That there must be One Judge of all Controversies and doubts which either be or can be in Religion The Reason is apparent because otherwise every Man might be left free to believe what he judged best and so we should have as many Religions as there be Private and different Judgments For if you in private without all fault may follow your own Judgment even after reading of Scripture and believe that to be true which out of Scriptures you think truest why may not I though I judge quite contrary to you believe that also to be truest which I think to be true according to the Scriptures Whence you see that Christ should have left a very Miserable Church and should have gathered together a most heart-disunited sort of People if after their reading of Scriptures he had left them no other Judge but their own private Judgment What Law-maker was ever so Inconsiderate as to leave onely a Book of Laws to his Common-wealth without any living Judge to whose Judgment All were to submit True it is that to submit exteriorly to temporal Judges is sufficient they being able and onely to judge of the Exterior Man But God who searcheth the Reines and the Heart and who looketh most upon the Mind which is the Seat of True or false belief doth chiefly exact that those of his Church be of One faith Inteâ—iourly or else they be not of One faith for faith essentially consisteth in the Interiour Judgment He hath all reason to exact they be of One faith for he could not seriously desire their Salvation without he required of them to do that which is so wholly Necessary to Salvation that without it no man is saved For without faith it is Impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 that is It is impossible to please him without true faith for he is not pleased with false faith But without we please God it is impossible to be saved therefore without true faith which consisteth in the Interiour Judgment it is Impossible to be saved And St. Paul Ephes 4.5 teacheth us that there is but one faith one baptism and one God There being but One faith and it being impossible to please God without this One faith and all things necessary to please God being under Precept and of most strict Obligation it followeth that it is a Precept and a strict Obligation to have this faith which chiefly and Essentially consisteth in the Interior Judgment This I press so hard because my Adversary hath a doctrine which I take to be exceedingly pernicious for he saith Pag. 26. Answ 5. We say They should be directed by their Ministers and ordered by Bishops the Pastors of the Church chiefly when they are assembled in a General Councel wherein is the highest power of hearing and ending differences in the Church Yet we cannot say that we are absolutely bound to their Canons we having the Judgment of private discretion and they not the Judgment of Infallibility and therefore since they have not a power not to erre we have a power to suspend our faith c. By these and many other words used to this Effect you see here this Judgment of Private discretion left free in the Interiour to hold what a Private person thinketh fit after perusal of the Scripture although a whole General Councel thinketh and most unanimously defineth the Contrary even after they have heard and most diligently weighed and pondered the same places of Scripture Good God! Is that thy Promise of a Holy way that shall be to us a direct way that fools cannot erre by it Yea is not the wisest Man in the world most likely to erre in this way by which he may in his Interior Judgment go quite Contrary to all Christendome I know indeed that All who are not Roman Catholicks must say this for if the Church in a General Councel be fallible then we cannot ground one 〈◊〉 upon that Councels definition But even by this desperate Consequence it is evident that God would give his Church aâ— Infallible assistance so to make good his Promise of leaving to them a Holy way which should be unto them a direct way so that fools cannot erre by it For any Man of mean Capacity cannot erre if he will submit his judgment to the Catholick Church whereas any Man of never so great a Judgment cannot but be highly suspected of Errour and deeply guilty of exposing himself to manifest hazard of Erring in that faith without which it is Impossible to please God when he doth not submit his Interior Judgment to the known unanimous Judgment of the whole Church St. Cyprian was a Prime Doctor of the Church and yet grounding himself upon that which he judged to be Scripture as appeareth by his first Book Ep. 6. and other places he did erre grossly about the necessity of Rebaptizing those who had been baptized by Hereticks But saith St. Austin l. 2. de Bapt. c. 4. If he had lived to see the determination of a Plenary Councel he would for his great Humility and Charity straightway have yielded and preferred the General Councel before his own Judgment Thus speaketh S. Austin of S. Cyprian though he knew his private Judgment of discretion to be far less exposed in this Case to hazard of Erring then is the private Judgment of discretion of most private Men in the world especially when they go point-blank against a whole General Council in points of higher Concernment then was this point in which S. Cyprian
is strangled See here among Necessary things one is to abstain from blood which Christians do not nor think not to be done for they freely eat black Puddings and also to abstain from things strangled as when we strangle Chickens and eat them freely If you tell me that Scripture onely is Iudge of Controversies I will tell you that by the Iudgement of this Iudge following no other as infallible woe be to the Opinion of all Catholiques and Protestants who hold it lawful to work upon Saturdayes unlawful on Sundayes lawful to eat Blood and Strangled things unlawful to abstain from them as still forbidden woe I say to our Opinion for it not onely will not be judged as undoubtedly true by Scripture but also it will and that undoubtedly be judged false by the Places now cited I pray tell me here how Men of mean capacity yea how Men of the greatest capacity in the World shall be able to finde by the judgement of Scripture onely what is Infallibly to be believed in these points in which so many hundred Thousands of Jewes damnably differ from us Did not all this Kingdome of England grounded upon Scriptures clear enough as they said both hold and swear that they held the King the Head of the Church can any point in the Church be of higher concernment to the Church then to know for certain their own Head And yet this point is now no longer ascertained us by the Infallible judgement of Scripture For another example what Controversie can more import then to be undoubtedly and by Infallible Authority secured which books of Scripture be Canonical and the certain Word of God and which be not You say there is no Infallibility of any verity to be had but by the Scripture But I say that in all the Scripture no Infallibility can be had concerning the Canon of the Scripture wherefore either we cannot know this most important point of all points infallibly or else we must acknowledge the Church to be Infallible for the Scripture in this point is wholly silent We dispute and differ highly about the books of Macchabees whether they be the certain Word of God or no. I pray tell me how shall this grand Controversie be decided and decided Infallibly by the â—udgement of Scripture Luther denyeth the Apocalypse to be true Scripture we all in England stand out against him I pray tell me what Scripture we have against him that is Infallible without begging the question which is called into Controversie We all believe the Gospel of St. Matthew not onely to be the true Gospel of Christ and his Word but also to be the Gospel of St. Matthew as also the Gospel of St. Mark to be written by St. Mark If any Man should deny this what place of Scripture could we cite against him or what Infallible ground have we of this our belief The Marcionists the Cerdonists the Manichaeans do absolutely deny St. Matthews Gospel to be Gods Word This Controversie you say and all other Controversies of Faith is to be ended by the Scripture I ask what place of Scripture will end this Controversie and all other Controversies about all other books of Scripture which have almost all been denyed to be Gods Word by some Hereticks or other And as for St. Matthew you must know that all Ancient Writers no one excepted do say that he did write in Hebrew and yet neither his Hebrew Gospel nor any one certain Copy of it is extant in the World Tell me then upon what undoubted Ground you beleeve any thing that is in St. Matthews Gospel onely The Greek Translation which we have was made by God knows whom for we know not He might be a faithful or unfaithful Translator he might use a false uncorrect Copy he might mistake in many places by Ignorance in many by Negligence or Malice Upon what Infallible ground shall a converted Manichaean as St. Austin for example believe this Greek Gospel which we have By what Scripture will you presse him to it yea upon what Scripture do you your selves beleeve this Gospel this Greek Translation of S. Matthew If you tell me Saint Matthew did write in Greek I must tell you that all Antiquity no one antient Author excepted say the contrary How will you then ground Infallible belief upon your so new and so uncertain Opinion When this question was moved whether any Book was to be received as the Infallible Word of God or no The Holy Fathers could never finde any more undoubted ground then that the Church did allow or not allow of such Books to be held for Gods undoubted Word Upon this ground St. Athanasius in fine Synopsis receiveth the Gospel of St. Matthew and the other Three Gospels and rejected the Gospel of St. Thomas Upon this Ground Tertullian St. Hierome St. Austin and St. Leo professe themselves to admit such and to deny other Books to be Canonical Upon this ground it is that Eusebius Hist Eccles l. 3.19 saith such Scriptures are held for true genuine and manifestly allowed by the opinion of all because they are so According to the Tradition of the Church and that by this Evident Note or Mark they are distinguished from others Behold the most perspicuous mark by which Scriptures could be Infallibly known to be or not be Gods undoubted Word is the Tradition of the Church Whence St. Austin giving a reason to the Manichaeans who believed some part of the Gospel why he cited the Acts of the Apostles which they believed not saith thus Which Book of the Acts it is necessary for me to believe if I believe the Gospel being the Catholick Authority in like manner commendeth both these Scriptures to me So he contra Ep. Fund c. 4. By this the Author of the Reply may see how Insufficient his Answer pag. 25. is when he saith Indeed we take the Canonical Books by Tradition from the Church but we do not take them to be Canonical upon her Tradition but assent is setled in them as Canonical in the way of Faith because they are such In thy light we shall see light so by Scripture we shall see Scripture So he but not so any one of the Fathers who were most often pressed to give a reason why they believed such Books to be Canonical why not None of these professed themselves to be so sharp sighted that by seeing onely Canonical Scriptures they could see them to be Canonical Scriptures and that so manifestly as to ground their Faith upon it You by the Apocalyps see it to be Canonical your most illuminated Luther could not see it to be so by that light By all the light he had he Judged St. James his Epistle to be made of Straw yet you see in it a light shewing undoubtedly it to be Gods Word You cannot see the two first Books of Macchabees to be Canonical yet St. Austin believed them to be so for that the Councel of Carthage Can. 47. received them for
such as also the books of Wisdome of which St. Austin saith That it was received of all Christian Bishops and others even to the last of the Laity with veneration of Divine Authority l. de Praedest Sanct. Sanctorum 14. What more cleer And yet you see that all you of the Church of England deny all veneration of Divine Authority to this Book By what Scripture shall we end this and the like Controversies of other Books for which we have as strong proofs as these now cited and you have onely so weak a proof as is a light so peculiar to your selves And upon the certainty given you onely by this sight you firmely believe all the Scripture that you believe that is all the Faith you have all the Beliefe you have depends upon this That you can see so evidently such and such a Book to be Canonical that this your Sight by light received from those Book shewing them to be assuredly Canonical is the onely Infallible Assurance you have that such and such Books are Canonical and consequently this your peculiar sight is the onely Infallible Ground you have to rely upon these books as upon the undoubted Word of God This is your Doctrine this is your Holy Way a way so direct that fools cannot erre by it though you professe so many wise Men in this point have erred even whole General Councels as also so many great Doctors before whose eyes this same light stood as clear as before yours for they Judged very many to be Canonical Scriptures which you deny so weak a ground are you all forced to rely upon even in the main Point of Eternal Salvation whilest you refuse to rely on the Infallible Authority of Christs Church Neither doth this our relying on the Churches Authority derogate to the Scriptures for we do not say that the Church maketh them true Scriptures but it maketh us to have an Infallible Ground to hold them for true Scriptures as they are in themselves and this not because the Church maketh them held to be so but because they are true in themselves as being the Word of God yet not known by themselves to be so by any Infallible knowledge without this the testimony of the Church as Christ was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World but the Infallible testimony of St. John Baptist made many know that he was so And thus Christ was made known to the world by the Infallible testimony of his Apostles upon whose testimony many Thousands believed before the Scriptures were written Therefore for the Scriptures to be believed what they are of themselves for the Infallible Testimony of the Church doth no more derogate to their honour or make the Church Superiour to them then it derogateth to the honour of the Son of God to be believed to be what he is upon the Infallible testimony of his Apostles which testimony had it not been Infallible those who grounded their Faith upon it had had no Infallible ground to believe our Saviour to be him who he is In like manner if the Authority of the Church testifying such and such books to be Gods Word were not Infallible we should have no Infallible ground to know them to be such though they truly be such of themselves but of this Infallibility I will say no more Now I will go on and shew yet further that the Scriptures cannot be the Judges of all Controversies for many things are set down in Scripture in such manner that almost all the Controversies which are in the Church do arise about the true Interpretation of the Scripture And God did well know that this would happen and therefore he must needs know that he should give the world a very unprofitable Judge in order to the keeping of Unity and deciding of Controversies if he should onely leave them a Book about the true meaning of which Book he well knew more Controversies and Disunions in Religion would arise then about any other matter so that the greatest Wits here being at greatest dissention this cannot be That holy way a way so direct to us that fools cannot erre by it No Law-maker of any Common-wealth did ever provide so simply for the Unity of it as to leave them onely a Book of Lawes to be the sole Judge of all their Controversies as I shewed before And surely if Christ had intended to leave us a Book to be our sole Judge in all Controversies then undoubtedly he would in some part of this Book have clearly told us so this importing so exceedingly as it doth and yet he hath not done so Secondly if he would have given us a Book for Judge he would never have given us for our Judge such a Book as the Scripture is which very often speaketh sometimes so Prophetically that most would think it spoke of the present time when it speaketh of the time to come that it spoke of one person for example of David when it speaketh of Christ sometime it speaketh by a Figure by a Metaphor by a Parable it hath Tropological Allegorical Anagogical and Mystical senses It useth the Imperative Mood as well for Councels as Commands In no place it so much goeth about to set down a Catalogue of any particular points necessary and onely necessary to be believed which any wise Law-maker would do if he intended by his writings to end all Controversies in Faith yea the Scripture seemeth often to say evidently that which according to your Doctrine is false You hold for Superstitious the Annoynting of sick Persons with certain Prayers and yet Saint James saith cap. 5. ver 14. Is any sick among you let him call for the Priests of the Church and let them pray over him annoynting him with Oyl and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Is not this Controversie clearly by this place of Scripture decided against you or have you any one place half so clear to the contrary Again about those other most clear words spoken in the Institution of another great Sacrament in which any wise Man would speak clearly This is my Body the late Adversaries of the Roman Church have found out above two hundred several Interpretations They will needs have the sense to be figurative although never any Man in any figurative speech was heard to speak thus For example to take a Vine a Lamb a Door in his hand and say this Vine this Lamb this Door is Christ This is no kinde of figurative speech though it be a clear figure to say Christ is a Vine a Lamb a Door yea he is Bread But to take Bread into a Mans hand as Christ did and then say This Bread is my Body to take a Cup of Wine into his hand and to say This is the Cup of my Blood which shall be shed for you doth not so much as sound like a figurative speech and yet our Adversaries think it so certainly to be so that they venture
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
yet will it not 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 unlesse you can prove that whatsoever priviledges were promised to the first Church in the times of the Apostles should in full dimensions be alwayes extended to your Church and your Church onely Therefore your Isidor Clarius doth apply this Text to the time of our Saviour when he did make the Blind to See the Lame to Walk as he sent word to John the Baptist And therefore since it was signally accomplished then we cannot urge the performance of it in that equality in a sense spiritual which also seems to be acknowledged by Saint Hierome upon the place where the opening of the Ears of the Deaf he doth apply to the Scripture Preached and the way he saies to be God Now then as we cannot solidly argue from the promise of pouring out the gifts of the Holy Spirit which was solemnly and subfâ—â—a visibile made good upon the Apostles as â—oâ—hâ— Peter declared that there shall be the like effusion of immediate gifts upon the Church in the following ages which some Sectaries would plead so neither can we rationally conclude from this promise which was as that excellent manner and in the Letter perfected by our Saviour Christ that it shall be continued to any Church iâ— that measure of a spiritual kind If we cannot evince the same perfection in the same kinde surely can we not by our accommodation of sense evince the same perfection in another kind upon the former consideration because it is mystical and that not argumentative 3. This path and this way and this holy way so that fools cannot erre is upon supposition promised to the Church Is it not Well then if it be promised to the Church then the Church is not that way for that way is promised to the Church so that the Church is not absolutely that way but so far as it goeth that way which is as much as was said before and is not yet answered that the Church is regula regulata not regulans Take then the matter thus that way which the Church goes we must goâ—â— The Church goes by the way of Gods-Word revealed and so must we therefore we are not bound to follow the Church with blind obedience which excludes Faith because that includes Knowledge although it be contradistinguished to Science Fourthly If the promise did belong to the Church in all times yet not to any Church of one denomination therefore untill you can prove that your Church is all this makes nothing for you Particular Churches have not those properties which belong to the Universal Church as such And if you make a proof of the Church to be the holy way because the Church is holy how easily is that undone because there is more reason that the Scripture should be the holy way for that is perfectly holy or the Holy Ghost is the Judge because he is essentially holy but neither is the Church perfectly holy here nor essentially holy not in Heaven And besides secondly the Holy Church if you understand it with relation to the Creed as in your former Paper it is to be taken of the Church invisible which as such is on way And thus I have slighted your strong hold as it seems to you for hitherto you do fly very often In your third Number you come to an assertion of the necessity of an Infallible Judge You say that all Christians of whatsoever Religion do agree in this that there must be one Judge of all Controversies and Doubts which either be or can be in Religion So you You speak very largely of your supposition as if it were agreed to by all Christians but you do not consider that you do leave out that which makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the state of the question whether there must be an Infallible Judge on Earth for that is not consented to on all hands by all Religions indeed by none but yours That God either essentially taken or personally the Holy Ghost is the Supreme Universal Infallible Judge and onely in whose Authority we rest and whose word is the Ground of Faith we hold Under him subordinate Judges there are but not Infallible neither is it by your reason sufficiently confirmed that there should be on Earth any Infallible Judge For the defect of such a Judge on Earth doth not leave us free without any fault to follow our own private judgement in holding what we will For first it is impossible for us to hold what we will in our judgements We may possibly though not morally professe what we will although contrary to our judgements as many doe but we cannot assent to what we will because our Understanding is not free to take which part of the opposition it pleaseth by way of Will for it embraceth Truth naturally as it sees it and it cannot give a rational assent without a due conviction and therefore your implicite Faith is false and null Secondly We do not say that we should follow our own judgement of discretion without meanes of regulating our judgement but yet after we have perused the Definitions of Councils and Sentences of the Fathers we cannot resigne up our Assents to their Dictates upon their account but do examine them as the Beraeans did that which Saint Paul said untill we can finde them resolved into the Infallible rule of Holy Scripture For let me ask a Papist according to the renour of your first Paper What doth he believe he answers that which the Church believeth and why doth he believe it because the Church believeth it and why doth the Church believe it because it received it from the first Church through the Sentences of the Fathers or the Determinations of Councils Well but how shall the People know whether this Tradition of Doctrine is truly discerned and faithfully delivered but if so why is he bound to believe the first Church because either they were the Apostles oâ— had it from the Apostles And why doth he believe the Apostles Because they were inspired by the Holy Ghost Well in what they wroâ—e or in what they spoke or both In both Well but how do we know what they spoke We know what they wrote bears witnesse of it self so doth not to us what they spoke so that although they were inspired in whaâ— they spoke yet we know not what they spoke Neither can we be assured by a Divine Faith that what of them was not written is certainly derived And therefore all of Faith must be terminated and determined in that which is written And as towards Controversies we say thirdly that Christ hath sufficiently provided for the Salvation of Man in regard of means of knowledge without an Infallible Judge on Earth of their Controversies because things necessary are plainly set down in Scripture and for matters of question we are not in any such danger if we do our endevour according to our condition to finde out Truth and do dispose our selves to Belief as we shall see
following instances to be of the necessaries I deny the antecedent in both branches if not I deny your supposition Taking you in the former sence I say that there are not now many Controversies necessary to be determined unto salvation which may not undoubtedly be decided by Scripture and also I say there may not be yet many more The first branch I deny because though many things which are res questionis are not decided by Scripture yet many controversies in things necessary cannot be said not to be undoubtedly decided by Scripture because in things necessary there are not many Controversies And the second branch I denie because we cannot expect any new necessaries and a new Tradition is a certain contradiction Now to answer to your particulars for the proof of the antecedent Controversie may be moved you say concerning the lawfulness of working and not working of Saturdayes and Sundayes How will this Controversie be decided by the Scripture c. So you To which we return you this answer that there is enough in Scripture to ground the practice of the Church for the observing of the Lords day First by the proportion to the Equity of keeping one day in seven which wee have in the fourth Commandement There is in the Commandment morale naturae that there should be a time set a part for publicke worship and this by the Light of Nature the Heathens did see as Tully Non ut Consilii sic Sacrificii c. There is not a day appointed of Counsel as of sacrifice then there is a positive determination to the Jew of the seventh day to be the day in the week of their solemn service and to this is agreable by good analogle that Christians should keep one day in seven as well as the Jews Now the moments in Scripture for the Translation of the day are several the appellation of the Lords day most likely of the day we keep the meeting of the Disciples and breaking of bread on the first day of the week the order for the provision for the poor by Saint Paul to the Corinthians To these we add the Syriack Interpretation which in the first Epistle to the Corinthians the 11. Chapter and the 20. Verse expresseth it thus when therefore you meet you do not as it is just on the Lords Day eating and drinking which is to be understood of the Communion according to the scope of the place And therefore may we think that this point of practise was so competently set out in Scripture as that we cannot suspend the usage upon the Authoritie of the Church since we may conceive that the Church was bound by the former Considerations to celebrate the Day of Christs Resurrection which is the Hope of the new Creature The seventh Day to the Jew was Positive and Ceremonial and therefore upon that account under capacity of being altered and the Equity of one day in the week is now under practice upon the former intimations Secondly If the Jewish day ceaseth not in the Obligation to Christians then the time when Christians should keep is under the Divine Commandement and is none of those things wherein the Church hath power because as you will confesse it hath no authority to rescinde a Divine precept So then if by necessity of mean it is necessary to keep the Lords day it is lawfully done and upon duty if it be not necessary by necessity of mean then is this Example of yours impertinent And so this argument unanswerable as you esteem it is without much labour answered by those who make the Scripture in which God speaks by him the sole Infallible Judge not excluding subordinate Judges which are to regulate their decisions by the rule of the word unto which the Scripture is not silent and in other things no need to be sure of such a Judge as you would have And this second Answer to your first instance may be available for your satisfaction in your second instance from the 15. of the Acts. For if those precepts of the 〈◊〉 in that Council do binde all alwaies then is We matter determined by Scripture if they do not then are we at our Christian liberty from them without a formal discharge thereof from the Church And secondly that we are not held under obedience to those Lawes appears by the intention of their imposition for that time since they were imposed upon occasion of scandal to the weak Jew the reason whereof now ceaseth and therefore the Laws ubi ratio cessat lex cessat as the rule is Onely as the Ceremonial Laws binde yet quâ—ad genus as they speak that there should be a decent publick worship in the Church of God not quoad speciem that we should continue the use of the same Ceremonies so even these precepts which were in their nature Ceremonial do yet binde so far improportion of kinde that in things of indifferency we should have respect to our weak Brother Thirdly Neither can you say that either he that does abstain from those things forbidden or he that does not abstain is upon that account in danger of damnation And therefore as quoad hoc we distinguish of your term Necessary if you take this matter Necessary as absolutely so by the morality of it or perpetual by appointment then we deny it to be necessary so and why do not you keep them if onely necessary as to present practice then doth it not come up to our question for it is none of those things necessary to Salvation which are determinable by the Church and not by Scripture In your tenth Number you give us another case not umpired by Scripture whether the King is Head of the Church And this you say we thought once to be determined by Scripture affirmatively now not so you in effect this point is now no longer ascertained us by infallible judgement of Scripture so you in terms We answer First What is infallibly decided in Scripture will ever be so although we do not alwaies finde it but we cannot find any thing infallibly decided by the Church Secondly We do not say that every point is Infallibly decided in Scripture because it is not at all decided therefore if you mean us so you mistake us And now premising these considerations we answer that we do hold our principle still if you will understand as according to our mind Head of the Church as you hold the Pope to be Head of the Church so as that we are bound in Conscience as upon his Infallibility to be ruled by his dictates in matters of Religion we never held the King to be but to be Head of the Church so as to be the chief Governor thereof as being appointed by God to be the Keeper of both Tables so we hold him to be still This distinction makes an end as it may seem of your objection and yet secondly we do not pretend the King to be head of the Universal Church as you pretend
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
to the Pontificians who assert the Government of the Church to be Monarchical by Christs Institution for if part of the authority be in the General Council then is it not all in one the Pope Or if the Council be called onely ad Consilium and they have no Votes decisive how doth this agree to all the former Councils wherein they had authority of Vote and he may determine without them as to advise since he determins without them in the authority and suppose they advise him to let them have power of Vote he can yet determine against them Fifthly How many Councils have been opposite to one another In which or with which did not the Pope erre The Nicene and that of Ariminum as before decreed contrarily one for the Arrians the former against them which did not erre and yet if neither had did ever any of the ancient Councils determine of their own infallibility And what think you of Nazianzens Opinion about Councils in his Epistle to Procopius the 42. Shall I tell you it I have no mind to derogate from General Councils but if you would have me tell you his judgement it is in such words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am thus affected as to shun all meetings of Bishops if I must speak the truth for I never saw any Good end of a Synod nor that had an end of the Evils more then an addition Nay did not the Bishop of Bitâ—nto break out into these words in the face of the Council at Trent I would that with one consent we had not altogether declined from Religion to superstition from Faith unto infidelitie from Christ unto Antichrist from God to Epicurus Did he not say so And this may serve for your Answer to all the rest of this your Paragraph We cannot think it strange that the definition of a General Council should be fallible until you bring forth your strong reasons to induce my assent that such assistance was ever promised to a General Council as the Apostles and Prophets had or that any General Council had such assistance or that there was the same reason of such assistance And to say no more of this point measure the infallibility of the Trent Council by the determinations thereof in things of Religion and see how they agree with Scripture which you say is a rule of Faith and by this Argument be you judge of the infallible Judge Let us not see your Opinions by infallibility which you pretend but do you see your infallibility by the determinations it did put forth namely such wherein we differ and therefore I need not name them In the 22. Paragraph we have recapitulation and a passage of Luther which you use as an Argument ad hominem We Answer you do then hereby give us occasion to shew our ingenuity to truth that as we follow him and any other with it so we will not follow others or him without it But secondly If this book was written after his recession from the Church of Rome it is not meant of the Roman Church but of the Catholique Church which yet he doth not here compare with the Scripture but with a private man which seems to be spoken against Enthusiasts Neither doth he say that it is not lawful to doubt of the Church that whatsoever it saith is true but that it hath the Revelation of the Father to wit because it hath the revealed Word of God with it Or that the undoubtednesse of it doth not belong to it per se but per aliud because it hath for its priviledge the Revelation of Scripture And thus it maketh not for you Now this brings on your forecited passage of Saint Paul to Tim. 1.3.15 Where the Church of God is called the Pillar and Ground of Truth And you aske May not men rely securely upon the pillar of Truth May they not ground themselves assuredly on the ground of Truth no ground being surer ground and more infallible then the ground of Truth it self So you Supposing the words read according to this way we answer There is a double Pillar and a double ground one Principal the Scripture the other lesse principal and subordinate the Church now as this pillar and this ground is subordinate to the main pillar and ground we may rely and ground our selves but then the principal reliance and grounding must be upon that which is principal the Scripture For let me ask you likewise what is the Pillar and Ground of the Church Is it not the Scripture then the Church is but the pillar and ground by accident because that doth rely and is grounded upon the Scripture And therefore the Scripture is the more sure and infallible ground because what truth the Church hath it hath by participation and it is possible for it to hold forth and to have hung upon it somwehat which is false according to your own confession as I conceive you although not damnative And this doth well corroborate my inference from Saint Irenaeus words of the Scriptures being called the Pillar and Ground of Truth that therefore it is the Ground of Faith yes very rationally because it is the prime and supreme pillar and ground of Truth Yet you will raise a consequence upon mine for your cause thus If this consequence be strong which I deny not there is yet a stronger that the Truth is no where surer grounded then upon the pillar and foundation of Truth So you Sir What do you mean Do you make any difference betwixt the ground and foundation Do you mean that the Scripture is the ground of Faith but the Church is the Foundation This is your sense I suppose otherwise how a stronger Consequence For there is no comparative but where there is some difference And if this be what you would have then I think I may say I have what I would have and yet we are not agreed For then you confesse what I have hitherto held that the Scripture is the ground of Faith You said at first that the authority of the Church was the ground of Faith I said the Scripture was the ground of Faith and now you say as I say that the Scripture is the ground of Faith and so your contradiction is come into my affirmation But yet we are not agreed in that which you now superadd that the Church is the Foundation of Truth the Scripture is the Ground the Church the Foundation Is it so then have you changed the Question And why had we not the right state of it at first And was it not enough that the Church should be the ground of Scripture but must it be the Foundation in a more excellent sense I must not let this passe for your sake First what gives you occasion from the Text to assert the Church to be the Foundation signanter I do not see For the word in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not signifie a Foundation but that which doth uphold
be intended to that purpose since also the words do in short fully represent the office of the Church the intention of the passage must be gathered by the scope according to the rule of the Schoolman Intelligentia dicti colligitur ex scopo loquendi Now the drift of Saint Paul was to instruct him how he should carry himself in the Church Was it reasonable then he should have account of the Church in the priviledges of it or in the duty thereof which is to hold forth and uphold truth For if the Infallibility of the Church were here affirmed then needed he not to have such instructions to take care how he behaved himself in the Church Since Infallible assistance is immediate and that which is immediate includes no time for the inspiration nor means of instruction therefore had your Roman Church been real in the asserting of Infallibility it had not needed eighteen years for the sitting of the Trent Council with Intermissions nor more for the consultation whether there should be any As for that which comes next of Athanasius it was in part answered before the Argument is this the Consubstantiality of the Son is by Athanasius after the determination of the Nicene Council called that Word of God by the Nicene Council which remaineth for ever and ever And this is no where clearly said in Scripture therefore somewhat which is not clearly said in Scripture may by a Council be determined to be the Word of God To this we answer we may grant you all of the Syllogism and yet nothing accrews to you if the words by the Nicene Council be understood ministerially to Scripture which they were bound to declare the sense of as to that point and so it did not binde with relation to their Authority but by Authority of Scripture which they declared the mind of in that case And therefore though so we grant the Argument yet do we deny your Consequence which you would make of it in your sense that the Church is infallible in the definitions of it since that which was defined was indeed Infallible and yet was not Infallibly defined for though the Council did not erre in that definition yet it might have erred and if it did not erre in that yet it might erre in other definitions and therefore can we not without suspense intuitively receive what they propose as the Word of God which is by you yet to be proved For secondly That which they have the Principles and Grounds of Scripture for it is more easie for them rightly to define in the Application of those principles unto particular cases as they had for that question about the Consubstantiality of the Son as Saint John the 10.30 I and my Father are one not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one Person but one in Nature but as for those questions whereof the solution is not so principled in Scripture as being not so necessary to be held on either part we cannot expect so likely a determination and yet if probable we cannot from thence urge it as an object of Faith That which is in Scripture according to equivalence of sense as that point is we may better credit upon account of Scripture then that which the ignorance of doth not damn since the Scripture gives us no moments of knowledge how to order our assent affirmatively or negatively in that But thirdly Saint Athanasius did not ground his Faith in the affirmative of that question upon the authority of the Nicene Council because he held it before the Council had determined it and therefore the cause of his Faith herein was not the authority of the Council And if that Council of Nice was to be believed for it selfe without respect to the matter as depending upon Scripture why not the Council of Ariminum to the contrary and therefore Saint S. Austin would refer it to Scripture betwixt him Maximinus a Bishop of the Arrians since the Councils was contrary And if any exception could have been made against the Council of Ariminum as towards the denial of such authority of it as is due to other Councils had it not been easie for the Father to have held the Doctrine upon the Authority of the Council of Nice though the other had been rejected In your 23. Number you do not fairly render my Answer I did not say that Christ would not be at all with his Church to the end of the world but it is not necessarily there meant that he would be with them unto the end of the world as he was with the Apostles by Infallible assistance so he did not promise he would be with the Successours of the Apostles And therefore if this be a simple mistake it is a fallacy a dicto secundum quid if you intended a slander it is worse Infallible assistance is not there promised and therefore the promise may be made good without it Neither was there such need of Infallible assistance whatsoever you say because the rule of Faith and Manners was to be determined in the Scripture which is the Infallible Word of God So that although they who followed the Apostles in the governance of the Church had been so disposed for Infallible assistance as the Apostles yet had there not been that use of the assistance Infallible but having not that disposition thereunto they wanted a condition and qualification for such assistance And God did not give an Infallible assistance to the Apostles because they were disposed for that gift of Infallibility but rather gave them that disposition that so they might be fitted for that Infallibility And so if he had intended such a measure of the Spirit to the Successors of the Apostles as to them he could have made them as capable thereof As for your Reason which you mention of leaving as secure direction for them who followed because the further we go from Christs time the more we are subject to uncertainty about his Doctrine therefore there is as much yea far more reason of this secure direction I answer You do not well consider what you say For if we be more subject to uncertainties the further we goe from Christ his time then cannot you urge the credit of those Traditions now equally to the certainty of them then supposing that there were any of Faith not written Secondly this Reason would be none if men would be guided by Scripture which hath now the same certainty as ever This is a Rule which will with equal infallibility hold at all times and unto which we are all equally obliged Again you would argue that the Church is secure from damnable errour because Christ promised to be with it to the end of the world and he is not with those who live in damnable errour But what is this to me you may conclude thus and yet not against me if you speak of damnable errour specificatively for if you mean it reduplicatively that all errour is damnable
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
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
are not yet proved to be yours in the main difference betwixt us nor I think can you prove them to be yours without corruption of the Text or of the sense by you in any other point of importance betwixt us Nay how many of your Roman Communion have given Testimonie to us in Substance of Doctrine besides â—erus whom you have abused as I told you therefore to make him after death speak false to Truth and himself Nay we are what the Roman Church was before the Roman Church was what it should not be and what it was not in the purest Primitiveness and therefore your additional Doctrines which and your universal Jurisdiction pretended have made the breach and discontinued our Communion we could not have from Rome then when it had them not And therefore it is not proper for us to be Opponents for we are upon the Negative Doe you shew that a flourishing visibilitie is necessary to the Church and how it is like to be in your Church in the time of Antichrist according to your Doctrine and how it held in the time of the Arrian persecution Do you shew that you have had in your Communion all the Holy men and none other and then you will do a miracle And let us hear of it no more until it be done As he said Landari non potest nisi peractum Go on with your design and let it be a real defence of your cause by a solid and substantial maintenance of the points you hold and we deny but doe not offer to deceive us with old shooes and clouted and mouldie bread and old raggs and and old bottles as if you came from a far Countrie that you might be of a League together as the Gibeonites couzned the Israelites If you do we shall endevour to discover it Therefore rather think of that of our Saviour Saint Matt. 9.16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth to an old garment for that which filleth up taketh from the Garment and the rent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is made worse And now methinks I should end but for the conclusion shewing as you say my Replie to your papers to be fully answered in your former discourse Sir this is verie odd that you will not answer particucularly my premisses and yet I must combate with your conclusion And yet if I have answered your premisses in the Lawes of Disputation I have nothing to do with your conclusion And therefore whatsoever part of your discourse you refer me to in this your conclusion for my answer to the first Replie since it is punctually answered by me in the matter of it needs not to be shewed by me to be insufficient for my answer For besides that you leave me to find my own condemnation in your paper where I can which is a mightie labour and it may be impossible whereas you will urge a particular formal Judge to hear and determin besides this you may understand that that which is not true in it self as I have shewed as well as you the contrarie cannot answer me for it cannot answer for it self being false and therefore the product of it were it rightly applied in the form would be null Yet have I a fancie that since somewhat in it is not said before by you and somewhat you do charge me with if I should give no Replie thereunto you would think that the cause were wanting or I to it I shall therefore where there is need briefly run it through First you say that I said there was little reason for me to rejoyn because in your paper you wave the Application of it to the Roman Church You make your apologie that it was to no end until I had granted that some Church 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 So you I Answer That I think I gave you the true Reason of your not including the Roman Church in your prosecution of the Catholick Church before But in that you say that first a man must prove the Messias to be come before that he proves Christ to be the Messias you speak not congruouslie for Christ and Messias are all one in different Languages you mean that Jesus is the Messias For the Jewes acknowledged Jesus but not Christ But let that passe According to your Doctours you could not abstract the Catholick Church from the Roman Church as I have told you since they include the Pope as Head in the definition of the Catholick Church and that which belongs to the nature of a thing you cannot abstract from it for then you should make a falsitie in your abstraction for then you should conceive the nature of it without that which is necessarie to the nature And that which follows as you say by consequent from the Catholick to the Roman is formerly denied Secondly you say that I say that I might still have left you to answer your first paper with your second And so I say still You Replie that this is onely to stand to what I have said as you also do Let the Reader judge with indifferencie And I say let the Reader or the world judge with indifferencie which of us doth most stand to his supposition without reason or who is most likely to doe so I or you who are so captivated to and by your infallibilitie which you must stand out in by it self which is the Question and if you offer to prove it by Scripture you come upon our ground Thirdlie you say I say you doe not conclude contradictorilie and I say so still You Replie that you alwaies conclude the Churches authoritie to be a sufficient ground ground of Faith and I say it is an insufficient ground Answer But you do not consider that your Arguments or Testimonies doe not conclude the Church a sufficient ground and therefore whether you as a Disputant doe conclude contradictorilie let the Reader judge Nextlie you come to my Eight answers as you divide my last paper And in my first answer you say I spent seven pages to prove the Scripture to be a sufficient ground of Faith So then I have made by your confession my word good that I would give you a proof by Testimonies that the Scripture is a sufficient ground of Faith which I have done with Reasons also thereupon But you triumph this this it is not to conclude contradictorilie And why so You say that I should have concluded that the Church cannot be a sufficient ground of Faith which may be and is true though it also be most true that the Scripture is a most sufficient ground of Faith when it is once known by an infallible authoritie to be the Word of God and also when we evidentlie know that such and such is the undoubted sense of Scripture Thus you But first are there two sufficient grounds of Faith or not as to the same Objects
proposed the question they put down the reasons which seem to make against the truth This was done to my hand in your first paper Then they set down the Truth and the Reasons of it and this Saint Thomas in his Quaestionibus fasiùs disputatis doth sometimes very largely and this I did to your hand in my last paper Lastly they solve the former Objections against truth by reference to such Reasons as they in their Proofs did shew the truth to be grounded upon And this in my conclusion I shewed my self to have performed or if any little thing were wanting I did supply it Wherefore though I had not your consent to proceed thus with your paper yet I content my self with having the consent of the best Schoolmen My intention in rejoyning by a Treatise was to have this most important matter distinctly orderly and fully put down And by having done so I find this great commoditie that your answer becomes more Methodical and my Reply to your Answer more clear and perspicuous And the Reader seeth still how orderly the combat is The Second CHAPTER The necessitie of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all are bound to submit 1. IN the beginning of your Answer Of my first Number to what I said concerning this point you go about to perswade us that we Recusants who upon this account are liable to loose two parts of our Estates and what else you are or shall be pleased to take from us be it goods liberty or life that we I say are most likely to take up our Religion by prejudice Doubtless you must think us first to be very noble contemners of the world whose greatest commodities do not hinder us from looking upon even with prejudice a Religion so manifestly prejudicial to us and so your own Tertullians saying fitly checks you for being one who cannot see so manifest Verities as be in our Religion you perswade your self to see certain Falsities which so manifestly be not in it let us come to the matter Of my second Number 2. God having made man to a supernatural end to be attained by supernatural means among which the first is true faith it is clear that he must according to his merciful Providence provide us some way to this faith so easie that all if they pleased might be brought to the knowledge of it And because the far greater part of men were ignorant it beseemed his goodnesse who is the Lover of Souls to provide us such a way as these ignorant men should not be able unless by wilfully carelesness to erre by it according to that of the Prophet Esay 35. promising at the coming of the Messias A Path and a way which shall be so direct to us that fools cannot erre by it To elude this Text You say sure may we be that the Letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their Redemption from Captivity I answer if this be sure then sure it is That God directeth the Jewish Church by a way so direct that fools could not erre by it And if he did this to the Jewish Church there can be no good reason why he should be less careful to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ Whence you see I had no reason to have feared this Interpretation Yet I think it is sure that this is not the true interpretation for when did the blind see deaf hear when did then God himself come and save us And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way as he said I am the Truth and the Way this self same Saviour said I who am this way am with you untill the consummation of the world to wit directing my Church the right way to salvation of which direction the Church hath no lesse need now then then And as we could not securely have put a limitation to these words of Joel if Saint Peter had not secured us of the true sense so cannot you here limit these words not having the like warrant for it And as for the first part of Miracles it is manifest by our Saviour his own words Those who believed in him should do greater then he had done If then this Text was Verified after our Saviours time you cannot say it is onely spoke of his time and that he did take away a way so necessary for us His guifts being without Repentance And it is strange that you thinking this guift Litterally conferred to the Jewish Church should with the same breath plead so hard that it is a guift which should not in full dimension be alwayes extended to the Church I cannot believe that you trust your other argument If this way be promised to the Church Ergo the Church is not this way Suppose God had promised the Kingdome of France a Monarchy Ergo the Kingdome of France say you is not this Monarchy The true consequence is Ergo The Kingdome of France is this Monarchie The Church is this way which God promised it should be And it is so by the sure guidance of him who is the way and is with his Church ruling it until the continuation of the world And so Christ is Regula regulans and the Church Regula regulata But being ruled by him there is not the least danger that it will swerve from the VVord of God and you may well follow such a Guide with blind obedidience And still I must mind you that I speak of the Universal Church represented in a General Council confirmed by the Supreme Pastor This Church guiding by her infallible doctrine is this way the Church Diffusive guided now by this Doctrine was promised this Direct way such a way we were promised a way so direct represented that fools cannot erre by it The Scripture as some may conceive for you dare not defend it is not this way for we see with our eyes not onely fools but also most learned men to erre grosly and to follow most contradictory opinions whilest they professe from their hearts to follow Scripture as neer as they can the Scripture therefore is not this way yet such a way we must find to make Gods promise good Nothing then with any probabilitie can be said to be this way but the Visible Church of Christ For the Church Invisible as such is no way according to your Confession The visible Church then is this Judge by submission to her judgement we in all things are secured Of my third Number 3. Whence what you say against my third Number is easily answered For all Religions agreeing that there must be one Judge of all Controversies which either be or may be in Religion they must all give infallibility to their Judge as you your selves do affirming Gods written Word to have plainly set down all things necessary to salvation so that no necessary controversie can spring up but this Judge as you say doth decide it which how false it is I shall fully shew chap. 3. All other
whole Canon is lost How then know you that some necessary points not delivered in other parts of Scripture were not delivered in these parts of Scripture which have perished and so are come not to be extant in writing I desire your Answer to this Question Your second Text to prove this is Hebrews 4 12. The Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper then any two edged sword pierceing even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit and it is a discoverer of the thoughts and the intents of the heart Here is the Text but where is the contradictory conclusion inferring and that evidently That it is plainly set down in Scripture that the Scripture by it self alone is sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies You argue thus If you say the Word of God is a dead Letter it cannot speak it is denied If you say the Word of God cannot act it is denied it is active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Sir What if I say the Word of God speaks and speaks clearly many most profitable things and that it sets down many most rare examples of Vertue with excellent Principles and Documents and incitements to the same in a manner most forceable to strike fire out of a flinty heart do I not when I say this say all that you have said And when I have said all this where is that evident consequence directly concluding That all controversies necessary to salvation are plainly decided by Scripture alone But to come at last to this Consequence you tell me If you say it cannot decide Controversies what is said here It is sharper then any two edged sword But good Sir I pray to what use is the Word of God said to be sharper then any two edged sword can you shew me any one clear and evident syllable in this Text telling me plainly that this sharpnesse is in order not onely to decide Controversies but also all necessary Controversies and to do this by it self alone Where is then your contradictory Conclusion But I will from hence directly conclude that according to your own doctrine Saint Paul could not say in this Text that the Word of God is by it self alone sufficient to decide all necessary controversies which I prove The Word of God according to your own doctrine was not sufficient to decide all necessary controversies before the whole Canon of the Scripture was compleatly finished But Saint Paul said this of the Word of God before the Canon of the Scripture was compleatly finished Therefore Saint Paul said this of the Word of God before the Word of God was of it self alone sufficient to decide all necessary controversies Therefore then it had been false to say the Word of God had been sufficient to this end Therefore St. Paul did not then say so Again those words spoke not of the Word of God blunted with those interpretations which your opinion licenseth but of the VVord of God applied according to the Divinely-spirited interpretation of the Church in whose hands hands guided by the Holy Ghost this Word of God is so managed for the decision of controversies that it is sharper then any two edged sword For her declarations of Scripture be not fallible but proceed from the same Spirit by which the Scripture was made as I shall shew And so here is no fear of missing the right interpretation You may securely submit your interior assent to the guidance of the Holy Ghost Where this guidance is neglected there we see with our eyes controversies in most main points dayly multiplied and yet the Bible dayly consulted and not one of those Controversies so much as lessened but still encreased more and more In these dayes he must put out his eyes who will not see this 11. I have now answered the Texts you alledged in this place but to the end that all the Texts which you thought fittest to alledge to prove the most important Verity may here be mustered up together and their whole force appear to the full I will set down here all the Texts which you alledge to this purpose You then page 52. in your answer to my 14. Numb urge that Christ biddeth us scarch the Scriptures But Sir first you are to prove that these words clearly and evidently must of necessity be taken in the Imperative Mood for without you do this you can never prove evidently from hence that they contain a Command and to prove this especially evidently is impossible Because both the Greek and the Latine word is as truly and properly and vulgarly the Indicative Mood as the Imperative and our English Translatour might if he had pleased most faithfully have translated these words thus you do search the Scriptures And Saint Cyril holdeth this to be the true sense L. 3. in Jo. C. 4. and your own great Dr. Beza holds the same Secondly suppose your Translator hath hit upon the right sense and that Christ did indeed bid them search the Scriptures because they clearly testifie that one point when he was the Messias yet all this will help you to make no better consequence then you made before And what a pritty conclusion is this Christ bids us search the Scriptures because they testifie clearly that one point of which he spoke Therefore the Scriptures testifie clearly all that is necessary to be believed in any point of Controversie necessary to salvation And no better is this consequence Christ biddeth us search the Scriptures therefore we are to attend them alone we are not to attend to the Voyce of John nor the Voyce from Heaven biding all to hear him not to his own preaching and miracles Is not this also a good consequence Saint Paul saith if Women will learn any thing let them ask their Husbands at home 1 Cor. 14.35 Ergo women are not to learn of the Ministers of the Church 12. Your fourth Text is You erre not knowing the Scriptures Good Sir give me now a Contradictory Conclusion Shall it be this Therefore all things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture or rather this Therefore all things necessary to salvation are not plainly set down in Scripture For this is the far stronger consequence from these words For had all things been plainly set down they should not have erred But they erred Therefore all things were not plainly set down Again they might erre in the knowledge of the Scriptures because in the reading of them they did follow their own private Interpretations which is the most ready way to errour especially when men oppose the publick Interpretation of the Church as I shewed chap. 1. Numb 3. last words saith the Bereans 13. Your first Text is 2 Pet 1. v. 19. We have also a more sure word of Prophesie whereunto you do well that you take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place untill the day dawn and the Day-star arise in your soules Your proof from this Text is just as weak as the
that Gods Church may not lay claim with a thousand times far greater reason to the Spirit of the Holy Ghost assisting her even to infallibility in points of as much consequence the Church having far more proof of his assistance then every private Protestant Perhaps because our Divines often call the Scripture An undoubted Principle the first Principle you think they hold this Principle like the first Principle in Sciences which are therefore indemonstrable because they are of themselves as evident as any reason you can bring to make them more evident But the Scripture is onely said to be an unquestionable Principle because it is already granted to be Gods Word by all parties But why all grant it all must give the reason for the Scripture of it self cannot shew it self to be infallibly Gods Word as I have proved 29. Eighthly and lastly if you intend for the solution of any of the former Arguments though you cannot escape most of them by that shift to fly to the private assistance of the spirit helping you to see that which this light of the Scriptures alone cannot help them unto then you must come infallibly to know you have this help from the spirit of truth for it you know this onely fallibly that will not help you to an infallible assent Now how can you know this infallibility but by a Revelation secure from all illusion Tell me how you came by this Revelation Did you trie the Spirit whether it were of God or no If no how are you then secured If you did by what infallible means did you trie it If you can by Scripture we must needs laugh because we speak of the first act of belief by which you or any other first began to believe the Scripture to be infallibly Gods Word Before you believed the Scripture to be Gods infallible Word you could not by it as by a means infallible to your judgement trie your spirit and know it to be infallibly the Spirit of truth Again you could not know it to be the Spirit of ruth until you had first an infallible assurance that the Scripture by which you did try it was infallibly Gods true word And yet again you could not have an infallible assurance that such books of Scripture were Gods infallible word but by this infallible assurance you had that this Spirit helping you to see this was the Spirit of Truth so that you could not be infallibly assured of your Spirit until you had infallible assurance that the Scripture was Gods Word and you could not have infallible assurance that the Scripture was Gods Word untill you were infallibly assured of your Spirit Is not this clearly to walk in a Circle with the wicked 30. Having now shewed that you who reject the infallibility of the Church have left your selves no infallible ground upon which you can believe that most Fundamental Article of belief to wit that such and such Books be infallibly Gods true Word I am pressed to shew what infallible belief we have of this point and how we avoid all Circle I Answer that we ground the beliefe of this point upon the authority of the Church as being Infallible in proposing the Verities she hath received from God This infallibility I do not suppose but prove at large Chapter 4. If you have not patience to stay turn now to that place You falsly say that Whatsoever authority the Church hath towards this perswasion you also make use of as a motive to this faith She hath an infallible authority which you count a fancy and make no other use of it but to scoff at it and yet this infallibility alone must be that which groundeth not this perswasion but this infallible assent Take the Church as a most grave assembly of pious learned men without any infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost and their authority is but humane and so all the help you can have from them will not ground an infallible assent which we must have in our belief to hold Scripture infallible to be Gods Word The Scriptures as I have shewed have no where revealed which bookes be Scripture which not and so we have no other infallible ground left us but the authority of this Church as assisted infalliblie by the Holy Ghost Some thing even in this place I shall adde of this infallability so to satisfy your present longing 31. But for the present you are endeavoring to include me in a Circle as I did you in the last objection why say you do I believe the Scripture to be Gods word Because the Church saith it Very Well Why do I believe the Church Because the Scripture beareth witnes of it No Sir You never heard me give this reason unlesse it were when I spoke to one who independently of the Church did professe him selfe to believe the Scripture so be Gods Word as you do who professe to believe this upon an infallible assurance received as you say from Gods Word by the very reading of it Against those who upon another account different from the infallible authority of the Church receive Gods Word I prove that according to that word of God the Church is to be heard and believed as the piller and ground of truth And for this point I produce as clear Texts as you do for most of those points which you hold necessary for Salvation But if you be a Scholler you know that all our Divines in their Treatises of faith put this very question which you here put Why do you believe the church and not one of them answereth as you here make us answer that so you might the better impugn us with the applause of the deceived multitude Sir when we deal with those who have not admitted the Scriptures as infallible we do not prove them to be so by the Authority of the Church without first proving to them this Authority of the Church and that independently of Scripture to be infallible Now if you aske me how I doe this then indeed you speak to the purpose though not to your purpose which was to shut me up in a Circle into which you see I never set foot 32. Now if you will still be earnest to know why I do believe this Church to be infallible I answer that to give full satisfaction against all that a caviller can say requireth a Treatise longer then this whole Treatise What I have said is sufficient to avoid all Circle when withal I shall have told you that we proceed as securely and groundedly in the reasons for which we believe the Church to have received from God Commission to teach us those infalfallible Verities which she hath received from God with infallible certainty as many millions have proceeded in their imbracing the true Faith whose proceedings no man can condemn I pray why did the Jewes believe their Prophets to have had Commission from God to deliver his Word infallibly to them by word of mouth and by writing Surely
prove that we must not now work on Saturdayes You are to shew Texts in which this point is plainly set down for these Texts I called In place of these Texts you bring your own discourses Now according to your own opinion that Councils though general in their discourses out of Scripture may be forsaken by him who judgeth such discourses nothing so well grounded in the Text as the discourses for the contrary opinion are grounded in other Texts Hence you must needs give the Sabbatharians leave to reject these your discourses with far greater reason then you reject the discourses of Councils Whence then shall we have an infallible decision of this Controversie Your own Doctor Tayler in his defence of Episcopacy Pag. 100. writeth thus For that keeping of the Sunday in the New Testament we have no precept and nothing but the example of the primitive Disciples At Geneva they were once upon changing Sundayes Feast into Thursday to have shown their Christian Liberty If this were plainly set down in Scripture would not these your illuminated Brethren see it as well as you And you so often called upon for a plain Text instead of bringing infallible Texts bring nothing but a discourse of your own very fallible and proving nothing but a possibility of such a change To the far stronger Text for still keeping the Sabboth you say not a word My argument then as yet hath nothing like a satisfactory answer returned unto it 40. Of my 9th Number The second Controversie which I said could not clearly be decided by Scripture is about our lawful eating or not eating of that which is strangled clearly forbidden Act. 15. But because there may be some reasons alledged why this precept now obligeth no longer though I might insist that we seek for Texts and not for reasons I presse this argument no further having so great plenty of far more pressing arguments 41. Of my 10th Number A third Controversie not clearly decided for you by Scripture I briefly touched concerning the holding the King Head of the Church whom you according to plain Scripture determine to be still the Head of the Church though others hold it very far from being plain Scripture This Controversie must needs highly import that all the Members may have an assured knowledge of the Head by whom they are to be governed This point was before evident Scripture now it is no longer evident Scripture Your answer is first What is infallibly decided by Scripture will ever be so although we do not always find it Sir if you mean what is infallibly decided by evident Scripture is not alwayes to be found it is manifestly false This being against the very Nature of that which is evident when it is supposed to stand laid wide open before our eyes in the same words which made it before evident Scripture You add Secondly That you doe not say every point is Infallibly decided by Scripture because it is not at all decided Sir Is not this a necessary point and be not these your own words All things necessary to salvation are plainly set down in Scripture and again What is not plainly set down in Scripture is hereby understood not to be necessary Grant these Principles false and the cause is mine If they be true this point being necessary must also be plainly decided by clear Scripture And when you aske me whether it be determined in Scripture that the Pope is head of the Church You forget that we do not teach as you do that all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture but we teach the quite contrary You that hold that on the one side the King is head of the Church and on the other side that all points necessary to Salvation be plainly set down in Scripture you I say must shew me plain Scripture for what you say in a point so necessary as it is for so many millions to know so capital a point as their head is If for such a point as this to which so many were obliged to swear you have no plain Text of Scripture I pray tell us no more hereafter that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture I adde that either you must be far from having any evident Text for this point in Scripture or your most illuminated Calvin could not see that which was evident for he writing on the 7th of Amos saith of our English Church They were blasphemous when they called him Henry the Eighth chief Head of the Church under Christ Of my 11th and 12th Numb 42. A fourth Controversie not decidable by any clear Text of Scripture is which be the true Books of Scripture which not about which we still differ mainly And it is evident no Text can decide this Controversie Of this in general I have spoken fully That for which I repeated it over again is to presse particularly the impossibility that there is to prove by Scripture against the Manicheans that St. Matthew his Gospel is the true uncorrupted Word of God That it is impossible to know it to be Saint Mathewes Gospel you your self confess holding it in plain termes a point of no necessitie to believe this yet sure I am that your learned Brethren in their conference at Ratisbone dared not to deny that it was an Article of faith to believe Saint Matthewes Gospel to have beâ—n written by Saint Matthew And I believe your own Brethren will be scandalized at this your Opinion But before you can goe forward to shew it impossible to prove by Scripture that Saint Matthewes Gospel is the same uncorrupted Word of God I am necessitated to Answer what ye Object by the way 43. You say then first That if the Church were infallible Judge of all Canonical Books yet would it not follow from hence that it should be infallible Iudge in all points of Faith unless causally for we might suppose more assurance to the Church in this particular then in other cases Is it so good Sir Can you suppose a point upon which all depends to be held by all as infallibly true without shewing such a point to be clearly contained in Scripture Why this spoils all Your onely shift to avoid the necessitie of an infallible Church is still to say that all necessary points are plainly set down in Scripture and that if any point be not plainly set down in Scripture it hereby appeareth not to be necessary And will you now suppose this most necessary point of all points which is not clearly set down in Scripture to be admitted with infallible assent upon the only authority of the Church That we are universally to hear the Church hath many pregnant places in Scripture as I shall shew at large C 4. But that we are to learn this one point and none but this onely from the infallible authority of the Church hath no colour nor shadow of Scripture or any thing like Scripture You must therefore ground this
your answer not upon Scripture but upon Reason Now the Reason upon which you reject the Church from being an infallible Judge of Controversies is because there is no necessity of such a Judge since the whole Canon of the Scripture was finished And for this onely Reason without any Text you put the Churches infallibility to expire and give up the Ghost at the finishing the Canon of the Scripture Now if the reason for which you discard the Churches infallibility in other points be this that other points are cleared sufficiently by Scripture Then there can be no other prudent reason for which you in this one point may more assuredly suppose the Church to be infallible but that this one point cannot be sufficiently cleared by Scripture and that therefore only there is a greater necessity to have recourse to the infallible authority of a Church undoubtedly infallible in this prime point which point causally brings forth all others This discourse being evidently deduced out of your own prime principles I pray mark two things which I am going to say The first is that this your answer overthroweth utterly that main ground of yours That all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture For no point is more necessary then this without which there is no coming to the beliefe of any thing in Scripture and yet this point is neither plainly nor obscurely set down in Scripture unles it be where we are Universally sent to the Church for learning other points as well as this 44. The Second thing I would have marked is that you utterly overthrow that principle which is the ground-work of your faith For if there be a greater necessity to acknowledge the infallibility of a Church for as much as concerns this one point in particular because this one point in particular is lesse clear in Scripture then any other necessary point that grand principle of yours evidently appeareth false though you speak it for your second answer so close after the other That the Canonical Books bear witnesse of themselves they carry their own light which we may see them by this as we see the Sunne by his own Light How is it possible that there should be a greater necessity on the one side to have recourse to the Churches Authority as infallible in this particular point because it can lesse be cleared by Scripture then other points and yet on the other side this point of all other points hath this particular priviledge to be so manifest That it beareth witnesse of its own selfe that it carrieth its own Light with it and such a conspicuous Light that we may see this Verity by it as we see the Sun by its own Light But how vain this Ground is upon which all must be supported I have shewed largely from the 26. Number unto the 30th As for your Dilemma I have broken the Horns of it Numb 31.32 33. And what you further say about Saint Hierom is answered Numb 27. And as for Bellarmine if you had cited him in the very self same Treatise in that place where he speaketh of the Machabees in particular to wit Lib. 1. Cap. 1. fine He would have answered your Argument just as I answer it in that place And note I pray by the way what you find to wit That the Fathers of the Council of Carthage acknowledged the Machabees for true Scripture Now if these Fathers were of your Religion then you must make them agree with you in your prime Principles upon which you receive all Scriptures as Gods infallible Word because by their own light every Book is seen to be Canonical as we see the Sun by its own light Therefore according to you these Fathers did by this light se these books of the Macha to be canonical by a light sufficient to an infallibility This must therfore be infallibly true yet your Church denies it nay you must say you cānot se this light you say is so clear 45. And I pray now aske me as you doe How I see Light I Answer with such eyes as other men have Who can see it as well as I. It hath little judiciousnesse in it pardon your owne words to say that a thing is as visible as Light and as apparent as the first principles and yet even at the very self same time to say the most irradiated understandings of Saint Austin of the whole Council of Carthage of Saint Hierom of Luther of their own selves see by this Light and by this prime Principle quite opposite Verities But of this see yet more in my 27. Number As for the infallibility of the Church I do not prove it first by Scripture but as I have told you Numb 30.31 32 33. About believing Saint Matthewes Gospel to have been written by him I have said enough Numb 42. 46. At last I have forced a passage to my intended argument about Saint Matthews Gospel which I boldly say cannot possibly by your principles ever come to be believed with an infallible assent to be Gods true uncorrupted Word The Marcionists the Cerdonists the Manicheans do deny and others may come to deny the Gospel of Saint Matthew to be Gods true Word This Controversie as all others according to you must be ended by Scripture onely But that is impossible for the Scripture doth not so much as touch in one word this Controversie Therefore it is false that the Scripture doth plainly set down all necessary points without you will say it is not necessary to believe Saint Matthewes Gospel Here you cannot fly to a Light as clear as the Sun shewing this Verity for your own doctrine is that Translations are onely so far Gods Word as they agree with the Originals as we have seen Numb 34.35 But we have onely Translations of Saint Matthews Gospel and no Original copy at all Therefore it is impossible for us in your Principles to know how far Saint Mattthews Gospel is Gods Word because it is impossible to know how far it agreeth with the Originals Perhaps whole Chapters are left out perhaps divers things here and there put in or altered for it is uncertain who the Translator was and of what skill or honesty The Church you confess in your first answer doth not certifie us Ergo this Answer is no Answer For yet you doe not shew how we are certified of this truth That this is the true uncorrupted Gospel of Saint Matthew Secondly you would tax us for saying that no one of the Antients conceived this Gospel to be written in Greek You might easily understand our meaning to be that no one of them can be produced as a witnesse so much as weakly moving us to believe this For their Testimony who did not write at all or whose writings have perished is no kind of Testimony no more then if there never had been such men You adde that it is not certainly true that there is not a copy of the Hebrew Gospel extant in all
to shew that all points necessarie be clearly determined according to truth in Scripture you are put upon a necessitie to say that lesse clear Texts suffice to determine this controversie for you though you stifly maintain that more clear Texts are not able to determine against you By which it is apparent how false that Principle is which forceth you to utter these inconsequent consequences By this also you may see that the Contradiction you would find in my words for saying on the one side these Texts are clear and on the other side that this Controversie the Scripture doth not decide doth arise out of my speaking according to your principles For you on the one side say that other Texts which are manifestly lesse clear are clear enough to end the controversies therefore these which are clearer must needs be clear enough for that end And again you say on the other side by these our Texts clearer then yours this Controversie is not clearlie decided Therefore I must consequentlie say that according to you This Controversie the Scripture doth not decide It is according to your Principles that these Texts must be clear because they be clearer then those which you are forced to affirme clear and again you must say they be not clear for fear you should confess them to decide against you Now if these two places be denied to be clear with a clarity sufficient to put an end to the Controversie then according to my principles scarce any Controversie will ever be decided by any Text. And this is most for my turn to shew the necessity of a living Judge whereas afterwards you take occasion to dispute of this Sacrament you do not do it as it should here have been done to the present purpose to wit by alledging more clear Texts to prove that Christs true body is not really in the Sacrament then I alledge to prove that it was really in it For these Texts I do call These Texts I require Without you give me these more clear Texts you will never give me a satisfactorie answer All other things I wave of until I have these clearer Texts The difference of these two hundred interpretations about these four words This is my Body though they be not owned by you yet they make strongly against you in this respect that they shew the Text of Scripture not to have ended but to have occasioned these endlesse differences And consequently they shew this point not to be clear out of Scripture You in vain are busie about other things which are not to the purpose so to entertain your Reader that he may not mark your omitting the main point which was to shew this great Controversie to be clearly decided on your side by Scripture onely Of my 15th Number 60. I go on still pressing other points the belief of which points your self hold necessarie to salvation and yet you cannot shew them evidently taught in Scripture For you cannot produce an evident Text teaching that God the Father is not begotten God the Son is not made but begotten by his Father onely that the Holy Ghost is neither made nor begotten but proceedeth and that both from the Father and the Son And that God the Son is Consubstantial to his Father Your answer to this is most highly unsatisfactorie You say that although the matter of these points be not found in terminis in Scripture yet the sense of them according to equivalence may as well as Transubstantiation To be as clearly set down as Transubstantiation in Scripture is according to your own principles not to be clearly set down at all In your answer you were to shew that these points were clearly set down in Scripture and you answer that they are as clearly set down as a point which is not clearly set down Is this any way satisfactorie Neither is it more satisfactorie if you mean to argue out of our own principles for according to us all points necessarie and this point in particular are not clearly set down in Scripture And to prove this I have laboured all this Chapter So that you neither satisfie according to your own nor our Principles Your second answer is destroyed by your former for whilest in that you professe to hold these Articles and not hold them upon the authoritie of the Church you leave your self no other authoritie upon which you can hold them but onely such Texts of Scripture as are not clear and no more sufficient to ground faith then other places are to ground a belief of Transubstantiation Be such places sufficient 61. For another necessarie point not plainly set down in Scripture I urge Baptisme of children Of my 16th Number which is by no evident Text of Scripture taught us You answer that it is not necessary for the salvation of the children to be baptized And to prove this pernicious doctrine you bring a Text which clearly speaketh onely of men old enough to believe and desire Baptisme For your Text is He that believeth he is then old enough to believe and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not and consequently would positively not be baptized shall be damned This Text you see speaketh nothing of children and whilest it damneth those who would not so much as believe it sheweth it self to speak of those who would not be baptised and these it damneth How doth it then intimate that those who are children and could have onely baptisme in re and not in voto should be saved without Baptisme for which point you bring it and yet of this point it speaketh not at all much lesse doth it speak as clearly as another text speaketh the quite contrary to wit Except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdome of Heaven Jo. 3. v. 5. Hear your own Doctor Tayler in his defence of Episcopacy Sect. 19. P. 100. Baptisme of Infants is of ordinary necessitie to all that ever cried and yet the Church hath founded this Rite Rule upon the Tradition of the Apostles And wise men of whom I hope you are one do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessitie of communicating Infants upon us as we doe of baptizing Infants upon them Therefore a great Master of Geneva in a Book he writ against the Anabaptists was forced to flie to Apostolical traditional Ordination They that deny this Ordinarie necessitie of baptizing Infants are by the just Anathema of the Catholick Church confidently condemned for Heretickes so he This ordinary necessitie of Baptisme to all that ever cried You denie Therefore by the just Anathema of the Catholick Church you are condemned for an Heretick yea you go further then the Pelagian Heresie for they were counted Hereticks See Saint Aust Heresi 88. for saying Although Infants be not baptized they shall possesse an eternal and blessed life though it be out of the Kingdome of God You will admit them
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
errour not damnable because also it very true which you lately said that so men should be bound to assent unto an errour which is impossible Hence that common doctrine of Antiquity That it is not possible to have a just cause to separate from the Church And it cannot be said that any man separates himselfe not from the Church but her errours being she is secured from all errour as appeareth manifestly by our obligation to hear her you tell me that this text obliging to hear the Church is meant onely of trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother which trespasses are also to be told to every particular Church and to Severall Prelates and therefore this place say you maketh nothing for the authoritty of the Vniversall Church Sir I grant particular trespasses are to be referr'd ro particular Prelats and that the Church is not to be called to a general Counsel for every private mans trespasses singular private men are to be condemned by the particular Prelates of their particular Churches proceeding according to the known Decrees and Orders of the Universal Church If he clearly disobeyeth them thus proceeding he disobeyeth the Universall Church And for this act merely deserveth according to Gods own judgement to be accounted as a Publican and Heathen So he who disobeyeth the particular Judge judging according to the known Lawes of the Common-wealth disobeyes the Common-wealth And it is this not obeying the Church and the not hearing her which exaggerates the crime whence you see the not hearing the particular Prelates in so well ordered a Communitie as the Church is may come to be commonly the self same crime with the not hearing of the Church And because all such Prelates when the contrary is not apparently manifest are supposed to do their duty in giving sentence according to the known Decrees Orders and Canons of the Universal Church as we usually say those who disobey the Judges disobey the Commonwealth so generally speaking those who disobey the Prelates of the particular Church disobey the Universal Church commanding them to proceed according to her Decrees Definitions and Canons So that at last this disobedience is against Christ and God himself according to that which God said to Samuel Lib. 1. Cap. 8. They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me And Christ to his Disciples the first Prelates of the Church He that despiseth you despiseth â—â— And therefore Christ commanded the lawful Successours of Moses to be followed in what they delivered by publick authority although they were wicked in their private lives and many of them publickly did teach Errours though not by publick authoritie or authorized by any Definition of that Seat which private Errours Christ called the Leaven of the Pharisees bidding his Apostles take heed of it But concerning what that Seat did by publick Definition Christ was so far from bidding people to take heed of it that he in as general terms as men speak when they would speak without any exception Said to the whole promiscuous multitude and also to his disciples upon the Chair of Moses have setten the Scribes Pharieses All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and doe Mark these most ample words All therefore whatsoever O! will you say what if they bid us do against the Scriptures Why this very saying of Christ sheweth they were secured from ever doing against the Scripture when they proceeded by way of defining with Publick authority If you object that they condemned our Saviour by publike authority you have your Answer Number 9. Say I we must hear the Church and because we must Universally hear her for she doubtless hath to the full as much reason to be heard as the old Iewish Church then had she must be confessed to have full assurance never to gainsay the Scripture And as the Synagogues Authortity was not limited so as to be obeyed and heard onely in point of trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother but was to be extended to All whatsoever they should order So you can not with out depressing the Authority of Christs Church who had a better Covenant established upon better promises Hebrews 8.6 hinder her power from being extended to All whatsoever she shall Order It must not therefore be confined only to trespasse betwixt Brother and Brother But we must of necessity for the reason now expressed argue thus That being she is to be heard even in Controversies concerning trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother much more is she to be heard in such trespasses as are committed by one Brother against all his Brothers and their dearest Mother the Church Then or never he is to be complained of And if this obstinacy in persevering in trespasses betwixt Brother and Brother deserveth that a Man should be held as a Publican and a Heathen he incomparably more deserveth to be held so who being commanded by the Church to desist from such pernicious opinions as ruine the Soules of his Brothers and tear asunder the bowells of his Mother still persists in his impious doctrine and in that most infectious and Soulmurthring crime of heresie the most heinous trespass against all our Brothers Either such a crime or no crime is to be told the Church Yea Saint Thomas calleth Schisme of which Heresie is alwaies guilty the highest sin against the whole Comunity of our brother hood Now this crime is to be told first to the particular Prelats as soon as it is perceivd to be begining to creep like a canker as the Scripture saith Heresie doth If by this judgement of particular Prelats this crime be clearely found to be indeed Heresie or a doctrine opposit to the known former definitions of the Church Universall they are to excommunicate him who is pertinacious in this soul-murthering Crime and this sentence is sure to be ratified in Heaven because he who hath opposed in Doctrine the known Definitions of the Church hath not heard nor obeyed her for which onely fact according to the clear sentence of Scripture he deservedly is to be accounted as a Publican or Heathen Now if the Crime be not clearly against the known doctrine of the Universal Church or not so evident against it but many hold the contrary the particular Prelates are bound to acquaint the head of the Church therewith This supreme Prelate of the Church is bound to use the fulness of his authoritie to supresse the arising Heresie He may forbid if he feareth danger in the doctrine that no such doctrine be published untill the Church shall think it fit And then all must doe as Saint Paul saith Hebr. 13. v. 27. Obey their Prelates Thus far the power of the supreme Prelates is extended by the consent of the whole Church He therefore that in this case obeyeth not is guilty of not bearing the Church which single crime maketh a man deservedly accounted as a Publican or Heathen Now though the Supreme head of the Church be as infallible as Saint Peter was yet if
did rely only upon traditions For if they had relied upon any things else in their beliefe their example had bin nothing to his purpose to shew what we should have done when we had only Tradition to rely upon 14. As for arguing about Tradition I went no Further then to shew that the Tradition of the Church testifying her own infallibility in proposing for Gods word that which she delivereth us for Gods Word as worthy of an infallible assent in this point And the examples I bring prove this Now if this point be once assented unto with an infallible assent it draweth by unevitable Consequence the like assent to all other points which by the same authority are testified to be likewise delivered as Gods Word Or else you must be forced to say that it is in our power to assent to this authority as divine in all things it delivers as Gods Word and yet to deny it in some things which it delivers as Gods word which is a plain contradiction Well then if upon this presupposed authority as infallible I believe the Church delivering such and such points by her doctors and teachers which be points never written then it is manifest I believe her in other points then those which were then written so I may with as good reason believe her now upon her own authority testifying other points then those which are written Whence you see all I say holdeth good even in Traditions of proper name which we say are besides that which is written I cannot conclude more opposite to you then with your own words here P. 73. Tradition in matters of faith unwritten is of equall authority to scripture The Traditions we stand upon be matters of faith truly once revealed by our Saviour or his Apostles though this revelation were not written by them Therefore this is of equall authority to Scripture even according to your own words 15 I going on to prove yet further that Christ intended to guide us not by the Scripture only but cheifly by his Church used this argument Neither the Apostles nor their Successors took any care to have the Scripture communicated to all Nations in such languages as all or the greater part of them could understand You answer they did take care that the new Testament should be written in Greek Then you being still to prove that Greek was understood by all or the greater part of the world your only proof of this is only out of Tully saying Graeca per totum Orbem leguntur Greek is read though the whole World and so is Virgil in latin But neither the one nor the other is to be understood in a sense making to our purpose for both these sayings are only true thus that the more learned sort of men every where read Greek and Virgil. And these words of Tully being delivered in on Encomiasticall Oration pro Archia may truely be said to be spoken by way of a Notable amplification And either this must be confessed or Scripture denied For it is evident out of Scripture That the Vulgar language of diverse Nations situated even between that place we call Constantinople and the Citty of Antioch in which a man would suppose the Greek language farre more common then in the more Western or any Northern or Southern places yet I say even between those two Cities of Antioch where the same Tully saith Archias was born and studied 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 Within that compasse is also Galatia which Saint Hierome testifieth to have had a language somewhat like those of Trevers If nations so neere Greece had not the Vulgar use of that language but that tongue had so small a compasse even in Asia and some few Eastern parts of Europe all other parts of Europe and whole Africa using Vulgarly other Tongues how short do you fall of proving that Greek was understood by the greater part of the World And if this cannot be proved then I said truly that though the Apostles writ the new Testament in Greek yet they did not take any care to have it communicated to all Nations in such Languages as they could all or the greater part understand For all or the greater part could not understand Greek call here to mind how lowd you use to cry out against us for using our Common prayer in Lattin though Lattin be so common among all well bred people And yet our Cōmon prayer is a thing only offered to God by the Priests who understand what they say for the people But the New Testament contains as you say the only necessary groūd of faith faith necessary to salvation But the falsity of this your saying is convinced by the Apostles taking no care neither read we of any care taken for many yeares after their times to communicate the whole Canon of Scripture to the severall converted Nations in their several tongues I pray name me the time when the Scripture can be first shewed to have bin thus communicated to the people of so severall languages You will sweat for some hundred yeares before you can find this either done or effectually desired to be done They know the tongue could sufficiently deliver Gods Word to the people and that Orall Tradition joyned to dayly profession practise would abundantly suffice for the infallible delivery of Gods Word 16. You move the question how the people should clearly know the true tradition from the false I answer 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 Scriptures from the Tradition recommending false Again after Christ they could do this as well and better then their forefathers for many hundreds of years yea for two thousand yea for twice two thousand yeares together Reflect a little upon the efficacy of Tradition joyned with perpetual profession and answerable practice dayly occurring For example The Apostles by onely unwriting Tradition did clearly undeniably teach the baptizing of Children prayer for the faithfull departed This Tradition from hence came to be Professed as true doctrine by all the first Christians and conformably hereunto they in all places baptized their Children in all places they prayed for the faithfull departed Nothing more common then being born every one that is born dieth whence dayly was the practice of baptizing infants and yet more dayly the practice of praying for the dead because they baptize infants but once but they pray often for the same man who is dead Will we suppose these two traditions are called in question concerning the truth of them And let us suppose this to be done as it was done in the last age Learned men looking in Records of their own and all other Countries will find every where Christnings and every where prayers
of several particular councils Hence the councils of Seleucum Tirus AriminuÌ„ Millan Smyrna came to unfortunate conclusions rather encreasing then lessening the former evils Neither were the times so altered that there appeared any great likelyhood that in those parts any better conclusion could be expected of that council to which he was called when he writ that Epistle So also Saint Basil his bosom friend writing at that time to Saint Athanasius Ep. 52. said He thought it impossible for a General Council to be assembled in those times Clear then it is that Saint Gregory spoke only of such councils as had lately been held and could be held in those daies in which the Arrians would be sure to crosse all that might be good and to make those particular meetings patronize their cause What you further speak of a private Bishop of Bitonto telling the Fathers of the council of Trent to their face of their falling with one consent from Religion to superstition from Faith unto infidelity from Christ unto Antichrist from God to Epicurus is a thing I never yet did read in any credible Historian And I dare say never any credible Historian from Christs time until that time ever could find such a saucy speech to relate in History used as yet by any modest or immodest Catholicke to the face of a Councel And can you put on a forehead to countenance such a speech not having any one example from Christs time to this day as I said So it is The Catholikes and onely the Roman Catholikes have been the men who were still imployed in upholding the authoritie of councils of Fathers and you cannot I say it again and again find an example from Christs time unto this age of any who were not known Hereticks who were carping at the authority of councils or Fathers You spoke full enough before of the Fathers I think you have not wanted much of doing your worst against councels although you said in another place In what do we oppose Councels and you would seem to acknowledge them the highest Tribunal on earth though so much be said for their vilification And when you have cried down the authority of Fathers patronized the reprochful language of this private Man against a whole council of what authority do you think this one private mans saying could be 21. Hence you see how little all this serveth for an answer of what yet is to be answered in the 21 Number of my former paper specially when I shall have added the other proofs which I have of the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to his Church Of this by and by Now you invite me to re-examin the Determinations of the council of Trent It appeareth by what I said Chap. 2. Num. 4.5.6.7 That it is fine doctrine that determinations of councils should be examined by such as I and you are Have we such assistance of the Holy Ghost as councils have Have we halfe the authority or any thing like one quarter of even the wit and learning which they have Sir Let us two set down and examine how true this is which I shall now say Either the deteâ—minations of General Councils be such as are evidently against clear Scripture or the Texts which we think they gain-say be not evident to the contrary which if they be not it would be a wonderful imprudence in me and you to think we should surer hit right upon the meaning of obscure places in Scripture then the whole council hath done But now if the places alledgeable against the councils be evidently cleare Texts do you think to perswade any pious and prudent Man that so very many and many of them so very eminent for piety and for prudence as are known to have subscribed to so many General Councils not to have been able to see that which hath been evidently set down before all their Eyes in clear Scripture God give us Humility God give us charity God have mercy upon us in the bitter day of his Iudgment if we passe so bitter a Iudgment against the whole Church representative And yet if you passe not this bitter Iudgment you will never passe this objection without being posed 22. Good Sir what mean you here to bid me say no more of this point concerning the Holy Ghost giving to his Church an assistance reaching to infallibility but you would have me now measure the infallibility of our councils or Churches by their determinations and to see how they agree with Scripture Let us not say you see your opinions by infallibility but your infallibility by your determinations set forth by your Church Remember Sir what you find in the 7 Number of this chapter where you undertake to instruct me in the right way of disputing according to which I should not stand shewing the Churches determinations to be such as should be obeyed but I should shew à priori as they say that she is infallible and that therefore her definitions are to be admitted Now when I come to do what you would have me to do you cry out say no more of this point but go now the other way cast the weight of this argument upon the other shoulder It galleth me upon this Sir by your good leave I must dwell upon this argument yet a great while The more it presseth the better it is 23. This I will do by passing to my 22. Number Of my 22th Number where first you stumble and then tread upon Luther Let him ly where you will He is no better then his Fathers I step over him and so prove this infallibility of the Church I cite Saint Paul Tim. 3.15 calling the Church of the living God the pillar and ground of Faith May not all securely in their faith rely upon the pillar of Truth May they not most groundedly ground themselves upon the ground of Truth it self You answer There is a double pillar and a double ground one principal the Scripture the other less principal and subordinate the Church But this double dealing in distinguishing helpeth you not The Church must still be a true pillar and a true ground of Truth The people believed God and Moses saith the Scripture Moses was infinitely under God yet this hindred not his being truly such a pillar of Truth as was to be relied upon securely in matters of Faith I apply all to Moses in respect of God what you apply to the Scripture in respect of the Church And yet after all this as they might rely upon Moses as a pillar of Truth so we upon the Church All true believers for two thousand years before the writing of Scripture had no other ground to stand upon but this Church the ground of Truth And therefore a ground sure enough and yet not sure enough if fallible Yea the true believers to whom Saint Paul did write these words The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth had not the whole Canon of the Scripture
and the dayes of her mourning had been these full thousand yeares short of the end of her mourning And there had been no reason why in such grosse errours she should to Gods comfort be sought for and a City not forsaken These words I am sure are spoke of a visible Church sought for and found out because inhabited and not forsaken your invisiible Church was so desolate that no body can tell where it was And in this sense it is a City still sought for but never to be found for a thousand yeares Or else tell me where 34 For a ninth Text letting all these last Texts of Esay passe as for one I alledged that of Daniel 2.44 In the daies of those Kingdoms the God of Heaven shall raise up a Kingdome which shall not be dispersed and his Kingdome shall not be delivered to another people And that we might know that he speaketh here of the kingdome of Christ which should be visible to us all there is added a circumstance which must needs make it most visible to wit And it shall break in peices and consume all those Idolatrous Kingdomes and it shall stand for ever Now if this true Church of Christ which so visibly hath broken in pieces and quite abolished all Idolatrous Kingdomes be so visibly to stand for ever then this visible Church cannot be said for this last 2000. year to have been faln As it must needs be said of all visible Churches which have bin these last thousand years for besides the Roman Church you will not find one visible Church which hath not faln this time into confessed heresie therefore to verifie these words you must say that the Roman Church did not fall that so you may find Christ a visible Church which did stand for ever And thus also we shall literally expound what the Angel Gabriel said of Christ And he shall reign in the house of Iacob for ever Luke 1.33 This Roman Church then is the Church which hath stood ever since Christs time Whence it is manifest that it did not fal either into idolatry as you intimate hereafter when you reply to this place of Daniel nor when it proclaim'd it self to have an infallible tribunal by which all Controversies are to be truly decided for erecting which tribunal you Page 22. say shee is in peril of treason against God the judge in setting up another judge in the consciences of men And againe Pa. 106. That for pretending to infallibility she is highly presumptious and in this more then an usurper committing an insolent usurpation of the prerogative which belongeth only to God and Scripture And P. 23. you hold this Infallibility as destructive to soules as uncertainty of true Religion Nay say you uncertainty may be helped but infallibility hath no remedy Surely if the Church should have universally faln into uncertainty of true belief it should no longer have been the standing Kingdom of Christ which shall stand for ever But it had been a multitude faln into the want of that faith the want of which had put it in a state in which it had been impossible to please God For uncertainty in faith is wholy inconsistent with an infallible assent but all divine faith consisteth in an infallible Assent Therefore where there is uncertainty there is no divine faith at all without which it is impossible to please God as St. Paul saith you put the Roman Church faln even by this one fall into a worse condition Can a Church in this condition be that Church raised in Christ and spread over the world destroying all Idolatrous Kingdoms by her visible preachers and teachers succeeding with a visible succession one to another administring visible sacraments and by her visible decrees and such like visible Acts destroying all Idolatrous Kingdoms and raigning in their place visibly and thus in the light of the world verifying Daniels prophecy by standing for ever in quality of a kingdome Yet if the Roman Church be not this Church find me out if you can a visible Church for so many visible Acts convince that the Church verifying these words must be visible distinct from the Roman and agreeing with yours in the points debated between us what you hereafter adde concerning this place of Daniel and my first place out of Esay I shall answer in its place Here I thought good to put all these nine Texts of Scripture together that their force might the better appear 35 This being done I must again put you in mind that according to your doctrine Scripture alone is able by clear Texts to decide all Controversies according to truth This Controversie of the fallibility or infallibility of the Church erected by Christ is one of the most important Controversies that can be raised in the Church Now you who pretend this Controversy to be decided for you against me by clear Texts of Scripture are obliged by clearer Texts then all these are put together to prove that Christs visible Church is fallible I say Christs visible Church for all my Texts speak of that and not of the Synagogue and therefore the Texts you bring must be concerning Christs Church And you must bring Texts and not discourses or else you decide not the Controversy by the sentence of the judge to which only you appeal Observe these few things and give me these Texts and I here give you free leave to proclaim me quite vanquished and driven out of the field And by this you will see that we adhere not therefore to the defence of the Churches Tribunal because we fear to be tried by Scripture but because upon trial made by Scripture her Tribunal is proved infallible and in all things to be obeyed by us 36. What occurreth next is to justifie my selfe from the false slander with which you charge me of corrupting the Text in St. Austin Lib. de Utilitate credendi Cap. 19. Sir if I should doe as you did that is if I should only regard that Edition of St. Austin which I have I should not only justifie my selfe but condemne you of corrupting this place Now I onely charge the Edition which you used of corruption yea of such corruption that a man could not but suspect it who would read the context with his perfect sences about him For St. Austin in his 14. Chapter having said that he first believed moved by the authority of the Catholick Church which there he sheweth to have been done by him upon good reason he cometh in the 51 Chapter to presse his adversaries to the easiest way of freeing themselves from errour by yeilding to the authority of the same Church And then in his Sixteenth Chapter he urgeth the wholesomnesse of following this authority Here come in those words which I cited to wit for if the divine providence of God doth not preside in humane affairs in vain would Sollicitude be about Religion But if both the very beauty of all things and our inward conscience doth both publickely
25th and 26th Number And so together with them I must let passe even that maine and convincing place of St. Austin this supposed I have ended all which belongeth to this Chapter The fifth Chapter The Church which is our Judge and Infallible is the Roman Church ALL that I am to prove here is Of my 27th Numb that upon Supposition that it is now made good that the Church is our judge in all Controversies and also that it is made good that she is infallible that all this can be verified of no other Church then the Roman Whence it followeth that whosoever will say any thing against that which I did undertake to prove in this part of my discourse must argue against me not by denying some Church to be judge of Controversies and infallible but admitting that for truth he must prove that I without reason claim this right of judicature and this infallibility for the Roman Church and onely for the Roman still understanding by the Roman Church all Churches which submit themselves to the Bishop of Rome as to their supreme Pastor 2 That then which remaineth here to be proved I did prove and still do prove thus the Protestant Church and all other Churches different from the Roman do judge themselves acknowledge themselves declare and professe themselves to be fallible and that according to infallible Scripture If then any of these Churches be infallible in what they judge and declare for truth grounded in Scripture they are infallible in this their judging and delaring themselves to be fallible Therefore infallibly they are fallible Therefore upon supposition that it hath been formerly proved that some Church is judge of Controversies and Infallible and it being by the former argument demonstratively proved that neither the Protestant Church nor any Church different from the Roman can be judge of Controversies and infallible it evidently followes that only the Roman Church is this judge and is infallible as she teacheth her selfe to be Here you exclaim at my abusing others by ratiocinations which notwithstanding I confidently say you could not nor cannot solve Therefore prehaps you are pleased to wonder and then gibe at my argument as if I only argued thus The Roman Church claimeth infallibility therefore by claiming of it she hath right to it This argument you may freely scoff at it is nothing like mine And yet in undoing this fond argument you only busie your selfe and say nothing to that which I pressed and still presse that the Church which is apointed by God for infallible judge of Controversies cannot possible be any of those Churches which teach themselves not to be this infallible judge It had bin very easie to have understood this right and not to make me say that only laying claim to infallibility is a sufficient proof of infallibility It is a very different thing to say He that must be a Minister must be a Man and not a Woman and to say such an one must needs be a Minister because he is a man and not a Woman So it is one thing to say the Church which is the infallible judge must be a Church judging and teaching her selfe to be infallible and cannot be a Church which judgeth and teaches her selfe fallible And another thing to say that that Church is infallibly judge which teacheth her selfe to be so This I said not but I said that Church that must be infallible must not want this condition and therefore no Church teaching her selfe even according to Scripture to be fallible can truly be this infallible judge Against my argument truly related you have not one word without you think you have answered me by saying that no Church of Christ is infallible and therefore not the Roman But Sir did not you alwayes hitherto still importunely call upon me to prove that even upon supposition that the Church was our judge and Infallible that these great prerogatives belonged to the Church of Rome You bid me still prove this even standing upon the supposition that some Church was judge and infallible Is it then any thing like a Scholar like answer to return no other answer to my argument but by now saying the supposition is not true the truth of which though allowed you contended to be nothing to my purpose If you will grant me that if any Church be judge of Controversies and infallible this is our Church I have done Neither intend I any thing else in this chapter 3 You bring an argument to prove our Church fallible because either it erred in admitting or in rejecting the Millenary opinion before admitted Sir I call upon you to prove that ever our infallible Judge that is the supreme Pastor of the Church defining with the Church assembled in a Council did admit of the Millinary opinion If this be not done you prove not our Iudge to be fallible and this I am sure can never be proved Yea it cannot be proved that the Church diffused or Universal did at any one age unanimously admit of this doctrine for a point of faith For when this opinion began to get much ground divers of the Fathers did oppose it Even S. Justin Dialogo cum Triphone circa medium whom yours use so commonly to alledge for this opinion in plain words telleth you Multos qui purae piaeque sunt Christianorum sententia hoc non agnoscere That many note the word many who are of a pure and pious Christian opinion do not acknowledge this And your own learned Doctor Ha in bis view of c. Page 87. 88 89. doth prove the weaknes of that place in St. Iustin not to conclude any thing against Catholike Tradition Nicephorus will tell you L. 3. C. 21. that Papias Bishop of Hierapolis was the first author of this opinion The traditions of the Church have no first authors but the Apostles Of my 28th Number Wherefore by all you have hitherto said my Argument remaineth unanswered and is really unanswerable the supposition being admitted upon which it is spoken For tell me whether any Church which teacheth her self to be fallible can be truely infallible If any such Church can be infallible and all Churches be such but the Roman then Christ can have no Church upon Earth to be our infallible Judge but the Roman Wherefore no tollerable Answer being yet given to this argument I will be as good as my word when I said in this Number That this being a demonstration I should hold my self bound to say no more until this argument were answered Here then I end yet when you shall have solved this argument I shal be ready to make good my promise concerning what I said I could and would shew of the Roman Church to soon as I should see this argument answered Petrae durities nulli magis quà m ferienti notae FINIS An Answer to your last Paper TItulus Libri saepe legendus est as the Rule is the Title of a Book is often to be read
the premises which we do not in their propriety affirme as namely that they are to take the Scripture for the sole and onely Judge in all necessary controversies we say properly and formally Scripture is not the judge but as the Law and rule by which judgement is to be given in controversies necessary 2. We do not allow him to make a review of what is decreed in a Generall Councell as in order to any other but onely for himself He hath no autoritative judgement respecting others but a rationall judgement respecting himself So you say that of us which we do not say And then again you will not say of us that which we do say which should spoyle the Argumentation for though we say he may not for he cannot submit his judgement to a Generall Councell unlesse he sees what is determined thereby to be true yet may he submit his person unto censure and so not oppose the Church Representative Again 3. In this your Argument you do not conclude home for you conclude this is but to leave men in a mighty hazard of misunderstanding the word of God and falling into heresie So then upon the whole matter this argumentation of yours is not good because somewhat in it nay much is denied and somewhat not by you allowed as it should be and then it concludes but accidentally if probably not necessarily if necessarily not demonstratively if demonstratively not a priori for it doth not by way of a certain efficient cause induce the conclusion of heresie nor is heresie the finall cause of our intending this liberty to the people Therfore be not so forward in high termes of your ratiocination Yea if this allowance to the people did certainly and by way of Emanation produce heresie it would not of it self produce any more than materiall heresie in points of necessary faith which need not be brought into question not heresie formal which imports opposition to the Church And this respect of heresie you do surely bend the bow against Indeed every opposition doth import discent but every discent which is more generall doth not actually import an opposition So your long sillogisme a priori is but lanke nor doth your reasoning a posteriori thrive thus In those places where the sacred Scriptures are thus prostituted not only to the bare reading but also to the interpretation of every profane and ignorant fellow I still meane when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleadged on all sides these and only these sects have multiplied and do multiply beyond measure Ans If the Scripture be allowed to every ones use for the knowledge of things necessary to salvation it is no prostitution of it Bellarmin as before in his 1. b. c. 1. de Verbo Dei affirms it to be our rule then a rule to all then it is necessary by necessity of precept and by necessity of mean too upon the account of a rule if you speak of a prostitution of it to every ones interpretation according to his own fansy This is not intended by us But what power hath the Church to hinder them of their right If they abuse their liberty it is upon their own perill They wrest the Scripture to their own destruction as St. Peter said of some that they wrested some things in St. Paul's Epistles which are hard to be understood And as Dominion Civill is not grounded in grace speciall so neither is the religious right of Scripture grounded in speciall knowledge And if they be more ignorant they have more need of it 2. The parenthesis you adde to strengthen your argument or to qualifie the state of your question makes nothing for you For if you understand the words I still meane when he shall have heard or seen what can be alleadged on all sides as to strengthen your Argument it surely weakens it For if they heare or see what is alleadged on all sides they are not like to follow their own conceit but what appears to be more reasonable For your argument supposeth that after they have heard or seen all that can be said on all sides yet they have liberty from us to interpret according to their own pleasure which is more unlikely they would do though they had our allowance after they had heard or seen all that could be alleadged on all sides If you intend those words to qualify the state of the question then it seems before they do hear or see what is alleadged on all sides they may not passe any judgement of the point for themselves and if they must first heare or see all that can be alleadged on all sides before they take that sense that is agreeable to plain places of Scripture then surely they must be blind as to this point for when shall they be able probably to know whether they have heard or seen all that can be alleadged on all sides in such a matter This is such a yoke which the Pharisees if we may say so lay upon us which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear But 3. Whereas you say these and only these sects have multiplied do multiply beyond measure it is false on both parts not these always which you must mean for why then did the ancient Fathers exhort the people so much to the study of the Scripture as Cyrill of Jerusalem and S. Chrysostom the former in his Catechism the later in his Comments and also in homilies And then not only there for then you might propose a convenient way to take away all the differences amongst the Jesuites and Dominicans and those that divide from the court of Rome namely by taking away all use of Scripture You see not only by ignorant and profane men there are bred differences where the Bible is in liberty but amongst the learned men also So that not always these nor only these these are sects But 4. The multiplying of sects and beyond measure is not as hath been said the effect of the use thereof because not necessary And doth not your argument follow by consequence only then not by necessity of consequent And therefore is not this a demonstration a posteriori Thus you have argued 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us now see how happy you are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in refutation of my answers This we have in the third par Neither do any of your arguments prove this not to be the true cause of heresie and bad life which followeth heresie Ans Here we see you intended a full demonstration from the cause But whereas you say none of my arguments do prove the contrary you may remember that I had no arguments but in way of answer It is not my office to dispute but answer Whereas you say bâ—d life followeth heresy that you meane inseparably do you not If you do not it is inconsequent if you do it is false How many Hereticks have been more strict in their lives then orthodox Christians that they
and pat could the most important matter in debate betwixt us have been more distinctly orderly and fully put down than to have shewn from place to place where I had not answered directly to the state of the question or had hit the question but did not sufficiently take off the Argument And could his Reply be by this manner more clear and perspicuous when it cannot appeare plainly how he took off my Answers or answered to the matter or form of my occasionall Arguments If this be an orderly Combate then let us beat the aire and that will be sufficient to beat an Adversary Thus much of the first Chapter which is no hard Chapter The Answer to the second Chapter No necessity of a Judge in all Controversies to whom all should be bound simply to submit their assent Num. 1. MY Adversarie says here that I go about to perswade him that he is most likely to take up his Religion by prejudice Ans It seems he is pleased to forbeare any Answer to my retortion of his similitude but he takes notice of my returning to him the greater probabilitie of prejudice in point of Religion to be on their part And he argues the contrary because being Recusants upon this account are liable to lose two parts of their Estates and what else we are or shall be pleased to take from them be it goods libertie or life Ans The prejudice on their part was as I said upon the opinion of the infalibilitie of their Church so that I spake upon account of a religious interesse and he answers me upon a civill account rather This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore this answer is not pertinent And whereas he would seem to have good ground in Conscience for his Religion for which he suffers so much if he intends to vye with us in that kind others of our Religion have suffered more from them Surely he forgets the Marian days wherein we dropped more blood than they have done And whereas he saies to me and what else you are or shall be pleased to take from us As to this much might be said also without passion in the same kind No man can take away more from us than our lives one would think Yes Roman Catholicks would take away from us Heaven too They had almost destroyed me upon earth saith the Psalmist But these will destroy us in heaven also Secondly If he who was mine Adversary was a Native of England he was as much included in the order of his deprivation as I. Thirdly I will say more yet that some of his Religion have had more favour than we Yea yet more than this one whom I think he knows well hath lost more in proportionall quantity as Aquinas distinguisheth than any of them hath lost who hath lost but two parts of three and for Conscience too Therefore that character which I gave the Romanist he is to keep still untill he can prove it doth belong more to us Certainly this is not proved not to belong to them because they have suffered so much for their Religion for we have suffered more and therefore it doth not belong to us but them rather But this suffering de se is easily known not to make an Argument for unlesse our cause be good before we suffer we have no cause to suffer at all The saying is common Causa non passio facit Martyrem Fourthly As for the present sufferings of the Papists they are neither rightly charged either upon our Church or upon our Kingdome for there is not yet proved any legall consent of either to what they or others have suffered Nay fifthly At the day of Judgement we shall see whether they are not more like to answer for what we have suffered than we for what they have suffered in these times So that while they do not see what is true against them they will seem to see what is not true against us As Tertullian said But let us come to the matter To examine then your grounds in the second num Num. 2. That God hath made man to a supernaturall end and to be attained by supernaturall meanes we grant as Aquinas in the begining of of his sums Take men indefinitely and confusely without exclusion of Infants dying before Baptisme from Salvation possible and those who are not compotes mentis and we grant it And also that amongst those meanes the first is true faith and that according to his mercifull providence he hath provided us some way to this faith so easie that all if they pleased might be brought to the knowledge of it namely exceptis excipiendis And that the greater part of men are ignorant yea all naturally ignorant of the way to this supernaturall end as Aquinas because it is supernaturall these things we yield to you And that because the far greater part were ignorant it beseemed his goodnesse who is the lover of soules to provide us such a way as that ignorant men should not be able unlesse by wilful carelesnesse to erre by it These things we do willingly yield But we demurre upon your assumption that this way should be the Church as you interpret that of Isaiah the 35 where you say the Prophet speakes of a path and a way which shall be so direct that fools cannot erre by it Here we must stand a while and inquire what is the sense of this way And first I must note that you do not rightly render the words according to the Hebrew veritie You say and it shall be unto you a direct way so that fools cannot erre But it is not so in the text But thus He shall be to them or with them walking the way and fools shall not erre How is your Church like to be this way when either you erre in not following it or it doth erre in not right following the text And you make it to be in the text a direct way and so that fools cannot erre Whereas it is rather shall not erre which doth note so much infalibilitie as preservation from error Now a negative of the act doth not prove a negative of the power for then the Argument would be good a non esse ad non posse Therefore could my Adversary have proved that the Church of Rome never erred which will never be proved yet all is not yet whole because infalibilitie is not yet proved by the not erring but by an impossibilitie of erring And if you may erre by carelesnesse as before then when were any sure of being right for who can be sure he hath been as carefull as he should be and therefore if this be the condition of not being deceived yea of infalibilitie it is at least morally impossible that any should be assured in their faith because they may be wanting in their diligence and so also may demerit a deprivation of Divine light My Adversary goes on To elude this text you say sure we may be that
the letter doth respect the Jewish Church after their redemption from Captivitie Ans And I see no reason to the contrary if we consider several expressions in that place which carry that scope and also if we consider that ordinarily at least when any thing is prophecied mystically of the Church Christian in the old Instrument it is yet true in the letter of the Jews And also thirdly If we will take notice of the Septuagint who render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that are dispersed shall walke amongst them and not erre And if you take this version to be the Septuagints you may know they knew the text as well as the Latine Church Therefore this you would suppose and argue upon it If he did direct the Jewish Church by a way so direct that fools could not erre by it there can be no good reason why he should be lesse carefull to direct the ignorant of the Church of Christ Ans My Adversary did not consider that if it be understood of the Jewish Nation it is not presently to be understood of the Jewish Church under that formality It may be intended of them in the civill sense and not in their Ecclesiasticall respect and then we cannot argue from a temporall promise made to the Jew to a Spirituall promise made to the Christian though men are bold to make such accommodations For then might we of our own power make a mystical sense of Scripture wherein one thing should by Divine intention signifie another thing this we cannot do for then mysticall Divinitie should be Argumentative which is denied even by the Pontificians Yet he goes on Yet I thinke it is sure that this is not the true Interpretation For when did the blinde see the deaf hear when did then God come himself and save us Ans It may be understood in the letter and yet some expressions be hyperbolical Yea those expressions may be understood in the letter without any hyperbolicalnesse as that those who never thought to see or heare of such a Redemption actual should see and heare of it should not onely heare of it but see it Secondly When do we heare of vengance and recompence spoken of ver 4. And drie ground and pools and habitation of Dragons and a place for reeds and rushes spoken of ver the 7. to be in the Church Christian in a spirituall sense Put one to the other and which of them hath more moment And to the other question when did then God come himself and save us We answer this makes no Scruple of such an Interpretation of it to the Jew neither because it is said he will come nor because it is said he will save Not the first nor the second for the first is as ordinarie as the terme save is usuall in the old Instrument for the temporall sense Wherefore had Joshua his name from the same root was he to be a spirituall Saviour It is true he was typicall of Christ Jesus but he was typicall by a temporal deliverance yea even the Greek word is sometimes used for a temporall salvation in the new Testament as Mat. 8.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Master save us we perish yea the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which commonly is rendered Saviour when applied to Christ is sometimes applied to God in the new Testament in a temporall sense as is noted rationally by some Criticks and particulary in that text some give an instance thereof 1 Ep. to Tim. 4.10 Who is the Saviour of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially of those that believe He is the Saviour of all in a temporall sense specially of those who believe And thus Estius upon the text would carrie it for which exposition he names Chrysostom Oecumenius Ambrosianus Anselme And he said positively constat autem ex aliis Scripturae locis c. it is manifest also out of other places of Scripture that the term of salvation is understood of the good things of the temporall life So he upon the place He proceeds And if you will have our Saviour himself to be this way as he said I am the truth and the way this self same Saviour said I who am this way am with you to the consummation of the world to wit directing my Church the right way to Salvation of which direction the Church now hath no lesse need than then Ans He supposeth that which is not granted nor yet doth he go about to prove it that it is to be understood by Divine intention of the Christian Church objective This is not to be allowed unlesse mysticall Divinity were in the nature of it argumentative And my second answer to this text wherein I referred it to the time of Christ in way of supposition if it were at all to be referred to the time of the Christian Church according to Isider Clarius and St. Jerom. he cannot well deny but will argue from it that the Church hath no lesse need of direction now than then Ans This Reply hath no strength of reason in it for the foundation of Christianitie was then to be layd which foundation personall was Christ then it was to be built upon the foundation ministeriall the Apostles also as St. Paul speakes Eph. 2.20 The new Testament was not then written the propagation of the Gospell was not then made Christian Doctrine was not universally received And therefore then was there more need of infalible direction by Christ and his Apostles than now And this really answereth your supposition that such an infalible direction which by our Saviour was promised to the Church by the Apostles should alwaies continue in the Church whereas it is not so necessary by necessitie of meane or end And therefore can we not make a demonstration of it a causa finali because it is not necessary for the end of Salvation Deus nec deficit in necessariis nec abundat in superfluis as he said he is neither wanting in necessaries nor is abundant in superfluities But this passage must be made good by them or all is lost therefore he goes on And as we could not securely have put a limitation to those words of Joel namely concerning the powring out of the spirit if St. Peter had not secured us of the true sense so cannot you limit these words not having the like warrant for it Ans So then first Are those words of Joel limited Yes he confesseth it and it is so plain by St. Peter in the second of the Acts that it cannot be denied Upon this confession we dispute If those words of St. Peter be limited then also the other text Mat. 28. last I am with you to the end of the world is also limited The consequence is it may be demanded It is given thus If the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not now to be expected as then then can we not now pretend infalibilitie as then because this is a speciall gift of the Holy Ghost Therefore have we no
again this obedience he speaks of would be rational obedience and therefore not blind For to follow such a Guide which is always ruled by Christ and therefore never swerves from his word if this can be made good to me that any Church doth and cannot do other is very rationall and not blind obedience If the saying and definition of the Church be assured by Christ and his word to be according to Christ and his word it is necessary to be obedient to it as to what I finde in Scripure though I do not comprehend the reason of it as the Scripture doth bind to faith without dispute so would the Church were I assured by the Scripture that the Church could not swerve from it But here are two things wanting one is of a proof that the Church hath not swerved And a second that it cannot swerve from the word of God For my faith must build it self immediately not upon the former because the power of swerving is not sufficiently secured by the negative but it must be built upon the impossibilitie and this should be demonstrated And still I must mind you that I speake of the Vniversall Church convented in a Generall Councell confirmed by the Supreme Pastor Ans And I still say that the Universall Church so constituted is not free from the least danger of swerving from the word of God And this in grosse were enough untill it were made good by sound Argument Yet also particularly First he meanes the Universall Church representatively for otherwise all cannot come together but then let us have an account why there could not be admitted to the titles of the Trent Councell that which the â—rench so much urged namely representing the Universall Church If it did represent the Universal Church why might it not be said in the title If it did not how does he say the Vniversall Church convented in a General Council 2. A Supreme Pastor in your sense should be proved and not supposed For we acknowledge no Supreme Pastor but Christ which can give life or law to all the Church He the Pastor and Bishop of our souls 1 Pet. 2.25 He the chief Pastor 1 Pet. 5.4 And all Bishops under him do equally participate a Vicarial care of the Church But thirdly the Trent Council according to you was general and confirmed by the Supreme Pastor and Vigilius was the Tutilarie Saint of the valley of Trent and yet the Trent Councell swerved grossely from the word of God and particularly in the matter of half communion as in the twentie first session notwithstanding Christ his institution and the severall interpretations of the Doctors and Fathers acknowledged against them in the first chap. of that session and although from the begining of Christian Religion the use under both kinds was not unfrequent as is confessed in the second ch Fourthly if the Church so constituted cannot swerve from the word of God why did the Trent Councell feare to determine what is the nature of original sin which Viga urged them to upon good reasons And why did they not determine whether the blessed Virgin was exempted from original infection whereof the Franciscans so much urged the affirmative to be defined the Dominicans the negative And yet in saying non esse suae intentionis it was not of their intention to comprehend in this Decree wherein original sin is handled the blessed and immaculate Virgine they do interpretatively exempt her though St. Paul and all holy Doctâ—â—â— did not exempt her as the Dominicans urged and so they do in effect contradict their universal proposition wherein it is said Propagatione non imitatione transfusum omnibus at least it makes that definition uncertain as the German Protestants noted Therefore that which followes in his Paper doth not follow in reason This Church guiding by her infalible Doctrine is this way the Church diffusive guided now by this doctrine was promised this direct way Such a way we were promised a way so direct represented that fools cannot erre by it Ans These words might have been all spared for they are all as Ciphers till one thing be proved and that is the infalible Doctrine as a property inseparable to the Church If the Church goes this way to prove her selfe the way she is not the way because she goes out of the way or else Christ was out of the way and the Primitive Church was not the Church when for so many yeares it is confessed that there was no General Council and is not proved that there was a Pope in their sence as indeed there was none So then the Church universal is not the way universally so direct that fools cannot erre for in all times there was not the universall Church so represented nor the Decrees of the represented Church so confirmed because there was no Pope And therefore if yet the Church had another way then we have more reason to go that way than the way which leads to Rome and from Rome we know not whither but to darknesse and those that follow this way are not wiser by following it for they are not wise in following it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Hierocles said well Both these things are good to know that we do not know and to know what we do not know And surely if we should go their blinde way we should neither know what wise men know nor know neither that we are ignorant Therefore Catarinus and Marinarus took another way to assert certainty of Grace namely by Scripture as we have it in the History of the Trent Council wherein they shaked the Adversaries of the opinion and brought them to some moderation And this example of theirs in following the Scriptures might if we were doubtfull of our cause yet incourage us to give check to that which follows The Scripture as some may conceive for you dare not defend it is not this way Ans All conceive that it is the way but your Church Yea all your Church are not for this Church way Besides those named the Arch-Bishops of Collen Catarinus Marinarus how many even in the face of the Trent Councell have urged Scripture against all other Arguments The antient Fathers made the Scripture their way and rule and therefore their authorities are not answered to by my Antagonist for that they are unanswerable Therefore we dare and do defend it for it will defend us in the doing of it But this Campian bragged of our diffidence We return as he did who was to be put to death as Tacitus relates it when the Executioner bad him beare it bravely he replied Vtinam tu tam fortiter feries So I would my Adversary had as strongly opposed as we are in hope to answer But it were better for them to have either lesse confidence or to add more strength As Archidamus said to his son after an unsuccesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So let them give stronger Arguments or quit the cause Let us see his reason For
way as is known but this we shall have fuller occasion to speake of hereafter Secondly whereas he saies that I say by meer reading of Scripture c. he supposeth that which is not so For I do not deny the use of other meanes to further us towards our assent intrinsecall arguments from Scripture extrinsecall of the Church but that which privately we resolve our faith of Scripture to be the word of God in is the autopistie of Scripture which God by faith infused shews unto us And by Catarinus his reasoning in the Trent Council about subjective certitude of grace private faith is not inferior to the Catholick faith in point of certaintie but onely in universalitie Thirdly the Church according to my Adversary hath its power of binding to faith by a Generall Council with the Popes confirmation of the Decrees then let us know by what Council all the parts of Scripture were confirmed by a Generall Council with the Popes consent for the first six hundred years somewhat might be put in as towards the use of some parts of the Apocryphall books but it doth not appear that they were canonized as to faith nor any of the Canonicall books declared by them as quo ad nos authentick For they were wont to meddle with little but emergent questions whereas of those parts of Scripture which were generally received there was no question whether they were the word of God And being not received by the authoritie of a Council establishing them what ground have those who differ from us to receive them since they say the infallible Authoritie is in the Church Representative with the Popes confirmation He goes on And it must be a far surer discoverie than that by which we discover the Sun by his light for this discovery can onely ground a naturall certaintie the other must ground a supernaturall not certainty but infallibilitie Ans The supernaturall habit of faith hath it felf more to intelligence than to science Intelligence is known to be that naturall habit whereby the understanding is disposed to assent to the truth of principles when the terms of those principles are known And faith doth beare more proportion to this as being the supernaturall habit in regard of cause whereby we are disposed to believe supernaturall verities whereof the first is by our opinion that the Scripture is the word of God taking the Scripture materially Now as the principles naturall are seen through their own light by the naturall habit of intelligence so are the supernatural principles seen through their own light by the supernaturall habit of faith And as certainly as I see the Sun by its light with mine eye so certainly do I see the truth of naturall principles by the naturall habit of intelligence and as certainly as I see the veritie of naturall principles by intelligence so do I see supernaturall verities by the supernaturall habit of faith yet not so evidently as I see the Sun by its light or naturall principles through their light But it seems by my Adversary that this will not serve for he urgeth not onely for a certainty but infallibilitie To this we answer first Take certaintie properly and I think there is no fundamentum in re for this distinction It may be because we are wont to use the term of infallibilitie to points of faith we think that whatsoever is certain is not infallible and it is true in regard of the manner or meane of certaintie so that whatsoever is certain is not infallible for so certaintie seems to be more generall but certainly whatsoever is to us certaine is also infallible as we take it in a generall sense But secondly if there be any degree of infallibilitie above certaintie we have it by this way of Divine faith infused by the Spirit of God because we are most sure of this principle that God cannot deceive nor be deceived therefore what we take upon his word we are most certain of and more than by our own discourse and reason for that is in the nature of it more imperfect Thirdly this is not so wisely considered to straine our faith to the highest peg of utmost infallibilitie as they determine the ground of it namely the Authoritie of the Church because the Authoritie of it as it is contradistinguished to the Spirit and word is but humane and as it is resolved into the word by the Spirit so it comes into a coincidence with us Fourthly whereas he sometimes upbraided us with an essentiall defect of faith because we take it not by their way of the Church it appeares yet that some of our Church have in case of martyrdome held the faith of Scripture and of points taken from thence as infallibly as they have held Scripture upon tenure of the Church And it seems ours did not hold the Scripture or the points upon the authoritie of the Church for they differed from the Ponteficians unto the death about the Church and about points of Doctrine which the Papist urged they denied notwithstanding they were Doctrines of their Church Now according to the Pontifician argument if they had received the Scripture by the Authoritie of the Church they must upon the same reason have received every Doctrine proposed by the Church And therefore it seems they had a faith of Scripture infallible without the Roman infallibilitie Secondly the Spirit of God speaking in the Church is to them the efficient of faith But the Spirit of God speaks also in the Scripture If not how do they prove that the Spirit of God speakes in the Church if it does then may we believe him at first word and immediately as to the Church As to what he saith secondly that he hath shewed in his last chap. second Num. that a review of the definitions of a Council untill they be resolved into the rule of Scripture doth open a wide gap to heresie I need say no more than what hath been said in answer thereunto His meer saying so doth not surely make it so nor is it probable for it doth not open a gap to heresie materiall because Scripture is the rule of truth nor yet to heresie formall because it may be done without opposition to the Councils For simple dissent doth not include formall opposition But yet further he saith And for your importance of the matter I will here further declare in an example which hereafter will stand me in much use Let us take an Arrian Cobler to this man This your Doctrine giveth the finall review of the Council of Nice Ans Yes I must interpose in the severall passages of his storie of the case it doth but how It doth not give a review by way of authoritie to others but he is to take his own libertie for his own satisfaction in point of faith Otherwise he believes he knows not what and so in proportion he comes under the censure of Christ upon the Samaritan woman in the 4. of St. John the 22. Ye
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
besides how many may dissemble what they see Who so blinde as he that will not see If the Chinites say they onely themselves see with both eyes those of Europe with one eye and the rest of the world with neither surely those of Europe who will not see are blinde of both eyes The Council of Trent according to them an Oecumenicall Council if they could see better things not cleare why did they not in all points declare first what was to be held and then what was to be anathametized And if they were more like to see what is cleare how came they to abandon the use of the cup Nay how came they to establish a transubstantiation seing our Saviour after consecration said plainly St. Mark the 14. the 25. I will drink no more of the fruit of the Vine Was his blood the fruit of the Vine But sixthly to make use of his disjunction places are either cleare or not namely places of Scripture if not cleare no absosolute necessity of a generall Council so as no salvation to be had without clearing the difficulty if clear what need then of a Council we may be saved without some knowledge we cannot believe without infallibility Seventhly let them reconcile this necessity of a Council to the sayings of Paul the fourth who said he had absolute authority that for himself he had no need of instruction because he knew Christ did command that he had no need of a Council for he himself was above all that he could remedie all inconveniences by his own authority as is said of him in the History of Trent the fifth book And therefore my Adversary or the Pope is out All he saies here also for Councils makes no more than a morall assurance which how much it is lesse than the certainty of faith Mr. Knot will tell Indeed he says Again I may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error as I shall shew chap. 4. Yes surely if this could be proved there were no more to be said this principle will beat down to the ground all opposition which an humble soule can make We confesse it when it is proved But surely this is as much in question as any thing else Untill the supposition be grown into a proof we have then yet but prudentiall Arguments to faith And yet we say secondly if he would have been so wise as to have stated it with a judicious moderation thus that we may and ought to know that the Holy Ghost hath promised an assistance to his Church sufficient to secure it from bringing in any error namely as to destroy the foundation that might have been better endured but he hath granted that this will not serve his purpose as Mr. Knot notes he must have the Church secure from any error These Catholicks as they call themselves cannot speake under the forme of universality which is more easily contradicted And we suspend our assent untill the demonstration comes We may not nor ought to know this We ought not for we cannot We cannot but by Scripture For if they say we may know it by the Church it is the question Neither doth he prove our opposition of Councils in their most fundamentall ground upon which all Councils hitherto have still supposed themselves to sit as Judges c. Num. 8. For first it doth not appeare that all Councils have supposed themselves to sit as Judges with full commission to determine securely all controversies if the terme security be taken securely from all error And if they have not so defined it that they do so sit as Judges or sit as Judges so how shall we according to my Adversaries principles believe it since we are to fetch all truth from the Church in a Council And secondly if all Councils did establish it a Principle we yet expect a reason hereof since neither Pope nor Council have absolute authority nor both to together to bind our belief Yea thirdly the Council of Nice did sit upon as good ground as any other Council but the Council of Nice did examine all things by Scripture so in the History of the Nicene Council prefixed in a Vatican Edition it is said Rebus itaque in utriusque partem jactatis et ad certam Divinarum Scripturarum normam perpensis communi omnium suffragio Arrius et Eusebius damnantur Things being discussed on both sides and weighed and examined according to the certain rule of Divine Scriptures by common consent Arrius and Eusebius are condemned Therefore are not we to look for a Dictatorian sentence but a rationall determination out of Scripture and if we finde this this doth oblige all Christians to conforme to their definitions But fourthly we deny that we are so obliged by such censures as were still held to be ratified in Heaven We are not obliged by them neither in themselves nor because they were so held nay also we deny that they were so held to be ratified in Heaven unlesse with this limitation clave non errante Yea again these do not oblige us to conforme our judgement their power respects the outward act Yea again if so Honorius was rightly condemned in the sixth Generall Council therefore was an Heretick yea and Pope Vigelius was an errant Heretick for defending the three chap. against the fifth Councill And the Romanists are bound to think the Condemnation just or the Council to be null And yet that Council thought it self sufficient in authority without and against the Pope and therefore they all differed from my Adversary who saies the Council does not bind without the Popes confirmation He saies further others will tell you divers other opinions you have with Councils But if he would have had me answer for my self he must have told me the particulars Generalia non pungunt and they make no action To distinguish infallibility from their authority is no opposition untill infallibility be infallibly made good And even in this place you tell all how little you credit Councils when you charge them with speaking contradictions Ans First credâ—t may be given in sensu diviso to those that may possibly speake contradictions if we meane by credit a morall respect of humane faith but if he meanes credit of faith Divine I then grant it that such credit is not to be given to them which may speake contradictions for how are they then infallible as they must be by my Adversary if they ground faith As was said of the Milisians Non sunt stulti sed possunt stulta facere they are not fools and yet can do foolish things so a Council may be wise and yet may speake foolish things and I may give some credit to them in generall for their wisedome though it be possible for them to say that which includes a contradiction Secondly I may charge Councils with contradictions to one another though not to themselves For
be had in a Church which hath not its due well being And thirdly he might have distinguished betwixt necessity absolute and necessity of Convenience with the School-men All things are not necessary in the first kind which are necessary in the latter Now we are upon necessaries in the first kind And as to these fewer things there are of this order These things are confounded for their advantage But also he seems to distinguish what is to be confounded for he seems to make some things necessary for the universall Church as a Community Whereas more is not necessary to the universall Church upon the formality of a Community This was touched before but herein he doth distinguish where he should not distinguish And thus by distinguishing what is not to be distinguished and by confounding what is to be distinguished he would confound me in the change of the state of the question But this vain and captious For the state of the question respects men in communi not in a Community Then secondly suppose that the Scripture had not given us generall directions concerning the constitution of the Church and the Officers of it and the power of those Officers and obedience to that power in things of free observation in themselves yet our assertion would be sound and good that the Scripture doth set down plainly all things necessary to salvation Some were saved before such a Community some may be saved who are wrongfully put out of such a Community and some may be saved after such a Community is obscured and in the darke as they confesse the Church shall be in the time of Antichrist But then thirdly the Scripture hath sufficiently provided and as much as is necessary to be sure how the Church is to be provided in all times and places of lawfull Pastors And also what power the Pastors should have in respect of one another or in respect to their particular flocks And how those laws they make should bind without appointing how many should be assembled to this effect And also who should call this Assembly who preside in it when there are Christian Magistrates at least negatively not the Pope who hath nothing to shew for himself in Scripture nor the Antient Church And also when it is to be accounted lawfull when unlawfull This is sufficiently determinable in Scripture by analogie to the Jewish Kings and to the Assembly spoken of in the fifteenth of the Acts. As for the outward administration of these Assemblies will they say it is de jure Divino And as for the question whether the Precepts of this Assembly oblige under pain of damnation to the keeping of Feasts or Fasts or Eaves we say first it doth appear in Scripture that obedience to lawfull authority is due indefinitely and in generall when there is no reall exception against the matter And therefore by the Command of God are we bound in obedience to them injoyning nothing but that which is lawfull But though they do bind under pain of damnation yet is not this a point necessary to be known under pain of damnation The question with us is not whether they do thus bind but whether we cannot be saved without the knowledge whether they do thus bind And if we may be saved without this knowledge then is it not necessary to Salvation that this should be determined For though it be necessary for us to know that all sin is damnative and this is sufficiently laid down in Scripture as Rom. 6. last yet is it not necessary under pain of damnation that we should know every sin that is damnative for then we should have no pardon for secret sins by generall Repentance and then who could be saved And therefore though to every one that knows that this is a true proposition that Precepts of the Assembly do bind under pain of damnation it is necessary to exercise actuall particular Repentance for those transgressions which he knows yet to him that knows not the truth of this proposition it is not And this is known to be a school question And though they bind more than in case of scandall and of contempt yet must their obligation mediate be understood to be qualified after the manner of the ceremoniall law not the morall and therefore in competition with morals their binding is relaxed Again if it were necessary that those observations should be generall why did not the first Councils establish them Yea it seems it was not necessary that all such observations should be universally practised For then how came the Eastern and Brittish Churches to differ from the Roman observation of Easter notwithstanding their pretences of preeminence Yea one of the Antients in application to the observing of Easther which for the time he thought was free gave this sentence in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the difference of fast commends the agreement of faith And therefore my Adversary doth amongst his Festivities he mentions wisely conceal the mention of Easter because he knew the differences from the Roman Church in that particular And for the same form of publick service which ought to be imposed on all and when all are bound to be present at it would any one say that considers what he saies that this is necessary to be and to be known unto salvation If he means to be imposed upon all in the Catholick Church what Scripture or what Father or what Council hath he for it Indeed Ignatius in one of his Epistles sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this was spoken as to a particular Church And some cannot come to Church and may not they be saved and some particular nations must have some particular passages which are common to all the parts of that nation and not to other nations And doe Canonicall hours so bind as not to be where they are or not to assist always upon morall necessity excludes de se from Heaven When the time of Antichrist comes according to them surely their Canonical hours will not be in season and yet they will say salvation may be had in the Church Whereas necessaries to salvation do not fall under a necessity to be dispensed with And therefore if such observances are excusable by accidents it is sure that they are not in our sense necessary These are onely juris positivi as they distinguished in the Trent Council but to be sure that which is necessary to salvation is juris Divini But what Sacraments are to be administred the Scripture telleth us expressely For time it is not necessary to have it determined nor how often but for the essentiall form it is set down the externall manner is not simply necessary Here he confounds cunningly and mixeth somewhat necessary with somewhat not necessary Neither doth he distinguish betwixt necessity of precept and necessity of meane somewhat is necessary in the former way which is not necessary in the latter And this latter is it with which we have to debate upon in
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
our infallible and certain guidance from them But ecce iterum Crispinus some of you will hove no words at all necessary to the administration of Baptism some will have such kinds of words and others words very different from them in substance He makes our differences not onely by occasion but for ought I see by fiction also for I know none that would have no words or different in substance or if they would let them answer for themselves The essentiall form of words as to Baptism is as plainly set down as can be by words in Scripture in the 28 of St. Mat. 19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And if any differ from this form then my Adversaries argument was nought whereby he would prove things not to be plainly set down because there were differences about them for what can be more plainly set down than the form of Baptisme and yet he talks of differences thereabout In the third and fourth Paragr he prosecutes the same impertinencies to the question in hand And untill he proves all the points he doth instance in to be such as are necessary to salvation in the same punctualities I have nothing to do but to deny them to be such as without which in formalitatibus there is no salvation Vbi eadem ratio eadem lex According to the proportion of their use is the proportion of their appointment in Scripture As for such things as are of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church It goes upon a false supposition that what is of strict necessity to certain men of certain states and degrees in the Church should be of strict necessity to salvation nothing is of strict necessity to salvation but that which is necessary to all unto salvation Now it is not necessary to all unto salvation to know what is of strict necessity to some certain men of certain states and degree And secondly little in reason can be said to be of strict necessity to some certain men of certain degrees and states in the Church first because many nations have diversified these usages and secondly because no generall Council have descended to the binding of all absolutely thereunto nay indeed not to the proposing of them And as for the forme of ordaining Bishops in words or actions the way in our Church is as full according to proportion in Scripture as any other and our Bishops have been also Canonically ordained by three Bishops notwithstanding the slanders against it and let them prove that what is in this case appointed in Councils is more necessary than what is done in our consecration or else they do nothing They must also know whether they can lawfully permit women to baptize at all or baptize in necessity only and not out of it Ans First it is plain in Scripture that no women did baptize Secondly that baptizing and teaching are committed to the same persons as before St. Mat. 28.19 20. Now women are forbidden to teach by St Paul therefore may they not baptize Thirdly how can mans authority allow that which God hath restrained so as to make it necessary to salvation that this allowance should be made and also that all should know it And fourthly it is yet to be proved whether there be such absolute necessity of baptism as to dispense herein in case of necessity since St. Thomas was of opinion as was urged in the Trent Council that before Christ children were saved by the faith of the Parents and without the Sacrament as it must be there meant p. 239. of the History I know some speak favorably in this point not allowing it should so be done but as not annulling it when done but my Adversary should first have made the Substratum sound and good namely the absolute necessity to salvation For if we should be ruled by St. Austin in this matter then we should be ruled by him in all points which they themselves will not stand to for they withstand him in more particulars than we as hath been noted by Mr. Chillingworth And besides his authority we might confront with Tertullian's And whether they may permit women or Lay-men to blesse the bread and distribute the Sacrament seeing that Christ said do this all not plainly expressing how far these his words extended themselves Surely my Adversary intended me rather good measure than good weight in such argumentations St. Paul doth one would think determine this question if any in the first Ep. to the Cor. 4.1 Where he saies of Ministers in general that they are the Dispensers of the Mysteries of God And then is this their blessing or distributing if it might be allowed necessary to salvation And for his argument it is improperly produced for it is spoken to them not as Officers of the Church in administring but as members of the Church in receiving and this might he have taken notice of if he would have quoted the text intirely for it is said Do this in remembrance of me St. Luke 22.19 This belongs to every one in the act of participation And then again as he leaves out fomething not for him so he adds somewhat which should be for him for he reads it do this all whereas all is not in the Evangelists nor in the first Ep. to the Cor. 11. Again if it be uncertain whether our Savior meant this for women and Laiques do this all then since by these words they would urge Christs institution of the Sacrifice Laymen and women should have the highest or might have if the Church pleased the highest dignity in their account in the Church and that is conficere corpus Christi And then the story of Pope Joan should be accounted of by them as more tolerable If she might do the office of a Priest she might also do the office of a Pope Whether lawfull mission of Priests can be granted by Laymen or no. What And must all we upon necessity of salvation know infallibly this whether this Priest was sent by a Layman though a Layman hath not nor can have any authority to send and the Roman in this gives more liberty to Laymen than the Scripture or our Churches yet is it necessary for every one to salvation to know whether such an one which doth the offices of a Minister is legally sent or not Must every Layman examine his Commission And our Saviors institution herein is our rule who gave power to others by that authority which he had received from his Father as St. Mat. 28.18 Authoritate mihi commissa all authority is given me in Heaven and on earth goe ye therfore Now Laymen have no authority and therefore they cannot give any authority according to the rule also And what kind of ordination is necessary for their function and what commission is necessary for their lawfull missions and also what power to make that is to consecrate and administer Sacraments
these are plainly enough set down in Scripture if the Roman Church had not disturbed the clear waters for the chief Fisher and if not the Church by positive law cannot appoint that which is absolutely necessary to salvation All things that are of Divine right are not simply necessary to salvation to be sure then what is not of Divine but positive right as the Romans have also distinguished is not simply necessary And therefore whereas he says there are endles Controversies about them I am of his opinion in my sense of the words for they are to no end amongst those who have a sober mind to be directed in them by Scripture at least they are to no end as in order to our dispute because they come not within compasse of absolute necessity to salvation It may be necessary to know how these are to be ordered that they may be ordered rightly but this is not absolutely necessary to salvation yea again if these things were left to the Church we must take the order before the Councils otherwise the Church before the time of Councils had wanted that which was necessary and therefore indeed are they not necessary or else God had been wanting to them in necessaries A third sort of things necessary not plainly set down as he thinks we have in his fourth number Num 4. All being obliged to serve God in a true Church c. This is ambiguously delivered either as in sensu composito being in a true Church they are obliged to serve God in it or are bound to finde out the true Church and then to serve God in it Now though both belong to our duty yet both are not equally necessary because it is possible in that which is not a true Church if so many things be necessary to a true Church as they would have salvation may be had by simple ignorance and gerall repentance And I hope some were saved before a Church with all the integrants of a true Church was framed But in a true Church no man can be saved without serving of God The Church of the Donatists was not accounted by St. Austin nor my Adversary a true Church yet St. Austin did not deny but some might be saved in it Now this is understood by my Adversary in the latter way namely that every one is bound to finde out the true Church and to serve God in it for so it followeth Having a lawfull succession of true Pastors truely ordained themselves and truely ordaining the Priests who must be known to administer true Sacraments in their true matter and forme Preaching also the word of God by lawfull mission Ans Now me thinks the Romans with their mountains should have relation to Montanus who fansied that the Paraclet did by priviledge come into him to make up what was wanting to salvation by inspiration For we must have infallible notes of a Church which the word of God in Scripture hath not appointed to us And we must have things necessary to salvation which the Scripture hath not made necessary yet they must be necessary to salvation for their use Certainly as he gives well the cognisance of a good man so may we also make use of it for a good Christian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we ought not to judge honest men by their performances but by their purpose so we ought to esteem good Christians not by their happinesse to finde but by their purpose to finde out the true Church which cannot reasonably be done by a lawfull sucession First because this is accidentall not as to salvation onely but as to a true Church and therefore can be no certain and universall rule for how came the first Church which was originall to the Descendants to be a true Church yea secondly how will the true Church be a true Church according to their principles in the time of Antichrist when there is not like to be according to their profession almost any face of a Church How shall it then be discerned by a lawfull succession of Pastors Thirdly this cannot be characteristicall of the Roman Church which they would have to be the onely true Church because the Greek Church may challenge this priviledge also Yea fourthly it is possible that a false Church may so fairly plead a lawfull succession as the Church of the Donatists who had also Bishops as to those who should come a long while after them that it could not be easily discerned by common people and therefore this is not the way so plain and direct as that fools cannot err Yea fifthly we are not to discern true Doctrine by the persons but the persons by the Doctrine according to Tertullian as before and therefore if true Doctrine be not proved by succession as it cannot be because then it should be measured by the person we cannot conclude a true Church by the succession since all sober men will rather argue thus that is a true Church which professeth true Doctrine than that Church professeth true Doctrine because it hath a true succession of Pastors Yea sixthly did my Adversary mean what he said of a particular Church or of the universall Church Not of a particular Church sure for that cannot be the way and Judge of all Christians as he intended But then of the universall Catholick Church Well then he must mean that that is the true Catholick Church which hath a lawfull succession of Pastors namely of Bishops of Rome who is by them called signantly the Pastor of the Church This must be his meaning in reason because the lawfull succession of Pastors in particular Churches is by my Adversary necessary for themselves but not for the Catholick Church which can consist without those parts which are not true and therefore no parts And this is like to be his meaning by his opinion So then the Roman Church he would have here by the premisses to be the true Church as being supposed to have a lawfull succession of Pastors namely Bishops of Rome But how shall we give up our selves in absolute obedience to the guidance of the Roman Church if this were an infallible and constitutive mark of the true Church that it hath a lawfull succession of Pastors For no man can have so much as a morall certitude that there hath been in Rome from St. Peter an interrupted lawfull succession of Pastors much lesse can he have a Divine perswasion thereof For first it can never be proved by Scripture that St. Peter was at Rome I do not deny it that he was ever there but it is no object of faith And the Romanists are shrewdly put to it for a proof when to prove it they would interpret Babylon from which St. Peter writes to be Rome But then Secondly St. Peter should rather have derived the Priviledge of universall jurisdiction and infallible direction to Antioch as is abserved where he sate first seven years as Caranza sets it down and where Christians had their name
Thirdly it is a great question upon the supposition who succeeded St. Peter in the sea of Rome and Carranza cannot determine it Fourthly St. Peter was appointed rather for the Jews than for the Gentiles and therefore the Trent Council in their comminations do very well to put St. Paul with St. Peter for indeed St Paul was the Doctor of the Gentiles Yea fifthly for six hundred years together there was no Pastors at Rome in their sense not Pastor of the universall Church as appears by Gregory's protestation against John of Constantinople who would arrogate and usurp universall jurisdiction And therefore there was not alwyes in the Church in my Adversaries sense a lawfull succession of Pastors because there was not Pastors in his sense and so by his argument there should not have been a Catholick Church for that time Yea Sixthly and lastly how can we be ascertained by certitude of faith that there was ever a lawfull succession of Bishops in Rome because we are not certain in that kind of certainty to be sure nor indeed in any other that the Popes were true Bishops or true Priests or true Christians because their principles bring it into question by the uncertainty of the qualifications of those who were to make them Christians by Baptism or Priests by orders or Bishops by consecration And also secondly because some as it is known by History have got into the sea by Simonie which makes it disputable even amongst themselves whether it did not ex vi Criminis make them no Bishops And the thirtieth Canon of the Apostles which they acknowledge as binding too injoins that such as get their dignity by money should be put out Yea thirdly when there were Antipapes how could the Common people by assurance of faith know which was the right For though they say that he is to be accounted the right whom the Council doth accept yet is it a question whether they can infallibly judge in the case otherwise no certainty of faith And then there is not always a Council and how can the Council be called without a true Pope If they may then is not the Pope essentiall to the infallibility of the Church This is answer enough to what he says about his lawfull succession of true Pastors that which appends hereunto is collaterally answered here more particularly before He goes on It is necessary to the salvation of every man to believe and do some things and not to do some other things not plainly set down in Scripture Ans Not so necessary as it is not to beg the question so often This proposition doth indeed plainly contradict our proposition but doth not prove it to be false unlesse it by it self did evidently appear to be true Therefore it is enough for me to deny it being the Respondent But we see by the way that those who make the Church its infallibility their first principle are apt to make all it says to be as clear as the first principles of Sciences He that believes and does according to Scripture is surer of salvation than all the Church can make him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Ignatius's phrase is He that goes by the rule is safe he that goes by Scripture in faith and obedience goes by the rule Therefore Now God hath proposed the Scripture as our rule by Bellarmin's confession in the beginning of his Controversies as before And if it be not a compleat rule then indeed is it not a rule for it comes short of a rule and this will not serve Bellarmin's use because then they whom he disputes against might have urged their revelations beside the rule though not against it as the Pontificians are pleased to distinguish And as for point of faith we have besides what testimonies out of the Fathers for this I have given before the plain authority of St. Cyrill of Jerusalem in his 4 Cat. p. 85. Edit Gr. Lat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concerning things Divine and the holy Mysteries of faith there ought not to be delivered any thing without the Divine Scriptures And therefore in another place he understands by traditions the sum of those things that were taken out of Scripture as in the 5. Cat. p. 117. And so Tertullian in his Praes cap. 13. His Regula fidei is a sum of main points of Doctrine taken out of Scripture And concerning this rule he sayes Adversus Regulam nihil scire omnia scire est And so Irenaeus also means tradition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in severall places Indeed Tertullian and Irenaeus and Cyprian and Basill and Austin are quoted by the Pontificians in the Trent Council for holding that the Christian faith is contained partly in the Scriptures and partly in traditions But for these Fathers if their consent did ground infallible assent are either mis-understood or else are contradictory to themselves and therefore we cannot rely upon them because one part of the contradiction must be false As for St. Austin I have formerly quoted him for holding that all things necessary to faith and manners are amongst those things which are plainly contained in Scripture And St. Basill I have produced too And as for Cyprian we will quote him for the other part namely of action though we might also name him for Scripture to be the rule in things of faith for he makes his proofs from Scripture In his second B. of Epistles third Epistle he hath these words Quare si solus Christus audiendus est non debemus attendere quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit Neque enim hominis Consuetudinem sequi oportet sed Dei veritatem Wherein he opposeth the truth of God to whatsoever custom And the truth of God he understands to be of the word written for there he proves all about the Cup in the Sacrament to be mingled with Wine and Water out of Scripture which proves however he took Scripture to be our rule in Agents Yea also this point was agitated by Marinarus in the Trent Council where he delivered his opinion P. 151. z. that the Fathers did not make Tradition to be equall to Scripture and therefore was he reprehended in the Council by Cardinall Poole for not allowing that Articles of faith are divided into two kinds some published by writing others commanded to be communicated by voice And can any sober man imagin that God should by his spirit give order for the writing of the Mystery of the Gospell and yet should also give order by his Spirit that somewhat should not be written but kept in Mystery for orall tradition and yet should be as much necessary as that which is written credat Judaeus Every one is to believe some things distinctly Now which these things be or how many Scriptures expresse not Ans Let this be taken for an antecedent will it be concluced from hence that therefore all things necessary are not plainly set
he imploys in repetitions and references to the fourth chap. His repetitions have been answered in the matter his References are referred to their place Num. 6. That which follows concerning texts which he thinks are for him that the very reading of them sheweth them to be no lesse plain and clear to this purpose than those places which you cry out to be evident for the proof of every point which is necessary to salvation me thinks doth somewhat enterfair upon what he had said before that we could not understand God's free will how to mean his own words without a revelation For now those texts which they fansie for them by the very reading of them shew themselves to be as clear as those which we cry out to be so evident we say so plain So then some degree of clearness there may be in words without a revelation of the sense since God hath no mentall reservation And if they grant some clearnesse as it is necessary they must for those texts which concern the Church then surely there may be more than they grant Secondly will they say that those texts they urge for the Church are as clear for the Roman Church in point of infallibility as this proposition is whosoever believes shall be saved Dare they say it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We can prove the contrary by their own argument that about which there is more difference is not so clear there is more difference about the texts for the Church therefore those not so clear Therefore also let them no more object our differences for our differences from them prove well that their way is not plain and their differences amongst themselves prove better that their way is not plain And our differences amongst our selves do prove onely that those points wherein we differ are not plain but do not prove that those points that are necessary are not plain because in them we do not or need not to differ Thirdly are those texts for them no more plain than our texts for things necessary to salvation If not then where is the ground of their infallibility For the texts are not clear for it are they If they be then our texts for necessaries to salvation are I hope as clear then what need of a Judge infallible And why then do they not as well believe the points necessary to salvation upon account of Scripture as they do the point of infallibility Well but our texts being not clear sufficiently of themselves the authority of the Church adds clearnesse doth it Yea but this is more improperly affirmed if they do say so than they think of for the judgement of the Church is more influxive into the clearnesse of it as to us than their authority They first see the sense of the texts before they do declare it by their authority For if this be the sense because they declare it so and they do not declare it to be the sense because they see it discussively to be the sense then God inspiring the Pen-men of Scripture intended but the words of Scripture and that the Church should give us the soul the sense the Kernell of Scripture And why then did the Trent Councill make Scriptures the chief rule as they say of their proceedings if they did not determine of points and actions by their discerning the mind of God in the Scripture as to those particulars So then also if their discerning of the sense of Scripture was substrated to their definitions then the Scripture is discernible in the sense to us also Fourthly if those texts he names be no clearer than those we say which are necessary to salvation then let them never endeavour by Scripture to perswade any to their Religion For if the texts be no clearer for the Church than points in Scripture are as to necessity of salvation then surely the Argument is equall on both sides and then there is by Scripture no necessity clear of an infallible Judge But he prefers his texts in clearnesse to ours in the following words And I am sure you can bring no such evident texts for all yea or for any of these points which I have already said in this ch not to be evidently set down in Scripture though they be of prime necessity as others also which I will by and by add The use of this to me is this to say that the same was said before yet also we can note that he should have preferred the clearnesse of those texts for the Church before the clearnesse of those points which we confesse to be necessary to salvation but he prefers it before those which we either deny or question to be necessary If any one should say this were a Sophisters trick I could not tell how to deny it And yet also further we say if those texts which are for the Church are so plain then a fortiori those texts which are for points necessary must be more plain and my reason is this because these are necessary for the being of a Member of the Church invisible those for the Church onely necessary for the being of a Member of the Church visible Now there is a greater necessity of the former than there is of the latter for as before it is possible to be saved without the finding of a regular visible Church but it is not possible for any to be saved who is not a Member of the invisible Yea again he doth not speak according to the mind of Mr. Knot in saying texts for the Church are so evident for one of the qualities of the object of faith should be Ch. 6. against Dr. Pots according to him that it is obscure that so it may be capable of the obedience of faith But to end this we onely note more the slavery of the Romanist in that he is bound to be so dis-ingenuous as to hold the texts of Scripture to be so clear only for the Church which they interpret the Roman But also herein they do not differ from all other sects which they so much upbraid that texts for them are clear if any other And we have the benefit of it whom he takes to be a Sect till he shews the Contrary But the Scripture doth far more clearly set down a Command to goe to the Church for our full instruction So St. Paul was taught all things necessary for his knowledge by those few words Acts the 9.6 Goe into the City and it shall be told thee what thou must doe Ans And have they no better Arguments St. Paul was commanded to go into the City and there it should be told him what he must do therefore we must go to the City of Rome and there we shall know all things necessary to salvation So then As the Cardinall Richlieu was flattered by a great servant of his that God needed not to have extended his Providence to the lower world but he might have left that to the Governance of the Cardinall so
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
say that we do not give so much scope to such poor creatures as ignorant men are They have but their rational liberty to find the way of Salvation in the Scripture unto which it was appointed in things doubtfull we say they should consult with learned men We do not invest them with so ample a faculty to interpret it without any interiour submission to the Church They take their own freedom and right to see reason why they should submit to the Church either as clearing the sense or proving its infallibility They are bound to see good reason why they differ from the Church but they are not simply bound to believe upon whatsoever reason the Church gives or none Neither doe we say that he may stand out in his judgement against the Interpretations of whole Generall Councils not stand out in an heady opposition but yet may say Salvo meliori judicio that he must see how what they define be correspondent to Scripture in points of belief Secondly how shall poor ignorant creatures know what severall Generall Councils have agreed in since some have differed from others as hath been seen They must know by infallibility that the Councils have defined this and then that they have defined it infallibly And so they put poor ignorant men upon greater difficulties And if it be said that the ignorant men should believe the Church that such a point is defined by the Councils it is answered no we are to believe according to my Adversary the Church onely as it is infallible and that is in Councils confirmed by the Pope Thirdly if the Church be the way for poor ignorant creatures because of the difficulty pretended of Scripture yet as to learned men it seems it is not necessary that it should be the way to them because to them being so learned the Scripture is not so difficult and therefore upon the matter we may conclude that it is more reasonable that ignorant men should goe the way which learned men should goe in than that learned men should go the way which fools and ignorant men go in So then that which my Adversary says after immediately needs not be traduced And yet this very self same man is wisely by you sent to the Minister Any Minister of the Gospell say you but I must not say any Generall Council is able competently through the Scripture to direct the people to their happinesse This and more of this kind he hath with some undue reflexion upon his Adversary with an Ironie but if all be weighed and the reflexion not weighed all will come to not much For first I never gave him occasion to think that I preferred the judgement of a single Minister before the judgement of a generall Council But that which I said if he would have taken notice of it doth infer a great deal of respect to the faculty of a generall Council For if I say that a single Minister may competently inform us of so much as is necessary then much more a generall Council And this is implyed in the words of him that doth give a due respect to Councils Secondly he might also have remembred that this use of a Minister of the Gospel was spoken upon occasion of the text or may be grounded thereupon that the Scriptures were able to make wise unto salvation therefore upon the place it is to be restrained to things necessary to salvation which doe not need so judicious a debate of a Generall Council because there is no such difficulty in the sense of them If I say that my Adversary could have told us that the authority of the Church is in the Pope and a Council do I prefer my Adversary before a Pope and a Council or a Council and a Pope for it is a mighty question which is superior since they have no mind to be ruled by the Council of Constance And if I say my Adversary could have satisfied such a scruple about the number of Orders do I say that my Adversary could have assoyled all doubts in Theology as well as a generall Council I did not speak of a Minister exclusively to a Council in their judgement and authority but exclusively rather to a Council in the necessity thereof And this sets the accent upon the Council ex abundanti Therefore he doth not drive the compare ad idem for I spoke of the ability of a Minister as to things necessary which are sufficiently plain of themselves he brings me in speaking of a Minister as to things of question which are not necessary and this therefore is not logically done for comparation must be in the same kind Now surely a Minister of the Gospel may as well inform us as to things necessary which are sufficiently plain as a Generall Council in things of Controversie which are not necessary to be believed on either part For suppose the judgement of the Church were not divided from the word of God but we take the word from the Church as Stapleton says in his Epistle dedicatory of his Doctrinall principles and yet herein he seems to beg the question whether the Scripture was intended onely to bear that sense which the Church gives of it yet as to things sufficiently plain there is no need of consulting the judgement of the Church because they are such then as they will say that the definitions of a Councill are so plain that any Priest of theirs may instruct the people in the rignt sense so the Scriptures are so plainly delivered as to things necessary that any Minister of the Gospell may make a man wise unto salvation by them And we may well say that the Scriptures were inspired for this purpose And therefore have I yielded him what he desired yet it being so ingenuous I shall also rehearse it Do but allow me this to the Church that it can competently through the Scripture direct the people to their happinesse and we will not contend with you whether this competent direction shall be called an infallible direction or not Ans I could be content to stand to such an issue and to compromise the dispute unto such terms For we can freely allow unto him all this even pendente lite And we have formerly allowed as much therefore have they either no mind to accept of our respect to the Church or my Adversary of his own accord is coming to move moderation that which he says here hath three importments first an authority and faculty of the Church which we have granted Secondly that this authority in the exercise of its faculty is directive through the Scriptures Thirdly that this direction to the people is competent to their happiness Only let it be provided that the Church its direction of the people by the Scriptures doth not derogate from the peoples use of the Scripture thus we can afford all this for this is no way contradictory to our proposition that the Scripture doth contain plainly all things necessary to salvation or
may be need of a Judge externall as to peace but for this there is no need of a Judge infallible If any thing would content them but a spirituall Monarchy this might yea neither it may be if such a Monarchy were necessary were this infallibility necessary because Ministeriall authority doth not essentially include such an infallibility But he goes on and useth an argument against me The word of God according to your own Doctrine was not sufficient to decide all necessary Controversies before the whole Canon of Scripture was compleatly finished but St. Paul said this of the word of God before the Canon of the Scripture was compleatly finished Therefore St. Paul said this of the word of God before the word of God was of it self alone sufficient to decide all Controversies Therefore then it had been false to say the word of God had been sufficient to this end Therefore St. Paul did not then say so Ans Besides what I said before concerning the use which I made of this text and to say nothing of what is here supposed that St. Paul was the Author of this Epistle to the Hebrews I answer to the major that that part of Scripture was then sufficient before the whole Canon was compleatly finished in our sense to decide all necessary Controversies as well as the old Testament was sufficient to make Timothy wise unto salvation and for those uses which are there spoken of in that text to Timothy therefore he mistakes us if he thinks we hold that that part which was then written was not sufficient And yet more might be added by God though not by man for the Canon then did not restrain God but man Therefore we answer also to the assumption that if he takes compleatly finished simply then indeed St. Paul said it before the Canon was compleatly finished but if he takes the words so as that part which was written was not sufficient in our sense we deny it For then God had not sufficiently provided for the Church of those times neither had the Scripture been able to make Timothy wise unto salvation So the terms in the former sense do not conclude in the latter they are concluding but not true So this specious argument is at an end without its end Onely we will now make use of the argument against him turning the mouth of the Canon as we may speak and it is thus St. Paul said this of the Scripture before the Canon was compleatly finished therefore now much rather after it is thus compleatly finished is it sufficient Or more fully thus The word of God according to his Doctrine is not sufficient after the Canon is compleatly finished St. Paul said this of the word of God before the Canon was compleatly finished therefore his Doctrine is contradictory to St. Pauls ex abundanti for St. Paul says the word was sufficient before the Canon was compleated and he says it is not sufficient after it is compleated Again those words speak not of the word of God blunted with those interpretations which your opinion licenseth Ans This is a plain cavill or a slander we license not any blunting of the edge of Scripture by any mis-interpretations We do not deny the use of Scripture as the Romanists do to the people Neither is it fit for them to complain of blunting the edge who take away the Sword of the Spirit We onely allow the people to be perswaded in their own mind concerning the sense of Scripture and if the Pontifician authority or arguments be able ex vi fua to perswade them that what sense they give is authentick let them be perswaded But it is very usuall for them to quarrell first who are most guilty that so they may least be discovered But who blunt Scripture so much as they who say the Scripture is like a nose of wax which may be turned any way Let him that is without sin in this kind cast the first stone at us How they have adulterated Scripture is known to all the world But of the word of God applied according to the Divinely-spirited interpretation of the Church in whose hands hands guided by the Holy Ghost this word of God is managed for the decision of Controversies that it is sharper than any two edged Sword Ans How often must we be forced to tell them that we exclude not the use of the Church in a due Representative towards composing of differences and also that the Church is not now infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost And therefore that their decision is not the last resolutive of faith and that there is no need of any such infallible Judge for necessary Controversies since there is no necessity of Controversies about things necessary And also that if there were such a Judge infallible we must know it and who it is infallibly And also then hereby are excluded the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of traditions for if the Scripture interpreted by the Church be to decide all Controversies then what need to have recourse to the word not written as to that which equally binds in things of faith And so then they destroy themselves And therefore whereas they say frequently that Scripture alone doth not decide all necessary Controversies we can easily distinguish that alone hath respect either to the Church or to traditions as it opposeth traditions so alone and it doth exclude them and as it doth respect the Church so though it doth not exclude the use of a Judge yet it doth exclude the necessity of a Judge infalble His other lines unto the eleventh num might have been spared Si non verum prius nec posterius And they have also been answered And here wisely he joins to the examination of my former texts Num. 11. another text which I produce against him in answer to the fourteenth number that he might handsomely decline an answer to that which if he would have dealt punctually I should have been answered in its place but we follow him at the running leap The text is that of Christ Search the Scriptures St. John 5.39 His exception is this To prove this to be understood in the Imperative mood evidently is impossible therefore evidently they do not contain a Command This is the sum of that discourse Ans First evident proof they had not best urge for then what will become of all their faith and all their discourse which doth not amount to so much as probability Secondly if it be more probable to be understood in the Imperative it is sufficient to weaken their cause since I am to be considered as proposing the text by way of a respondent not as an opponent Therefore if I name a text which is but probable against them it is enough for me against them specially in the cause of infallibility for a probable contradiction undoes infallibility Thirdly it is in the Syriack in the Imperative mood and this interpretation if any other should weigh with us
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 none but this from the infallible Authority of Scripture hath no colour or shadow of Scripture or any thing like Scripture You must therefore ground your faith not upon Scripture but upon Reason Now the reason upon which you reject the Scripture is because you have a necessity of an external infallible Judge ever since the whole Canon was finished And for this onely reason without any Text you put the Scriptures sufficiency to expire and give up the ghost even after the finishing of the Canon Now if the reason for which you discard the Scriptures sufficiency be this because all points are not sufficiently cleared by Scripture then there can be no other prudent reason for which you in this one point may suppose the Scripture to be sufficient than this that that one point namely that we are to repair to the Church for all things necessary to salvation cannot be infallibly ascertain'd by the Church And therfore there is a greater necessity to have recourse to the sufficiency of Scripture undoubtedly infallible in all points which doth not causally bring forth their opinion of the Church Let me put them to it Doth the Scripture bring forth their opinion of the Church or doth it not If it doth not what hold have they for the Church And why do they make use of the Scripture to give Letters of Credence to the Church If it doth then there is an end of this Controversie Now the two inferences he would have me mark as clearly deduced from my principles are grounded but upon a supposition and therefore not to be marked but returned upon his concession First That all points necessary are plainly set down in Scripture for no point more necessary than this without which there is no coming to the belief of any thing in the Church and yet this point is not plainly set down in Scripture nor that the Church is infallible obscurely Yea whereas he saies the Scripture sends us to the Church the Universal Church doth send us to the infallible Scripture for our necessary direction And this would give them satisfaction if it could serve their turn Moreover the second thing which he would have me mark halts upon the same unequal ground of supposing me to affirm what was but supposed Yet also we can send it home again and I can say that their former concession spoken of before doth overthrow that principle which is the ground-work of their faith For if there be a greater necessity to acknowledge the direction of Scripture in things necessary for as much as concerns this one point of the Church because this one point in particular is less clear of it self that grand principle of theirs which is or must be their principle evidently appeareth false namely that the Testimony of the Church is evidently seen by its own light which must be or else they are all undone And again how is it possible that there should be a greater necessity on the one side to have recourse to the Scripture for the infallible direction of the Church because it cannot be proved infallible by it self and yet on the other side this point of all other points hath this particular priviledge to be so manifest that it beareth witness of it self that it carrieth its own light with it So they may see what they get by taking a supposition for an Affirmation Tacitus's rule is good let nothing be thought prosperous which is not ingenuous Some other lines he hath in this Section to tell me what he hath done before and I have undone But as to a passage which I used out of Bellarmine to confirm a Dilemma which he tells me here that he hath broken before lest the contrary should have been better discerned upon the place he referred me to Bellarmin l. 1. c. 1. In fine as much as I can reade the hand I made use of Bellarmin against new Revelations beside Scripture and therefore we cannot believe the Church for it self because we cannot believe it but by a Revelation and no Revelation beside Scripture as he disputes against the Anabaptists For my answer he puts me off to the former place I think in the end And there is little to the business He saies indeed in the end That we do receive the Prophetical and Apostolical Books according to the minde of the Catholick Church as of old it is laid out in the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent to be the Word of God Et certam ac stabilem regulam fidei and the certain and stable rule of faith Now I hope these latter words are for us For if these words be taken in their just and full sense then the cause is ours If the Scripture be the certain and stable rule of faith then it must be clear otherwise how is it a certain rule and therefore no need of an infallible Judge And it must be sufficient alwaies otherwise how is it a stable rule and so it excludes Traditions But sure that is not the Chapter because my Adversary saies in that place where he speaketh of the Maccabees in particular which he doth not speak of in the first That Chapter where he particularly speaks of the Maccabees is the fifteenth but there is nothing to the purpose neither Thus he puts me to the hunt lest he should be at a loss Well but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is surely in the tenth Chapter where at the end he answers as my Adversary doth to S. Ieroms Authority against the Booke of Maccabees But this is besides the Butt For that which I looked for to be answered out of Bellarmin was the other point of no revelation beside Scripture It is true that I did in the same place name Bellarmine as relating S. Ieroms differing from my Adversarie about the Book of the Maccabees But why should I expect an answer to Bellarmine in this testimony when he produceth it onely that he might refute it that which I should have had satisfaction in out of Bellarmine was spoken by him out of his own judgement But again why did not my Adversary save me the labour of looking up and down for the passage by giving me the entire words of the Cardinal there I might have thought my Adversary would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he proves rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For he thought it was not requisite that I should finde the place because there are some adjacent words which I can improve He saies Ierome was of that opinion quia nondum Generale Concilium de his libris aliquid statuerat excepto Libro Judith quem etiam Hieronymus postea recepit Mark the words Because the General Council had not yet determined any thing of those Books except the Book of Iudith which also afterwards S. Ierome received So then it seems a General Council had before taken these Books into consideration namely that of Toby and Iudith and of the Maccabees and determined nothing but
not calling him so had contradicted him But then the supposed differences are about Circumstances by his own confession What is this to matter of faith in necessary doctrine which is the center point of the question unto which all the lines should be referred and therfore he had done nothing if he had done more in this kinde And I thinke we are as sure of the right in such varieties as they And also he might have remembred that rule of Saint Cyrill of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let things of curiositie not be spoken of in the Church But the sense of them is that we must be Papists or no Christians But if they were Turks we might say more And where nothing is necessarie any thing is abundant He comes next to my last shift as he calleth it that the people doe fix their faith upon that which is interpreted not upon the interpretation To this he objects thus you may fix your faith upon a lie for how know you whether the thing delivered you by the interpreter be Gods word or the interpreters own word specially when we know not who this interpreter was how skilful how faithful how true a copie he used Ans To the confirmation of what he here objects against were added distinct reasons or reasonable distinctions These he saies nothing to but what cavil he can make against the conclusion he is willing to without answer to my reasons 2. We believe that our people can better believe the word of God in a translation than their people without a translation for the people must believe their Church without the knowledge of any translation Let them make their faith good without a translation and we shall make our faith as good in a translation And I think our people may as well credit the Authority of our Church in a translation as their people may credit the Authority of their Church without a translation 3. By their own Argument they are more in the dark for if the perswasive of our faith be the certainty who this interpreter was how skilful how faithful how true a copy he used because they do not know who the interpreter of St. Matthews Gospel was into Greek how skilful how faithful how true a copy he used how can they believe it And therefore we return him his own words how know you that this translation doth not conveigh their own fansies in the place of Gods word Do they know it because their fansie of their Church tells them that this is Gods word Thus then they may have a double phantastical assurance and nothing else This they are forced to hold sufficient Yet how doth this agree with their own acknowledgements that the vulgar latin as to this is also a translation and yet as they must confess that it is so far a true translation as it doth agree with the original They cannot resolve their faith into the original never proposed to them Into the translation they say they do resolve it And this must be the written word What written word is that which is neither translation nor original For the Greek is neither their translation nor their original And yet surely the Greek is more like to be the original than the latin for if there was no Hebrew copie extant as they say then was the Latin a translation out of the Greek And if they say the Greek was not the original then the Latin is a translation without an original which is oppositum in apposito So then when all comes to all we are as well setled in the tenure of our assurance as to the Gospel of St. Matthew as they or more because we stand to that which they have but a translation of And they have but the Latin Church for their Latin we have the universal Church for the Greek But forsooth they believe their Church to be infallible we do not believe the Church to be infallible But what then if the authority of the Church were crescent according to the opinion of the recipient then the Scripture had not been the word of God unless men had thought so And then opinion would make faith because it would make infallibility As then they must say that their Church was assured by the Holy Ghost for so the termes of their Synod run Haec sacrosancta Oecumenica generalis Synodus in spiritu sancto legitime congregata that their Latin translation i◠if it be at all authentique so may we ultimately believe the Gospel of St. Matthew to be in the matter of it authentique For if there be not sufficient assistance of the spirit of God to Christians severally as to necessity of Salvation how did the Christians do before there was ever a general Council What is added hereabouts might have been spoken without Sarcasmes or might have been left out We can know which of those so many Greek Copies is the onely true one as well as they And a clown will be as able to understand which is the best English Translation as if there were such difference as well as with them he can understand which is a right General Council or which was in the right as to the varieties in the Latine Sixtus Quintus or Clement the eighth And though they cannot confer the Translation with the Original No more can the Roman People compare their Translation with the Originals and yet Bellarmine as before saies in some cases we must have recourse to the Originals But did not Xavier convert the Infidels yes they will say So then And did he not preach that which is in the Bible Yes they will say And did not they believe Yes they will say Now then how was this Faith wrought in them By the Spirit of God they will say or they must say For they could not compare that which was said by him with the Originals or with the Doctrine of the Church So then our people can believe without conferring a Translation with the Originals as well as theirs And they know who said Si fides in doctos selos caderet nihil esset pauperius Deo And again Surgunt indocti rapiunt coelum c. as the Father The very neck then of this point may be thus resolved In the order of credibles their first Proposition is The Church is infallible Our first Proposition is The Scripture is the Word of God Now their Proposition is grounded in Authority or else is believed by its own light Not by its own light for then the Scripture may be believed so which they deny Then it is grounded in Authority That either Humane or Divine Humane Authority cannot make Faith No Divine Authority but either that of Scripture or internal by the Holy Ghost Not by Scripture then that Proposition of theirs is not the first Then by the Holy Ghost and then by the same way we believe the Scripture to be the Word of God as they believe the Church to be infallible And
is under a command and express precept St. Matth. 22.37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind And this cannot be moulded into the notion of a counsel for thus Christ answers to the question in the ver before what is the great Commandement of the Law And also in the ver after he saies this is the first and great Commandement Now to do thus is most perfect charity and therefore what we can do is comprehended under all that is commanded yea if the law requires more then we can do according to ordinary measure of grace then we cannot do more than the law requires now this the law requires and not only semper but ad semper as to the internal duty of love And who is there in all the world that loves the Lord alwaies with all his heart with all his soul with all his mind And therfore Gods law is not to be cut short that it may be made even with our ability present Neither doth the text named by him out of St. Iohn prove obedience to the law possible to us in the way we may keep Gods commandements in generale though not all as we ought as we are said to keep the way though sometimes we transgresse We may keep the commandements as a man keeps a Castle against the enemies he keeps it till he be beat out of it he keeps it against forsaking it but he doth not keep it so as not to be overcome he keeps them as to the purpose of his mind he doth not keep them absolutly as to all acts negative in commands negative and positive acts in affirmative commands He keeps them not as keeping contradicts all offending for in many things we offend all as St. Iames speaks And therefore can we not fulfil the law because the same Apostle saies 2 ch 10. He that keeps the whole law and offend in one shall be guilty of all And therefore this argument is peccant in the ignorance of the Elench for we can say that we may keep the commandements yet not fulfil them according to the power we had in Adam and according to the measure of the obligation which is not adequated to our strength now but to Gods law as an express of his holiness and as commensurable to mans ability in state of Original righteousness Nay it is observable also that the word in St. Iames which is rendered shall offend is as diminutive a word in the kind as I think any other for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lest Hindan and the rest of that sort should think that venial sinnes do but cast a little dust upon a Christians life no defilement And therefore to conclude upon the whole matter if the Scripture needs an infallible interpreter to distinguish betwixt counsels and precepts both given in the mood of command this makes no difficulty until counsels find better proof If they will take our counsel let them keep their counsel to themselves This we may say as litle to as he saies in it of new discourse N. 56. He speaks here again of the losse of Divine books This we have spoken to before more then once upon his provocation And this pincheth them for why may not they then faile of some traditions and how then can we depend upon the Church when the Church should have kept them since the Church as the learned of them say is to depend upon them But own thing here he would urge that according to us we must pick out points necessary one out of one Book another out of another Ans Surely this is no strong plea for first ought not the word of God dwel plentifully in us as the Apostle speaks 2. Cannot any own easily discern historical books from doctrinal 3. Can they not take special notice of those heads of doctrine or practice unto which salvation is expressely annexed 4. This argument concludes more heavily against them for depending upon the Church Who can compare all their books from age to age for their doctrin who can compare who hath been most learned and most faithful to derive a successional summe of things to be believed and to be done nay who in the compare of Churches can preferre the best but by the best doctrin and yet according to them we must take the doctrine from the Churches who can measure the vast latitude of the universal Church by those rules of Vincentius is it not easier to receive necessaries from Scripture then to boult them out of so many volumes of ages And how should we be sure of keeping received traditions when some traditions which were received are not yet kept by the Roman Church 5. In Scripture though we pick for necessaries yet we have nothing false but we have false traditions have we not yea this is a false tradition that traditions are equal to Scripture Yea 6. If any books be lost they were lost before Christs time and yet those which remained in St. Pauls time were able to make Timothie wise unto salvation And towards the reading of the Apocryphal books that so we may reade over the whole Canon it is a supposition in stead of proofe The reading of them in the Church doth not inferre their canonicalness of proper name and this is made good to them they know lately by the Reverend and Learned Dr. Cosins in a book on purpose And as for accurate noting all places and conferring with other places What then multa non experimur quia difficilia multa difficilia quia non experimur Is not this possible is not Salvation worth the paines must every one amongst them know the distinct exact sense of all their definitions no they will say but the people should seek the law at the Priests mouths Well then so is it not necessary to Salvation that the people with us should be able exactly to conferre all places and as for those places which contain necessaries there is not such obscurity And yet surely some hardness according to their principles doth belong to faith for how otherwise should it be supernatural and meritorious therefore if their way of beliefe be so easie it doth not beare proportion to the qualities of faith assigned by Mr. Knott And as for Translations to agree with the Originals this we have canvased before And our people can do it as well as theirs better too because they have liberty of translations And to the truth of originals we must come in several causes as Bellarmin before Omne reducitur ad principiun is good here too And then the consectary of these difficulties he would make to be negative to us namely that God did not intend this book to be our only guide And he would perswade us thus Gods wisedome directs him to the best meanes to compass his intention And then he would frame a minor with advantage thus even our ordinary wisedome if we had an
it seems to stand his ground which Bellarmin and Peron and the Rhemists stand upon but also because the promise is made to the Catholique Church Thus then their Church is not the Catholique Church the promise is made to the Catholique Church therefore not to them The Roman Church may be a nest of errours idolatrous superstitious wickedly assuming the authority of an infallible Tribunal without sufficient authority though the Catholique Church be not such nor doth assume such authority as the errours of a particular Church are not charged duly upon the universal Church so the privileges of the universal Church are not infeoffed upon a particular Well but now we will do as he bids us and be patient till he shew in the next chapter how this concernes the Roman Church But shall I have my five answers answered then for he saies here that I begin to say nothing against him untill I begin to say sixthly So then I must be thought to say nothing against him because he hath nothing to say to what I said in those five answers The sixth answer then he takes notice of and it came in thus he had asserted the Church secure from all damnative errour I took upon advantage this as taking those words distinctively that though it was not free from all errour yet from errour damnative And I gave him good reason why he should take those words so because otherwise they are not like to be the Church unto which that priviledge is granted Upon this I argued against their infallibility according to the opinion also of Mr. Knot Therefore he now waves this debate and saies he argued ad hominem but we will hunt him out of this refuge too They cannot argue thus out of our principles because we say this of the universal Church not of a particular Church No Church of one denomination is secure from damnative errour therefore cannot they ultimately improve what we grant to the universal Church for their use But 2. He could not yet from hence conclude that no body shall be damned for following the guidance of the Church For not to say again that this is not appliable to the Roman Church which is not the Catholique Church yet may we not follow the universal Church absolutely because it is not in all points infallible For so consequently we might be bound to follow errour Yea 3. Since according to our principles it is not exempted from all errour according to Mr. Knot 's principles it cannot be our guide Yea 4. To Follow the Church in an errour may be damnative though the errour may not be damnative because another not knowing it to be an error may hold it without damnation but if I knew it to be an error yet follow it I incurre damnation because I resist a known truth And 5. Since the universal Church cannot shew its charter of being exempted from all errour it is not necessary for her alwaies to have such a visible existence as is necessary to afford a guidance So then whereas he askes me by what Logique do you inferre that because the Church is secured from all damnative errour therefore according to my doctrine she is not secured from other errours I answer it is very true simpliciter loquendo that the affirmation of one species doth not allwaies include a negation of the other namely when that which is affirmed is not a constitutive difference thereof But considering his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and giving him good reason why he should mean them so I could not be blamed for guessing that he meant them so Yea the words which he hath used in this chapter for expressing the priviledge of the Church are yet so put togeher that they may seem suspiciously to bear such a construction Neither does he here positively deny as would become his confidence this distinction To put it then to an issue I shall put them to their choice how those words shall be understood whether distinctively or by way of epithet If distinctively then my consequences stand good upon that ground If not then have they such a task upon them which all the Roman wit and industry will never throughly performe for first then must they say that either all errour is damnative which indeed should have been proved upon former urging as much reason for all sins to be mortal as all errours to be damnative and more too since sin hath the guilt of the will simple errour hath not or else there may be errours not damnative which makes for us against the necessity of an infallible judge as to all points or that the Church cannot erre at all And then here will be a double labour to prove and indeed a double errour to say First that it hath not erred 2. that it cannot erre If the latter then to be sure the former indeed but if the fonmer then not presently the latter Yea if they will then stand to it that the Church is secure from all errour whatsoever then their Church is not the Church And the consequence is good and strong for that Church can erre because it hath erred in the Latin Bible in the supernumerary Canon of Scripture in the point of Transubstantiation in Communion under one kind In their Counsails as hath been shewed already and in the point of merit Ex condigno if the 30. Canon of the 6. Sess of the Trent Council be compared with Rom. 8.18 The Canon of the Council speaks an Anathema to him that shall say that the good works of a justified man do not vere mareri truly merit increase of grace consecution of eternal life if they shall die in grace and also increase of glory The Canon of the Scripture saith I account that the sufferings of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glory wich shall be revealed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not weigh with Now whether Scripture be our rule of faith or not this must be an errour since they acknowledge the Scripture to be true and infallible For whatsoever is contradictory to truth is false this is contradictory to Scripture which is true In this they have erred from the Latin Fathers in the sence of the word from the Greek Fathers in the matter and from the Scripture which is our rule and was the rule of the Church until a Church rose up which would not be ruled And let them take notice too that sufferings are the best part of our obedience and if they are not worthy how should good actions merit More errours of their Church might be named but one errour with them is enough to contradict infallibility and to discharge us of following their Church He saies then I quarrel with one of the Cardinal vertues even Prudence herself Ans I think I may quarrel with one of the Cardinal vertues Prudence is one of the Cardinal vertues in Morality and one of the Cardinal vertues in Divinity Prudence is the politique
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.
of a Supreme Prelat or of a Council And that particular Prelats are here meant we need not prove to the Pontificians who take too much notice that there Epistles were written but upon particular occasions and for particular times And therefore this being written to the Hebrews should not by that account concern us Yea if it were written with an intention for Prelats in a Council it must be written for them per saltum not for the present times but for above 300. years after 2. This relates to those who did watch for their Souls which being put per se is to be understood of those that teach the Word and so it corresponds to the 7. ver where those that are set over them are specified by teaching the Word The obedience then there injoyned respects those as teaching the the Word not formally as exercising authority of Jurisdiction And therefore that Text is not here well applied Thus far the power of the Supreme Prelat is extended by the consent of the whole Church Ans We see then their own differences to be such as that they may be ashamed to upbraid us with our differences and we not ashamed to be upbraided Can my Adversaries exactly point out the maximum quod sic of the power of the Supreme Prelat of the universal Church Must he that is by them acknowledged to be the Pillar of the Church have his Pillars set him beyond which he must not budge Tell it not to the Canonists and the Courtiers of Rome As Cyril of Jerusalem notes that the Sea where it stints in the flote makes in a similitude a Line which God hath set it that it should not pass So have my Adversaries set a Line to the Roman Sea hitherto it may go by the consent of the whole Church So then the members may appoint the Head what operations and how far it shall perform and the Head shall not be onely influxive upon them but they rather upon it This opinion will make Popes shie of Councils if he hath his power extended by their consent For they do not mean the consent of the whole Church to be of the confusaneous multitude do they if they do then the Church in this sense shall be the first subject of Ecclesiastical power Yea If they also mean it of the Church in a Council how is the Pope successor of St. Peter when the Pope must be limited by the Church St. Peter as they say was Prince of the Apostles immediately from Christ And surely according to this reckning Bellarmins distinction will come to naught who saies the power of Kings is not by divine right but by the consent of the people but the Popes power is for it comes not from the Church but Christ as in his 3. b. de verb. Dei cap. 9. And then he is not the Rock and foundation of the Church but the Church of him and so the spiritual Monarchy must be slighted How far is this from that Italian who presented a book to Paulus the fifth with this inscription PaULo V to Vice Deo out of which one picked the number of the beast 666. But therefore my Adversary goes at the Spanish rate very suspensively in omnem eventum as being disposed to a pause betwixt the affirmative and the negative and he saith Now though the Supreme Head of the Church be as infallible as St. Peter was and so on in a long speech Well but doth this affirm or is it a meer supposition which doth ponere nihil He hath carried the Pope up to the clouds and there he staies but let them come out of the clouds and tell us plainly whether we must take a cloud for Iuno Such irresolution doth not become infallibility He seems to make him as infallible as St. Peter because he should be Supreme Head of the Church and yet St. Peter was not Supreme Head of the Church if the rest of the Apostles be included in the term Church as members and yet he must not be as infallible as St. Peter because cases of difficulty must be referred to the Council It follows yet if he seeth this newly vented doctrine fit to be declared heresie if it be so or to be imbraced if it be fitting and proposed to all Christendome then is the true time of calling a General Council and not to let the people contend by allegations of Scripture We are now step by step soberly mounted to the Soveraign Authority of the Church in a Representative Ans 1. What needs all this trouble if he be as infallible as St. Peter and why do they say that St. Paul went to St. Peter to confirm his Doctrine by St. Peters Authority should there not have been a Council called then as well According to them St. Peters infallibility confirmed St. Pauls Doctrine the Pope according to them is Successour of St. Peter in his infallibility to all effects and purposes as Ruler of the Church therefore he may do it and frustra fit per plures also 2. Note we here that it is to be the true time of calling a Council upon debate of a point heretical which respects Articles of Faith but we have been often told by our Adversaries that we are to have an infallible Judge to decide all controversies emergent Now if there be not a Council to be called but for decision of Articles of Faith as to their's we have lesse need since he that is an Heretique is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks And therefore he needed not to foreclude the peoples contending in allegations of Scriptures for surely Scripture may be alleaged without contention and if it happens sapiens non curat de accidentalibus And so also the Council may contend in allegation of Scripture and therefore they should not alleage Scripture Yea also we may soberly contend that in articles of Faith there needs not be any other contention since they are more plainly delivered in Scripture than that we must stay for a General Council to be established in the belief of them Blessed be God we are better provided for in articles of Faith than to stand in such necessity of a General Council which when such will be and how we shall know it is such according to them we must know by another General Council and that by another and so in infinitum since we know nothing infallibly but by the infallible authority of the Church and that in a General Council We will then take that for our Law whereby the Council must Judge since the matters are plain which are great and about other things small the Judges will not meet Lex non curat de minimis Let Hiero conclude for himself from hence forward whatsoever Archimedes saith it must be believed But it seems it is a book case and example we have hereof by the practice of the Apostles in the 15. of the Acts Though the Apostles were all infallible in their doctrine yet they could not
as the Hebrew doth and also the Greek and the Latin which two want not the Subjunctive Mood Ans But first he supposeth that which is in question that the Hebrew is to be understood as in the future Secondly other translations with him are fallible save only the Latin therefore the other conclude not Thirdly the translations may be understood in compliance with the Hebrew which is frequent also in the New Testament with the Greek and therefore if the Hebrew may be so construed so may the others by an Hebraism Therefore if our English translation were faulty herein yet must it be otherwise convinced of a fault in this Especially since Fourthly We give good reason why it should thus be construed namely by the Scope Intelligentia dicti sumitur ex scopo loquendi And therefore may we well with Iunius and Tremellius hold our English which in general whatsoever he saies of it from some of our own hath not so many faults in it as Isidor Clarius found in their Latin 8000. I asked him is this Text meant of the Priests of Rome He saies I told you it was not But why then should the other Text about the Scribes and Pharisees by proportion prove their infallibility and not this since we have here the Priest in a singularity if not signanter Well then by his own consent this Text is not sufficient for him for it concerns private Priests and they are as fallible as translations Onely the private Priests may know the sense of the Church better then the sense of Scripture by the translations as he speaks in more words to no more purpose Ans First when we have the sense of the Church are we sure that that sense is true though it be the true sense of the Church is the sense of the Church true this is yet in question There is no question but the sense of Scripture is true whether the sense of the Church is true is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Let the plain places of Scripture in things necessary be compared with the difficulties in the Interpretation of the Trental Definitions and then let them judge whether we had not better stand to Translations which are made by a Nation or approved or else to the opinion of private Priests for though her Doctrine be so carefully published amongst all intelligent men yet this is to be understood materially in the words not formally in the sense And so the Scripture is published amongst all intelligent men in the former way And if the people be not intelligent men too how shall they know whether the true sense of the Doctrine of the Church be communicated to them by learned men But the Priests of the old Law were to direct the people which were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures And the Priests of the new Law doubtless excel those of the old Law This in the substance of it we have had before and have taken away the grounds thereof And besides it is false that the people were not to be directed by their own reading the Scriptures What saith St. Luke of the Bereans If they examined by the Scriptures what Doctrine St. Paul taught were not they to be directed by their own readings of the Scripture And why did the Jews apply their children to the Law from five years of age And why did St. Paul take notice of Timothy to be trained up in the Scriptures from his childhood and why is the man said to be blessed who amongst other things meditates in the Law day and night Is this to be understood onely of the Priests 2. Therefore though they went to the Priests in doubtful cases yet not for ordinary knowledg in things necessary therefore this is not compared ad idem to our case Thirdly the Priests were bound to direct the people by the Law were they not To the Law and to the Testimonies And not by Tradition So are the Priests of the new Law as he calls them to direct the people by the Scripture not by Tradition or determinations of the Church unless according to Scripture Therefore his question of the case in a matter of doubt which he compares his proceeding in with the old way of the Jews Numb 6. comes not home to our business and therefore we may send it home again and yet not for fear of not being able to answer what he is not willing to urge that when in the upshot the question should be drawn up to the High Priest he who would not hear him was deservedly put to death Deut. 17. He leaves this for us to take down our selves he will not apply it and herein he does discreetly fearing it may be least it should be said that that which he would seem to have referred to the High Priest for final judgment should indeed be referred to the Judge contradistinctly spoken of and by the Syriack disjunctively to the Priests and Levits And 2. I hope the High Priest at Rome doth not undertake a sentence in causes of blood And thirdly in that case there was contempt thou shalt take away the evil it is not said errour and analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori analogato and also ver 12. this is intimated that man that will do presumptuously Fourthly Suppose it had been referred to the High Priest for sentence final this might be extraordinary in a Typical respect to Christ And they know the rule Extraordinaria non trahuntur in regulam We cannot make a rule of extraordinaries And yet also was not the High Priest quatenus talis Infallible as appears in the condemnation of Christ as I told them Now he would distinguish by saying The Jewish Church erred not The true High Priest without whom there is no true representative Church erred not Cajaphas was not the true High Priest the other true High Priest was Christ Prety sport So the Roman Church never erreth because Christ is the true Head but then the Pope should not be true High Priest nor true Head for so Caiaphas and he must be compared in relation to Christ May we not almost think that our Adversary is within a little put to his shifts For Christ was in being I hope and had declared himself the true Messias and yet he said the Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair then we are bound to do all whatsoever is said to us without a true High Priest 2. How many Popes were not true Popes and so not true High Priests and then when shall we be certain whether we have a true High Priest and consequently a true Church and consequently that it cannot erre For as absolute infallibility hath it self to particular Faith in any point according to Mr. Knot So absolute certainty of a true Pope hath it self to our knowledg whether it cannot erre Well but he hath told us that he is the true Pope whom the Church shall accept So before but then Caiaphas was the
true High Priest because he was accepted by the Jews 2. Without a true Pope the Church might erre and so erre in the choice of a true Pope and then we are never a whit the nearer And then Thirdly Christ was not the true High Priest because he was not accepted by the Jews but condemned And then again as well the Council might be infallible without a true High Priest as a General Council since without any Pope or Head thereof but the four General Councils they will say are infallible and yet we say there was no Pope then in their sense Therefore the Council of Arimnium which he speaks of here was not fallible upon that account namely because it was not confirmed by the Pope for the other Councils were not confirmed by a Pope neither there being then none And if the Council of Ariminum did themselves chuse a Pope then he was accepted by them and so he was the true Pope as before He saies then This true High Priest namely Christ erred not the true Head of the Church not erring the Church cannot be said to erre iterum Crispinus This is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Was Christ an external Head in the policy of the Church If so my Adversary and the Disciplinarians might joyn Principles for their Government And upon this account the Pope should not be stiled onely the Vicar of Christ and Successor of St. Peter but also the Successor of Christ the Sea being void by Christs promotion 2. If Christ be the true Head of the Church then the Pope is the false Head unless the Pope and Christ be all one or let them distinguish that Christ is a true Head in one sense namely the vital and spiritual Head the Pope onely the Ministerial Head and if they thus distinguish then though the vital Head doth not erre the Ministerial Head may erre Thirdly Christ as the true Head of his Church hath relation to the Church invisible but we have now to do with the Church as visible and upon this consideration the promises which are made in Christ and by Christ to the Church as St. Math. 16. and elsewhere should not be made to the Church virtual or to the Church Representative but invisible unto which properly he hath relation as Head And thus we acknowledg the promises made to the Church against errour are true namely against errour damnative Fourthly If they closely intend this which is said in service to the Roman Church so farre that it cannot erre because Christ is the Head then what Christ doth the Pope must do and what the Pope doth Christ must do but surely Christ did whip the buyers and sellers out of the Temple so doth not the Pope do and Christ instituted his Supper in both kinds so doth not the Pope and then if what the Pope does the same Christ should be said to do Christ should contradict himself for by himself he instituted it in both kindes by the Pope in one and also Christ in Pope Liberius did subscribe against his own divinity Lastly there might have been another true Head Ministerial in the Church without prejudice to the former might there not If not farewell Pope and Monarchy If so then his answer is none that Christ was then the true Head of the Church for so neither Caiaphas nor any other should have been High Priest That of St. Athanasius was touched even now and it is good still if Councils be infallible since the reason why that of Ariminum should not be good is not good and therefore that might be as infallible with eight hundred Bishops as the Council of Nice with fewer since also according to my Adversary Christ is the true Head of his Church and therefore no matter whether there was any Ministerial Head or not to confirm it And as for exceptions against our English Translation again from some of our own we need say no more for we did not hold the Translation infallible As he said of a Christian that he is mundu◠mundandus cleare and yet to be cleansed so may it be said of the Translation it was good and yet might be mended and hath since since their exceptions But 2. If they will argue from imperfection in one place to a corruption in the whole it is a fallacy a dicto secundum quid but simply it will redound if they might so argue to the undoing of the infallibility of the Latin and purity too And then if he takes aim against our English by the Interpretation of that of Malachi or the Translation rather they bespeak a falsity in the charge for there was good reason by the connexion for that Reddition Here we have little but a rhapsody of repetitions of former grounds which being showed to be rotten he can solidly build nothing His first and principal ground here is that the Church cannot erre and this yet is the main question And therefore his compare betwixt the Priests declaring the Law of the Church and our Ministers declaring the Law of Scriptures by the Originals is not well grounded First Because that ground is not made good Secondly because we do not urge infallibility by the Ministers as they must And thirdly because though their Priests should infallibly conveigh the Doctrine of the Church yet the Doctrine of the Church may be fallible so is not Scripture in the Original And what he saith concerning most corrupted Translations hath been formerly answered in compare with their Latin which they pretend infallible and is not and therefore their Church is not infallible but we pretend not translations infallible though better then theirs is now That we are not assured of true Scripture and if so yet not of the true sense hath been answered as to things necessary and more assured then they by their Church That many necessary controversies are not conteined in Scripture hath been refelled and returned to them with use We have shewed that they have no reason to take away from the people the use of Scripture That Chaos of Corruptions in our English is more easily denied then proved and the recrimination to Latin is more easiely proved then denied And as for the taking of the law from the mouth of the Priest to be as secure as to take the Signification of a word in Scripture from the publique consent of all men they may know if they have no more for faith they have no faith Divine as the effect cannot exceed the cause so the assent cannot exceed the ground thereof Aqua tantum ascendit quantum descendit Their permission of Scripture is in that language which the people doth not understand and this is not then to permit them Scripture which is as he saies knowen to most and bred men in Learning And he hath no reason surely to speak of vulgar Translations for surely theirs is the vulgar Latin though Christned by the Trent Council and never a whit the better for that And I hope his
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
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
he had been condemned by himself because by the Church then had he been condemned by himself extrinsecally to himself or he and the Church must have been all one therefore whether he had the doctrine from the Church or immediately from any one of the Apostles yet was he condemned by that doctrin as being impressed upon his own Conscience So that I have as much as I can desire by this discourse namely that is possible for us to be Judged and condemned within our selves of Heresie without an externall Judge which then was not fully and exactly I am sure constituted according to the mind of our Adversaries although in purity of doctrine the Church was better then then ever she was since that time N. 19 In this he begins more solemnly to tell us what he means by the name of the Church and wherein consists the power of infallibility in a Decree or definition of the Church And first he tels us who are to be excluded from a decisive voice Children and women and laymen and inferiour Clergy thus he proceeds first by exclusions as they do in the choise of a Pope And then he goes on by way of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he makes the subject of the power of this Decree to be the prime pastours Praelats of the Church assembled together in a lawfull General Council with their Chief Pastour and Head the Bishop of Rome This the progress of this Paragraph Well but our question is of the praedicate whether the Church thus constituted is infallible in its Decrees and therefore since he here hath no argument he hath bound us not to have an answer And yet may we note that if he means the formation of a Church to be thus we can more clearely contradict him in what he said formerly that the Church was formed before St. Pauls conversion It was not so formed And yet 2. We may as well dispute here the subject of the question whether the Church thus formed is infallible in its decrees as he disputes the an sit of Scripture when we were upon the praedicate whether the Scripture be sufficient to Salvation And surely I may do this legally because I am a respondent and I may do it also more boldly because I know they cannot make good the praedicate that this Church is thus formed infallible in its Decres And as to his exclusions then we could confront him with the opinion of Alphonsus de Castro who would have had a chapter against him for his exclusions since he maks the acceptation of the diffused Church to be necessary to inerrability And as to the Chief Pastour and Head he speakes it cum privilegio surely as if not only what the Pope said was not to be questioned but also what is said of him They will never prove that there ever was to be any such Chief Pastour and Head of the Church universal dejure nor can they ever prove that there was de facto any one so called till Boniface the third who had the Title granted him by Phocas But non fuit sic ab initio And the rule is good Errores ad sua principia reducere est refellere And therefore either the Church was not allwaies infallible or was infallible without Councils because for above three hundred yeares was no General Council and therefore why doth he urge the necessity of Councils unto infallibility And when there was Councils afterwards till Trent Council inclusively either the Councils were fallible with a Pope or might be infallible without him because till Boniface the third there was no such Pope as Head or Head as Pope And therefore why do they urge the necessity of a Pope for their infallibility This he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in before and now should have been proved since he knew that this is not granted on both sides as the Scripture is to be the Word of God And he that is a seeker of his religion will never find the Pope to be in the Church as a King in his kingdome who is no part of the representative properly And if he would have the Pope no more than part of the Representative he should be no more Head of the Church than as a Speaker in an Assembly And how should he be then the Church virtual as the high Romanists doth speak of him And therefore the Pope in the time of the Trent Council would not suffer that title of the Council to proceed that it should be called the Representative because though he and his Courtiers esteemed him the Head of the Church and so should have been superiour to the body of the Church yet he conceived that they intended to take him in confusely in the Representative and so to exclude his Head-ship But secondly He then allows a man to be a seeker of his Religion then he doth allow him that liberty which he sometimes hath disputed against namely to exercise his judgement of discretion in matters of Religion for he would have him most prudently judge himself bound to to joyn her the Church in Faith being convinced that she directed most securely in Faith So this is theâ—r sense they allow discretion to joyn with them but not to differ Thirdly Should he be bound to joyn himself to the whole Church or not If to the whole then to that part locally which most agrees with the whole in Doctrine and discipline and practice But then can he not most prudently joyn himself to the Roman Church because that hath gone away from the Catholique in all those particulars And therefore we may conclude it to be our wisdom to find our direction in Faith most securely in the Scripture N. 20. This number he spends in the power of Councils To such power I made exceptions he would here remove them The first about the uncertainty of the irregularity of the Pope To this he saies he to whom the Church submitteth in calling the Council and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful Head to preside he is right these acts do supply all defects in the election But first Suppose he be not a Priest Can the Churches submission or admission of him make him a regular Pope And this That he is a Priest they cannot be sure of by certainty of Faith according to their Principles unless they had an omniscience to know the intention of the Ordainer and whether he was a right Bishop or not Secondly If so then Cajaphas was a right High Priest as before and yet he erred with the Council Therefore a Pope with the Council may erre Caiaphas was submitted to was admitted by the assembly of the Jews but this before And as to that he saies put the case of a Pope defining with a lawful Council and then prove him fallible if you can We answer First it seems then he would not stand to the maintaining of a Popes infallibility without a Council And so then he and the Jesuits must
differ in the point of infallible direction Secondly If the Pope be not infallible without a Council then is it not infallible in a Council What will they here say Is he infallible without a Council as the Jesuits say or with a Council onely If not without then not with My reason is this because without the infallibility of the Pope we are not sure of the legality of the Council For though we suppose an assistance of the Spirit of God to Councils yet can we not be assured whether to such a Council in particular this is yet a question because we cannot tell whether it be a right General Council or not not by certainty of Faith surely unless the Pope be infallible in determining this to be a right General Council Thirdly Take the former proposition of his He to whom the Church submitteth in calling the Council and whom the Church admitteth as her lawful Head so as to preside he is right Thus he in effect and terms most what and then we make an assumption to it This was in the four General Councils The Christian Emperour he did call them he did preside in them therefore where is his conclusion Fourthly General Councils are fallible though they do not erre It is possible that they may erre and therefore are they fallible Well but more The Trent Council did erre the Trent Council was a General Council according to them therefore the major is proved already they erred in the Latin Bible they erred in half Communion they erred in point of merit which is not spoken exclusively to more As for the 3. exception he refers me to Bellarmin lib. 2. de concil cap. 19. that although a Council without a Pope cannot define any article of Faith yet in time of Schism it can judge which is true Pope Ans first How could he say that the Church is so direct a way that fools could not erre as before when yet he will suppose such a time of Schism and Bellarmin too quando nescitur quis fit verus Papa when it is not known who is the true Pope Well then during the time of the Schism who shall determin emergent controversies Neither is the Council called and what a tedious debate amongst them may there be to determin who should be next to Christ and if the Council should be as long in calling and as long in being as the Trent Council was forty three years in both as some account how many might be damned in their direct way or else it was not so perillous for some controversies to be undetermined infallibly Yea but if so then why do they so much press a necessity of a living Judge for deciding all controversies According to the vehemency of their plea and the necessities of the Church the Living Judge should not only be alwaies infallible but this infallible Judge should be alwaies living But secondly During the time of the Schism how shall we do for the Calling of a true Council To this he saies for this the Prelats of the Church might and ought to meet upon their own authority and assemble themselves Ans Then the power of calling Councils is not absolutely in the Pope but in actu primo it is radicated in the Prelats though bound from the second act by use of their Church unless in falling Then a supream Ecclesiastick Authority is not by divine institution subjected in the Successour of St. Peter And then what becomes of their Monarchy It seems then that Fabrick is not built upon Gods ground because no practice can hold good against a divine institution And thus the Head of the Church must shake at least the Jesuits will shake their heads at this Doctrine If there be an absolute necessity of a true Pope to call Councils then that which he saies is not good if but of conveniency then we may end the controversie because either all controversies are not necessary to be ended or may possibly be ended without their Head of the Church In the next place he toucheth then upon my exception against infallibility quoad nos of General Councils by reason of doubtfulness of their lawfulness upon the calling of them since in the old time Emperours called them not Popes His answer now is Your Church which never had nor shall have General Councils is to seek in all things belonging to them our Church in every age since Constantine hath been visibly assembled in General Councils c. Urbem quam dicunt Romam Melibe putavi Stultus ego huic similem nostrae Therefore he does well to give us a kind check for our presumption of thinking our Church comparable with theirs First We do not arrogate to our selves a power of calling General Councils yet we may know what belongs to General Councils as well as another particular Church And time was when Anselm had by Urban some comparable respect in the honour of being called as Pope of the other world And secondly As for their Church to have been visibly assembled almost in every age since Constantines time if he understands it as called by the Roman Authority it is denied And therefore what makes this for them since their Church was not visibly assembled as comprehending the whole but pro rata parte as another particular Church In the Nicene Council their Church had no real superiority though it had a titular priority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Nilus speaks because that was at first the Imperial City Thirdly How was their Church visibly assembled in the fifth General Council when their Head would not come to the Council upon the debate of the tria Capitula and yet the Council is to be accounted good without the Pope yea against him or else the number of Councils must fail What he saies about Emperours is inconsiderable It is out of Scripture evident that there is no divine institutitution by which either Emperours be assured to be still found in the world or that when they have that dignity they be by divine Institution invested with a power to call Councils Ans First We may then prove a negative out of Scripture by his first words and to be evident too which yet were not good if verbum non scriptum were good Secondly We by the same law prove a negative to Popes in the same tenour Thirdly As for Emperours we have more for them in the proportion of Kings for we have a promise for them that they should be nursing Fathers and Queens nursing mothers which surely was accomplished by the first Christian Emperour Yea the term of Kings was then common for Emperours Yea had not the Kings of the Jewish Church Divine Authority in matters of Relion Circa sacra They had not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to defend it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to rule it they were not only Protectours of the Church as they are called in the Trent histories but governors and by these were the foure Generall Councils called
Christian world the power of the chief Pastour of the universal Church is coextended to the universal Church Ans First Dato suppose there were by Divine institution which will never be proved a chief pastour of the universal Church yet the Emperour might be Lord of the Christian world too in his external faculty And therefore this concludes not 2. this Language was not knowen till Boniface the third in the seventh century The Roman Bishop had the honour to be called the Bishop of the first Sea or seate And yet not the first Bishop in way of jurisdiction 3. The Emperour may be as much Lord of the Christian world by Divine institution as well as the Pope for both are by election the Pope is to be chosen by Cardinals which cannot shew a Divine institution But then also he allowes Political proceeding from a temporal power yet he will not have it to be an Ecclesiastical calling such an one as the Pope called them by at the same time Ans Not Ecclesiastical subjective but Ecclesiastical objective it was And yet also Rex est mixta persona cum Sacerdote And therefore it may be the Hebrew word Cohen signifieth both Magistrate and Priest Order and freedom and time and place belong to the Magistrates administration And as for the Pope in their sense his giving an Ecclesiastical call at the same time it is utterly denied unless he could give a call before he was borne And as for the Bishop of Rome he met at Councils upon the same order with the rest Such things he should have proved rather then said And therefore that was falsly spoken by him that the Politicall proceeding was subservient to the Ecclesiastical Ans Non entis nulla accidentia There was no such Ecclesiasticall call by a Pope for there was no such Pope And 2. Though the Emperours calling was serviceable to Ecclesiasticall affairs yet the Ecclesiastical persons that met were servants to him therein And Bishops of Rome have not abhorred such acknowledgements herein And whereas some Romanists have compared the Pope to the Sunne and the Emperour to the Moon though some Popes since have eclipsed the Emperour yet some Emperours before have not only Eclipsed the Pope but have put him out Therfore had he good cause to say Peradventure sometimes Emperours might adventure to call dependently of the ratification of the supreme Pastour Ans surely there is more due when Adversaries will give so much Nimia perfectio parit suspicionem But this will not content us there was no real entity of such a Supreme Pastour Nor was he so much as then Ens rationis No the foure Generall Councils a primo ad ultimum were menaged in the call and ratification by the Emperours They gave them not onely countenance and a vote in point of belief but also their external establishment They began and ended them Idem est principium destitutionis constitutionis So the Nicene Council was called by Constantine the Great The Council of Constantinople was called by Theodosius the elder The Council of Ephesus by Theodosius the younger The Council of Chalcedon by Martianus and by them they had their confirmation And so Councils are to be called as our Church in the 21. Article The fourth answer he passeth here As to the fifth answer he saies these Elections do appear by authenticated testimonies and confirmation Ans But their Election may not appear free thereby That which may appear in the fact may not appear in the qualities And therefore if it were not free it were as well no Election as if the Council be known notoriously to use such proceedings we are not to acknowledge it for a lawful Council And this puzzles and disturbs our assent more Infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost in Councils is necessary to infallible Decrees this they suppose In Councils unlawful there is no infallible assistance of the Holy Ghost this they must grant and in effect here he doth otherwise how can we disacknowledge any Council or not acknowledge it for a lawful Council Now then since a Council may by such proceedings notoriously known nullifie it self how shall we be certain whether a Council doth not morally forfeit its assistance Although imdem est non apparere et non esse as to outward censures yet this is not enough for an infallible assent of the Decrees to have a charitative opinion of lawful proceedings If I be deceived in my charitative opinion no ill consequence but if I be deceived in my opinion of the Council I wrong my self in misgrounding my Faith In point of charity no man is bound to infallibility but in we point of Faith we are therefore I do not well see can ever be ascertained of the infallibility of a Council how unless we be ascertained of an impossibility in the Council to lose the infallible assistance For as we cannot believe the Church's infallibility in one point unless it be infallible in all according to Mr. Knot my adversaries late Principles so we cannot be assured of the lawfulness of any one Council by the certainty of Faith unless we can be assured of the lawfulness of all Now then if they can infallibly inform us that every Council shall have infallible assistance we will not discuss at all that which cannot be namely whether it hath forfeited the priviledges by such proceedings but though it hath not forfeited its moral being by such proceedings we yet want a proof infallible whether so or not and then if not whether it shall have infallible assistance For ought I know the Holy Ghost may be said to preside there and yet not rule as Bellarmin in his 1. B. de con cap. 18. saies that the Pope in a Council may be considered as President or as Prince as President so he is to follow the major part as Prince so he can rescinde all Now which hath the Holy Ghost following the major part or the Pope Is the Holy Ghost tied to the Council as the Heathens fastned their Gods to their Cities No they will say not to all but lawful Councils But let us then know by the Holy Ghost which Councils shall be lawful Otherwise though infallible direction will never deceive us we may be deceived in infallible direction since there is acknowledged by him a possibility of humane malice and weakness and factions and bandyings and domineering self-interest Unless they can prove an extrinsecal over-ruling providence promised by God against humane malice c. to all Councils I shall never be sure whether they are not in any one And therefore that general Text the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church will not infer infallibility in a Council unless it could infer infallibility of the lawfulness according to them and yet not so neither according to us that Text is made good to every member of the Church invisible and is that therefore infallible If it be why then is infallibility arrogated to
But first The Church Universal doth not say it Secondly who of them hath proved that the Church is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they bear witness of themselves therefore their testimony is not true not in modo if it were true in materia Thirdly What the Church can say amounts but to a prudential motive or congruous inducement but what is it which grounds Faith and binds Faith and makes it a divine belief if not what is said in Scripture Without this what is the Church but a company of men in naturalibus The Roman doth not so much believe this or that because God saies it but they believe God saies it because the Church saies it But the Church virtual in the Pope Representative in a Council diffusive in the people signifies nothing without religion The question then is what religion makes the Church which we are to believe Not reason satisfies us in this because some principles of Religion do transcend reason and because reason cannot by its principles produce Faith of proper name then we must have somwhat which is supposed as a common principle whereby true Religion is discerned Not the Church For the question is which is the Church What then but Scripture Let them then think upon the former Texts for sufficiency of Scripture which if they were acknowledged would save us this dispute And let them think upon that Text Esa the 8. the 20. To the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them That which is referred to another for direction is subordinate thereunto The Church is referred to the Law and to the Testimony therefore it is subordinate If they speak not according to this word as written it is because there is no light in them Another Text may be named 1. Epist of St. Peter the 1. ch 23. ver Being born again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever So the Apostle from whence we thus argue That which is begotten of the Word is subordinate to it the Church is begotten by the Word Therefore their argument is retorted by the contrary For the Word in the substance of it must be before the Church because the Church is begotten by the Word therefore the Church must depend upon the Word which liveth and abideth for ever and this better suits the standing charracter of Scripture than the loose and fluent or fluxive way of Tradition And how comes Tradition into the world By the first Church they will say Well and how came the first Church to be such What did they joyn together in the profession of Religion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some say the world came together by the casual concurrence of Atoms The first Church viritim was begottten by the Word through the Spirit so in the ver before seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit Then all is to be resolved into the Word quod est primum in generatione est ultimum resolutione So Aquinas Omne reducitur ad principium All is to be reduced to the first principles Therefore they will never reconcile St. Paul and Irenaeus unless they admit my distinction of the Church Then that which Frenaeus saith will well agree with that of St. Paul St. Paul saies as we commonly read it the Church is the Pillar and ground of truth St. Irenaeus saith the Scripture is the Pillar of truth Both agree for subordinata non pugnant Subordinates make no warre Let them not therefore tell me that what God tells me by his Church I am to admit this we admit But let them tell me how I shall infallibly know that he tells me so by the Church And let them tell me how I shall know the Church but by letters of credence namely in Scripture How can I divine whether there is to be a Chureh and which is the true Church and which the true Religion without Scripture And Nemo tenetur derinare as the saying So that that which he saies that the Church is first believed independently on Scripture dependâ— neither upon Scripture nor Catholick Church nor reason Take Scripture in the matter of it and that which he saies hath no consistency In saving Religion there is nothing before it not only in signo rationis but also in time because the Church is begotten of the word of God We deny not that the Church is made use of to dispose us to faith of Scripture but this doth not resolve us because it self of it selfe resolvs but into a moral capacity which makes not faith properly called not faith Divine therefore in Genere Credibilium the first proposition to the Church is that the Scripture is the word of God and without its testimonies of the Church it cannot be said to be credible in the sense of divine faith Therefore if he meanes that the Church is first believed independently on Scripture namely upon the account of humane faith we may grant it of the universal Church but what is this to our purpose since we are disputing about faith divine If he takes it of divine faith this would be to purpose but that it is not true Yet he proceeds So he that begins to be a Christian cannot admit of Scripture as men admit of the first principles of sciences Ans Nor do we say so Ordinarly he begins with prudential motives from without he useth arguments drawn from out of Scripture but the question is whether these motives are productive of Faith in him And he seems to say as much as deâ—â—ses it because he saies in respect of us the Church is first believed independently of Scripture So then the way by the Church is imperfect as the way of knowledge by those things which are more known quoad nos But in the way of Faith which makes the assent more firm and certain we must begin with Scripture upon which the Church depends To joyn issue then We at first lead men to the Faith of Scripture by the way of the Church as the Samaritans were led to Christ by the voice of the woman But Faith doth not rest here because they who deny the Scripture may deny the Church and may question its credibility Therefore since the Authority of the Church doth de se terminate its self in the Testimony of men we would have our Faith by such a way as is proportionable to it which if it be Faith divine must rely upon some divine Authority And this way the Scripture must be more known than the Church because by the Scripture we know the Church in a distinct knowledge And without it can be no more than an Individuum vagum Surely it is Scripture which makes Individuum demonstrativum And they are wont to prove it determinatum as in Petrus by the Scripture And as for the Criticism in the forenamed Text of Scripture to Timothy about the
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
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
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